🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of unlawful information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the group of performing or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and accessing personal discussions. The company denies the claims and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Several of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent detailed 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 carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were probable to resolve out of court, as the publications did not want the publicity or expense of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, said he had told Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine whether he wished to apply for a court order to call the witness, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.