🔗 Share this article

A private investigator central to the legal action initiated by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his supposed confession, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the group of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and accessing confidential calls. The company rejects the accusations and is contesting the legal action.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously withdrawn his purported statement in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on heavy medication after a serious attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting publications were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

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

Current Legal Status

Burrows was originally a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to choose whether he wished to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to be held before the end of the year.