|
CHAPTER 6: FAYED'S CONDUCT ANALYSED ACCORDING
TO DTI INSPECTORS' CRITICISMS
292. Fayed has argued that he was unfairly criticised
by the DTI Inspectors and that their procedures were flawed.
In consequence he claims that their conclusion that he lied extensively
in his evidence and was guilty of many acts of dishonesty should
not be accepted.
293. But one does not have to accept all the
Inspectors' criticisms at face value in order to prove his character
as an inveterate liar. It is enough to adopt the criticisms of
the Inspectors and apply the same scheme to his course of conduct
in fabricating and maliciously pursuing his lies against me.
294. The following statements and actions of
Fayed are chronicled according to my own classification of the
various criticisms of the Inspectors. They demonstrate a recognisable
pattern of behaviour. As such, Fayed's conduct in relation to
the DTI Investigation and this one lend support to each other
as proof of his dishonesty and that he is a man upon whose word
it is not safe to rely unless it is supported by some dependable
independent corroboration.
1. Fayed lied
295. (A) witness statement 23 June
1995
(i) "I had been recommended to
Ian Greer Associates in the autumn of 1985 after Mr Greer had
contacted me to offer his services." (paragraph 1).
[See above at paragraph 160 et seq.
Greer was introduced to Fayed by Lord King, as Fayed admitted
on Channel 4's "Despatches" on 16 January 1997, tacitly
admitting he lied in his witness statement].
(ii) "Mr Greer told me it was perfectly
normal to pay MPs to ask questions in the House of Commons and
undertake similar activities."
"At one of our meetings he told me
that MPs could be "rented like taxis."
[See above paragraph 163 et seq].
"Mr Greer specifically put forward
Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith as MPs who would agree to be paid
in exchange for asking questions, lobbying and other parliamentary
services." (paragraph 2).
(iii) "Between 1987 and 1989 I made
a number of payments in cash or Harrods gift vouchers directly
to Mr Hamilton . . . " (paragraph 3).
[See above paragraph 63 et seq.].
(iv) "There were a number of occasions
when Mr Hamilton came to see me either at Harrods or at my London
residence at 60 Park Lane, and on each occasion when he and I
were alone, he asked for money.
"Whilst I knew that I was already
paying Ian Greer Associates a consultancy fee, Mr Hamilton would
tell me that he was undertaking a lot of work for me, that it
was expensive and that he needed money for that work.
"I felt embarrassed to turn him down
and so I invariably gave him a bundle of £2,500.
" . . . each time I made a payment
to him at his request it was because he had or was going to undertake
some parliamentary work for which it was appropriate for him to
be paid." (paragraph 4).
[See above paragraphs 63-132].
(v) "The dates when payments of cash
were made were 2 June 1987, 18 June 1987, 8 July 1987, 18 February
1988, 19 July 1988, 4 October 1988, 25 January 1989 and 27 July
1989. These payments took place over a period of considerable
parliamentary activity by Mr Hamilton, but no specific payment
related directly to a particular action by him. I understood them
to be payments (additional to any made by Mr Greer) to cover
all of Mr Hamilton's activities." (paragraph 6).
[See above. page 18 et seq.].
(vi) "I made special payments at two
other times (apart from the regular fees paid) to Ian Greer for
payment to Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. The first of these was
in May 1987 when I gave Ian Greer two cheques of £12,000
and £6,000 to enable him to pay Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith
for their parliamentary work.
"I was specifically asked by Ian
Greer for this money to pay Messrs Hamilton and Smith and I paid
it to him for that reason.
"These two cheques were not paid
to Ian Greer to pay to conservative candidates in the 1987 General
Election as the Plaintiffs allege . . .
"Secondly, I made a payment of £13,333
to Ian Greer in February 1990. Mr Greer told me that this was,
again, for services rendered by MPs including Mr Hamilton and
for which he had to pay." (paragraph 7).
[See above pp. 8-12 and 16-18.]
(vii) "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."
(viii) "On other occasions I gave
Mr Hamilton Harrods gift vouchers. When Mr Hamilton came to see
me on occasion he would broadly hint that he wanted to "go
shopping". I responded to these hints by giving him Harrods
gift vouchers. On 15 December 1988 I gave Mr Hamilton £3,000
of gift vouchers, on 16 February 1989 I gave him £1,000
of gift vouchers, on 20 February 1989 I gave him £1,000
of gift vouchers and on 21 November 1989 I gave him £3,000
of gift vouchers." (paragraph 10).
See above pp. 26-31.]
(ix) "At Mr Hamilton's request he
and his wife stayed . . . in September 1987 at the Ritz Hotel"
. . . (paragraph 10).
[See above page 98-99.]
(x) "Mr Hamilton asked if he and his
wife could stay again at the Ritz a week or so later" ...
