|
CHAPTER 8: LATE DEVELOPMENTS
474. The late appearance of crucial documents
and witnesses to support the Fayed allegations
(a) A file of telephone messages was
produced in mid-September 1996.
(b) Iris Bond, Alison Bozek and Philip
Bromfield signed witness statements on 27 September 1996.
(c) Royston Webb wrote a letter to the
Inquiry on 13 February.
Considering the cogency of this evidence,
if true, it is surprising that it did not appear much earlier.
475. From October 1994 until September 1996
Fayed expressly maintained that his allegations were not corroborated
by either witnesses or documents (except for some neutral entries
in his engagement diaries).
476. Everything, therefore, depended on Fayed's
personal credibility as a witness and the coherence of his allegations.
Fayed's oral evidence makes clear that he
is a compulsive liar or a fantasist. His allegations are specific,
inconsistent, changeable and irrational.
477. His principal allegations of cash and
gift voucher payments made to me on specific dates appeared and
were repeated in a series of formal documents:
(i) a letter from D J Freeman of 5 December
1994;
(ii) The Guardian's
Defence of 14 December 1994;
(iii) his witness statement of 23 June
1995;
(iv) his evidence to the Privileges Committee
of 1 November 1995 and
(v) his Submission to the Inquiry dated
12 December 1996.
478. As recently as 23 January 1997, during
the Inquiry, he sought to change this crucial evidence (through
his Counsel, Christopher Carr QC).
However, Fayed's own evidence of 23 January
was confused and did not support his Counsel's submissions.
479. Fayed then procured a letter from D J Freeman
dated 18 February 1997, by means of which he sought to circumvent
the evidence of Timothy O'Sullivan. It did not fully support his
Counsel's submissions.
Given the unreliability of his own evidence,
of which this is only the most recent demonstration, it is evident
that witness and documentary corroboration is of crucial importance
to his case.
Why was the telephone message pad produced but
not the security records?
480. The
production of the telephone message pad was designed to provide
a pathway to the evidence of Bond and, from her to Bozek and
Bromfield.
It was necessary to explain why their evidence
had not been produced hitherto and to overcome the contradictory
evidence in Fayed's witness statement:
(a) that "no-one else would have seen
the money being given to Mr Hamilton" and
(b) the lack of any allegation of direct
cash payments to Greer.
481. Greer's purported messages about Fayed's
owing £5,000 for July, August and September 1988 were the
pegs upon which Bond's evidence hung.
My purported message about an alleged meeting
between Fayed and me on 2 June 1987 and other messages indicating
meetings between us similarly would tend to corroborate Fayed's
specific allegations of direct cash payments to me.
482. Bozek said that telephone message books
going back to 1983 were kept in a locked filing cabinet in Fayed's
office (see Q51). Such meticulousness with ephemera calls for
some explanation - why were the message books retained but not
the records of the security men?
It is difficult to understand
why Fayed would retain more than 60 books of largely meaningless
telephone messages but would not retain the very meaningful records
of those who came into the building and allegedly collected large
amounts of cash.
483. The notable difference between the two
kinds of records is that:
The security records would be very specific
- recording a date and time at which an envelope had been allegedly
collected. It would be very risky to forge an entry in the security
record because, (even though Fayed knows that I cannot produce
my diaries for 1987, 1988 and 1989), I might be able to prove
by other means that I was elsewhere at a particular time.
The telephone messages purporting to come from
me and my wife do not create such a risk because they are non-specific.
It is notable that the two messages on which I was questioned
in my oral evidence have no date or time on them. Thus Fayed
avoids the risk that we could prove that we were unable to make
a telephone call at the relevant time.
484. Furthermore, the handwriting of the
relevant entries is unknown to Bond or Bozek (see Q43 and Q213).
As Bond said:
"It was probably one of the juniors. We
have about six other members of staff and that junior may have
left, but I could not say for sure because there are no initials
on it of who actually took the message." (Q213).
Direct evidence of the contents of the alleged
messages is, therefore, unavailable.
485. Fayed waited for nearly two years to produce
this crucial message pad - long after the Discovery stage of
the libel action. Being within two weeks or so of trial he could
be reasonably sure that no more documentary evidence would be
forthcoming from Greer and me. It would also enable him to fabricate
evidence as necessary with reasonable confidence.
486. He is bound to have known that these voluminous
documents, if genuine, were available. They were retained in
a locked filing cabinet in Fayed's office (Bozek Q51). It is almost
inconceivable that he was not asked by The Guardian and
their solicitors to search minutely for such records. As they
were under his nose in his office all the time (and added to
at the rate of about 17 volumes a year) why did he not disclose
them until mid-September 1996? The message relating to 2 June
1987 487. It is extremely unlikely that I went to London
during the 1987 General Election campaign. I do often spend time
campaigning in neighbouring marginal seats; in 1992 I aided Chris
Butler in Warrington South, Tony Favell in Stockport, and Tom
Sackville in Bolton West in 1987, but I would not have gone to
London for such a purpose.
488. It is possible that a meeting on 2 June
had been agreed earlier, and that I was returning a call to me
from Fayed's office asking whether it would have to be cancelled
in view of the General Election. The "Yes" could, therefore,
have been in answer to that question. If that is correct the secretary
who took the message must just have forgotten to erase the entry
in Fayed's diary.
489. It is extremely difficult to discern any
value to Fayed in a meeting in the middle of a General Election
campaign. It would clearly have been impossible for me to do
anything to help him at that moment because Parliament was not
in existence, there were no MPs and all Ministers were campaigning.
Fayed has produced no documents indicating any non-Parliamentary
activity by me at that time.
490. Furthermore, his diary records that we
met on 18 June 1987. If so, it seems probable that the meeting
scheduled for 2 June was postponed to 18 June, Parliament having
first met after the Election on the 17th.
As nothing could have been done since the
2 June, there could be little point in having another on the 18th
if the first meeting had gone ahead.
The messages relating to December 1988
491. There is no evidence, apart from the telephone message
from Greer's office on 13 December, that I attended a meeting
with Fayed, Grylls and Smith on Tuesday 20 December 1988.
492. In fact it is probable that I did not attend
this meeting, if it took place. In those days my wife and I always
went down to Portsmouth for a Christmas lunch with my parents
in the last few days before the Christmas Recess, as we always
spent Christmas itself with her parents in Cornwall.
493. We definitely did not go to Portsmouth
on Monday 19th, as I asked a supplementary to Oral Question 8
on that afternoon. The House rose on Thursday 22nd. It is likely
that I cancelled my attendance at Fayed's meeting on the 20th
in order to go home.
494. I am supported in this analysis by Fayed's
telephone message itself. The message is undated but, from its
place in the pad, it appears to have been taken on 14 December.
The message says that I was
" . . . free tomorrow (i.e., the 15th)
and next Wednesday (i.e., 21st) after 2.30 pm." I could
not have been free in London after 2.30 pm on the 21st if I had
arranged Christmas lunch in Portsmouth on that day. Hence, the
only day available would have been Tuesday 20th - which explains
the message. I would have wanted, perhaps, to discuss the subject
of the meeting on the 20th which I could not attend and to deliver
a Christmas present to him.
Fayed's employee witnesses' evidence is suspect
495. Three of his four last-minute witnesses are financially
dependent upon him: i.e., Webb, Bond and Bromfield. We know from
the cases of Christoph Bettermann, Graham Jones and Peter Bolliger
what happens to employees who step out of line.
The fourth, Bozek, was employed by him for 13
years and presumably obtained her articles at Allen & Overy,
(whom Fayed has retained from time to time), through Fayed's
agency.
496. Fayed was clearly aware of the importance
of corroboration in June 1995, which was why he procured the
witness statement of his chauffeur, Glyn John. Fayed must have
been aware of the importance of the evidence which Bond, Bozek
and Webb could give.
