🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired help with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.