(paragraph 11).
[See above page 99].
(xi) "I confirm that the contents
of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge."
(paragraph 13).
296. (B) Guardian article 20 October 1994
(i) Fayed asserted that he told his
story to The Guardian because it was "his
public duty to make these facts known".
[This is a transparent lie. He could have
refused any improper suggestion and made it public at the time
- October 1985, if Fayed is to be believed. Similarly he could
have made his allegations public at any time thereafter.
Why did he wait until July 1993 to approach
Peter Preston?
Why did he refuse to allow Preston to
identify him, Harrods or the Ritz in The Guardian in October
1993?
Why did he not give documents to Preston
until 17 October 1993 or allow Preston to identify him, Harrods
or the Ritz until the 20 October 1994 article?]
(ii) Our bill at the Ritz included charges
for "chauffeur-driven cars".
[There are no such charges on the bill.]
(iii) We enjoyed "free shopping at
Harrods".
[Neither Fayed nor The Guardian
has produced any justification for this allegation, which is untrue.]
(iv) Mr Greer "told me he could deliver
but I would need to pay. A fee of about £50,000 was mentioned.
But then he said he would have to pay the MPs, Neil Hamilton
and Tim Smith, who would ask the questions . . . I asked how
much and he said it would be £2,000 a question".
[See above page 10 - IGA's fee was £25,000
pa from 1985-89 and £6,000 from 1989-94.]
297. (C) Fayed
lies told to other newspapers
(i) The Sunday Times:
January 1994
"during a conversation between a
`prominent businessman' and a member of the Sunday Times
staff, the businessman apparently volunteered that he had made
payments to four Members of Parliament to ask Questions and that
the `going rate' for each Question was £1,000."
(ii) Today: 24 October 1994
"Harrods boss Mr Al Fayed claims
he has video footage of Rowland saying a Government Minister
took a £1 million bribe from . . . Lonrho."
Today: 25 October 1994
" . . . last week Mr Al Fayed insisted
that he had proof on videotape that a massive bribe had been
paid to a senior Government figure." page 37.
(iii) Daily Mirror: 21 October 1994
"Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed last
night accused a Tory Minister of taking a £500,000 bribe
- and threatened to name the mystery man . . . He claims a
senior Government figure accepted cash to use his influence over
the damning inquiry into the House of Fraser store group in the
1980s."
(iv) Daily Mail 22 October 1994
per Michael Cole
a senior Tory
MP had accepted Harrods gift certificates worth thousands of pounds."
"I saw him countless times in the
late 1980s. Every time it seemed to see me he was having an anniversary
or a birthday of his wife's birthday."
I must have given him gift certificates
worth thousands of pounds. I used to say "'have these on
me and go and spend them.'"
(v) News of the World 23 October
1994
" . .
. the Al-Fayed aide said no record had been kept of the number
of vouchers the Minister had received. But he agreed their total
value would have been around £15,000."
"They were usually £1,000 vouchers."
"Mr Al-Fayed claimed the senior Tory
demanded vouchers."
(vi) Sunday Express 25 September
1994 (Brian Hitchen interview)
"Neil Hamilton had received £50,000
from him (i.e. Fayed) via Ian Greer to ask 17 Questions on behalf
in the House of Commons."
"When Al-Fayed had written him a
letter of congratulations (? on his appointment as a Minister)
the letter had inadvertently been sent to Mr Hamilton's office,
not his home. Mr Hamilton had rung Mr Al-Fayed and complained
vociferously, saying he would have to distance himself from him
in future."
"(Hamilton and his wife had ordered
at the Ritz) £200 bottles of wine."
298. (D) Fayed
Lies Told to Preston and Hencke
(i) "I (Hencke) said to him that
I understood that the two MPs (Smith and Hamilton) had asked 17
questions in the House relating to House of Fraser/Lonrho and
accordingly, I assumed that a total of £34,000 had been
paid over. Mohamed Al-Fayed indicated that this was probably right."
"In addition Mohamed Al-Fayed
mentioned the figures of £8,000 and £10,000 which he
said were paid monthly to IGA . . . I understood that the payments
were made to Smith and Hamilton via Ian Greer."
(ii) "Peter Preston had certainly told
me that Mohamed Al-Fayed had given shopping vouchers to Neil
Hamilton." 2. Fayed Produced Forged Documents Forgery
of a letter from Jonathan Aitken to The Ritz Hotel.
299. This incident was fully investigated by the Privileges
Committee in 1995. The Committee reported on 23 January 1996
(HC Paper 161 Session 1995-96).
The Guardian sent a letter by fax to
the Ritz Hotel purporting to be signed by Jonathan Aitken's MoD
Private Secretary on House of Commons notepaper headed by Mr
Aitken's name, requesting a copy of the bill relating to Mr Aitken's
stay at the hotel on 17 and 18 September 1993.
