🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of illicit data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against newspapers were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

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

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.