Witness in Prince Harry Legal Action Claims Confession Was Untrue

A private investigator integral to the court case filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his autograph on an previous testimonial document was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the most severe allegations of illicit data collection made by multiple well-known personalities including the music icon and the activist, retracted his alleged statement, saying it was “entirely untrue”.

Context of the Alleged Statement

Burrows had allegedly stated in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates acquired intel by hacking voice messages, intercepting landline phones and bugging cars. He also allegedly said he had been employed on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.

The publishing group is accused by the plaintiffs of conducting or hiring for illegal acts such as employing private investigators to install surveillance equipment inside vehicles, “blagging” private records and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the allegations and is opposing the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and New Allegations

Five of the claimants have informed the high court they commenced the legal action against the media group based on evidence seemingly gathered by the investigator.

The witness had before retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new 30-page witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he restated his denial, declaring he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not recognise” the “purported 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 reject the veracity of a great deal of the contents”.

The investigator stated: “I fail to identify the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I am convinced that my signature on that statement is a forgery. A great deal of it is not phrased in my type of language. Additionally, the details of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” carried out operations for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, except for one job involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any unlawful act”.

Circumstances of the Original Statement

The witness said he was on powerful painkillers after a severe physical assault, and drinking heavily, when he was approached by a former journalist, a whistleblower found guilty of phone hacking, who wanted assistance with inquiry on accusations of spying against media outlets.

He was connected to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated a sum a time for advice.

His statement indicated he was informed claims targeting newspapers were probable to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the exposure or cost of a legal proceeding, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

The investigator, who stated he had discontinued working for newspapers in 2003, said he had stated to the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Present Legal Situation

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish and several individuals, but is now the subject of debates about the possibility that he will be summoned as a witness for the proceedings.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, asked the judge to allow him to question Burrows, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an request to call his evidence as hearsay.

The judge gave Sherborne seven days to decide if he wished to seek a court order to call the witness, and told him if Burrows provided testimony that was contradictory with the information they had gathered, then he could request to consider him as “adverse”.

A further preliminary proceeding in the legal action is anticipated to take place before the year’s conclusion.