Witness
in Prince Harry case against Mail publisher says his confession was false
Gavin
Burrows says signature on alleged statement is ‘not mine’ and denies carrying
out illegal activity on behalf of Associated Newspapers
Caroline
Davies
Tue 11
Nov 2025 20.33 GMT
A private
investigator central to the legal action by the Duke of Sussex and others
against the publisher of the Daily Mail has claimed that his signature on an
earlier witness statement was a “forgery”, the high court has heard.
Gavin
Burrows, linked to the most serious allegations of unlawful information
gathering made by seven prominent individuals including Elton John and Doreen
Lawrence, retracted his alleged confession, saying it was “completely false”.
Burrows
had allegedly claimed in a 2021 witness statement that he and his team obtained
information by hacking voicemails, tapping landline phones and bugging cars. He
also allegedly said he had worked on behalf of the Mail on Sunday.
Associated
Newspapers Limited (ANL) is accused by the group of carrying out or
commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place
listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records and accessing private
phone conversations. ANL denies the allegations and is defending the legal
action.
Five of
the claimants have told the high court they embarked on the legal action
against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Burrows.
Burrows
previously retracted his alleged statement in 2023. In a fresh 30-page witness
statement made on 25 September 2025, and released by the high court on Tuesday,
he restated his denial, saying he had never carried out any illegal activity on
behalf of ANL.
In the
new statement he claimed he did “not recognise” the “purported witness
statement on 16 August 2021”. He said he believed it was “prepared by others”,
that the “signature is not mine”, and did “not accept the accuracy of much of
the contents”.
Burrows
said: “I do not recognise the earlier witness statement of 16 August 2021 and I
believe that my signature on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not
written in my type of language. Further, the contents of the statement are
substantially untrue.”
He added
that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail,
apart from one job relating to Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any
illegal activity”.
Burrows
said he was on heavy painkillers after a serious physical assault, and drinking
heavily, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a former journalist and
whistleblower convicted of phone hacking, who wanted help with research on
phone-hacking claims against newspapers.
He was
introduced to a colleague, Dan Waddell, who was described as a “paralegal” and
was paid £600 a time for advice.
His
statement said he was told claims against newspapers were likely to settle out
of court, as the papers did not want the publicity or cost of a court case, and
were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “gravy train”.
Burrows,
who said he had stopped working for newspapers in 2003, said he had told
Johnson “a hundred times that ANL were not one of my clients”.
Burrows
was initially a witness for the group, which also includes David Furnish,
Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, but is now the subject of legal
arguments about whether or not he will be called as a witness for the trial.
Antony
White KC, for ANL, asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Burrows, while
David Sherborne, for the group, made an application to call his evidence as
hearsay.
Mr
Justice Nicklin gave Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply
for a witness summons to call Burrows, and told him if Burrows gave evidence
that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply
to treat him as “hostile”.
A further
pre-trial hearing in the case is expected to take place before the end of the
year.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário