🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was informed allegations against publications were likely to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.