A PI integral to the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.
Background of the Alleged Confession
Burrows had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to position listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The defendant rejects the claims and is contesting the legal action.
Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations
Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information apparently obtained by the investigator.
Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.
In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.
The investigator declared: “I am unfamiliar with the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly untrue.”
He continued that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task involving Sir Richard Branson that excluded any unlawful act”.
Context of the Original Testimony
The witness stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting publications.
He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a session for guidance.
His statement indicated he was told allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows, who claimed he had stopped operating for newspapers in 2003, said he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Present Legal Status
The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the focus of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the defendant, requested the court to authorize him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to decide whether he wanted to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows provided evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.
A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.
