|
(Continued from overleaf)
1995
24 January 1995: The Scott Trust, which owns
The Guardian (and which is effectively run by The Guardian's political
journalists) selects diarist Alan Rusbridger to succeed Peter Preston as the paper's editor.
-------------------------------------------------------------
28 April 1995: The Guardian succeeds in obtaining a High Court ruling to have Ian Greer's and Neil Hamilton's separate libel actions heard together as one in a "consolidated" action.
The ruling is seen as a great victory for the Guardian, which, effectively, would now be able to defeat both actions by defeating just one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
7 June 1995: The Members' Interests Committee releases its findings into Alex Carlile's complaint of 27 October 1994 against Neil Hamilton, recommending no action.
Carlile's complaint concerned allegations that Neil Hamilton had not registered his stay at the Ritz and that Hamilton had received £6,000-worth of Harrods gift vouchers, but did not mention any 'cash' allegations. The Committee had refused to consider the gift voucher allegations on the basis that these were the subject of libel proceedings, and so limited itself to investigating Hamilton's failure to register his stay at the
Paris Ritz. Their report stated:
"While the relative lack of clarity of the registration form in 1987 may be pleaded in mitigation, Mr Hamilton's visit
to the Ritz ought to have been declared, and it was imprudent of him not to have taken the precaution of consulting
the Registrar.
"Mr Hamilton has resigned his position as minister for corporate affairs as a direct consequence of the various
allegations about his conduct which appeared in the Guardian, and the committee do not consider it necessary to
recommend further action by the House."
-------------------------------------------------------------
26 June 1995: Neil Hamilton & Ian Greer exchange witness statements with Mohamed
Al Fayed, and Peter Preston & David Hencke of The Guardian.
In his witness statement Peter Preston made several statements which documentary evidence shows are false. They include:
1. Preston's claim that during his first meeting with Fayed on 14 July 1993, Fayed had shown him Hamilton's 1987
Paris Ritz bill. If Fayed had indeed shown Preston a copy of Hamilton's Ritz hotel bill during the meeting as Preston
asserted, then this would support
The Guardian's stance that Fayed had gone to the meeting with the express intention of
making allegations. However, in his letter of 15 July thanking Fayed for the meeting, Preston had asked Fayed for sight
of documentary evidence such as Hamilton's Ritz hotel bill. This proves that Fayed did not have the bill to hand during
the meeting at all. The fact that Preston lied over this supports the opposite contention -- that Fayed had not, in fact,
gone to the meeting with any prior intention of making
allegations.
2. Preston's claim that during his first meeting with Fayed on the evening of 14 July 1993 Fayed had made two sets
of allegations: a) that Ian Greer had bribed Smith and Hamilton, and b) that he, Fayed, had also bribed Smith and
Hamilton but was reluctant to go on the record as a briber of MPs. However, copious evidence, including articles
published in
The Guardian during the run up to and following its 'cash for questions' article of 20 October 1994, shows
overwhelmingly that
The Guardian's interest remained solely in Ian Greer Associates and Neil Hamilton's unregistered
stay at the Paris Ritz hotel. If Fayed had indeed alleged paying Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton himself behind closed
doors, there would have been some suggestion in
The Guardian's internal notes and in its articles that this allegation
existed. To the contrary, all
The Guardian's articles and internal notes betray the fact that the paper had no knowledge
of any such allegations.
3. Preston's claim that
The Guardian's inquiries of July 1993 were into both sets of allegations, and that this
disproved the notion that Fayed could have been motivated by the events of Sept.-Oct. 1994 (which immediately
preceded
The Guardian's 'cash for questions' article of 20 October 1994) to make false allegations spitefully. To
back up his claim that Fayed had not been motivated by the events of Sept.-Oct. 1994, Preston attached to his witness
statement his article of 21 October 1994 discussing Fayed's motivation. However, Preston had removed from the draft
of this article before it went to press a full discussion about how Fayed had recently become very angry about having to
pay a £5m tax bill and his failure to acquire British citizenship.
4. Preston's claim that 'Fayed's allegation' that his lobbyist Ian Greer had bribed MPs had taken him by surprise
and prompted his decision to investigate Ian Greer Associates. However, a letter that Preston had written on 15 July
thanking Fayed for the meeting makes clear that
The Guardian's investigations into Greer had already begun well before
Preston had even met Fayed. The fact that Preston lied about this supports the contention that
The Guardian's
investigations into Ian Greer Associates had most likely been prompted by Guardian chairman Hugo Young's article of
22 June lamenting the corrupting influence of professional lobbyists; plus a Commons debate on lobbyists of 28 June
during which the Labour MP Bob Cryer had lambasted Ian Greer for paying
'secret' commissions to Michael Grylls and
two other unknown MPs.
In his witness statement David Hencke made several statements that the evidence shows are false. These include:
1. Hencke's claim that: either he or John Mullin had confronted Neil Hamilton with a 'cash for questions' allegation
during their interview on the Terrace of the House of Commons of 22 July 1993. To the contrary, the evidence is
overwhelming that Neil Hamilton was not accused of taking 'cash for questions' from Ian Greer until the events of
September-October 1994; and, furthermore, that Hamilton was not accused of taking cash from Mohamed Fayed directly
until 5 December 1994 following the Guardian's discovery in late November that Tim Smith had been paid by Fayed.
2. Hencke's claim that: he and John Mullin had confronted lobbyist Ian Greer on 23 July 1993 with a specific
allegation that he had paid MPs to table questions. In fact, the transcript of the interview shows that Guardian
journalist John Mullin did not proposition Greer with an allegation that he had paid MPs to table questions, but rather
that Mullin had propositioned Greer with a suggestion that an MP could be induced to table a question for a "brown
envelope stuffed with fivers" in order to test Greer's reaction to that suggestion. The main body of the interview shows
that Hencke & Mullin's interest resided primarily in Ian Greer's commission payments to Michael Grylls and two
unnamed MPs. This tallies with the opening paragraphs of Hencke's statement, which focuses entirely on the Members'
Interests Committee's investigation of April 1990 into Ian Greer's commission payments to Michael Grylls.
3. Hencke's claim that: Peter Preston had told him from the outset that Fayed had alleged giving Neil Hamilton
Harrods gift vouchers, but that he (Hencke) wasn't interested in these allegations. If Fayed had indeed alleged
paying Neil Hamilton Harrods gift vouchers behind closed doors, there would have been some suggestion in
The
Guardian's internal notes and in its articles that this allegation existed. To the contrary, all
The Guardian's articles and
internal notes betray the fact that the paper had no knowledge of any such allegations.
4. Hencke's claim that: Ian Greer had given Hamilton free British Airways tickets for his trip to the Paris Ritz in
1987. Hamilton and his wife had visited the Ritz and the Duke & Duchess of Windsor's former Paris villa whilst on a
motoring holiday of France.
Guardian journalist John Mullin did not give a witness statement despite his crucial importance in corroborating the Guardian's claims.
The Guardian gave as its reason the fact that Mullin was reporting from Bosnia at the time. However, within three days of the exchange of witness statements Mullin returned to England but
The Guardian did not make any effort to obtain from him a signed witness statement.
|
|
