🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.