🔗 Share this article

A PI at the heart of the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his alleged statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew obtained information by breaching voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the group of performing or authorizing illicit operations such as employing PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The defendant denies the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on testimony apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and released by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had at no time carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are largely false.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought help with research on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was connected to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a session for guidance.

His statement claimed he was informed allegations targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

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

A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister seven days to determine if he wanted to apply for a court order to compel the witness, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the end of the year.