🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the legal action initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his purported statement, declaring it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered data by hacking voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company rejects the allegations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, saying he had never performed any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He added that he had “at no time” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with investigation on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was advised allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the attention or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped being employed for publications in 2003, said he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne one week to choose if he desired to apply for a witness summons to summon the witness, and told him if Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.