Key Figure in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Fabricated

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, associated with the most serious accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his crew acquired information by hacking voice messages, tapping landline phones and bugging automobiles. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is charged by the claimants of performing or authorizing illegal acts such as engaging private investigators to position surveillance equipment inside cars, manipulating access to private records and accessing confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they initiated the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony allegedly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had previously disavowed his supposed statement in last year. In a fresh 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and released by the court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the company.

In the recent statement, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed testimonial on 16 August 2021”. He said he thought it was “created by third parties”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I am unfamiliar with the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a forgery. Much of it is not phrased in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the statement are substantially untrue.”

He added that he had “not once” done operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one assignment involving Sir Richard Branson that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness stated he was on heavy painkillers after a significant beating, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was contacted by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted assistance with research on phone-hacking claims against publications.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for guidance.

His statement indicated he was told lawsuits targeting publications were likely to be resolved privately, as the papers did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Present Court Status

The witness was originally a testifier for the group, which features Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the trial.

A barrister, for the publisher, petitioned the judge to permit him to cross-examine the witness, while another barrister, for the claimants, made an request to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to seek a witness summons to compel the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could apply to regard him as “hostile”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the case is projected to occur before the end of the year.