🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “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 great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he wished to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

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