Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was False

A PI at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, disavowed his alleged admission, stating it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired information by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also reportedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as employing PIs to place bugs inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is contesting the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the publisher based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier retracted his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh detailed testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he reiterated his denial, declaring he had never carried out any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He claimed he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I am unfamiliar with the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the contents of the testimony are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” done work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong analgesics after a serious beating, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on allegations of interception targeting media outlets.

He was referred to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a instance for advice.

His statement said he was informed claims targeting newspapers were probable to settle privately, as the publications did not want the publicity or financial burden of a trial, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who claimed he had discontinued operating for publications in 2003, asserted he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the company were not one of my employers”.

Present Court Status

The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which also includes Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, requested the court to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to call his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to apply for a witness summons to compel Burrows, and advised him if the witness gave evidence that was inconsistent with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A subsequent pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the year’s conclusion.