🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his autograph on an prior testimonial document was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illicit data collection made by multiple prominent individuals including the music icon and the activist, withdrew his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Statement

Burrows had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates gathered information by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly claimed he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the claimants of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing inquiry agents to place bugs inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and accessing private phone conversations. The company disputes the allegations and is defending the legal action.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they initiated the legal action targeting the publisher based on evidence allegedly obtained by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reaffirmed his disavowal, declaring he had never engaged in any illicit operation on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he was of the opinion it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did “not accept the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

The investigator said: “I do not recognise the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that paper is a fake. Much of it is not composed in my usual wording. Additionally, the contents of the statement are substantially inaccurate.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out work for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning the business magnate that excluded any illegal activity”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

Burrows stated he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with research on allegations of interception against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated a sum a session for guidance.

His testimony said he was told lawsuits targeting publications were probable to settle without trial, as the outlets did not want the attention or expense of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “easy money”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in 2003, stated he had informed Johnson on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Current Court Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which also includes Sadie Frost and others, but is now the focus of disputes about if he will be asked to testify as a witness for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, petitioned the court to authorize him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an application to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer granted the barrister seven days to choose whether he wanted to request a witness summons to compel the witness, and told him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had obtained, then he could apply to consider him as “hostile”.

A subsequent court session in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.