🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told claims targeting publications were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.