🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by seven well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and accessing confidential calls. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he restated his denial, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He said he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of much of the contents”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired help with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a time for advice.

His testimony claimed he was advised lawsuits against newspapers were likely to settle out of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Situation

The witness was initially a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of legal arguments about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave evidence that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.