🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.