🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

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

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant disputes the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.