🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.