497. Indeed, as The Guardian points out
in "Sleaze," (see page 174) Fayed was principally dependent
upon Webb for his personal legal advice. (Webb was present at
the meeting with D J Freeman on 29 November 1994 when Fayed gave
the statement upon which The Guardian's Defence was based
- see D J Freeman letter of 18 February 1997). Webb must have
known the nature and importance of their evidence. He was also
aware, of course, of the importance of his own evidence, as subsequently
revealed in his letter of 13 February 1997.
498. There are good reasons for believing that
all four witnesses are lying.
At Q127 Alison Bozek states that Fayed trusted
them "implicitly" and "would not allow anyone he
did not trust to work in his office".
Bond and Bozek confessed to performing dubious
functions on Fayed's behalf - e.g., stuffing envelopes with money
in bribes and kick-backs and distributing it. They were entrusted
with enormous sums of cash - perhaps £1 million a year in
cash flowed through their office.
499. They were responsible for distributing
cash without the necessity to keep any records because, as Bozek
stated:
"They are not the sort of payments you
record." (Q126) Astonishingly, the office practice was
that the petty cash (average £2,500 a week) was recorded
but not the larger sums.
500. Fayed's personal staff were remarkable
in other ways too. Despite the fact that huge sums of money were
being paid out in cash in brown envelopes:
"There was no curiosity in the office as
to what was happening." (Q130).
Such individuals, entrusted with such vast sums
of money without the need to account and with no curiosity about
regular activities which reek of dishonesty are, no doubt, amply
rewarded for their discretion and they unquestionably have a
fierce personal loyalty to Fayed himself.
Bozek and Bond's excellent memories of Greer and
Hamilton 501. Bozek and Bond are
both apparently endowed with excellent memories in respect of
Ian Greer and myself.
For example, Bozek purports to remember even
trivialities 10 years after the event:
"I do remember it very well. I remember
being told by Mr Al-Fayed that Neil Hamilton's wife was going
to call. I remember before I had a chance to call her she phoned
me and gave me the dates they would go to Paris. I do not know
why I specifically remember it but I do." (Q164).
She purports to justify this "recollection"
because
" . . . I had started to feel the Hamiltons
were starting to take advantage of Mr Al-Fayed." (Q165).
502. It is difficult to take this remark
seriously as, apart from lunch on 10 March 1986, I am not conscious
of having received anything from him at all prior to our visit
to the Ritz in September 1987. My wife had not met him at all.
Bozek says:
"He would give them presents, for example."
(Q165) Even Fayed has not made such an allegation in respect
of the period prior to September 1987.
Of course, Fayed alleges he paid me £2,500
on 2 and 18 June and 8 July 1987 but this is a lie. Bozek has
no grounds whatever for believing that I was taking advantage
of Fayed.
Bozek and Bond's total inability to remember anyone
else 503. Whereas her memory appears
to be excellent when giving evidence about Greer and me it deserts
her altogether in respect of anybody else:
" . . . the only large payments of cash
were to Mr Greer and Mr Hamilton? Is that it?"
"The only large payments . . . if there
were going to be other large payments I would have to remember.
It would be necessary for you to remind me to whom they might
have been made." (Q82)
"Why?"
"Well, because there was a lot of money
coming in all the time and going out all the time. I do not remember
specifically paying large amounts of money to anybody else"
(Q83).
This is surprising.
Counsel to the Inquiry defined "large amounts"
as "more than £1,000 on a regular basis" (Q103).
He asked Bozek whether she recalled such payments to anyone other
than Hamilton or Greer.
Bozek remembers no one apart from Hamilton and
Greer 504. At this point she was
afflicted by the discretion which Fayed expects of those whom
he trusts to work in his office:
"I think in order to answer that question
properly I would have to look at past records . . . I cannot
say off the top of my head . . . that anyone else received
regular payments larger than £1,000." (Q103) This
is a lie.
505. She was asked whether she remembered Francesca
Pollard (Q87). She did remember her and said:
"It is possible that Mr Al-Fayed gave her
money, but I really do not know." (Q88) Counsel to the
Inquiry then asked her:
"Did you put any money in envelopes for
her?"
"Not specifically, but I am sure there
were envelopes left for her. Whether they contained money I do
not know." This is a lie.
Bozek said:
"If the envelope contained money I would
put my initials on the back. I would seal the envelope and write
my initials over the seal and then sellotape over my signature."
(Q92) Francesca Pollard 506. Francesca Pollard deposed
in a statement that:
"I received £1,000 per month for the
first two or three months of 1987 and then started to get £2,000
per month from about Spring 1987 to March 1990. I also received
£1,000 from (Fayed) on 11 June 1991 . . . . Apart from a
couple of occasions when he handed it over to me personally and
a couple of occasions . . . when it was delivered to my home
. . . . I would collect the money from (Fayed's) Park Lane address."
(Paragraph 53 Pollard statement).
She exhibited envelopes addressed to her and
stated:
"The seal on the back of one has been initialled
over with the initials of, I believe, Alison, Mohamed Fayed's
personal secretary." (Paragraph 54 Pollard statement).
507. Bozek was pressed further by Counsel to
the Inquiry and, after conferring with her own legal advisers,
answered:
"I do not remember large payments to anybody
else (than Greer and Hamilton)." (Q97).
This must be a lie. Bozek must have been responsible
for stuffing some of these envelopes and sending them down to
the security guards for collection.
508. Counsel pressed her further in Q104 and
Q105. Bozek then tried to play for time, eventually seeking refuge
in the following words:
" . . . you specifically notice somebody
like Neil Hamilton taking cash, whereas other people you might
not specifically notice because they are not quite so prominent
as an MP." (Q105).
509. Bond suffers similarly from an acute
memory loss in respect of anyone other than Greer and myself:
"Were there other payments, substantial
cash payments at the time that you were involved?"
"I honestly cannot say at this stage without
- I mean it has taken me a lot of thought to go through Mr Hamilton
and Mr Greer. I could not off the cuff now say that. I am aware
that people came to visit Mr Al-Fayed. I cannot tell you at the
moment whether they were given cash or not." (Q261) 510.
Bond, similarly purports to have thought hard in order to remember
Greer and me. Her account is at variance with the account in
"Sleaze:"
"(Marvin) had sought out Fayed's secretary
(i.e., Bond) first on 23 September. `I didn't get more than 30
seconds into my explanation' he recalled, `when she said `Neil
Hamilton's a liar' . . . She was very clear and strong.'"
(page 217).
In her evidence to the Inquiry, by contrast,
Bond said:
"Marvin . . . said `Now what can you
remember about Neil Hamilton?"'
"I said `Well, Doug, you are going back
a long time. I really am going to have to think seriously about
this.'" (Q359).
Either Marvin lied in his interview for the
book or Bond has lied to the Inquiry.
Douglas Marvin 510A.
Marvin's sudden arrival is perplexing. He says that
"In September 1996 I was in London working
on a commercial transaction for Harrods" and "during
the course of that work I reviewed with Harrods executives the
types of legal proceedings that the company was facing."
(witness statement paragraph 3).
It is not clear why a visiting American lawyer
should be reviewing Harrods' English litigation.
Marvin says that, as part of this process, he
" ...... learned that Mr Al-Fayed
was scheduled to appear as a witness in Mr Hamilton's case against
The Guardian" and that he and Stuart Benson (of Dibb
Lupton, solicitors) met Geraldine Proudler (of Olswangs, The
Guardian's solicitors) and Geoffrey Robertson QC "to
learn about the status of the case." (paragraph 4).
511. Fayed's own lawyers must have been
still actively engaged in the preparation of The Guardian's
case, as the file of telephone messages was produced to them
only in mid-September. Hence, it does not ring true that Benson
had to "learn about the status of the case" from Proudler.
