🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

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

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.