🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on 25 September 2025, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.