🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the claims and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment concerning the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed claims targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to permit him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted the barrister one week to determine if he desired to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.