🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as employing PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one task involving the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

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