🔗 Share this article

A PI integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to position surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

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

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

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