The letter and the signature of the civil servant
were forgeries.
300. Fayed met Preston first on 14 July 1993
and had already hatched his plot to reveal to The Guardian
his "'cash for questions'" allegations.
Fayed had personally seen Aitken at The Ritz
with the two Saudi arms dealers. Upon his return to the UK he
saw Preston almost immediately - on 30 September. Presumably
he told Preston about Aitken at that meeting, or their next meeting
on 14 October.
They met next on possibly 22 November (Preston's
diary entry is unclear). The forged fax is dated 24 November
1993 so it was presumably at this meeting that Fayed conspired
with Preston to concoct the forgery.
301. The Privileges Committee concluded:
" . . . we accept that the fax was Mr Preston's
idea and that Mr Al Fayed did not instigate Mr Preston's actions.
However, Mr Al-Fayed was prepared to accept and facilitate the
subterfuge in order to protect both himself and the management
of the Ritz Hotel." (paragraph 9).
302. Preston maintained that no deception was
involved as he and Fayed had concocted the forgery between them
and Fayed was, therefore, not deceived.
Fayed gave Preston a fax number to which the
letter was to be sent. Fayed then sent one of his assistants to
receive it. The assistant then, on Fayed's instructions, sent
back a copy of the bill to Preston and placed the fax in the
hotel files.
303. The purpose of the fax was twofold.
First, it was designed to deceive in as much
as it disguised Fayed as the source of the bill. As Preston said
in evidence:
"I was seeking to protect a source who
wished that protection." (Question 56).
Second and most important, it was designed
to deceive potential customers of the Ritz into believing that
customer confidentiality had not been breached in Aitken's case
and that, therefore, it could be relied on in future. Also, the
forgery could protect the hotel from an action for breach of Aitken's
privacy under French law.
3. Fayed lied to professional advisers and official
agencies
(a) Lovell, White, Durrant.
304. During the course of the legal proceedings
Fayed lied to The Guardian's solicitors
- first Lovell, White, Durrant and then Olswang. At least half
the text and the entire burden of Fayed's witness statement is
a lie.
(b) D J Freeman.
305. Fayed lied to his own solicitors, D J Freeman
and caused them to write on his behalf a letter to Sir Geoffrey
Johnson Smith dated 5 December 1994. The letter is a pack of lies
from beginning to end.
The letter is very carefully phrased to make
absolutely clear that the solicitors have no responsibility for
the contents of the letter and act entirely on Fayed's instructions.
They say that they advised him not to make "the evidence
. . . in his possession . . . generally available at this
stage."
On 18 February 1997 Fayed resiled from the specific
allegations in this letter, saying that D J Freeman had misunderstood
his instructions. Fayed has not explained why it took him over
two years to point this out to them.
(c) The Select Committee on Members' Interests.
306. Fayed lied to the Members Interests Committee
in his letter of 5 December 1995.
(d) Alex Carlile QC MP 307. He lied
to Alex Carlile QC MP, through whom he procured a complaint to
the Members Interests Committee.
(e) The Committee of Privileges 308.
Fayed lied to the Privileges Committee in the document which he
gave to the Committee on 1 November 1995, in which he repeated
some of allegations against me which are the subject of this submission
(see paragraphs 7-9 of Fayed's Statement to the Privileges Committee).
He also attached a copy of the D J Freeman letter to Sir Geoffrey
Johnson Smith.
4. Fayed lied to the press
309. See above.
5. Fayed prone to exaggeration
310. (a) Bottles
of wine at the Ritz.
(i) In The Guardian
story of 5 October 1993 Fayed is reported as saying
"One bottle of wine alone cost more than
£150. Most expensive"
(ii) Brian Hitchen reported to the Prime
Minister that my Ritz bill had included
"£200 bottles of wine." (See
paragraph 245(3) above).
(iii) Hencke's transcription of his note
of a meeting with Cole and Fayed on 18 October 1994 says
"Ordered a bottle of wine for 10,000 francs."
That would have been over one thousand pounds!
311.
(b) The price of a Parliamentary Question.
(i) In his contacts with the Sunday
Times in January 1994 Fayed stated that he had paid four MPs
and that
"the going rate was £1,000."
(Privileges Committee First Report 1994-95 paragraph 11).
(ii) In October 1994 The Guardian
printed Fayed's allegation that Greer had told him that
". . .it would be £2,000 a question."
(iii) He repeated this in his witness statement
of 23 June 1995 but resiled from this figure in respect of his
allegations of direct cash payments for PQs. Referring to his
discussions with Preston and Hencke in October 1994 he said
". . . £2,000 per question. This was
simply a rough guess on my part as to how much I appeared to be
paying per question and . . . was not a figure charged to me
as there was no tariff for such services." (paragraph 5).
