🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing PIs to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed lawsuits against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told 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 features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to determine if he desired to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.