🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by Prince Harry and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest accusations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported statement, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of conducting or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to private records and accessing private phone conversations. The company rejects the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the individuals have told the court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by the investigator.

Burrows had before withdrawn his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “not identify” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, except for one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits against newspapers were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who stated he had stopped working for publications in 2003, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his testimony as rumor.

The presiding officer gave Sherborne one week to determine whether he wanted to seek a court order to summon Burrows, and informed him if the witness offered evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had gathered, then he could apply to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.