🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant rejects the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed allegations against publications were probable to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wished to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.