🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained intel by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

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