🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting newspapers were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows offered evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the close of the calendar.