🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations against publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.