🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by breaching voicemails, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against publications were likely to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to allow him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to choose whether he wanted to request a court order to compel Burrows, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.