(iv) In his interview with Brian Hitchen
on 25 September 1994 Fayed said
". . . Hamilton had received £50,000
from him via Ian Greer to ask 17 Questions on his behalf . . ."
i.e., a tariff of over £3,000 per Question.
(v) Fayed began by alleging to Preston
that it was just Greer who was paying me. Then he expanded his
allegations to include direct cash payments from him. Finally,
he added cash left for collection in brown envelopes.
312. (c) The value of the gift vouchers.
(i) News of the World 23 October
1994:
". . . no record had been kept of the number
of vouchers the Minister had received. But . . . their total
value would have been around £15,000."
"They were usually £1,000 vouchers."
(See paragraphs 115-6 above).
This was a case of Fayed starting with an exaggeration
which was scaled down in the more detailed later version.
(ii) D J Freeman letter of 5 December 1994,
repeated in Fayed witness statement June 1995: These documents
contained very precise records of the number of vouchers and the
dates on which they were allegedly given: £3,000 on 15 December
1988, £1,000 on 16 February 1989, £1,000 on 20 February
1989 and £3,000 on 21 November 1989 - a total of £8,000.
The vouchers were allegedly in £100 denominations.
(See paragraphs 110-32 above).
313. (d) The Greer fees. When Fayed originally
spoke to Preston and Hencke he mentioned that Greer had charged
a £50,000 fee to HoF and a monthly fee of £8,000 to
£10,000 per month, which varied according to the number of
PQs asked.
This was a wild exaggeration. There was no fee
of £50,000. The monthly retainer was an invariable £2,083,
plus one special payment of £13,333 (plus VAT) for extra
work done in connection with the publication of the DTI Report.
From 1990 the monthly fee reduced to £500 per month.
It was not until 27 September 1996 that Fayed
produced his new allegation that, in addition to all that he had
earlier alleged about payments to Greer, he had paid him £5,000
per quarter in cash. This was completely untrue.
(See paragraphs 51, 57, 59, 61-2 above and section
6(b) below).
6. Fayed's Lies Mutate as Circumstances Change
(a) Cash for Questions:
314. (i)
The Guardian 1993.
The "cash for questions" saga began
on 14 July 1993 when Peter Preston, having been
"contacted by Mohamed Al-Fayed via intermediaries,"
visited Fayed ostensibly to discuss another bogus Guardian
story,
"concerning relations between the Conservative
Party and individuals in the Middle East."
Preston had
been led to believe that Fayed would be able to provide information
tending to confirm that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi
Defence Minister, had covertly made large contributions to the
Conservative Party.
Evidently, that hope was dashed as The Guardian
was subsequently obliged to admit in a Statement in Open Court
that the story was completely false, and to apologise and pay
substantial damages to Prince Bandar.
The real purpose of the invitation was for Fayed
to begin the drip-feed of allegations against Ian Greer and me.
Preston took the bait.
The main burden of Fayed's allegations was that
both Tim Smith and I had been paid £2,000 a time by Ian
Greer to ask PQs, and that Fayed had paid Greer for this purpose.
[It was not until Hencke met Fayed on 17 October
1994 that the £50,000 fee and £8,000-£10,000 per
month were mentioned. The cheques for £12,000 and £6,000
were not mentioned until The Guardian Defence was settled
on 6 December 1994].
There was no mention at this stage of Greer
co-ordinating a group of four MPs.
Preston met Fayed again on 30 September, 14
October, and 22 November (possibly) 1993.
By January 1994, he had obviously formed the
view that Preston was not going to run the "cash for questions"
story for lack of proof. He turned to another newspaper - The
Sunday Times.
315. (ii) The Sunday Times January-July
1994.
The details of the story Fayed told them were
rather different. In particular, Fayed claimed that
he paid £1,000 per Question and that;
he paid the cash directly as well as through Ian Greer
to four MPs [See paragraphs 235-43 above].
316. (iii) The Sunday Express September 1994.
Fayed continued to have meetings with Preston
- on 31 January, 14 March, 16 May (?) and 19 September. Unfortunately
we do not know what he said at these meetings as Preston cannot
locate his "jottings".
On 25 September Fayed met Brian Hitchen, editor
of the Sunday Express, and told him that he had
paid Hamilton £50,000 via Ian Greer to
ask 17 PQs i.e., he paid £3,000 per Question.
(See paragraph 245 above).
317. (iv) David Hencke 18 October 1994.
At this meeting Fayed mentioned that he had
paid
£50,000 as a fee to IGA and
£8,000-£10,000 a month to IGA and
Smith and Hamilton had been paid jointly £34,000
for asking 17 PQs (i.e., £2,000 per PQ).
These allegations were published in The Guardian
on 20 October 1994. (See paragraph 51 above).
