🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illegal data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as engaging private investigators to position bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Testimony

The witness claimed he was on heavy medication after a severe beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed lawsuits against newspapers were probable to resolve privately, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had discontinued being employed for newspapers in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge granted Sherborne seven days to choose whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is anticipated to be held before the end of the year.