🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the high court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly acquired by the investigator.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was advised claims targeting newspapers were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” 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 on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.