🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired intel by accessing voicemails, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. 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 material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told claims against newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to choose if he wanted to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the year’s conclusion.