🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring private investigators to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, saying he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed 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 reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the statement are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised allegations against newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had told the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the close of the calendar.