🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, 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 heavy medication after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying against publications.

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

His testimony said he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was inconsistent with the information they had acquired, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.

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