🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

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

His testimony indicated he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.