🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.