🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained intel by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the substance of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the attention or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to seek a court order to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.