🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

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

His statement claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.