🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the individuals have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had before retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.