🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.