🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised claims against newspapers were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose whether he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.