🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by accessing voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The defendant rejects the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on strong medication after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was advised lawsuits targeting newspapers were likely to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, said he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the topic of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wanted to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.