Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A PI central to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his purported confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The company rejects the allegations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for counsel.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued operating for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to determine if he wanted to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.