Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated

A inquiry agent integral to the lawsuit brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “forgery”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most severe allegations of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported statement, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

The private eye had reportedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly said he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of performing or commissioning illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Allegations

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the lawsuit against the publisher based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he restated his disavowal, stating he had at no time carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He stated he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done work for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on strong medication after a severe physical assault, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted support with inquiry on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was told claims targeting publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had ceased being employed for publications in 2003, said he had told the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister one week to choose if he desired to seek a witness summons to summon the witness, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “adverse”.

A further court session in the legal action is projected to be held before the close of the calendar.