🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered information by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated 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 information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong analgesics after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying targeting publications.

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

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against newspapers were likely to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.