🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine if he wished to request a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.