🔗 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 asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

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

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

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

His statement indicated he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

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

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.