🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious allegations of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the group of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a forgery. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “never” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for counsel.

His statement said he was told lawsuits against publications were probable to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to request a witness summons to call the witness, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

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