512. At this meeting Robertson apparently
" . . . beseeched Marvin to overcome Fayed's
reluctance to involve his former staff and to obtain statements
from them." ("Sleaze" page 217).
This is surprising as there had been no indication
of such reluctance at that stage. Fayed gave evidence to the
Inquiry that he did not know at that stage that his staff would
have anything to contribute.
513. Asked on 23 January 1997 whether his staff
would have known about the alleged cash payments he said he did
not remember (Q647). Later he went on:
" . . . I do not recollect. Maybe the
secretaries knew about it and had not mentioned it to me. Only
when they had to come and make a statement then they remember
everything that happened." (Q658).
It is clear from his evidence that he did not
appreciate that the secretaries would have any relevant evidence
to give. So no question of reluctance to involve them could logically
have arisen.
514. Marvin said that Proudler told him about
the telephone message pad and, in particular, about the message
which says:
"You owe July, August, September £5,000.
Iris tell AF." Apparently Proudler and the entire Guardian
legal team had been scratching their heads about this. It took
an unconnected American lawyer temporarily in London and who
knew nothing about the case to see immediately that
" . . . the name Iris probably referred
to one of the secretaries in Mr Al-Fayed's Park Lane office .
. . " (paragraph 4).
515. It is surprising that Proudler was unable
to draw this obvious inference and her apparent dimness does
not square with "Sleaze's" description of her as
" . . . a person you would want to take
to Las Vegas to play poker . . . (who) . . . in that unforgiving
world . . . could probably second-guess the opponent's hand
. . . one of the most head-hunted of British libel lawyers."
(page 185).
On pages 210-211 there is an extensive description
of her skill in unearthing vital documents and in dissecting
them. This description is applied particularly to her demands
for last-minute Discovery from Greer and me. It is surprising
that her gimlet forensic curiosity had not led to similar demands
for relevant documents from Fayed and that it took two years
for the telephone messages to be unearthed.
516. She would undoubtedly have asked HoF's
lawyers for maximum assistance and there is no reason why she
should have been denied any material likely to be helpful to her.
It is almost inconceivable that Fayed was not
closely questioned on the possibility of corroborative evidence
from employees. That its potential value was appreciated at the
time is shown by the decision in May 1995 to seek a witness statement
from Fayed's chauffeur, Glyn John. What has to be explained is
why Bond, Bozek, Bromfield and Webb were not asked for witness
statements at that stage.
517. The message pad and Marvin have been introduced
into the story as part of an elaborate charade to render less
suspicious the last-minute appearance of these convenient but
previously unheard-of witnesses.
The message pad provides a blindingly obvious
lead to Bond (who just happens to work in an office adjacent
to the flat in which Marvin was staying in Park Lane). Bond then
provides a lead to Bozek and Bromfield.
518. There is an inconsistency between Robertson's
and Marvin's account of how Bond was identified which should
raise suspicions still further. On 19 September Robertson had
met Marvin and "beseeched" him to obtain from Fayed
some employee witness statements:
"Whether they are helpful to The Guardian
or not we must have written and signed accounts by these people
of their dealings with Hamilton and Greer. What did they understand
Hamilton to mean when they took down his messages to Fayed about
wanting his `envelope.'" ("Sleaze", page 217).
519. This was a curious question for Robertson
to ask as there is no mention of either me or Greer wanting envelopes
in any of the messages revealed in the pad.
The first time anyone is supposed to have known
about "cash in envelopes" was when Bond told Marvin
on the 23 September. So, unless he had prior knowledge of what
she would tell Marvin, how did Robertson know about this four
days earlier on the 19th? "Sleaze" is the official
Guardian account of the matters being investigated by the
Inquiry and must be taken to be an authoritative history of their
case.
520. Marvin recounts an elaborate procedure
designed to convince the Inquiry that the evidence of the employees
was not prompted:
"I did not show Mr Al-Fayed's witness statement
to Ms Bond nor did I show her any documents other than the diary
entries (sic). Instead I questioned Ms Bond about the extent of
her knowledge as I would question any witness . . . " (paragraph
5).
There then follow elaborate statements designed
to establish the independence of the witnesses: Marvin did not
meet them in the presence of any other witness, nor discuss the
contents of one witness statement with anyone else; Fayed was
not present and gave them no instructions about the contents of
the statements, nor did he have any inkling of what they might
contain.
521. This account is directly undermined by
Bond's own oral evidence in a number of ways:
(a) In "Sleaze" Marvin recounts:
"I didn't get more than thirty seconds into my explanation
when she said `Neil Hamilton's a liar . . . She was very clear
and strong.'" (page 217).
By contrast Bond said in her evidence:
"It has taken me a lot of thought to go through Mr Hamilton
and Mr Greer." (Q261).
(b) Marvin says Bond had not seen my witness
statement but in her evidence she says: "(Hamilton) came
across as rather somebody who I used to read said his parents
or his grandparents were coalminers . . . " (Q294).
Bond could have learned this only from
reading my witness statement, where this is referred to in the
very first paragraph.
(c) Bond "made it clear that she had
read The Guardian article and she knew the facts to be
as stated in that article." ("Sleaze," page 217).
The Guardian article was irrelevant
to her evidence as it did not allege direct cash payments from
Fayed but payments from Greer at £2,000 a time for PQs.
It also mentioned that Greer's fees varied from £8,000-£10,000
per month according to the number of PQs put down and that a £50,000
retainer had been paid to Greer. She could not possibly have
"known" that this account was true because the documents
prove it to be false.
Bond's evidence corroborates not Fayed's
evidence in The Guardian article, but that in his witness
statement, so why should she have mentioned the article? She
could not say that she was corroborating Fayed's witness statement
evidence because she was supposed not to have seen it.
She probably thought that The Guardian
article had mentioned identical allegations and drew attention
to it in order to give verisimilitude to what she was saying.
Because she made a mistake it has the opposite effect.
522. I do not suggest that Marvin is party to
a conspiracy to give false evidence. However the convenience
of the trail from the last-minute appearance of the telephone
messages, to the appearance of Marvin, to the appearance of Bond
and thence to Bozek and Bromfield is so neat as to stretch credulity
to the limit.
Tim Smith
523. Bozek
also claims:
"I do not know anything about payments
to Tim Smith. I personally did not give any payments to Mr Smith.
What his arrangement with Mr Al-Fayed was I do not know."
(Q107) 524. Bond similarly suffers from memory loss where
Tim Smith is concerned:
"Are you aware of any payments?"
"I personally could not remember. As I
say, I think Mr Smith went frequently to Harrods . . . I do
not remember Mr Al-Fayed mentioning Tim Smith to me." (Q266)
Smith's evidence was that he received seven or eight payments
and that they were usually made not at Harrods but at Park Lane.
525. It is not clear why Fayed maintained total
secrecy with regard to Smith but was allegedly quite open about
making such payments to me:
"(Fayed) never made any secret of the fact
that he was giving Neil Hamilton money." (Q301) Fayed's
office practice 526. Bozek also says that she did not
mention the alleged cash payments to Royston Webb or Michael Cole.
But the Fayed system of cash payments was well-known in his organisation.
Christoph Bettermann is prepared to give evidence
that Cole and Fayed's Personal Assistant, Mark Griffiths, were
both paid in cash and that such payments were commonly discussed
in Fayed's inner sanctum. It is surprising, therefore, that Bozek
did not talk to them about payments which she now affects to find
"shocking." 527. Bozek's sense of shock extended
only to the alleged recipient of the cash not the giver:
"I would never say to Mr Al-Fayed `This
is wrong' . . . The sort of comment I would have made to him,
`This is dreadful' would not have been a criticism of him giving
the money, it would have been a criticism of Neil Hamilton."
(Q113) Bozek has no qualms about having been an accomplice
in her employer's malpractice. In explanation she alleged Tiny
Rowland was bribing MPs so she thought it was all right for Fayed
to do so. Clearly, as the end justifies the means, she would
have no qualms about being an accomplice to Fayed's lies to the
Inquiry.
