🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was told claims against publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

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 request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.