🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by breaching 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 carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.