🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was told claims against publications were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the year’s conclusion.