🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, stated he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.