🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, 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 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

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

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister one week to choose if he desired to request a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.