🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony indicated he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.