🔗 Share this article

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

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped operating for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the end of the year.