🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations against publications were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure 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 discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

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

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

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