Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Claims Admission Was False

A PI central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and others against the publisher of the Daily Mail has stated his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the gravest claims of illicit intelligence gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his supposed confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates obtained information by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is charged by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the claimants have told the court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the publisher based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.

The witness had before disavowed his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the prior testimony of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the substance of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done operations for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness claimed he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for counsel.

His statement said he was advised claims targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister one week to decide whether he wished to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had obtained, then he could petition to treat him as “adverse”.

A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the year’s conclusion.