🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.