🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.