🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired intel by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A lot of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired support with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased operating for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.