🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.