🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations targeting publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

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

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to apply for a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.