Witness in the Duke of Sussex Case Alleges Admission Was False
A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.
Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe claims of illegal intelligence gathering made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, stating it was “wholly fabricated”.
Context of the Purported Confession
Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew gathered intel by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.
The media company is alleged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside cars, manipulating access to personal files and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is opposing the lawsuit.
Retraction and New Allegations
Several of the individuals have told the high court they embarked on the lawsuit targeting the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.
The witness had before withdrawn his purported testimony in last year. In a fresh lengthy witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, stating he had never engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.
In the latest testimony, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He stated he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of a great deal of the material”.
Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the previous witness statement of that date and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Moreover, the details of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”
He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, except for one job relating to the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.
Context of the Initial Statement
Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a serious physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who desired help with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.
He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.
His statement claimed he was informed claims against newspapers were expected to settle without trial, as the papers did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “gravy train”.
The investigator, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.
Present Legal Situation
Burrows was initially a witness for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.
A barrister, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to consider his evidence as hearsay.
The presiding officer allowed Sherborne seven days to choose whether he wished to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness provided evidence that was at odds with the evidence they had obtained, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.
A subsequent preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to occur before the close of the calendar.
