🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.