Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A PI central to the court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and others targeting the publishing group of the Daily Mail has asserted his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the gravest claims of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed admission, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had reportedly stated in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his team gathered information by hacking voice messages, monitoring home telephones and bugging cars. He also allegedly claimed he had operated on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the claimants of carrying out or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring inquiry agents to position bugs inside cars, “blagging” private records and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant disputes the accusations and is defending the case.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Several of the individuals have informed the court they embarked on the lawsuit against the media group based on information apparently acquired by Burrows.

The witness had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a recent detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on this week, he restated his denial, stating he had at no time performed any illicit operation on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “fail to acknowledge” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the accuracy of much of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of that date and I think that my signature on that paper is a fabrication. Much of it is not written in my usual wording. Additionally, the substance of the statement are largely untrue.”

He added that he had “never” done tasks for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, except for one job relating to the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Original Statement

Burrows said he was on heavy analgesics after a significant physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who sought support with inquiry on allegations of interception against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was compensated a sum a instance for counsel.

His testimony said he was told claims targeting newspapers were expected to be resolved out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or financial burden of a trial, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist “a hundred times that the company were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was originally a witness for the claimants, which also includes Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of disputes about if he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the court to allow him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave the barrister seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a court order to compel Burrows, and advised him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had gathered, then he could request to regard him as “uncooperative”.

A additional court session in the case is projected to take place before the close of the calendar.