🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of illicit information gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, withdrew his supposed admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew obtained data by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the claimants of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the claims and is opposing the legal action.

Retraction and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they commenced the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, stating he had at no time performed any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not written in my type of language. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one task relating to the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows said he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who desired assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims targeting newspapers.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for advice.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits against publications were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who claimed he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, stated he had told Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be asked to testify as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his testimony as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to seek a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.