🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by accessing voice messages, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting newspapers.

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

His statement claimed he was told claims against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued working for publications in that year, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.