🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and others, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.