🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with research on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was told allegations against newspapers were probable to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the close of the calendar.