🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered intel by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have told the court they commenced the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the alleged testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one job involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought support with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for advice.

His testimony indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for newspapers in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose if he wanted to seek a witness summons to call the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to be held before the year’s conclusion.