528. Bond's capacity for invention is egregious:
" . . . Mr Al-Fayed loved to play with
(Hamilton) and make him virtually beg for his money, but he was
aware that he would have to give it to him" (Q316) Her
account is at variance with Fayed's own:
" . . . on each occasion when he and I
were alone, he asked for money . . . I felt embarrassed to turn
him down and invariably gave him a bundle of £2,500."
(Fayed witness statement paragraph 4) 529. Whereas Bond and
Bozek's memories are very clear in recollecting the details of
the visits of an MP who was not paid they are hazy about the
one MP who admits being paid:
"And Mr Tim Smith?"
"I do not think he came to Park Lane very
often. He may have gone to Harrods on more occasions than he
came to Park Lane." (Q257 Bond)
"I think (Tim Smith) did come to Park Lane.
I do not know how many times he came." (Q85 Bozek) 530.
Webb's evidence is also paradoxical (as well as false). He said
in his letter of 13 February 1997 that he was "very surprised"
to learn that Smith had been paid - despite having been told by
Smith as long ago as 1989 (Q1071 and Q1072).
On the other hand he was allegedly "not
at all surprised by the reference to Mr Hamilton" - despite
making no mention, in his taped conversation with Ian Greer of
20 October 1994, of Fayed's alleged revelation in 1988 or 1989
of payments to me.
Bozek and Bond's cock and bull stories
531. Bond and Bozek purport to have very clear recollections
of events in relation to me - but these recollections are at
variance with the facts in so far as they can be established by
documentary sources: Bond said that meetings between me and
Fayed
"were at one time as frequent as several
times a month" (Bond witness statement paragraph 5) Bozek
said that
"Mr Hamilton came to Park Lane . . .
usually about once every four to six weeks, although there were
times when the visits may have been as frequent as once a week."
(Bozek witness statement paragraph 6) 532. By contrast, Fayed's
documentary evidence records only three Park Lane meetings and
one at Harrods in 1987 and three to each location in 1988. The
maximum number of meetings Fayed has ever alleged in the three
years 1987-90 is 21 (a figure which I do not confirm).
533. Bozek has two lame explanations for the
conflict between her evidence and the documents:
(a) " . . . he popped in without
an appointment. Sometimes people would make appointments with
Mr Al-Fayed and he would not tell us . . . " (Q56)
This is nonsense. Since my wife became
my secretary in 1983 she has been in sole charge of my diary
arrangements in order to avoid confusion. She would always confirm
any diary arrangements on my behalf. I would never just "pop
in" on Fayed without an appointment and this appointment
would have been confirmed with his secretary by my wife.
(b) " . . . I think he came more
often when he was due to ask questions or something like that."
(Q61)
This is not borne out by the facts. After
the 1987 General Election I asked two PQs (unprompted or briefed
by Fayed or his advisers) in the summer of 1988. I also asked
four PQs in the spring of 1989, when I asked for a written brief
from Royston Webb before putting them down (which is confirmed
by Webb in his letter of 13 February 1997 paragraph 10). I did
not discuss these PQs with Fayed - there was no point, as he
was not a master of detail.
534. Bond resorts to cock and bull stories
to justify her alleged clear recollections of me:
(a) " . . . he struck me when he
appeared in the press as a very arrogant man . . . "
In 1987-89 I was largely unknown to the
general public and was rarely reported in the press. Similarly
it is difficult to understand how Bond could have formed an opinion
that I was arrogant on the basis of her slight acquaintanceship,
in her own words:
"I have seen him briefly inasmuch
as opening a door for him and I have spoken to him on the phone."
(b) " . . . as rather somebody who
I used to read said his parents or his grandparents were coal
miners."
There is no reason for Bond to have known
that my grandparents were miners - other than by reason of having
read my witness statement, where this fact appears in paragraph
1. This revelation undermines Bond's claim not to have read Fayed's
own witness statement (Q354) 535. Bond's reasons for remembering
Greer so well are also unconvincing: " . . . his company
had quite a reputation and Mr Greer did appear in various newspapers.
I think one was also aware of his closeness to John Major and
that also made one think `Goodness me!'" (Q253) It is
true that IGA had quite a reputation, but there is no reason for
a secretary like Bond to have known anything about it. Secondly,
Greer did not appear widely in the press in the late 1980s. Thirdly,
his supposed closeness to John Major was not mentioned until
after the 1992 General Election.
Bromfield's bogus memories
536. Bromfield perhaps let the cat out of the bag when he
was asked
"Who else was collecting envelopes, can
you recall, apart from Mr Hamilton? Was there anybody else?"
"Mr Greer is mentioned." (Q422) Mentioned
by whom and where? The answer was given later in his evidence:
Asked about the circumstances in which he came
to give his statement to Marvin he answered:
"I was asked do I know Mr Hamilton, do
I know Mr Greer and I said yes and then I was asked do I ever
remember giving those two gentlemen any envelopes or do I remember
them collecting any envelopes." (Q436) That is as clear
a case as one could want of a cross-examiner leading a witness.
537. Marvin said nothing specific in his statement
about Bromfield but, in relation to Bond, he said that he questioned
her "about the extent of her knowledge as I would question
any witness to learn about the particular witness's recollection
of events." The clear implication of this is that he
examined the witnesses in a neutral way. He also said that the
witnesses had not been primed. Bond's reaction as reported on
page 217 of "Sleaze" shows that she had been primed
and Q354 shows she had seen the witness statements.
538. It is inconceivable that Bromfield would
have had the slightest idea, after many years, of who I was in
1994, before Fayed's allegations were so widely publicised. It
is also totally inconceivable that Bromfield could have remained
so dim in his recollections after all the publicity both Greer
and I have received at his employer's hands in the last two and
a half years.
His lumbering recollection is unconvincing:
"It was a while, but yes, I did remember
giving them envelopes." (Q436) It is unclear why
he should remember, without knowing that there was anything memorable
in them, giving me two envelopes eight to ten years ago.
539. His recollection was that collection of
envelopes was infrequent.
"Sometimes it would be months without anything."
(Q418) This is at variance with the frequency alleged by
Bond and Bozek.
(a) Bozek alleged that "on several
occasions" she stuffed an envelope which was left for me
at Park Lane. Bond, similarly, was alleged to have done the same
(Q161).
(b) In addition an envelope containing
£5,000 was alleged to have been regularly left for Greer.
Furthermore, Greer was also allegedly paid "other amounts"
although Bozek.
" . . . cannot remember specific occasions
on which he got those other amounts." (Q70)
(c) Bozek also acknowledged that Francesca
Pollard was left envelopes, although she refused to speculate
on whether they contained money (Q89). Pollard claimed that she
collected her envelope monthly.
(d) Tim Smith admitted in his evidence
that money was couriered to him on one or two occasions (Q1046).
Bozek also recalls at least one occasion on which something ("It
could be cash. It could be just documents") was allegedly
couriered to me (Q150). These envelopes would have been collected
from the security desk.
It is quite clear, therefore, that Bond and
Bozek's evidence is inconsistent with Bromfield's as to the frequency
with which envelopes were alleged to have been collected.
Amnesia
540. Bond
and Bozek cite bogus reasons for purporting to recall Greer and
myself so clearly. But when they forget the plot they say they
need to check the records, or they can't remember, or that it
was all a long time ago. (See Bozek Q 53, 82, 97, 103-4; Bond
Q261, 266, 271, 273, 284, 336, 338; 424, 438-440 Bromfield).
