🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the group of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on information allegedly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that document is a fake. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought help with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his evidence as rumor.

The judge granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.