Main Index to all Sections

First Page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

17 September 1996: Guardian solicitor Geraldine Proudler applies for a court order compelling Hamilton's & Greer's solicitors, Peter Carter Ruck & Partners, to provide: "All documentation evidencing all payments, including commission payments, made by Ian Greer to Members of Parliament."
    According to Ian Greer, Proudler's request perplexed both him and his solicitor, Andrew Stephenson, as to why The Guardian should be interested in his commission payments, when his and Hamilton's libel actions against The Guardian concerned the paper's cash for questions allegations. 

20 September 1996: Contrary to their expectations, The Guardian discovers that lobbyist Ian Greer had not given Tim Smith a commission payment for introducing a new client.
    As requested, Ian Greer disclosed all commission payments given to MPs. 
    The list was made up of three MPs.  a) Michael Grylls (which had been public knowledge since 1989); b) Neil Hamilton (which Hamilton and Greer had acknowledged in their witness statements of June 1995); and c) a backbench Conservative MP by the name of Michael Brown. 
    Catastrophically for The Guardian, Tim Smith, who had tabled the most questions in support of Mohamed Fayed, was not on the list, whereas Michael Brown had not undertaken any parliamentary activity relating to the battle for Harrods.  Later events would prove conclusively that The Guardian's planned defence had been to argue in court that Greer's commission payments were the means by which he bribed Smith and Hamilton to table questions.  The revelation that Smith had not received a commission payment had just destroyed that premise.

Also on 20 September: The Guardian's legal team meet up with Mohamed 'Al' Fayed's personal legal advisers for a crucial meeting.  During the meeting it is decided that Fayed's office staff should be asked for witness statements to bolster The Guardian's defence.
    The meeting took place at the Doughty Street chambers of The Guardian's barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC.  In addition to Robertson, the meeting was also attended by The Guardian's solicitor Geraldine Proudler; Fayed's personal legal adviser Stuart Benson; and, supposedly, Fayed's US lawyer Doug Marvin, who 'happened to be in London'.  No one attended from Fayed's official London solicitors, D J Freeman.  Various accounts have been given as to who exactly said what to whom during the meeting, and how it came about that Fayed's three office staff should be approached for witness statements.  (As all the parties who attended are covered by legal privilege there is no compulsion on any to provide statements as to what actually transpired.)

26 September 1996: Lobbyist Ian Greer decides to withdraw from the libel action.
    The sequence of events that led to Greer withdrawing was triggered by The Guardian's recent interest in his commission payments.  This had also aroused the interest of Hamilton & Greer's solicitor, Andrew Stephenson, which led Stephenson to scrutinise the transcript from an investigation into Greer's commission payments conducted by the Members' Interests Committee in April 1990.  Stephenson discovered that Greer's testimony before the Committee did not tally with the information within Greer's books that Greer had recently supplied to The Guardian's lawyers. 
    Specifically, Greer's books showed that the lobbyist had given seven commission payments to Michael Grylls MP, whereas in 1990 following the Committee hearing Greer had written to the chairman of Committee and informed him that he had given Grylls only four payments.  Accordingly Stephenson advised Greer that the disparity would be fatal to his credibility in court and that accordingly he should withdraw his action.  Greer reluctantly agreed to withdraw. 

27 September 1996 (am): Neil Hamilton causes a "conflict of interest" between himself and his co-plaintiff Ian Greer, forcing both co-plaintiffs to engage new lawyers and prompting Hamilton to decide to withdraw his action too. 
    The sequence of events that led to Hamilton and Greer having to find new lawyers began when Andrew Stephenson summoned Neil Hamilton to his office at Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners to discuss Greer's withdrawal.  When Stephenson informed Hamilton of the fatal flaw in Ian Greer's case, he states that Hamilton's reaction was "explosive".  According to Stephenson, Hamilton stated that he felt betrayed by Greer and declared his disbelief that Greer could have been unaware of the potential problem. 
    Hamiltons' antipathy towards Greer caused Stephenson to immediately advise him that there now existed a clear 'irreconcilable conflict of interest' between him and his co-plaintiff, and that under these circumstances the rules of professional conduct obliged Peter Carter-Ruck to discontinue acting for either of them. 

Also on 27 September: Three of Mohamed 'Al' Fayed's office staff sign witness statements claiming that they had processed corrupt payments in envelopes to lobbyist Ian Greer and Conservative MP Neil Hamilton left at the entrance of Fayed's office block in Park Lane. 
    The three witnesses comprised of Mohammed Al Fayed's former personal assistant, Alison Bozek; Ali Fayed's personal assistant, Iris Bond; and doorman Philip Bromfield. 
    Alison Bozek alleged that she had packed envelopes with cash for Ian Greer which she then sent to his office or left at the entrance for collection; and that she had packed similar envelopes of cash for Neil Hamilton including the occasion before he and his wife stayed at the Paris Ritz in September 1987 when she claimed she had given Hamilton £3,000 spending money for the trip. 
    Iris Bond claimed that she had witnessed Fayed pack envelopes of cash for Ian Greer, which she had arranged to be sent to Greer's offices or left at the doorway of the office block; and that she remembered Fayed occasionally preparing bundles of cash for Neil Hamilton in her presence.
    Doorman Philip Bromfield claimed that on several occasions Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer had collected envelopes from him when he attended the doorway of 60 Park Lane. 
    None of these new statements gave any inkling of the circumstances that had led to their coming forward at the eleventh hour, nearly two years after the publication of the Guardian article that gave rise to the libel action and over one year after Fayed had stated in his witness statement that no witnesses had been involved. 
    None of these new witnesses claimed any involvement in processing payments to Tim Smith, despite the fact that Tim Smith had freely acknowledged taking unregistered payments from Fayed.

29 September 1996: Completely unaware that Ian Greer and Neil Hamilton had already decided to settle their libel actions, The Guardian served Greer & Hamilton's solicitors with three witness statements from Mohamed Al Fayed's office staff.
    When these witness statements were served both Hamilton & Greer denied the new allegations.  Hamilton and Greer pleaded that the three office staff had most likely been coerced into giving false evidence simply to bolster the Guardian's weak case.

30 September 1996: Neil Hamilton writes to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, requesting that he investigate Mohamed Fayed's and The Guardian's allegations against him. 

Also on 30 September: Neil Hamilton and the lobbyist Ian Greer announce their decision to settle their libel actions against The Guardian. 
    Hamilton explained his decision as being borne out of factors out of his control.  He claimed that his new lawyers were completely unbriefed of his case's complexities, whereas the withdrawal of his co-plaintiff, Ian Greer, would affect negatively the media's perception of the strength his own case.  Hamilton stated that to have carried on alone in these circumstances would have been senseless, and that he looked forward to an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. 

Previous page

Part Five