🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to request a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.