🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told allegations against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.