🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His statement said he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.