🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent central to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, declaring it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team obtained data by hacking voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging private investigators to place listening devices inside vehicles, “blagging” personal files and accessing personal discussions. The defendant rejects the accusations and is defending the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before withdrawn his supposed testimony in last year. In a new lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he claimed he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier testimony of that date and I am convinced that my autograph on that statement is a fake. Much of it is not written in my style of speaking. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with inquiry on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a contact, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was informed allegations targeting newspapers were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the attention or cost of a court case, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who said he had stopped being employed for newspapers in 2003, stated he had informed the former journalist “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of legal arguments about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to allow him to interrogate Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to call his testimony as hearsay.

The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to choose whether he desired to seek a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows provided testimony that was at odds with the evidence they had acquired, then he could apply to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the legal action is anticipated to occur before the end of the year.