🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company rejects the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on testimony allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He added that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting publications were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide if he desired to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.