Chapter 7: Lord Ahmed’s allegations that Ms Zaman’s account cannot be trusted
385.Throughout the investigation Lord Ahmed has sought to show that Ms Zaman’s evidence cannot be relied upon, as she is untruthful. He raised further allegations in his two statements commenting on the drafts of the factual report, which were shared as part of the investigation process (the final version of the factual report is included as Appendix 1). Most of these allegations are dealt with in the preceding analysis. I deal here with the remaining allegations, which are not central to the investigation in themselves but are important to the extent that Lord Ahmed claims that they show that Ms Zaman has been untruthful.
Allegations made in Lord Ahmed’s written statement of 23 July 2019
Ms Zaman’s doubts about whether Lord Ahmed had written to Commissioner Dick
386.In his response of 23 July 2019 to the complaint Lord Ahmed wrote:
“Ms Zaman has fabricated [the assertion that Lord Ahmed persuaded her to visit his house by promising to arrange a meeting with Commissioner Dick] as can be evidenced by the fact that she has given two contradictory accounts about this. Ms Zaman contacted the police in February 2018 and as a result I was interviewed under caution. Prior to the interview I was provided some disclosure which set out the allegation made by Ms Zaman and gave a chronology of events undoubtedly provided by her to the police. In this disclosure it stated that ‘In June/July 2017, Ms Zaman resumed contact with Mr Ahmed to enquire about any responses he had received regarding the letter to Cressida Dick concerning her allegation. Mr Ahmed responded and informed Ms Zaman of the response he had received from the Police. Mr Ahmed sent Miss Zaman a copy of the response.’
However, in stark contrast to this assertion, in an email sent by Ms Zaman to a [Q]15 (as well as many other journalists and parliamentarians) dated 31st March 2018 ie after her contact with the police, in which she was seeking his assistance ‘to get redress for sexual and financial exploitation at the hands of two senior members of the Muslim community’ (the spiritual healer and me), she stated that ‘Lord Ahmed showed me a letter on House of Lords headed stationary that he claimed to have sent to the Metropolitan police but it is unclear whether this letter was actually sent’. To make the obvious point, this was a lie because she told the police the previous month that ‘Mr Ahmed sent Miss Zaman a copy of the response’. A response could not have been provided to a letter that was never sent.”
387.This uncertainty was expressed by Ms Zaman in 2018. In her written response to Lord Ahmed’s statement of 23 July 2019 she explained:
“Lord Ahmed argues that my evidence is inconsistent because of comments I made to [Q] in an email dated 31/3/18. This is not the case. My comment to [Q] that ‘it is unclear whether this letter was actually sent’ was made in the context of my complete distrust in Lord Ahmed. Consider the facts; he had promised to provide hard copies of all correspondence with the Metropolitan Police and had failed to do so. He simply showed me an image of a letter he said he had received from the police as an attachment to a Whatsapp message in the summer of 2017. When I wrote to [Q], I had genuine doubts about the nature of this correspondence and my comment reflected that. Furthermore, it was clear he was using the prospect of arranging a meeting with the police as an incentive for me to agree to sex. I found it inappropriate, confusing and disturbing.”
Analysis
388.Lord Ahmed’s account that he provided her with the letter from the police before the meeting at the Sahara Grill on 2 March 2017 has been shown to be inaccurate.
389.Ms Zaman wrote to me on 15 March 2018, and included in her letter was the following:
“Lord Ahmed showed me a letter on House of Lords headed stationary that he claimed to have sent to the Met Police and a reply from Met Police on Met Police headed stationary, but it is unclear whether this letter was actually sent and whether he did receive a reply from Commissioner Cressida Dick.”
390.The extract from her letter to parliamentarians, quoted by Lord Ahmed above, contains the same doubt about whether Lord Ahmed had sent the letter, but also doubts about whether a reply had been sent by the police.
391.We asked Ms Zaman about this when we interviewed her on 6 August 2019 and she explained that her comment that she was not sure if his letter had ever been sent referred to the doubts she had much later in the process. At the time Lord Ahmed showed her his letter to Commissioner Dick she believed he had sent it.
392.Lord Ahmed asserts that it is “obvious” that Ms Zaman’s expressed doubts about whether he had actually sent the letter were “a lie” because the police disclosure document shows that in February she had expressed no such doubts. In making this allegation Lord Ahmed has apparently misunderstood the disclosure document. Although it starts by dating Ms Zaman’s first contact with the police to February 2018, it contained information provided by her much later in 2018, including material from her email to the police on 17 April 2018 and her police interviews of 26 April and 11 July 2018.
393.Ms Zaman’s timeline shows that in February 2018 she asked my office to forward her statement to the police. This statement—the email of 28 January 2018—contains the same doubts already expressed.
394.This sequence of events undermines Lord Ahmed’s assertion that Ms Zaman must have been lying when she expressed doubts in March 2018 whether the letter to Commissioner Dick had actually been sent, as the doubts expressed were the same as those she had expressed to me in January 2018.
