5) ANALYSIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
OF CASH PAYMENTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT, RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF
FRASER LOBBYING OPERATIONS (Contd.)
The Guardian Journalists'
Interview with Mr Hamilton in 1993
518. A further serious attack,
amongst many others in their submission to the inquiry, was made
by The Guardian on Mr Hamilton's credibility. This
related to the assertion in his submission[234]
(and, according to The Guardian, on previous occasions)
that the allegations of cash payments to him by Mr Al Fayed were
never put to him by the two Guardian journalists, Mr Hencke
and Mr Mullin in July 1993, when they were following up Mr Al
Fayed's exchanges with the editor of The Guardian concerning
Mr Smith and Mr Hamilton in June of that year.
519. Mr Hamilton
claimed that the reason for this failure on their part was either
that Mr Al Fayed had not at that stage linked Mr Hamilton
with Mr Smith as far as cash payments were concerned, or,
alternatively, that Mr Al Fayed had made the allegation to Mr
Preston, at their earlier meeting, and that Mr Preston had found
it so incredible that he had not thought it worthwhile asking
Mr Hencke and Mr Mullin to follow it up.
520. In his submission,[235]
Mr Hamilton stated: "I categorically deny that Hencke
or Mullin put to me any allegation of receiving cash from Greer
or Fayed for PQs, still less that the figure of £2,000 a
time was mentioned. The first I heard of this allegation was
when I read it in The Guardian on 20 October 1994".
521. Later in his submission
Mr Hamilton accused Mr Hencke of a "direct lie"
in claiming to have put the cash payments allegation to him in
1993.
522. In rebutting Mr
Hamilton's denial, The Guardian adduced four separate
items of evidence. These were:
- a
shorthand note of the conversation with Mr Hamilton made
by Mr Mullin immediately after leaving the interview, the last
paragraph of which, as transcribed, read "never received
any payment other than those declared in the Register of Members'
Interests". (The Guardian claimed, incidentally,
that this statement in itself constituted an untruth given the
two unregistered commission payments to Mr Hamilton from
Mr Greer);
- a
note keyed into Mr Mullin's computer on his return to the office
after the meeting with Mr Hamilton. This note, referring
first to one of the questions put to Mr Smith, said "Q:
£2,000 inb [sic] a brown envelope?" "That's
certainly not true"; and later, referring to the interview
with Mr Hamilton, the following passage occurred "Asked
about the brown paper bag, he was by this stagd [sic] somewhat
agitated and began his increasing level of threats about Peter
Carter-Ruck";[236]
- Mr
Hencke's written statement for the libel trial, which contained
the following extract: "I asked Hamilton formally about
the allegations that he had accepted payments from Mohamed Al
Fayed and that these consisted of £2,000 per question, paid
in cash. He denied that this was the case ....";
- a
separate extract from Mr Hencke's written statement, in which
he said: "We [he and Mr Mullin] then confronted [Mr Hamilton]
with the cash for questions allegation. Either John or I directly
asked him: `Have you received any cash from Mohamed Al Fayed
in return for asking questions in the House on his behalf?' I
also recollect that we mentioned the figure of £2,000 per
question asked. Neil Hamilton denied the allegation".
523. Although Mr Preston
did not make a note of his meetings with Mr Al Fayed at which
the claims concerning Mr Smith and Mr Hamilton were
made, he was categoric in denying that the accusation against
Mr Hamilton concerned only the Ritz stay. As he put it
in his oral evidence:[237]
"Totally, totally not so. The allegations were only different
in regard to Mr Hamilton [ie. compared with Mr Smith] because
there was the further allegation about the Ritz hotel bills, for
which there was some documentary proof".
524. In a letter dated 11
March 1997[238]
Mr Hamilton contested the reliability of the documentary
evidence produced by The Guardian to support their account
of the interview between Mr Hamilton, Mr Hencke and Mr
Mullin. Mr Hamilton described Mr Mullin's record of the
conversation as "a few scrappy notes" which were "just
his recollections" and could not be taken to be an accurate
account of a meeting lasting "an hour or more". Mr
Hamilton added that if any allegation of cash payments to
him by Mr Al Fayed had been made by The Guardian journalists
he would "hardly have neglected to include it in his letter
of 1 October 1993 to Mr Preston".[239]
525. Mr Hamilton
also drew on a document, obtained from The Guardian under
the discovery process, entitled "rough draft". This
appeared to be a note to Mr Al Fayed produced shortly before The
Guardian story was published on 20 October 1994 and designed
to give him some preliminary idea of the way in which The Guardian
intended to publicise the allegations and the possible hostile
reactions the story would generate. Mr Hamilton originally
attributed this note to Mr Hencke, but he now accepts that it
was written by Mr Preston.
526. Mr Hamilton
saw this document as damaging to Mr Preston on two counts:
- it
contained the following passage: "The crux, as you'll see,
is your admission that you paid Hamilton (and Smith). Without
that fact, the story is inevitably weaker - because nothing in
the paperwork proves that Hamilton was doing any of this for money".
Mr Hamilton argued that this last sentence demonstrated
The Guardian's own lack of faith in the credibility of
the allegations;
- it
concluded with the sentence "I've made up the sort of statement
from you I think to be both true and likeliest to defuse any subsequent
criticism". This, in Hamilton's view, showed Mr Preston
cynically manufacturing a version of events to put into Mr Al
Fayed's mouth.
527. The Guardian
responded to these points in the following fashion:
- that
the reference to a lack of documentary corroboration for the allegation
related to the position in late September or early October 1994,
and that in the ensuing three weeks leading up to the publication
of the article on 20 October a "snowstorm"[240]
of paperwork emerged in the form of letters and other evidence
which buttressed the case against Mr Hamilton;
- that
the phrase "made up a statement" was an unfortunate
use of language which, however, plainly did not bear the dishonest
connotation ascribed to it by Mr Hamilton since it was
immediately followed by the words "I think to be both true[241]
and ...";
- that
so far from undermining Mr Preston's credibility the "rough
draft" document strengthened it, since it confirmed that
Mr Al Fayed was already, in late 1994, including Mr Hamilton
with Mr Smith in the allegations concerning cash payments.
234 See
Appendix 33, paras 188-199. Back
235 See
Appendix 33. Back
236 The
senior partner of Carter-Ruck, solicitors. Back
237 Q
827 Back
238 See
Appendix 38. Back
239 See
paras 509-10. Back
240 Q
854. Back
241 Emphasis
added. Back
|