541. Considering they claim such clarity in
respect of events allegedly occurring between eight and ten years
ago concerning people they hardly know at all they display a surprising
lack of consistency concerning themselves:
(a) Bozek said that her working hours were
9 to 5.30 (Q41) whereas Bond said that
"although I would tend to work during the
day and there would be another secretary who would work in the
evening, possibly Alison . . . "
(b) Bozek admitted at one point that she
could not remember which Fayed company was paying her at various
times. (Q12)
(c) "I would not send the chauffeur
. . . usually one of the security men (to collect money from the
bank)" (Q74). This contradicts the evidence of Glyn John
(witness statement paragraph 2).
(d) Bozek says the sums withdrawn usually
amounted to £25,000 (Q74) whereas Bond says £50,000
(Q236).
(e) Bozek said that "(Fayed) would
scrawl Neil Hamilton's name on (an envelope) and as his writing
is so illegible I would put it into a brown envelope, write Neil
Hamilton's name on it clearly so the staff on the security desk
could read it." (Q120).
This contradicts the evidence of Philip
Bromfield:
"Would they have had, . . . any signatures
on them?"
"It would have been a typed name.
In this instance `Mr Hamilton' would have been the name on it."
(Q405)
"You remember them having a typed
name on. Would that be because all envelopes have a typed name?"
"That is because they have all been
typed."(Q446)
542. But the one thing that all the employee
witnesses agree on is that none of them actually saw me being
given or taking money.
Webb can say only what Fayed told him. Bond
and Bozek can say what Fayed told them and that, whilst they
put money in envelopes allegedly left for me - they never saw
Fayed give me any money nor did they see me collect any envelopes.
Bromfield says he handed me envelopes but did not know what they
contained.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF ROYSTON WEBB
1. Webb not an independent witness
543. Royston
Webb occupied a central position in Fayed's office from 1 September
1985 until 30 September 1996. He was a (perhaps the) most trusted
confidant of Fayed outside the family circle. He was a
"director of all the significant companies
in the group, including the parent, Harrods Holdings and its
principal subsidiary, Harrods Ltd." (Webb letter 13 February
1997, paragraph 2).
544. He was "the senior and at many
times the only qualified lawyer within the organisation."
For 11 years he was responsible for "legal work of a most
intense and complex nature, the majority of which involved Mohamed
Al-Fayed personally" (paragraph 3).
545. He "acted as the coordinator for
a battery of expert city solicitors and counsel" and his
"personal contact with Mohamed Al-Fayed was far greater
than that of any external legal adviser" (paragraph 3).
546. He emphasises that Fayed "had a
very small central staff" so that "in such a small
team my responsibilities extended beyond the purely legal to
such matters as the day to day supervision of" their
PR and parliamentary consultants and "a number of other
contacts who fell into my area as being the most convenient."
Until Michael Cole was engaged he also dealt with the press (paragraph
5).
547. He was deeply involved in the Fayed
defence in the DTI Inquiry (see paragraph 3).
Much of the false evidence which was put
to the Inspectors by the Fayeds personally and by their professional
advisers was simply a repetition of lies told in the period of
the takeover of HoF, i.e., before March 1985.
548. One can understand that Webb would give
the Fayeds the benefit of any doubt and, indeed, would even be
blind to the truth to an extent. Personal loyalty can easily distort
judgment. Fayed's external solicitors, Herbert Smith & Co.,
and his merchant bankers, Kleinwort Benson, had both been seriously
misled by the Fayeds during the takeover.
549. Webb could be forgiven initially, therefore,
for taking at face value the lies and misrepresentations which
they had endorsed. The Inspectors found that neither Herbert Smith
nor Kleinwort Benson had taken adequate steps to verify the nature
of the information which Fayed supplied.
550. Although employed barristers and solicitors
owe the same duty to the Court, one expects greater circumspection
and independence to be displayed by external advisers. Some allowance
has to be made for excessive credulity on the part of an in-house
legal adviser because of his financial dependence on his employer;
it is a natural human reaction.
551. However, there is a limit to how great
an allowance to make. Webb was at the centre of the Fayed web.
He must have had access to all the information upon which the
Inspectors' conclusions were based. Even allowing for the warping
of his independent judgment which personal loyalty to the Fayeds
might engender, he must have known the truth about many of the
falsehoods which were told.
552. In the light of the criticisms in the
Report, he was in a unique position to reassess his earlier judgments
and to reconsider assertions which he had taken on trust. Where
the Fayeds had been criticised for acting dishonestly and giving
evidence which was demonstrably false or where the authenticity
of documents had been impugned, it would have been a dereliction
of his wider duty as an officer of the Court not to do so and
to consider his position.
553. In the course of preparing for the Inquiry
the evidence to justify the Fayeds' lies, Webb coordinated the
external legal advisers and he played a significant role in the
damage limitation exercise which immediately preceded and followed
it. He was responsible for the technical briefing of the press
and the PR advisers.
554. He does not appear to have experienced
at any time in the supervening seven years any conflict of loyalties,
despite the damning conclusions of the Report as to the Fayeds'
veracity and the Inspectors' consequential recommendation that
the law ought to be changed.
(a) to make it an offence subject to
punitive sanctions to furnish false evidence to Inspectors and
(b) to make the giving of false evidence
in itself a sufficient reason for disqualification of directors.
555. Furthermore, in the meantime he will
have had the opportunity to see at close quarters Fayed's dishonest
and vindictive pursuing of Christoph Bettermann, Graham Jones
and Peter Bolliger. His role in these vendettas needs to be explored
fully in order to establish the bona fides which he claims in
his evidence before this Inquiry.
The case of Graham Jones
556. Graham Jones
was Fayed's chief financial executive from 1987 to January 1990.
I have spoken to a number of people (but not Jones himself) with
direct knowledge of Fayed's astonishingly vindictive and dishonest
campaign to discredit him.
Fayed had every reason to be unhappy with
Jones and even aggressive towards him because -
(a) Jones had given evidence to the
Bank of England about alleged irregularities at Harrods Bank.
(The Fayeds' banking licence was removed from them and has never
been restored);
(b) Jones had assisted Lonrho's campaign
against Fayed after he was sacked from HoF and
(c) Jones had provided a statement which
was helpful to the former shareholders of Modena Engineering
Ltd, (a Ferrari distributorship purchased by Fayed for his son,
Dodi) in their contractual dispute with Fayed.
557. Jones had, on Fayed's behalf, been in
charge of the negotiations for the acquisition of Modena and he
agreed the valuation of the stock and other assets. A dispute
arose because the contractual documentation prepared by the vendors'
lawyers and HoF in-house lawyers was incomplete and confusing.
Fayed blamed Jones and fired him.
558. Fayed made false allegation of bribery against
Jones - Jones arrested by the police
Fayed then made a
false allegation to the police against Jones - that he had taken
a bribe from the vendors of Modena. On 18 June 1990 Jones was
at Heathrow airport on a QANTAS flight about to depart for Sydney,
Australia. Four policemen came on board, arrested Jones and took
him to Guildford police station, where he was detained for many
hours and questioned. The arrest was calculated to cause maximum
embarrassment and humiliation to Jones.
559. The transcript of the police interrogation
of Jones (which lasted 1 hour and 40 minutes) shows that he was
asked questions of a purely commercial nature, their purpose being
to elicit information helpful to Fayed in his legal dispute with
the former shareholders of Modena. The interview revolves around
the nature of the contractual arrangements which formed the basis
of the civil dispute.
560. There is only one brief reference to
the bribery allegation made by Fayed and which provided the police
with the pretext for their arrest of Jones. Jones denied being
bribed and on 14 February 1991 swore an affidavit in which he
stated that the police had told him that they had been pressured
by Fayed into arresting him on this trumped-up allegation.
561. During Jones' traumatic hours in Guildford
police station Royston Webb and John Macnamara (a former police
Detective Inspector) were present in the building in a room near
to that in which Jones was held. This helps to explain why the
interviewing Sergeant had an intimate knowledge of the contractual
arrangements for the sale of Modena and suggests that his questions
were fed to him by Webb.
