🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy medication after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.