🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to position listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims against publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.