🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to occur before the year’s conclusion.