🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by accessing voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document 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 illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His statement said he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.