Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Case Claims Admission Was Fabricated
A PI integral to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the high court has heard.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious claims of illicit information gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and the activist, retracted his supposed statement, declaring it was “completely false”.
Background of the Purported Statement
Burrows had supposedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his crew gathered information by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illegal acts such as engaging PIs to place surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting private phone conversations. The defendant disputes the accusations and is opposing the legal action.
Withdrawal and Fresh Claims
Five of the individuals have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the publisher based on information seemingly acquired by Burrows.
Burrows had before disavowed his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his denial, declaring he had never carried out any unlawful act on behalf of the company.
In the new statement, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of a great deal of the contents”.
Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I believe that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A lot of it is not written in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”
He continued that he had “never” performed operations for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, apart from one assignment relating to Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Circumstances of the Original Statement
Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who sought support with investigation on phone-hacking claims against publications.
He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a “paralegal” and was paid £600 a session for advice.
His statement indicated he was told allegations against publications were expected to resolve privately, as the outlets did not want the publicity or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.
The investigator, who claimed he had ceased working for newspapers in that year, asserted he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my employers”.
Current Court Situation
The witness was at first a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Sadie Frost and several individuals, but is now the topic of legal arguments about if he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.
A barrister, for the publisher, asked the court to permit him to cross-examine Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to treat his testimony as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed the barrister one week to determine whether he desired to seek a court order to compel Burrows, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to consider him as “hostile”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to be held before the year’s conclusion.
