🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his purported testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

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

His testimony said he was told lawsuits against newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.