🔗 Share this article

A private investigator integral to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired intel by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were likely to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued working for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his testimony as rumor.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine if he wished to request a court order to call Burrows, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to consider him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to occur before the end of the year.