🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illicit intelligence gathering made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

The private eye had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained information by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing personal discussions. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the case.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the claimants have informed the court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently obtained by the investigator.

The witness had earlier disavowed his alleged testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his rejection, stating he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a instance for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to settle out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.