🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired information by accessing voicemails, intercepting home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to install listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and New Claims

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

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was told allegations targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the year’s conclusion.