🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew acquired information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information allegedly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed statement in last year. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the contents of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for advice.

His testimony said he was advised lawsuits against publications were probable to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the exposure or financial burden of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in that year, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.