🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims targeting newspapers were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.