318. (v) Fayed letter to Sir G Johnson Smith
MP and The Guardian's Defence 5 December 1994.
Alerted by professional advisers to the unsustainability
of the allegations listed above Fayed mutated them:
He introduced the cheques for £12,000,
£6,000 and £13,333;
he also produced for the first time the allegations
of direct payments of £20,000 in cash and £8,000 in
gift vouchers with precise details of dates;
319. (vi) Fayed
witness statement 23 June 1995.
He mentions the "group of four" MPs;
He carefully says that the alleged payments
of cash and vouchers were made "when we were alone"
and "no-one else would have seen".
Recognising that the arithmetic based on £2,000
per PQ did not add up he
changed his previously categoric statement to
"£2,000 at a rough guess", stating for the first
time that this was how much he "appeared to be paying"
as "there was no tariff for such services." Also
recognising an obvious weakness in the gift voucher allegation
he stated that
"no records of vouchers prior to 1991 existed".
He also had to explain some inexplicable arithmetic
- how it came about that I allegedly received the lion's share
of the cash and vouchers (£28,000 out of £34,000) notwithstanding
the fact that Smith asked more than three times as many PQs as
I did. He attempted to square this circle by saying
"I have a less clear recollection of the
exact dates and amounts paid to Tim Smith because the sums involved
are much smaller - he was far less greedy - and because he stopped
undertaking parliamentary work at a fairly early stage. . ."
(paragraph 12).
320. (b) Cash for Greer Fayed is wildly
inconsistent in his accounts of how much money he paid Greer for
his services and allegedly for paying MPs.
(i) There is no mention at all in Preston's
witness statement of any precise amounts - apart from the allegation
of £2,000 per PQ.
(ii) He told Brian Hitchen on 25 September
1994 that he paid me via Ian Greer £50,000 for 17 PQs.
(iii) It appears that Fayed gave no precise
details until his 10-12 minute interview with Hencke on 18 October
1994. Fayed then said that he paid Greer
£50,000 as a fee
£8,000 and £10,000 per month
£34,000 of which (or in addition to which)
was paid to Smith and Hamilton. (Hencke paragraph 19).
(iv) On 27 September 1996 Iris Bond was
produced to "remember" that, in additional to all the
above alleged payments, Greer was paid £5,000 a quarter
in cash.
(v) Alison Bozek "similarly recalls"
that
"Sums of £5,000 in cash were paid
to Mr Greer on a quarterly basis." (paragraph 3) But,
confusingly, she then went on to say that she recalled:
"putting amounts of between £2,000
and £5,000 in envelopes (for Greer) at various times."
(paragraph 5).
To begin with Fayed simply said the first thing
which came into his head. The figures he gave Hencke bear no
relation whatever to the accounting records which are available.
As these allegations are totally unsustainable
he was obliged to invent a completely new set of allegations
with his long-serving employees produced to give false evidence
(as analysed above at paragraphs 133-59).
321. (c) Gift vouchers The gift
vouchers allegation was first set out in the D J Freeman letter
of 5 December 1994.
Hencke says in his witness statement of 26 June
1995 that his:
"notes do not record everything that Mohamed
Al Fayed told me at the meeting" (on 19 October 1994) and
"I do not remember whether or not Mohamed
Al-Fayed mentioned giving Neil Hamilton shopping vouchers - he
may have done so in passing." (paragraph 19).
Fayed must have passed at high speed! In the
course of a mere 10-12 minutes he apparently told Hencke all
that is set out on pages 19 and 20 of his witness statement.
322. Hencke went on to say:
"Peter Preston had certainly told me that
Mohamed Al-Fayed had given shopping vouchers to Neil Hamilton."
However, Preston makes no mention of vouchers in his witness
statement and has no documentary record of such a mention in
any of the dozen meetings or several phone conversations he had
had with Fayed.
323. The Guardian article of 20 October
1994 includes a quote from Fayed:
"He's been to Harrods with his wife shopping
free." This was probably made up by Hencke just as Preston
invented a statement to put into Fayed's mouth in the document
entitled "Rough Draft" referred to at paragraph 221
(ii) above.
324. The first reference to "gift certificates"
which I have found was in the Daily Mail of 22 October
1994, followed by a more detailed reference in the News of
the World on 23 October 1994. I did not see these at the
time.
325. These two accounts are inconsistent
with the first reference to vouchers which I actually saw, which
was in The Guardian's Defence dated 14 December 1994.
(The D J Freeman letter to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith dated 5
December also contained the specific voucher allegation but, on
account of Fayed's embargo, I was not allowed to see that until
January 1995).
