🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent integral to the court case initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by hacking 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 alleged by the group of conducting or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit targeting the media group based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his alleged statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged 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 veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows said: “I fail to identify the previous testimony of that date and I think that my signature on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are largely untrue.”

He continued that he had “never” carried out tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

The witness claimed he was on powerful medication after a significant beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a time for advice.

His statement said he was advised lawsuits targeting publications were expected to resolve without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped operating for publications in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to consider his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to treat him as “adverse”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.