Main Index to all Sections

First Page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

26 June 1995 (continued)
In his witness statement Mohamed Al Fayed made several statements that are free from any supporting evidence.  They include:
        1.  Fayed's claim that: his lobbyist Ian Greer had openly admitted that he paid MPs to table Parliamentary
            questions.  The Guardian had actually interviewed up to fifteen of Greer's clients, and none had corroborated this
            allegation.  Furthermore, none of Greer's other clients came forward subsequently with similar allegations despite the
            furore caused by the Guardian's article. 
        2.  Fayed's claim that: Ian Greer demanded and received cash to pay Michael Grylls, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. 
               Fayed offered no evidence to support this allegation.
        3.  Fayed's claim that: Neil Hamilton had demanded and received eight bundles of £2,500 (i.e. £20,000) and £8,000
             gift vouchers to pay him for all the work he was doing.  Fayed offered no evidence to support these allegations,
             despite his documented practice of taping his private meetings to use in blackmail attempts. 
In addition:
        4.  Fayed's stated that money had passed to Neil Hamilton in two ways only without there being any witnesses. 
            Fayed stated:
                          "Our meetings were alone and although my diary confirms the dates of the meetings, no one else would have
                     seen the money being given to Mr Hamilton…  I can therefore confirm that cash payments were made to
                     Mr Hamilton in two ways: firstly, in face to face meetings, and secondly, through Ian Greer."

In his witness statement Neil Hamilton denied all allegations of dishonesty and corruption.  Hamilton admitted receiving two commission payments from Ian Greer for introducing two clients in the late 1980s, but insisted that these had not coloured his reasons for supporting Fayed.  Hamilton also gave full details of the hospitality he had received from Fayed during the 1980s, including six nights at the Paris Ritz, two nights at Fayed's private apartment, and a couple of nights in an outhouse at Fayed's Scottish castle at Balnagown.  Hamilton also acknowledged giving Fayed Christmas presents and receiving Harrods Christmas hampers (which fell under the value threshold requiring registration in the Register of Members' Interests).
    [With regard to Neil Hamilton's parliamentary activity re: House of Fraser, Lonrho, Fayed etc, over a four-year period Hamilton tabled nine written questions, three motions and wrote two letters to ministers.  Hamilton never spoke from the Floor of the House of Commons in any matter concerning Fayed, House of Fraser, or Harrods (unlike scores of other MPs who had also taken an interest in the "battle for Harrods" between Fayed and his rival Tiny Rowland).]

In his witness statement lobbyist Ian Greer denied all allegations of dishonesty and corruption.  Greer admitted giving Neil Hamilton commission payments for introducing two clients but denied asking Hamilton to do anything in return.  Greer denied outright that he had paid Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton to table questions or do anything else for payment and he denied outright the allegation that he had suggested to Fayed that he did.

28 & 29 June 1995: Fayed's solicitor Laurence Harris telephones Guardian solicitor Geraldine Proudler to discuss two entries in a telephone message pad from Fayed's Park Lane office, one of which refers to a woman named "Iris".  The next day Harris sends Proudler the message pad with an accompanying letter pointing out the "Iris" entry:
               Hamilton and Greer - The Guardian
               I refer to our telephone conversation last night and I enclose a file containing extracts from the telephone message
               books used by Mr Al-Fayed's staff from 1985 to 1989. There is a full index at the front.  You will find particularly
               interesting the messages on 29 March 1989 and 28 September 1988 which I mentioned on the telephone…
               Laurence Harris 29 June 1995

18 July 1995: The Guardian applies to the High Court to have Neil Hamilton's libel action ruled unconstitutional and struck out:
    The Guardian cites the Bill of Rights of 1689, which states: "The freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament".

21 July 1995: The High Court blocks Neil Hamilton's libel action against The Guardian
    Mr Justice May rules that the protection of Parliamentary privilege afforded to MPs by the Bill of Rights effects too much of the story for the Guardian to be able to fairly defend itself.  This ruling also thwarts lobbyist Ian Greer's libel action, following the Guardian's earlier success in having Greer's and Hamilton's separate actions consolidated into a single action.
    In the months following this ruling Neil Hamilton seeks to have the Bill of Rights amended to allow him to waive his Parliamentary privilege and so facilitate his proceeding with his action.

13 February 1996: Tatton Conservative Association reselects Neil Hamilton as the prospective Conservative candidate for the Tatton constituency.

4 July 1996: The new Defamation Bill receives Royal Assent and frees Neil Hamilton -- and therefore lobbyist Ian Greer -- to bring his libel action against The Guardian.
    Hamilton's ability to bring his libel action had been made possible by an amendment to the Defamation Bill by Cross-bench Peer Lord Hoffman.  The amendment allowed Hamilton to dispense with his Parliamentary Privilege, thus resolving the anomaly caused by the ancient Bill of Rights.
    Ian Greer sues The Guardian on two counts: a) defamation of character; and b) a special damages claim for loss of business.      To evaluate his claim for loss of business Greer engaged leading accountants Stoy Heyward to scrutinise his company books from 1990 onwards.  Stoy Heywood would eventually assess Greer's losses at £10 million.  Together with Hamilton's claim for damages and loss of ministerial salary, and costs, the libel action was estimated to cost the Guardian a potential £12 million, for which The Guardian, uniquely, did not carry any libel insurance.

7 August 1996: The Guardian appoints radical human rights barrister, Geoffrey Robertson QC, to head the paper's defence. 

During early September 1996, four weeks before the first day of the libel trial, a sequence of events of great significance takes place. 
        1.  Geoffrey Robertson QC enlists Guardian journalist David Leigh to act as his Legal Aide.
        2.  Geoffrey Robertson begins writing his opening address to the jury.  Robertson portrays Ian Greer as being "at
             the centre of a spider's web of influence-peddling in Westminster" who "organised his MPs like an army".
             Robertson describes Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton as "snipers at the front, firing questions."  He describes
             Michael Grylls (who had supported Fayed but not tabled any questions, and, crucially, who was known to have received
             several commission payments from Ian Greer) as "The Captain, encouraging them from behind the lines".
        3.  Geraldine Proudler sends a fellow partner Marcus Barclay, of solicitors Olswang, to the London accountants, 
             Stoy Heywood, who were assessing Greer's loss of business for his special damages claim.  Marcus Barclay's principal
             task  was to scrutinise Ian Greer's books for evidence that the lobbyist had granted Tim Smith at least one commission
             payment.
        4.  Marcus Barclay returns from Stoy Heywood and reports finding no evidence that Greer had given Tim Smith a
             commission payment.  Barclay merely confirms that Greer had given Hamilton a commission payment in 1989 (which
             Hamilton and Greer had already acknowledged fifteen months earlier in their witness statements of June 1995).

Previous page

Next page