A private investigator at the heart of the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful intelligence gathering made by seven prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.
The private eye had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained intel by accessing voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The publishing group is charged by the claimants of carrying out or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to install bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is opposing the case.
Five of the plaintiffs have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on evidence seemingly acquired by the investigator.
The witness had earlier disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reiterated his rejection, declaring he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.
In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed 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 truthfulness of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows said: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my type of language. Further, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He added that he had “not once” carried out tasks for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment concerning the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.
Burrows stated he was on powerful painkillers after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on accusations of spying against publications.
He was connected to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.
His statement said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were probable to be resolved out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.
The investigator, who claimed he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, asserted he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.
Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as secondhand information.
The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to decide whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was contradictory with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.
A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.
