🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was referred to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine if he wished to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.