Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Confession Was Fabricated
A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed statement, stating it was “completely false”.
Context of the Alleged Statement
The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the claims and is defending the lawsuit.
Retraction and Fresh Claims
Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on information seemingly obtained by Burrows.
Burrows had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.
Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly untrue.”
He continued that he had “at no time” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.
Circumstances of the Initial Statement
The witness said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.
He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated ÂŁ600 a session for advice.
His testimony said he was told allegations targeting publications were expected to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.
Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.
Present Court Situation
The witness was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of legal arguments about if he will be called as a witness for the trial.
A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.
A further court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.