395.That Ms Zaman at some point after her relationship with Lord Ahmed had ended doubted whether he had sent any letter to the police is not implausible. She had placed her trust in Lord Ahmed as a prominent public figure (recommended to her by a friend, whom she trusted) and someone who, as a member of the House of Lords, she expected to act with integrity. Despite the sexual assault in her car on 2 March 2017 and despite his delay in showing her the reply he had received from the police, she continued to trust him. Once their sexual relationship began, she started to develop feelings for Lord Ahmed and believed that he loved her. When that relationship ended and her trust in him was shown to have been misplaced she came to the conclusion, belatedly, that he had let her down and treated her badly (as S had allegedly done before). At that point she appears to have begun re-evaluating her interactions with Lord Ahmed, including whether the letter and its reply—both of which she had only seen via WhatsApp—were authentic.
Finding
396.Lord Ahmed’s case for saying that Ms Zaman was lying on this point is not made out.
WhatsApp messages confirming Lord Ahmed was taking up Ms Zaman’s case
397.Lord Ahmed also wrote:
“The allegation that there were WhatsApp messages confirming that I ‘was taking up [her] case and helping [her]’ is a blatant fabrication. There were no such WhatsApp messages. Her assertion [X] later deleted all messages relating to me against her will is, quite frankly, preposterous. There are some 4000 messages sent from Ms Zaman to [X] in which she describes being completely infatuated by him and seeking a sexual relationship with him. As noted above some of these WhatsApp messages make the clear reference to me bring her ‘friend’ which is in stark contrast to her assertion now that I was engaged throughout 2017 assisting her in my parliamentary capacity.
As I have said there were no such messages and any evidence that [B] gives in relation to having seen such messages is false.”
Analysis
398.In his interview with us on 13 August 2019 Lord Ahmed said he had communicated with Ms Zaman through text and WhatsApp messages. Though some text messages were retrieved by Ms Zaman using Dr Fone, no WhatsApp messages between Ms Zaman and Lord Ahmed were. This suggests that any such messages would have been deleted. However, although there is no direct evidence that Lord Ahmed sent flirtatious messages, there is equally no direct evidence of Ms Zaman providing a “blatant fabrication”.
399.The claim that X deleted the messages between Lord Ahmed and Ms Zaman is dealt with at paragraphs 372–384.
400.Lord Ahmed’s assertion that Ms Zaman referred to him as “her dear friend” in WhatsApp exchanges with X does not inevitably or obviously lead to the conclusion, or prove, that Lord Ahmed was not still claiming to help her.
401.The reference to the nature of the relationship between X and Ms Zaman appears to be irrelevant to Lord Ahmed’s assertions about Ms Zaman’s honesty.
402.Furthermore, on 18 December 2019, in response to a query from me, Lord Ahmed wrote:
“In relation to the text messages provided to you, only those text messages relevant to me and the investigation were provided by [X] to my lawyer to prove the conversation.”
403.This shows that Lord Ahmed was relying almost entirely on X’s account of the messages that passed between X and Ms Zaman and was in no position to speak of them from his own knowledge, save for the few that X sent to him.
Finding
404.Lord Ahmed acknowledged that he often communicated with Ms Zaman by WhatsApp messages and there is good evidence that all the WhatsApp messages between them were deleted in December 2017. It is therefore not possible to say that Ms Zaman’s assertion on this point is “a blatant fabrication”.
Ms Zaman’s alleged claim that Lord Ahmed forced her to have sex with him when she first visited his house.
405.Lord Ahmed also wrote:
“I should state that Ms Zaman has made false allegations against me. She is lying about what happened as I have set out above. One further point is that in the disclosure given to me by the police Ms Zaman gave the distinct impression that she had been drugged by me (by her consuming a ‘pre-made drink and alleges something may have been put in this drink as it made her incredibly sleepy’) and subsequently forced to have sex with me in this condition, which clearly amounts to rape. In stark contrast to this very serious allegation to law enforcement officers, she told the BBC Newsnight programme in February 2019 that the sex with me was consensual.”
Analysis
406.The report deals with Ms Zaman’s claim that she had been drugged at paragraphs 335–349 above. Here we are simply looking at Lord Ahmed’s claim that she had lied about what happened.
407.In her first police interview on 26 April 2018 Ms Zaman said that she had not been forced to have sex with Lord Ahmed. In her second police interview, where she suggested that Lord Ahmed might have drugged her, she was asked if she had been forced to have sex. She said that Lord Ahmed had not forced her to have sex but he had been demanding and she had found herself complying.
408.Neither of these accounts is inconsistent with the information from Newsnight that Ms Zaman had said the sex was consensual.
Finding
409.Lord Ahmed’s case that Ms Zaman lied about the events surrounding their sexual activity that evening is not made out.
