🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I am unfamiliar with the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one job concerning Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting media outlets.

He was connected to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had stopped working for publications in that year, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose if he wished to seek a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.