🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

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

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to choose if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.