🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his purported statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.