🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

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

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to decide if he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.