🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

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

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.