🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the court case filed by Prince Harry 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 been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team gathered information by accessing voice messages, monitoring home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The media company is alleged by the group of carrying out or hiring for illicit operations such as hiring inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company denies the accusations and is opposing the case.

Retraction and New Claims

Five of the claimants have told the high court they initiated the legal action against the media group based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had before retracted his alleged testimony in 2023. In a fresh detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged witness statement on that date”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the information”.

Burrows stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the details of the statement are mostly inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one assignment involving the business magnate that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on powerful medication after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on accusations of spying against publications.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was referred to as a legal assistant and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the papers did not want the publicity or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased operating for publications in that year, stated he had informed the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Status

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises David Furnish and others, but is now the topic of debates about whether or not he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the judge to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as rumor.

The judge allowed the barrister seven days to decide if he wanted to request a witness summons to summon Burrows, and informed him if Burrows offered evidence that was contradictory with the information they had obtained, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

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