🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.