(i) The Daily Mail piece has Fayed
clearly saying that he volunteered vouchers unprompted:
"I used to say `Have these on me and go
and spend them'." Yet in Fayed's witness statement in
June 1995 he clearly alleges that I asked for vouchers, which
he felt "embarrassed" to refuse:
"Mr Hamilton . . . would broadly hint that
he wanted to `go shopping'." The Freeman letter says:
" . . . at the request of Mr Hamilton,
Mr Al-Fayed gave Mr Hamilton Harrods gift vouchers." All
these statements are lies in addition to being inconsistent.
(ii) The News of the World piece
claims:
"They were usually £1,000 vouchers"
and
" . . . their total value would have been
around £15,000." Fayed's witness statement and
the Freeman letter state that they were £100 vouchers and
the total value was £8,000.
326. Furthermore the D J Freeman letter is inconsistent
with the witness statement given to Lovell White Durrant: the
Freeman letter says the vouchers were given "at my request"
whereas the witness statement says that Fayed gave them in response
to "broad hints" from me.
All the above statements are lies in addition
to being inconsistent.
327. (d) 1987 Election Fighting Funds
The Guardian article of 20 October 1994 does not mention
the cheques for £12,000 and £6,000 which Fayed falsely
alleged were paid to Greer to pay Tim Smith and me for putting
down PQs at £2,000 a time.
There is no mention of them in Preston or Hencke's
witness statement accounts of their conversations with Fayed
prior to 20 October 1994. Nor is there any mention of them in
the notes which Hencke took of his 19 October 1994 interview
with Fayed.
This allegation was first made in the D J Freeman
letter of 5 December 1994 and it subsequently appeared in The
Guardian Defence nine days later.
As far as I can tell these allegations never
saw the light of day in any newspaper until after 1 October 1994
when The Guardian printed or leaked the details.
328. However, by this stage the news value of
the story had moved on from the lies to the basic truth (as set
out in paragraphs 55-6 above). On 2 October Michael Cole, speaking
on Fayed's behalf, said that the cheques were:
"money for some of the MPs who were going
to be fighting the 1986-7 (sic) General Election."
329.
Although Fayed had categorically denied Cole's truthful account
(in paragraph 7 of his June 1995 witness statement), by October
1996 it was convenient to him to change his story. The Guardian
ensured that the focus of media attention on 2 October was Greer's
1987 election fund and those MPs who received contributions.
330. The caravan had moved on and the news story
was that no fewer than 21 Tories had been ensnared with me (although,
as it happens, The Guardian or Fayed have never accused
me of receiving election contributions from Greer). To fuel the
flames Fayed mutated his story and, most unusually, found it advantageous
to tell the truth - but only in order to distort it.
331. As Trevor McDonald put it on News at Ten:
"The row over parliamentary sleaze spread
beyond the former Trade Minister Neil Hamilton today to embroil
more than 20 other MPs . . . They were all given money for their
election campaigns by the lobbyist Ian Greer . . . in an astonishing
intervention the Harrods boss Mohamed Al-Fayed said he gave money
to Mr Greer after Mr Greer told him `you could hire MPs like taxis'."
332. Although it was true that the cheques had been solicited
for the election campaigns, Fayed implied that the money was
paid and received in the expectation of reciprocal favours being
provided to him. That was a lie.
333. (e) No witnesses to alleged cash handovers
To begin with Fayed's allegations of direct face-to-face
cash payments to me were not supported by witness evidence. Indeed
he was careful to stress that:
" . . . no-one else would have seen the
money being given to Mr Hamilton." (Fayed witness statement
paragraph 4).
334. In view of the transparent absurdity of
his precise allegations when closely examined, he clearly had
to do something dramatic to try to impart some credibility to
them prior to trial. Their nature precluded the forging of documents;
so the only option left to him was to produce a witness.
335. However, because of the care with which
his witness statement had been drafted, he could not produce
a witness of the alleged transaction itself. Therefore, he produced
three witnesses to
(i) to say they saw him stuffing envelopes
with money for me
(ii) to say that they had done so themselves
and
(iii) that they had arranged delivery of
the envelopes to me and
(iv) that I had picked up envelopes.
These witnesses were produced only on 27 September
1996, years after the original allegations. They purportedly
corroborate Fayed's statement of June 1995 and also produce completely
new allegations of my picking up cash in brown envelopes.
The secretary, Iris Bond, was allegedly a witness
to his allegations of personally handing me cash in one-to-one
meetings.
The former personal assistant, Alison Bozek,
was allegedly a witness to the new false allegation of cash in
brown envelopes delivered to me or to be picked up by me.
The security guard, Philip Bromfield, was allegedly
a witness to my collecting envelopes (but has made no allegation
about their contents).
336. Clearly, it was only as the full horror
dawned upon Fayed that he would be subject to rigorous cross-examination
in Court that, in desperation at the last minute, he suborned
these hapless employees to tell this pack of lies. It was not
necessary to do so earlier, as the case might never get to Court.
