Key Figure in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A PI central to the lawsuit initiated by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has asserted his signature on an prior testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most serious accusations of unlawful intelligence gathering made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, stating it was “completely false”.

Context of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained information by accessing voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the plaintiffs of conducting or authorizing illicit operations such as employing private investigators to install listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the claims and is defending the legal action.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the claimants have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action targeting the publisher based on information seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had earlier retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a recent 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on Tuesday, he restated his rejection, stating he had at no time engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the latest statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on that date”. He claimed he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the veracity of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that paper is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my type of language. Additionally, the substance of the statement are mostly untrue.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job relating to the business magnate that “did not involve any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows stated he was on heavy analgesics after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits against publications were expected to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who stated he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

Burrows was originally a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of legal arguments about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the defendant, requested the judge to authorize him to question Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an application to consider his testimony as secondhand information.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to choose if he wished to request a court order to compel the witness, and advised him if the witness provided testimony that was at odds with the information they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the case is expected to take place before the close of the calendar.