🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.