🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations against newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased operating for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.