🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.