🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong medication after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was told claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

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