Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe allegations of unlawful data collection made by seven well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged confession, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring private investigators to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” personal files and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the claims and is opposing the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have stated to the court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information allegedly gathered by Burrows.

The witness had previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a new detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the material”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the testimony are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

The witness stated he was on strong analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted help with investigation on allegations of interception targeting publications.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid £600 a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was informed lawsuits targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had stated to Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be called as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to determine if he desired to request a court order to call the witness, and told him if the witness gave evidence that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further court session in the legal action is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.