🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

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

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.