🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with research on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wished to apply for a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.