🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he restated his rejection, saying he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on heavy medication after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.