Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A PI central to the legal action filed by the Duke of Sussex and others against the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an earlier testimonial document was a “fake”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, retracted his purported admission, stating it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired information by accessing voicemails, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company denies the accusations and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they commenced the lawsuit against the publisher based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

The witness had before withdrawn his alleged statement in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he restated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I do not recognise the previous witness statement of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He stated further that he had “not once” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one assignment relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on strong painkillers after a serious beating, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with investigation on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, an individual, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting publications were likely to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson repeatedly that the publisher were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish and others, but is now the subject of debates about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, requested the judge to allow him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to request a court order to summon Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to consider him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.