🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

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

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

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