|
BOOK REVIEWS:
Trial by Conspiracy
John Gouriet
I suspect that few investigative journalists would have pursued any case with such relentless persistence in the face of apparently overwhelming evidence and manifest hostility.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt and his leftwing colleague from Brazil, Malcolm Keith-Hill, were clearly driven by an obsessive determination to root out the facts, 'put right a wrong' and present the truth of the 'Hamilton affair'. Neil Hamilton, Tory minister and MP, had stood accused of accepting 'cash for questions' and lying about it. He lost his Tatton seat at the May 1997 General Election. His reputation and career lay in tatters. The media, the general public and an official government inquiry all condemned Hamilton without trial on the contrived evidence of a man described by DTI inspectors as bogus and a liar whose word could not be trusted.
Now after a year of painstaking analysis, sifting through thousands of pages of evidence, Boyd Hunt and Keith-Hill have been able to prove that Hamilton never received any undisclosed payments or inducements from Mohamed Fayed, the owner of Harrods. The grubby image of 'Mister Sleaze' himself sidling up to the doorman at 60 Park Lane to receive wads of notes in 'brown envelopes' has now been proved to be a total fabrication, presumably been conceived by Mr Fayed in pursuit of personal vendettas against those whom he considered had let him down.
The editor of the Guardian newspaper and four of his journalists however indulged in promoting this false image. They failed to verify or analyse their information in sufficient depth before rushing into print. They published allegations against Neil Hamilton which he fully intended to test in a libel court of his fellow plaintiff, Ian Greer, a successful parliamentary lobbyist, had not had to withdraw. The lawyers acting for both thereupon decided that they could not continue to act for Hamilton on his own, although his case was strong. Were they too convinced of Neil's guilt or was there another reason? The Guardian even tried to discredit and intimidate its author, Boyd Hunt. This led to a series of cover-ups, lies and bullying tactics, rather than an admission of an ugly lapse of journalistic standards.
The government inquiry has headed by senior civil servant Sir Gordon Downey, who had been appointed by John Major when Prime Minister to examine standards in public life. Downey duly pronounced against Hamilton contrary to nearly all reliable evidence submitted. He had instead relied almost entirely on allegations offered by the least credible witnesses, which for some unexplained reason he found 'compelling'!
The book itself; Trial by Conspiracy, has obviously been compiled in a hurry. Although it contains a mass of detail, its style is somewhat jerky and doesn't always flow smoothly. There are a number of typographical errors. There is no index, although the brief summaries of the main players are helpful. However, it would be unfair to carp about such minor shortcomings.
For Jonathan Boyd Hunt has rendered signal service to his profession and to the nation by bringing this unsavoury tale of lies, cover-ups and injustices into the public domain. In so doing he has restored a little of the standards of honour, fair-play and attention to detail so vicariously abandoned by the Guardian and its hacks. It is also of interest that the editor and his staff have so far failed to lodge any writs since. This suggests that Boyd Hunt may have successfully called their bluff.
Nevertheless he has also raised more important questions than he has answered! These now require to be addressed. Trial by Conspiracy, backed by its wealth of supporting evidence, provides an essential starting point.
If this was a rich man's revenge, albeit on a public figure, why did the Guardian become so involved and why did Sir Gordon Downey's inquiry reach such inexplicable conclusions? Why was Neil Hamilton, an unusually competent Conservative MP specifically targeted to such an extent that both New Labour and the Liberal Democrats withdrew their candidates at Tatton in order to give political rookie, Martin Bell in his symbolic white suit, a better chance of beating Hamilton on the highly-inflated 'sleaze' issue?
Is it therefore possible that a deliberate campaign of character assassination was orchestrated with the connivance of a major party or parties in order to pervert the outcome of the 1997 General Election by falsely promoting and exaggerating a widespread image of 'Tory sleaze'? Did Sir Gordon Downey find his evidence against Neil Hamilton 'compelling' in order to satisfy his previous master's need for damage limitation on the 'sleaze front', or was it to confirm his new master's views of the ancien regime Conservative? In which case was Sir Gordon an accomplice or was he so out of touch and lacking in experience as to be uncritical of dubious evidence even on a silver platter form Harrods? Is it possible that the New Labour strategists seized the opportunity provided fortuitously by Fayed, not only to destroy one of their most competent political opponents, but to improve their party's chances of overall victory; and that they therefore used the Guardian to do their dirty work, relying on its strength and influence to beat off any countenance or criticism?
Is there any remedy in law to restrain a political party or its representatives from engaging in such malpractice in order to gain power; or to have the results declared void if it can be proved that the outcome of an election has been deliberately perverted by false presentation? If not, is there a case for producing an effective remedy? Is it a defence at this instance to claim that at the time Mr Hamilton was widely believed to be guilty as charged, even though he had never been tried in a court of law, nor answered to his peers and had consistently protested his innocence from the outset?
Now that the case against Neil Hamilton has been so conclusively disproved, thanks to the unremitting efforts of Jonathan Boyd Hunt and Malcolm Keith-Hill, what steps are being taken to quash relevant findings in the Downey inquiry relating to Mr Hamilton and to restore his standing with adequate compensation? What is being done to ensure that neither parties nor individual candidates are in future subjected to unsubstantiated and vexatious attacks without adequate protection, remedy and recompense?
It is difficult not to conclude that there may be serious ramifications for the 'Hamilton affair', which stretch far beyond the victimisation of one individual, into the very heart of political practice in Britain. These could reveal new depths to which politicians may be prepared to sink in pursuit of power. Now that the truth is out, what can be done to right such a heinous wrong and deter recurrence?
|
|
