🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement said he was advised claims against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine if he wished to request a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.