🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

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

Burrows had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute 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 signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims against publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to take place before the end of the year.