🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed 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 declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.