🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest allegations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “never” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.