🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by hacking voice messages, tapping home telephones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to position listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was advised allegations against publications were probable to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose if he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

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