562. Jones and his solicitor were completely
unaware of the presence of Fayed's men. Jones' solicitor, David
Warner, was told about it on July 7 1990 and, in January 1991
a Det. Sgt. Bobczech confirmed this account to Norman Lawrence,
a financial adviser to one of the former Modena shareholders.
563. Webb's duplicitous telephone call At
about 5pm on 18 June 1990 Webb telephoned Lawrence and said:
"We've had word that Graham Jones is
over here. Clearly I would like to have a word with Graham. Has
he been in touch with you? Could you get a message to him that
I would like to speak to him?"
564. In this conversation
Webb duplicitously pretended to be telephoning from his office
and to be trying to contact Jones (someone he had just persuaded
the police to arrest on trumped-up charges), whom he knew was
in the next-door room under interrogation.
565. This was surprising behaviour for a
member of the Bar, who waxed:
" . . . if . . . Mohamed . . . were
to ask me to do something against my better professional judgment
he would know exactly what my attitude would be beforehand and
he probably would not even ask me because he would know that
I would refuse."
"I am not in the business of taking
money for anything which cuts across my professional integrity"(Q1818).
566. Jones exonerated by the police After
the interrogation Jones was released without charge and the police
apologised to him for the "inconvenience." They helped
him to arrange a new flight to Sydney for the next day, made his
hotel booking for the evening and made arrangements for him to
be transported to the hotel.
567. Det. Sgt. Marjoram, who interviewed
Jones met Jones' solicitor on 7 July 1990 and implied that the
police were under great pressure from Fayed to arrest Jones -
which he also confirmed separately to Lawrence's solicitor, Michael
Brown of Brown Cooper and Co. Marjoram further confirmed that
Webb and Macnamara were present in the police station during
Jones' interrogation.
568. Marjoram confirmed that, following the
interrogation, Jones was "totally eliminated" from future
enquiries, that he had done nothing wrong and had "not acted
suspiciously, just bloody-mindedly." Fayed had also contended
that there were VAT irregularities on the part of Modena. Marjoram
told Warner that the police had found no evidence to justify
this allegation and that the matter was at an end as far as Jones
was concerned.
569. Fayed's attempt to obtain DPP prosecution
of Jones Fayed was not satisfied with this outcome and then
began a campaign to have the matter referred to the DPP. However,
the DPP took no further action. The matter was dropped as there
was no evidence to justify Fayed's invented allegation that Jones
had taken a bribe.
570. Fayed's Use of the Press to Discredit Jones
A familiar feature of the Jones case was the use Fayed made
of the press in his campaign to discredit and ruin him.
(a) Daily Express 19 June 1990
The very next day after Jones's arrest the Daily Express
carried the story under the headline: "VATmen's Flight
Inquiry Flattens Graham's Champers Take-off." This
story was given to the Express by Michael Cole.
571. The article was libellous not only of Jones
but also of Lawrence's client, Nick Mason, who had been one of
the vendor shareholders of Modena. Customs and Excise provided
a written confirmation that there were no "inaccurate VAT
returns" and no "serious VAT irregularities," contrary
to what Cole had told the Express and contrary to what
the Express had printed without bothering to make further
inquiries.
(b) Mail on Sunday 30 May 1993
572.
Another libellous and damaging newspaper report based on false
information supplied by Fayed appeared in the Mail on Sunday
under the headline:
"PAST CATCHES UP WITH QANTAS BOSS - NEW
AIRLINE CHIEF FACES FRAUD PROBE."
(c) The Melbourne "Sunday Sun/Herald."
carried a similar article on the same day under the headline:
"QANTAS boss $9 million row."
Jones's solicitors wrote to the Sun/Herald,
which carried an apology on Sunday 13 June 1993, in which they
admitted that the "article may have given rise to a number
of defamatory suggestions;" confirmed that "Mr Jones
enjoys the full confidence of QANTAS" and "sincerely
apologises to Mr Jones for any embarrassment or distress caused."
573. This episode demonstrates the vindictive lengths to
which Fayed will go in pursuing his vendettas and the unscrupulousness
of his employees like Royston Webb and Michael Cole, who are the
agents of his spite.
574. In early 1993 Jones was appointed Finance
Director of QANTAS, one of Australia's most prestigious financial
jobs. As soon as Fayed discovered this, he started a campaign
to get Jones sacked. Fayed's tactics were as follows:
(a) telephone calls were made to the directors
of QANTAS and British Airways (who owned 25 per cent of QANTAS
shares);
(b) a "report" was written by
Royston Webb and sent unsolicited in March 1993 to QANTAS, British
Airways and the Australian Government (who owned 75 per cent
of QANTAS shares). It was sent initially on plain paper but QANTAS
refused to consider it until Webb acknowledged that it came officially
from HoF;
(c) he engendered extremely libellous press
reports which were designed to frighten QANTAS at a crucial time
for the company - when Jones was preparing a public flotation
of the company as part of its privatisation.
575. Webb's Report and its false allegations against
Jones
An essential element in this was Webb's "report,"
which was extremely libellous. It falsely alleged:
(a) that Jones was incompetent and that
employing him was a grave mistake. It said that Fayed considered
that Jones' exercise of due diligence fell so far below the level
of normal professional competence that corruption was involved;
(b) that Jones had deliberately evaded
the police;
(c) that Jones had been arrested and
taken to Guildford police station for questioning, impliedly on
account of a major fraud involving him;
(d) that the CPS had decided against
charging Jones simply because of the difficulties of prosecuting
someone who lived overseas;
(e) that Jones was living rent-free
in the house of Lawrence's client, Nick Mason, and that this was
impliedly a quid pro quo for co-operating
with him in the dispute with Fayed over Modena;
(f) that Jones had destroyed the negotiations
which Webb had been conducting with the former Modena shareholders;
(g) that Jones had not only assisted Lonrho
but had told them lies.
The report concluded that Jones was a liar and
a fraudster who should not be trusted under any circumstances.
576. QANTAS investigated and exonerated Jones
Understandably, QANTAS went into a frenzy of panic over this
document. They sent their Head of Security, Ron Armstrong, to
London. He and the local QANTAS security officer interviewed all
concerned including Webb, Macnamara, the police, Graham Jones'
solicitors and Lawrence.
577. Armstrong told Lawrence that Webb had
said it was Fayed's declared intention to "crush" Jones
and "to pursue Jones to his grave."
578. QANTAS'
investigation exonerated Jones on every one of the serious allegations
made against him. Armstrong told Lawrence that the only "grey
area" was the assistance given by Jones to Lonrho. But QANTAS
thought that this was understandable in view of Fayed's treatment
of Jones - in particular the malicious way in which Fayed was
attacking Jones and which was coincidentally destabilising QANTAS
at the very sensitive time of their public flotation.
579. That Webb could have participated in
any way in this venture and thereafter remain in Fayed's employment
(extended beyond retirement for a further five years as a "consultant")
must surely call into question the value of his evidence.
When placed in the context of the whole litany
of Fayed's dishonesty and dubious activities since 1985 (not
least the arbitration proceedings in Dubai of which Webb had charge)
Webb's claim to be an independent witness is threadbare.
2. Webb distanced himself in his evidence from
Fayed's alleged improper actions
580. Despite the critical
role which Webb admits he played in Fayed's life, it is surprising
that he can give no direct evidence of any of the allegations
of misconduct which Fayed has made.
(a) He "had no knowledge of"
Fayed's alleged arrangement with Greer to make payments of £5,000
a quarter in cash (paragraph 6).
(b) He did not know that Smith was paid
(paragraph 9).
(c) He had no direct knowledge of alleged
payments to me but said that Fayed told him I was being paid
(paragraph 11).
(d) He had no direct knowledge of my
alleged "boasting . . . of taking advantage of . . .
Fayed's hospitality at the Ritz" but said that Greer told
him of this (which Greer denies) (paragraph 12).
