🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voice messages, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed claims targeting publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued operating for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.