🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for guidance.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.