🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case brought by Prince Harry and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious allegations of unlawful data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

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

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging inquiry agents to install bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and gaining entry to personal discussions. The defendant denies the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Claims

Five of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his alleged testimony in last year. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his disavowal, saying he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the accuracy of much of the material”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my usual wording. Further, the details of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” performed work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one task relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on powerful analgesics after a serious attack, and drinking heavily, when he was contacted by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against newspapers.

He was connected to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a legal assistant and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement claimed he was told lawsuits targeting newspapers were probable to settle out of court, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a trial, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of disputes about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The judge granted the barrister seven days to decide whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel Burrows, and told him if the witness offered testimony that was at odds with the information they had acquired, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

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