🔗 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 earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team acquired data by breaching voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining personal files and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his supposed testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he claimed he did “not recognise” 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 accuracy of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” performed tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy medication after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting newspapers were likely to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “uncooperative”.

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