🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of unlawful data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.