(e) He had no direct knowledge of alleged
payments to Andrew Bowden but said that Fayed subsequently told
him. He denied Fayed's assertion in his oral evidence to the Privileges
Committee that he was present when Bowden was allegedly paid
£5,000 (Q1788).
(f) He had no direct knowledge of Bowden's
alleged demand for a retainer of £50,000 a year but said
that Fayed subsequently told him of this and Greer confirmed
- which Greer denies (paragraph 19).
All Webb's evidence is, therefore, hearsay.
Its corroborative value is also further significantly reduced
by his continuing financial relationship with Fayed.
3. Webb was careful not to implicate himself in
malpractice
581. Webb said that he did not know about the
one person who admits being paid - Tim Smith. He "knew"
only about cash being paid to those who deny it.
Webb was careful not to put himself in a
position where his allegations would implicate him in misconduct
or dubious activity - as would have been the case were he a direct
witness of cash being handed over.
582. He supported all Fayed's allegations:
["I do not believe for a moment that
Mohamed's allegations were untrue and neither do I believe that
today, I believe that Mohamed did what he said he did on these
matters" (Q1785)] except insofar as they might involve
some risk to himself:
(i) Q1788: "When Mohamed Al-Fayed
gave evidence to the Select Committee, which was when you were
still employed, it was said that you knew about the £5,000
as if you were at the meeting, that £5,000 was paid over."
"No. I think Mohamed was confused
probably then. I was not present at any meeting between Mohamed
and Andrew Bowden."
Comment: Webb contradicts Fayed only
when necessary to let himself off the hook. Otherwise he makes
no criticisms of him or his evidence.
(ii) "Were you involved in the
preparation of The Guardian/House of Fraser
side for the libel proceedings between The Guardian, Mr
Hamilton and Mr Greer?"
"I had a meeting, I think it was
a lady called Geraldine Proudler I believe was the solicitor
representing The Guardian. I had a short meeting with her
but I was not greatly involved in The Guardian action,
no." (Q1793)"
Comment: This is contradicted by D J Freeman's
letter of 18 February 1997, which states:
"On 29 November (1994) Laurence Harris
and I met with Mr Al-Fayed and Royston Webb at Harrods to take
instructions from Mr Al-Fayed on his relationship with Ian Greer
and Neil Hamilton for the purposes of both providing further
information to Lovell White Durrant." This meeting took
place in order to provide essential material for The Guardian's
Defence in my libel action.
The meeting with Geraldine Proudler, then
of Lovell White Durant, must have taken place later. Webb was
clearly involved in the production of the cash/gift voucher allegations,
from which Fayed has very recently resiled blaming D J Freeman
for misunderstanding his instructions.
This meeting was of critical importance
in the conduct of The Guardian litigation. It is inconceivable
that Webb was only peripherally involved.
Furthermore, Webb accompanied Fayed and
George Carman QC to the Privileges Committee on 1 November 1995,
when the allegations contained in The Guardian's Defence
were repeated. It is also a matter for consideration why he did
not immediately correct D J Freeman's misunderstandings or prevent
their repetition to the Members' Interests Committee in January
1995 and the Privileges Committee in November.
(iii) "I wondered whether you were
involved in the interplay between The Guardian's lawyers
and the Harrods' side to explain why these witnesses (i.e., Bond,
Bozek and Bromfield) were not there years earlier?"
"No. I was not involved at all."
(Q1798)
Comment: These witness statements were
obtained on 27 September 1996, three days prior to Webb's retirement.
If Fayed's account to Webb of his bribery allegations were true
he must have realised the potential importance as witnesses of
the office staff.
Bond said that even junior office staff
were aware of the alleged £5,000 quarterly payments to Greer
(Q221) and that Fayed "never made any secret of the fact
that he was giving Neil Hamilton money" (Q301).
It is very surprising, therefore, if such
payments were being made in such an intimate office structure,
that Webb could have remained unaware over several years of what
was going on and the role of the office staff in it. Hence he
would have appreciated the importance of their corroborative
evidence.
(iv) "Were you concerned about him
admitting to bribing, paying, whatever the phrase is, MPs?"
"I had no knowledge of how these
payments were effected. For all I know they were paid on the
same basis as Sir Peter Hordern, that there were consultancy arrangements."
(Q1800).
Comment: This is an absurd reply. He knew
that Hordern was paid by HoF under a formal contract. He was
then asked whether the fact that he did not know about the alleged
contractual relationship between others and Fayed directly might
have indicated to him that there was something underhand. He
ignored the question. Unfortunately he was not pressed to answer.
It is not credible that Fayed could have
told Webb about alleged payments to me and to Bowden and that
Webb remained totally incurious as to both the reason for them
and the mechanics of payment.
(v) "Tim Smith . . . spoke to you
. . . and said: `I have been paid for some time and I cannot
go on,' this would be January/February 1989."
"I cannot remember any discussion
that Tim had with me as to payment." (Q1823)
Comment: This confirms what he said to
Greer on 20 October 1994. It is difficult to understand why Fayed
would not have told him about Smith if he had also told him about
Bowden and me - particularly if Smith had been frightened off
by Tiny Rowland.
(vi) " . . . the £13,333 plus
VAT which is said to be another payment through Ian Greer to Members
of Parliament but according to Ian Greer it was an invoice for
additional work which was to be carried out in relation to the
DTI report."
" . . . I believe I approved that
invoice . . . I was not aware of any discussion which lay behind
it. For example, if there had been a meeting between Ian and
Mohamed and they had decided that this sum was to be paid for
a particular reason but for the sake of cosmetic appearance let
us call it something else then it would be the something else
that I would be aware of." (Q1836).
Comment: This is an incomprehensible reply.
The invoice was addressed to Webb and he endorsed it with the
words "Agreed with AF. 12 February 1990." AF must be
Ali Fayed.
It is not conceivable that Webb failed
to ask Ali, prior to approving it, what was the purpose of such
an uncharacteristically large expenditure on the IGA account.
4. The Greer/Webb tape-recorded conversation of
20 October 1994
583. The only contemporary document which
helps to establish the state of Webb's knowledge at the time
Fayed originally made his allegations public is the tape and transcript
of the telephone conversation between Greer in London and Webb
in Dubai on 20 October 1994.
584. Because it is contemporary and an accurate
record of the conversation it is one of the most important documents
in the case.
(a) It confirms that Webb knew nothing
about Smith's being paid:
"I think it's incredible. Tim
Smith never struck me as the type."
(b) He denied any knowledge of what
became the gift voucher allegations:
Greer: "Mohamed . . . said that
he allowed him to do free shopping in Harrods."
Webb: "Gosh. I wouldn't mind that
arrangement."
Greer: "Yes. You're not aware
of that are you?"
Webb: "Certainly I'm not."
Comment: If Fayed had told Webb as
far back as 1988-89 that he was paying me, it is surprising that
he did not add that as a rider at this point.
(c) In fact, a little later in the conversation
he denied any knowledge of money payments to me:
"(Dale Campbell-Savours) wanted
to know whether these things, allegations in the article were
true . . . First of all I said, I haven't read the article. It
had certainly been read over the telephone to me, but I did not
know. I have no knowledge on these matters."
Comment: This directly contradicts
Webb's written evidence to the Inquiry in his letter of 13 February
and his oral evidence of 19 February, in which he alleged that
Fayed had told him that Bowden and I had been paid.
(d) Webb also confirmed that he knew
nothing of any payments from Fayed/HoF to Greer which were in
addition to those made in the normal course of business.
Greer: " . . . he's completely
dotty. He said that the invoices used to vary on a monthly basis,
or quarterly basis, dependent upon how many Questions had been
asked, which of course is wholly untrue."
Webb: "I have no knowledge of
that whatsoever."
