🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered data by breaching voicemails, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing confidential calls. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on information allegedly acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his supposed statement in 2023. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on powerful medication after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a time for guidance.

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

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for publications in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Simon Hughes and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the judge to permit him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to determine if he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent court session in the case is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.