🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to decide whether he desired to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.