🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute 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 think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was informed claims against publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.