|
5) ANALYSIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
OF CASH PAYMENTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT, RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF
FRASER LOBBYING OPERATIONS (Contd.)
The Reasons
for the Collapse of the Libel Action
528. Both Mr Al Fayed and
The Guardian claimed that the sudden withdrawal by Mr
Hamilton and Mr Greer from their libel action against the
newspaper proved the plaintiffs' unwillingness to submit themselves
either to detailed cross-examination or to the risk that further
documents damaging to their case would emerge under the discovery
process. Indeed, The Guardian claimed, the plaintiffs'
position had already been undermined by the defendants' proposed
amended defence, supported by witness statements.
529. As the editor of The
Guardian put it in his oral evidence:[242]
"the decision to withdraw leads to an inescapable inference
of [Mr Hamilton's] guilt unless you are fully satisfied that there
was some overwhelming yet technical and anodyne reason for it".
530. The explanation advanced
by Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer for their decision to abandon
the case was altogether different. In summary, I was informed
by them that Mr Greer had been advised by the joint legal team
that his prospects of success in the proceedings had fallen from
"very good" to "almost nil" following the
discovery amongst IGA's accounting papers of evidence that there
had been more payments by IGA to Sir Michael Grylls than
had been disclosed to the Select Committee on Members' Interests
in 1990. Acting on that advice, Mr Greer decided to withdraw
from the impending trial rather than suffer further harm to his
reputation and to his finances.
531. Mr Hamilton
was extremely distressed by this turn of events and, at a conference
with Counsel a few days before the trial was due to begin, told
his lawyers he considered that he had been "betrayed"
by Mr Greer. This falling out by the plaintiffs put the legal
team in considerable difficulties. Both plaintiffs were then
represented by the same firm of solicitors (Peter Carter-Ruck
and Partners) and Counsel (Richard Ferguson QC and The Hon Victoria
Sharpe) - so that, as a result of the conflict of interest which
had arisen, they could not continue to act for either Mr
Greer or Mr Hamilton. If Mr Hamilton was
to press on alone, therefore, he would have to find, and fund,
new solicitors and new Counsel, as well as seek an adjournment
of the trial. Such a course was beyond Mr Hamilton's means.
532. It seemed to me that
this difference of view between the parties to the case about
the reasons for its abrupt ending ought to be resolved, particularly
as Mr Hamilton's explanation had not been accepted by The
Guardian and issues of credibility arose for my inquiry.
533. I therefore invited
both Mr Greer and Mr Hamilton to waive legal professional
privilege and to allow me to contact Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners,
and Richard Ferguson QC. I subsequently received their written
waivers.
534. In addition, when Mr
Hamilton appeared before me to give oral evidence, he was
accompanied by his solicitor, Mr Rupert Grey of Crockers, who
had represented Mr Hamilton after the conflict of interest
referred to above had developed. Mr Grey read a statement into
the record setting out his recollection of events.[243]
In the course of his remarks Mr Grey summarised Mr Hamilton's
difficulties, stressing that the decision to discontinue the libel
proceedings was not based on any perceived weakness in Mr Hamilton's
own case, but solely on the fact that Mr Greer's credibility was
adversely affected. The resultant cost of continuing on his own
with a new legal team was seen as prohibitive.
535. Mr Grey's statement
concluded as follows:
"Neil Hamilton's
case, as far as the evidence was concerned, was intact. It was,
however, probable that the impact of Mr Greer's withdrawal on
the jury's perception, which would be exploited to maximum effect
by The Guardian in the course of the trial, would be damaging,
and would reduce the prospect of victory against The Guardian.
It was that, coupled with Mr Hamilton's position as a private
individual with limited means, that led to his decision to withdraw,
and was my recommendation accordingly".
536. On 11 March 1997 I
received a letter from Mr Andrew Stephenson, a senior partner
with Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners. From this the following
points can be extracted:
- on
Thursday 26 September 1996 a conference was held with leading
and junior Counsel, solicitors, and Mr Greer in which Mr Greer
was advised that "in the absence of a satisfactory explanation"
for the apparent inconsistency between the records of payments
to Sir Michael Grylls and the evidence given to the Select
Committee in 1990, Mr Greer's credibility would be so undermined
"as to make it most unlikely that his case would succeed";
- that
day, Mr Greer made the decision in principle to discontinue the
libel proceedings;
- on
the next day, the problems caused by Mr Greer's discontinuance
of the libel proceedings were explained to Mr Hamilton
and he was advised that there would be a "a serious adverse
effect" on his own proceedings;
- during
the consultation that day between leading and junior Counsel,
the solicitors, and Mr Hamilton it became apparent that
there was a conflict of interest between the two plaintiffs, so
that the solicitors and Counsel could no longer act for either
plaintiff, or give them further advice.
537. In a letter dated 13
March 1997 Mr Richard Ferguson QC confirmed the account set out
above in relation to Mr Hamilton, stating that both Mr
and Mrs Hamilton were "outraged at what they regarded
as a culpable lack of frankness by Mr Greer". Mr Ferguson's
conclusion was that because of the strength of their feelings
and the manner in which they had been expressed it was impossible
for him, and junior Counsel, to continue to represent both clients.
Accordingly, instructions were withdrawn.
538. The position set out
above was confirmed in a second letter from Mr Stephenson of Peter
Carter-Ruck and Partners, dated 20 March 1997. Mr Stephenson
emphasised that the advice given to Mr Greer on 26 September 1996
was solely based on the inconsistency in relation to the
evidence to the Select Committee about the number of payments
made by Mr Greer to Sir Michael Grylls. It was that unexplained,
and apparently inexplicable, inconsistency which had then led
to Mr Greer's discontinuation of the libel proceedings, and to
the decision of the legal team (Mr Stephenson, Richard Ferguson
QC, and The Hon Victoria Sharpe) to seek advice from their professional
bodies and to conclude that they could no longer continue to act
for Mr Hamilton. Mr Stephenson also stated that Mr
Hamilton's decision to seek a settlement of the libel proceedings
was based on advice received from the successor firm of solicitors
(Crockers), whose position was as set out in the statement read
into the record in the course of Mr Hamilton's oral evidence
to me.[244]
242 Q
800. Back
243 Q
1872. Back
244 See
paras 534-5. Back
|
