Private Investigator Disputes Alleged Admissions in High-Profile Case
Gavin Burrows, a private investigator whose contested confessions of illegal conduct are central to a lawsuit involving Prince Harry and others against the Daily Mail’s publisher, has declared that the admissions attributed to him are "a thing of fiction."
Providing eagerly awaited testimony at the high court, Burrows stated that the claimants and their legal representatives had been "very misled" regarding his involvement, asserting that the purported admissions bearing his name were "a pack of lies."
Burrows, who consented to give evidence only from a confidential overseas location, expressed his belief that his signature had been traced onto a witness statement detailing extensive alleged misconduct.
Context of the Lawsuit Against Associated Newspapers Limited
The lawsuit involves seven individuals, including Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry, and Elton John, who are suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering.
The court has previously heard allegations that Burrows bugged celebrities' windowsills and hacked information related to their associates, such as Elton John’s gardener. Prince Harry has also accused Burrows of tapping and hacking the phone of a friend.
Disputed Witness Statement and Allegations
In a witness statement dated August 2021, Burrows allegedly confessed to phone tapping, bugging, and other unlawful activities conducted on behalf of ANL. The publisher has strongly denied these allegations, describing them as lurid and preposterous.
In a subsequent statement, which he continues to uphold, Burrows denied ever engaging in unlawful activities for ANL or being asked to do so. He further alleges that the signature on the original confession was forged.
Testimony and Claims of Forgery
Appearing in court after months of legal disputes regarding his evidence, Burrows repeatedly denied having written or signed the disputed witness statement.
"I did not write the statement, I don’t recognise anything in the statement," Burrows said. "You can tell that that is not even a proper signature. I can tell that it was faked and traced."
"I only read about my statement a year and a half later in the newspaper … There has been this whole kind of theatre built around me."
David Sherborne, the lead barrister for the claimants, successfully requested to cross-examine Burrows as a hostile witness following his forgery allegations.
Burrows claimed that the statement was orchestrated by Dan Johnson, a former phone hacker who later became involved in investigating unlawful press activities and joined the claimants’ research team in the ANL case.
He stated that he worked with Johnson solely because he believed he was being used for his "expert opinion." The court has previously heard that Burrows was paid £75,000 by Johnson, including for work on a memoir.
Burrows described the disputed confession as containing a litany of admissions that included everything "apart from calling me Jack the Ripper." He challenged Sherborne, asking:
"Do you actually really believe anyone’s going to write a statement [like that]?"
He added:
"Your little creator of this has gone too far,"
referring to Johnson, and continued,
"I believe he’s conned you, Mr Sherborne."
Claimants' Legal Team Responds to Forgery Allegations
In written submissions, the claimants’ legal team stated that it was impossible for the Burrows signature on the 2021 statement to be forged, describing the claim as "wild and unsubstantiated."
During the court proceedings, Burrows said he believed he was being "nice and kind" to Lady Lawrence by contacting ANL in 2023 to assert that he had never made the confession. He reflected:
"I thought I was saving Baroness Lawrence from being conned. Things escalated, I guess,"
Burrows also questioned the authenticity of his signatures on other documents related to separate cases involving unlawful newspaper activities.
Interactions with Dan Johnson and Evidence Issues
At one point, Burrows admitted to "taking the piss" out of Johnson in some conversations, noting that Johnson had repeatedly inquired about any work Burrows had done for ANL. Burrows claimed Johnson then included this "banter" as evidence.
The situation, previously referred to in court as the "Burrows conundrum," has overshadowed the entire three-month, multimillion-pound trial.
Sherborne accused Burrows of initially being satisfied with his original evidence until a dispute with Johnson over money in 2022 prompted a change of stance. Sherborne stated:
"You decided to switch sides out of revenge against Mr Johnson,"
and added that the 2021 witness statement was "entirely consistent and true that you acted for Associated Newspapers."
Burrows denied Sherborne’s assertions.
Sherborne also claimed that Burrows received legal funding from ANL, which Burrows denied receiving directly.