When it appeared certain that the case would fight Fayed gambled
on a last desperate throw of the dice.
337. We were told about these witnesses on the
evening of Friday 27 September 1996; the case was due to begin
on Tuesday 1 October. He left it until virtually the last possible
moment before finally putting them into play. It is obvious that
these mutations of his allegations had to be developed in order
to support and supplant the earlier allegations which had been
weakened or wholly discredited.
The statements of these witnesses is comprehensively
analysed above at paragraphs 133-159.
7. Fayed prone to make dishonest assertions
without supporting evidence
338. Fayed's original Cash for
Questions allegations were notable for the lack of corroborative
witnesses or documentary evidence.
(i) The sums of money allegedly involved
are substantial - tens of thousands of pounds. It is strange
that Fayed kept no records at all of these alleged cash disbursements.
(ii) It is convenient also that the
records of gift vouchers from the late 1980s were destroyed in
May 1991 (see paragraph 9 Fayed witness statement).
(iii) It is extremely suspicious that
new allegations involving further large sums (cash in envelopes)
should have been produced at the 59th minute of the 11 hour on
27 September 1996 with no documentary evidence to support them
- but with witnesses who had hitherto not been heard of.
339. It is clear from his carefully drafted
witness statement that his "cash for questions" allegations
were deliberately crafted to be without witness or documentary
corroboration. Realising that his uncorroborated word was unlikely
to be believed he felt obliged to mutate his allegations and,
lacking documents, produce witnesses to support them. Fayed nowhere
makes these new allegations himself.
8. Fayed procured false witnesses
340. Philip
Bromfield, Iris Bond and Alison Bozek's proposed evidence is subjected
to critical scrutiny above at paragraphs 133-159.
341. (a) Philip Bromfield
Bromfield is a security guard employed by Fayed since 1983.
His evidence is that on "at least two occasions"
he handed me an envelope at the front desk at 60 Park Lane. I
cannot recall any instance of collecting an envelope from 60 Park
Lane. His evidence is a lie.
342. Bromfield is simply doing his master's
bidding as MacNamara (the Head of Security) did in the Bettermann
case (see Appendix 4)
(i) MacNamara told lies to Bettermann in
order to try to extract a "confession" from him.
(ii) MacNamara produced a tape to the Court
in Dubai; it had been tampered with and was incomplete, inaccurate
and misleading.
(iii) MacNamara was prepared to give false
evidence to the Court in Dubai.
343. It is scarcely credible that Bromfield
should "remember" the alleged events seven to nine years
afterwards. I was, to all intents and purposes, an unknown backbencher.
Compared with the many celebrated people Fayed moved amongst
I was scarcely worth the blink of an eyelid.
344. Nor would it have been in any way memorable
if I had twice called to collect an envelope as falsely alleged.
Presumably people are delivering and collecting envelopes and
other packages to the reception at 60 Park Lane all the time.
Even if Bromfield's evidence were true, why should these two anodyne
occurrences nearly a decade ago have marked themselves out amongst
thousands of similar ones and stuck in his memory? After
all, he does not claim that the envelopes contained money; he
is silent as to the alleged contents.
345. Ian Greer has denied to me that Fayed ever
paid him cash sums. Again, it is difficult to see why Bromfield
should remember Greer at all. Even though an unknown backbencher
I was at least a public figure. Greer was a private citizen,
one of many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of individuals who would
have called to see Fayed from time to time in the course of 1985-90.
346. Even if envelopes had been left for Greer
that would hardly be remarkable unless the envelopes contained
something unusual - which Bromfield does not claim. The work Greer
was doing for Fayed involved the preparation and consideration
of documents, drafts of which would have been sent to or collected
from Fayed and his advisers regularly.
347. It is scarcely credible that Bromfield,
after this lapse of time should "remember" such commonplace
events (even if true) with sufficient clarity for his evidence
to be relied on to corroborate the serious charges which Fayed
has belatedly made.
(b) Iris Bond
348. Bond's witness
statement is analysed in depth at paragraphs 144 et seq.
Bond has been employed as a Fayed secretary since 1979.
Her evidence is that
(i) "on several occasions" Fayed
told her that I "was coming to collect (my) money" and
Fayed would stuff an envelope with £2,500 in notes in her
presence.
(ii) On another occasion she alleges that
Fayed telephoned her from Harrods and asked her to bring around
£5,000 in cash "as he was expecting Mr Hamilton to meet
him there".
(iii) On "at least one" occasion
she left an envelope containing cash at the reception for me.
These statements are lies.
349. Their overall construction goes flatly
contrary to Fayed's carefully constructed evidence that "no-one
would have seen" his alleged cash handovers (paragraph 4
Fayed witness statement).
