🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His statement said he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.