Private investigator in Mail legal claim says statement was a ‘forgery’, court told
The High Court has heard that a private investigator investigating a legal claim between a group of celebrities, including the Duke of Sussex, and the publisher of the Daily Mail claimed his signature on an earlier witness statement was a “forgery”.
Gavin Burrows is at the center of the most serious allegations of illegal collection of information by the group, which also includes Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley, actress Sadie Frost, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes, a London court heard.
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is accused by the group of carrying out or commissioning illegal activities such as hiring private detectives to plant listening devices inside cars, “spoofing” private records and accessing private telephone conversations.
ANL denies the allegations and defends legal action.
In a previous statement from August 2021, Mr Burrows is said to have claimed a journalist at the Mail On Sunday had targeted “hundreds, possibly thousands of people” through voicemail hacking, landline tapping and access to their financial and medical information.
But on Tuesday the court heard that he made a statement to ANL’s lawyers in September this year in which he claimed he had not signed the August 2021 document.
In his final statement, he said: “I do not recognize the earlier witness statement dated August 16, 2021, and I believe my signature on that document is forged. Much of it was not written in my language.”
“Furthermore, the content of the statement is grossly inaccurate.”
He added that he had “never” worked for the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail except for work involving Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.
The latest revelation comes after Mr Burrows said in a separate statement in March 2023 that he “wants to make clear that I was never instructed or commissioned by (a journalist) or anyone at the Mail On Sunday or the Daily Mail to carry out any unlawful collection of information on their behalf”.
Mr Burrows, who was initially a witness for the group, is now the subject of legal wrangling over whether he should be called as a witness at the trial.
ANL’s Antony White KC asked the court to allow him to cross-examine Mr Burrows, while David Sherborne, on behalf of the group, applied for his evidence to be treated as hearsay.
Mr Justice Nicklin gave Mr Sherborne seven days to decide whether he wanted to apply for a witness subpoena to call Mr Burrows and said he could apply to treat him as an “enemy” if Mr Burrows gave evidence inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained.
A preliminary hearing in the case is expected to be held before the end of the year.
