🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

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

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were expected to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wanted to request a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the case is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.