🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered data by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is opposing the case.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on testimony apparently obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Moreover, the substance of the testimony are largely false.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job concerning the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on phone-hacking claims targeting publications.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a session for counsel.

His statement said he was advised allegations against publications were expected to be resolved privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne seven days to determine whether he desired to apply for a court order to summon the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to take place before the end of the year.