Witness in the Duke of Sussex Legal Action Alleges Confession Was Fabricated

A private investigator at the heart of the legal action brought by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants targeting the publisher of the popular tabloid has stated his signature on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has been told.

Gavin Burrows, connected to the most serious claims of illicit data collection made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his supposed confession, declaring it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

Burrows had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates acquired intel by breaching voicemails, tapping home telephones and placing listening devices in cars. He also reportedly said he had operated on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or commissioning illegal acts such as hiring PIs to install listening devices inside vehicles, deceptively obtaining private records and gaining entry to confidential calls. The company disputes the accusations and is defending the lawsuit.

Retraction and New Claims

Several of the individuals have told the court they embarked on the legal action targeting the media group based on testimony seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier retracted his purported statement in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and made public by the high court on Tuesday, he reiterated his denial, stating he had at no time engaged in any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the recent testimony, he claimed he did “fail to acknowledge” the “purported witness statement on that date”. He claimed he believed it was “prepared by others”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the veracity of much of the material”.

Burrows said: “I do not recognise the previous testimony of that date and I believe that my signature on that statement is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my usual wording. Further, the details of the testimony are substantially inaccurate.”

He stated further that he had “not once” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that was free from any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows said he was on heavy painkillers after a severe attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by a former journalist, a informant found guilty of phone hacking, who desired assistance with investigation on accusations of spying targeting newspapers.

He was referred to a contact, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a session for counsel.

His testimony indicated he was told lawsuits against newspapers were likely to be resolved without trial, as the publications did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “flawless fraud” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

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

Current Legal Situation

Burrows was at first a testifier for the group, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and several individuals, but is now the focus of debates about whether or not he will be summoned as a testifier for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, asked the judge to authorize him to cross-examine Burrows, while another barrister, for the group, made an request to treat his evidence as hearsay.

The presiding officer gave the barrister seven days to determine if he desired to seek a court order to call the witness, and informed him if the witness gave testimony that was contradictory with the testimony they had acquired, then he could apply to regard him as “uncooperative”.

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