🔗 Share this article

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging PIs to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the allegations and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported testimony in last year. In a new lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had never engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fake. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful analgesics after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, 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 court order to compel the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the end of the year.