Witness in Prince Harry Case Alleges Confession Was Untrue

A PI at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of unlawful information gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, disavowed his supposed admission, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Purported Statement

Burrows had supposedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained data by breaching voice messages, monitoring landline phones and bugging vehicles. He also allegedly indicated he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is charged by the plaintiffs of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as engaging inquiry agents to position listening devices inside cars, deceptively obtaining confidential documents and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the high court they embarked on the legal action against the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

The witness had previously retracted his purported testimony in 2023. In a new 30-page testimonial document made on a recent date, and made public by the court on Tuesday, he reaffirmed his denial, stating he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he stated he did “not identify” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did dispute the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator stated: “I am unfamiliar with the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that statement is a fabrication. A great deal of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the testimony are largely inaccurate.”

He added that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, apart from one assignment involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Initial Statement

The witness claimed he was on heavy analgesics after a significant attack, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on accusations of spying against newspapers.

He was referred to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a instance for guidance.

His testimony claimed he was informed claims against publications were probable to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or financial burden of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who claimed he had ceased being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a witness for the group, which features David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the topic of disputes about the possibility that he will be summoned as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to interrogate the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine if he wished to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered testimony that was inconsistent with the information they had gathered, then he could petition to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the close of the calendar.