🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.