🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong medication after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.