He was asked by Counsel how it could
be that he would know nothing about it if Bond and Bozek were
responsible for making quarterly cash payments to Greer. His reply
is not convincing:
" . . . if such a payment was
being made then presumably there was a certain amount of confidentiality
attached to it."(Q1832)
Comment: The same would presumably
apply to alleged payments to me - to which no confidentiality
attached, according to Bond and Webb. Fayed's alleged revelations
of payment to me and Bowden are ascribed to dissatisfaction with
us. Bond and Bozek claim that Fayed was also very dissatisfied
with Greer (hence the cock and bull stories about making him telephone
numerous times for "his envelope") - why, then did
Fayed not complain as loudly about him as he claims to have about
Bowden and me? Why was Webb not told about him?
(e) Webb made no mention of Bowden.
If he had known of payments to Bowden, it is surprising he said
nothing of it in the telephone conversation, in view of what he
wrote in his letter:
"I recall discussing the Bowden
episode with Ian in his offices. I asked him what had happened
and Ian simply said that Andrew had been too greedy" (paragraph
21).
585. He then went on to complain of the embarrassment
which The Guardian article had caused
him earlier in the day during the arbitration proceedings in
Dubai. In particular, allegations of covert sharp-practice in
the UK made it more difficult for him to rebut an allegation
that Fayed had tampered with documents in Dubai. 586.
He then made it clear that he knew nothing whatever of covert
or illicit payments:
" . . . if the inference is that I was
aware of these payments, then Preston is going to print a withdrawal
of that. Because I regard that as professionally quite damaging."
587. Webb had not reason to lie in his conservation with
Greer - he had no reason to suspect that it was being recorded.
If he had, perhaps he would have been more circumspect. However,
as he was unaware of the existence of the transcript before giving
evidence to the Inquiry, it is perfectly clear that, insofar as
his evidence is inconsistent with it, he is lying.
5. Webb and Tiny Rowland
588. Webb makes
a number of allegations about Rowland and Lonrho which Rowland
denies.
(a) "Mohamed had been a director
of Lonrho in the mid-1970s and had resigned after about 12 months
because he could not see eye to eye with Rowland on the way the
company was managed." (Q1752)
Rowland says that Fayed attended only
one board meeting. Sheikh Nasser Sabah Al Ahmed and Dr Khalil
Osman Mahmoud were directors representing substantial shareholdings.
Sheikh Nasser Al Sabah said that he could not serve on the same
board as Fayed. He insisted on Fayed leaving the board and he
purchased Fayed's shareholding in Lonrho.
Webb's account is, therefore, false.
Either he is lying or he is recounting lies told him by Fayed.
(b) Rowland denies saying in Webb's
presence that he had spent £40 million on his battle with
Fayed for HoF or that he said to Webb "There goes £40
million" when the shark was lowered at Harrods (Q1754).
It is, furthermore, generally accepted
that Lonrho spent up to £20 million on the battle not £40
million.
(c) Rowland denies ever offering Webb
£5 million in cash to leave Fayed (Q1818). In his letter
of 13 February 1997 Webb says that this alleged offer was "subsequently
confirmed in the presence of five witnesses," which Rowland
denies. In Q1818 Webb reveals that two of those witnesses were
Fayed and his brother Ali! He has not named the others.
(d) Rowland denies that he recalled
the alleged episode referred to in (d) "on the evening when
the fish was lowered" and that he "would have gone
to ten." (Q1819).
6. Other inconsistencies in Webb's evidence 589.
(1) Webb states in his letter of 13 February 1997 that he
decided to retire on 30 September "since all the essential
life and death issues were . . . in the past. . . . This is impossible
to reconcile with the fact that The Guardian
trial was due to start on 1 October and the Harrods flotation
had been due to take in November.
(2) Webb said that he first saw The Guardian
article at around 6 p.m. London time on 19 October. That must
have been a draft prior to publication.
Webb then claims that he stood up to Fayed and
argued with him about it.
"I told Mohamed I had seen the article.
He asked what I thought of it and I told him what I thought it
was - and I quote because I felt very strongly about it - `an
absolute fucking disaster.'" (Q1795).
That does not seem at all consistent with what
he said in his conversation with Greer:
Greer: "Have you spoken to him today? What's
his mood today?"
Webb: "He spoke to me about the case. I've
not had a word with him on this other issue." Considering
that on 20 and 21 October 1994 this story was the lead item on
the news world-wide this is surprising if Webb was as robust
with Fayed as he would have us believe.
(3) Webb describes the group structure of the
Fayed enterprise in perplexing terms. He claims that the Al-Fayed
Investment Trust
"has changed its name a couple of times.
Recognising the House of Fraser connection it became House of
Fraser Holdings and since the divestment of House of Fraser I
believe the company is now called Harrods Holdings plc. It remains
the same entity - AIT - which I joined but the name has changed."
This is nonsense. As the accompanying family tree of Fayed
companies shows, the group structure has remained fundamentally
unchanged.
(4) In response to my argument that the £2,000
per PQ allegation is not credible, Webb says that Tim Smith has
accepted that he was paid to table Questions. This is not so.
Smith makes clear that Fayed offered him money
but that it was not related crudely to Parliamentary activity.
It is clear from Fayed's evidence in his witness statement and
in his submission to the Inquiry, that even he now admits that
there never was a tariff as such. This original and startling
allegation, which gave birth to the phrase "cash for questions,"
was quietly withdrawn within weeks of being first printed.
7. Webb's role in Fayed's dirty tricks department
590. Counsel mentioned the possibility of Webb's involvement
in "dirty tricks" operations on Fayed's behalf during
the Lonrho litigation, which Webb indignantly denied. We know
from the Francesca Pollard evidence (as to which see Appendix
4) that a "dirty tricks" exercise was mounted on the
Chairman and members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry
and its Special Advisers during their 1989-90 investigation of
the lack of follow-up to the DTI Inspectors' Report.
Pollard's campaign, funded and orchestrated
by Fayed and his employees, involved the fabrication of allegations
and documents which not only showered abuse upon Tiny Rowland
but which made serious allegations of criminal misconduct against
parliamentarians and their advisers.
591. It is not clear to what extent Webb
had an executive role in the Pollard case, but he must have been
aware of what was going on. He claims that he was too busy to
get involved in every Fayed furore. That may be so. However,
he was definitely a party to some of the most unsavoury aspects
of Fayed's persecution of Graham Jones, (as to which see paragraphs
556-579 above).
592. The Jones case demonstrates the astonishing
lengths to which Fayed will go in his vindictive vendettas against
those he believes have crossed him.
As in the Bettermann case, outrageous falsehoods
were invented, alleging the commission of serious criminal offences,
and this false information was given to law enforcement agencies
to institute enquiries with a view to prosecution.
The Press was orchestrated to repeat the
allegations in as damaging a way as possible and, in particular,
to report the fact of any official investigation - which served
to add verisimilitude to Fayed's lies.
One of the most shocking features of these
dishonest schemes is that Fayed relied upon his trusted personal
staff, including Royston Webb, to do his dirty work against individuals
who had until very recently been their own colleagues.
593. Webb's complicity in this disgraceful
episode stretching over several years gives the lie to his brave
talk about standing up to Fayed. His role in The Guardian
litigation was clearly greater than he made out in his oral evidence
- if he "might have come to blows over that" with Fayed
(Q1798) it seems odd that he was present when Fayed produced
the cash/gift voucher story to D J Freeman on 29 November 1994
and that he accompanied Fayed to the Privileges Committee on
1 November 1995. No doubt he was involved in many other ways,
but these two occasions were clearly of great significance in
the saga.
594. As in the Jones and Bettermann cases, however
ill-advised he might think Fayed's actions, Webb's objections
were fundamentally on grounds of expediency rather than principle.
Once Fayed had given the orders Webb obediently assisted in whatever
unscrupulous stratagem was necessary to achieve the objective
of character assassination. His evidence has to be seen in that
light.
| 