It is inconceivable, were Bond's evidence truthful,
that it would not have been produced simultaneously with (and
to corroborate) Fayed's earlier account.
350. Bond has worked in his inner sanctum for
nearly 20 years. Fayed has, himself, described her in print as
a "senior secretary" (Spectator 26 October 1996
page 38). She must have had daily contact with him at all material
times and may well have seen his witness statement when in draft.
351. It is also rather odd that Fayed should so frequently
if not invariably have explained to her why he wanted the cash
which he asked her to provide. I doubt that he is in the habit
of explaining his actions to underlings, particularly if they
involve something inherently and obviously improper.
352. Fayed's own evidence is that he "prefers
cash as a method of settling bills rather than cheques or credit
cards". In view of the nature of the allegations he has
made against me and Greer, (and the evidence produced in the
Vanity Fair case) Fayed is obviously far from averse to envelope-stuffing.
353. On the basis of Bond's own evidence of
the role she plays in Fayed's life she must have witnessed other
cases of Fayed's making cash payments to individuals. Considering
the dubious nature of such practices, her own honesty must be
called into question by the fact that she has remained so long
in his employment as a close confidante and has, effectively,
acted as an accomplice in transactions that she must have known
to be at best dubious and at worst criminal.
354. It would be interesting to see her own
bank statements and tax returns to discover whether Fayed ever
paid her in cash. In view of Fayed's own admissions this is not
beyond the bounds of possibility.
(c) Alison Bozek
355. Bozek's witness
statement is analysed in depth at paragraph 144 et seq.
Bozek was a personal assistant to Fayed between March 1981
and September 1994. She then left to become a trainee solicitor
with Allen and Overy, a well-known firm of solicitors who have
acted for Fayed. Presumably he was instrumental in securing her
articles.
356. Her evidence is that Greer regularly
telephoned to ask Fayed for cash and that "on these occasions"
(the inference is "invariably") she watched him stuffing
envelopes with cash. Occasionally Fayed would apparently "remember"
without prompting from Greer that he would need to pay cash to
hand over to him. Bozek states that "on occasion" she
herself stuffed envelopes with cash for him to hand over to Greer
- in "amounts of between £2,000 and £5,000."
Bozek also alleges that she witnessed Fayed stuffing envelopes
for me and that she stuffed them herself. She also alleges that
she took the initiative in telephoning me to tell me to come and
pick the envelope up.
357. (a) If her evidence be truthful, her willing
participation in such obviously dubious transactions is hardly
the conduct expected of a trainee solicitor with a top City firm.
Taking her own evidence at face value gives an interesting insight
into her own probity and, hence, her credibility as a witness
of truth.
If she were capable of countenancing over a
long period such patently dishonest transactions as she alleges,
she is obviously more committed to Fayed that to honesty and
truth. That must diminish her credibility as a probative witness.
358. She has been induced to give her false
evidence in order that her status as a trainee solicitor should
add to her allegations a spurious credibility which Fayed's conspicuously
lack by virtue of their demonstrable inconsistency and irrationality.
Fayed has previously shown himself willing to
mislead reputable solicitors into giving (unwittingly) false
evidence on oath on his behalf (see Appendix 2 paragraph - Herbert
Smith & Co, before the DTI Inspectors).
He told a pack of lies both to his solicitors,
D J Freeman, and the prosecuting authorities in Dubai in the
Bettermann case (see paragraphs 42-8 and Appendix 3).
359. Bozek had unrivalled opportunity to see
at close quarters Fayed's character and methods of working. She
willingly acquiesced in his unscrupulousness, indicating at the
best indifference to it and at worst positive approval of it.
Such experience is hardly the expected background of respectable
solicitors and her evidence should be treated with caution accordingly.
360. (b) Bozek has previously told lies to the
authorities on Fayed's instructions.
Fayed needed a new cook at his country house
in Surrey and asked Bettermann, then MD of International Marine
Services (a Fayed company based in Dubai), to send him the best
cook employed by the company. Bettermann recommended a Sri Lankan
national, Ho Chee Sing. He was questioned on entry to the UK and
Bozek gave a false statement to the effect that she and Christoph
Bettermann were living together and Ho intended to stay with
them. (See paragraph 147 above).
9. Fayed the character assassin
361. Fayed
has done to me what he did previously to
(i) Peter Wickman (See Appendix 2).
(ii) Christoph Betterman (See Appendix
3).
(iii) Professor Barry Rider and the
members of the Trade and Industry Select Committee (See Appendix
4).
(iv) Graham Jones (former Managing Director
of Harrods) was falsely accused of having taken bribes from the
vendors of Modena Engineering in order to destroy Fayed's negotiations
to purchase the company. (See paragraphs 569-579).
(v) Peter Bolliger (formerly deputy
Managing Director, HoF) was accused of theft.
| 
