🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He continued that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose if he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.