🔗 Share this article

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

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a severe beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised allegations against publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes 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 trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.