Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal information gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the group of performing or commissioning unlawful activities such as employing private investigators to place bugs inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have told the court they embarked on the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had before disavowed his alleged statement in last year. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A lot of it is not phrased in my type of language. Further, the details of the statement are largely untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a session for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was advised allegations targeting publications were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the exposure or expense of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a witness summons to call Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.