🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.