🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained data by hacking voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.