Witness in Prince Harry Case Alleges Admission Was Untrue

A inquiry agent integral to the legal action filed by Prince Harry and others targeting the publisher of the Daily Mail has asserted his signature on an previous witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the high court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most severe accusations of illegal data collection made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and the activist, withdrew his purported confession, saying it was “wholly fabricated”.

Context of the Alleged Confession

Burrows had supposedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team acquired data by accessing voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in vehicles. He also allegedly claimed he had been employed on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is charged by the plaintiffs of carrying out or authorizing illegal acts such as hiring PIs to place listening devices inside vehicles, manipulating access to personal files and intercepting confidential calls. The defendant denies the claims and is contesting the case.

Withdrawal and Fresh Allegations

Five of the individuals have stated to the high court they commenced the legal action targeting the publisher based on information apparently gathered by Burrows.

Burrows had earlier withdrawn his supposed statement in 2023. In a fresh lengthy testimonial document made on a recent date, and disclosed by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, saying he had at no time carried out any illegal activity on behalf of the publishing group.

In the latest testimony, he asserted he did “not recognise” the supposed witness statement on 16 August 2021”. He stated he thought it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of a great deal of the information”.

Burrows declared: “I fail to identify the prior witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I think that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my usual wording. Further, the contents of the testimony are substantially untrue.”

He continued that he had “not once” performed operations for the Sunday paper or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that was free from any illicit behavior”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on strong painkillers after a severe physical assault, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant convicted of voicemail interception, who wanted support with research on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was remunerated £600 a time for counsel.

His statement said he was informed allegations against publications were likely to resolve without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were portrayed to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.

Burrows, who said he had ceased working for publications in that year, asserted he had told the former journalist repeatedly that the company were not one of my customers”.

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was initially a witness for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the subject of disputes about whether or not he will be asked to testify as a testifier for the proceedings.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to authorize him to cross-examine the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to consider his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer allowed Sherborne one week to determine whether he desired to request a witness summons to call Burrows, and advised him if Burrows offered evidence that was at odds with the testimony they had acquired, then he could petition to treat him as “uncooperative”.

A additional pre-trial hearing in the case is anticipated to be held before the close of the calendar.