🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to request a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.