Allegations made in Lord Ahmed’s written statement of 18 November 2019
Invitation to dinner at the Sahara Grill
410.In his statement to me of 18 November 2019, Lord Ahmed said:
“It should be noted that in disclosure provided to me by the Metropolitan Police it was alleged that I invited Ms Zaman to dinner in March 2017. That was clearly a lie as it is now clear that Ms Zaman made the booking for the dinner. Had the invitation been made by me, the booking would have been made by me in my name.”
Analysis
411.Ms Zaman gives a plausible account of how she came to book the restaurant: she said that Lord Ahmed suggested that she should book somewhere she liked, and she did so. In her police interview she said that she agreed to his suggestion that they meet, because she owed him something for having written the letter to Commissioner Dick. She offered to treat him but he said he would pay. Lord Ahmed acknowledged that he paid for the meal, which seems an equally likely marker of who initiated the meeting.
412.Lord Ahmed produced no evidence to support his allegations, other than this bare assertion that someone who proposes a meal in a restaurant is always the person who books it. The fact that Lord Ahmed paid for the meal—in spite of Ms Zaman allegedly offering it as a thank you for him writing the letter—seems significant and he offers no explanation for that.
Finding
413.The fact that Ms Zaman booked the restaurant does not undermine her account of how the meeting came about, or its purpose. Lord Ahmed’s case that Ms Zaman lied about who suggested dinner is not made out.
When Lord Ahmed was out of the country
414.In my email to Lord Ahmed of 28 October 2019 I had written:
“Ms Zaman has told us that you told her that you were out of the country in July/August 2017, and again in early November. Please can you confirm the dates you were away.”
415.In his statement of 18 November 2019 Lord Ahmed replied:
“Finally, in further support of the fact that Ms Zaman cannot be relied upon as a witness of truth, I was not out of the country in July/August 2017. I was out of the country in September 2017 and for 5 days in November 2017.”
Analysis
416.Ms Zaman was reporting what she recalled Lord Ahmed having communicated to her after her text of 14 July 2017. Of course it is possible that she just made this up, although it is difficult to see what the point would be. Other possibilities are that she misremembered what he had said, or that he had chosen to say that he was out of the country when she had contacted him in July, even though this was not the case.
Finding
417.Lord Ahmed’s case that Ms Zaman was not being truthful is not made out.
Ms Zaman’s recollection of the contents of the reply from the police
418.In his 18 November 2019 statement, Lord Ahmed also said:
“At the meeting I provided her with a copy of my letter to the police; it was addressed to Cressida Dick. As there was no response directly from Cressida Dick, I cannot see how Ms Zaman can say that she recalled a message from Cressida Dick which made her happy on the basis that it stated that ‘she would be happy to meet me and Lord Ahmed to get more information to have a meeting to take this further and she would keep me anonymous’. There was no such letter from Cressida Dick. I would remind you that in her email to [Q] dated 31st March 2018, she stated that I showed her a ‘letter on House of Lords headed stationary that he claimed to have sent to the Metropolitan Police but it is unclear whether this letter was actually sent’. If Ms Zaman says she saw a letter from Cressida Dick, she is lying about the fact that there was uncertainty over whether the letter I sent to the Metropolitan Police was actually sent.”
Analysis
419.The allegation that Ms Zaman was lying when she said she had been uncertain in March 2018 whether Lord Ahmed’s letter to the Police had been sent has been dealt with at paragraphs 386–396 above.
420.That Ms Zaman’s recollection of the contents of the reply from the police is inaccurate does not mean that Ms Zaman was being untruthful. It is not unreasonable for her to believe that as the letter was sent to Commissioner Dick the reply was also from her, even if written by someone on her behalf.
Finding
421.If Lord Ahmed was inferring that Ms Zaman was being untruthful here, in saying the reply was from Commissioner Dick, his case is not made out.
Ms Zaman having offered money for false statements
422.In his statement of 18 November 2019, Lord Ahmed said:
“In relation to ‘witnesses who have told [you] that Ms Zaman informed them that [I] had received a reply from the Met, and suggested she go to your house to discuss it’, before I respond to this false allegation, I would like to know who these so-called ‘witnesses’ are and see their testimony as I have received credible information that Ms Zaman has approached at least one person offering them money to make a false statement against me.”
Analysis
423.Lord Ahmed’s allegation on this point could amount to an allegation of criminal behaviour. I asked him to provide details. He replied with the name of the person he referred to and offered to give me copies of text messages on the condition I give him “the assurance that [the person’s] messages will not be provided to Ms Zaman or any other party”. I replied to say that I could not give him that assurance as I would need to speak to the person he referred to and put that person’s evidence to Ms Zaman.
Finding
424.Lord Ahmed declined to provide any evidence to support his allegation without a guarantee I would not disclose that evidence to Ms Zaman or others. His allegation is therefore not substantiated.
Allegations made in correspondence
Ms Zaman’s disagreement with the outcome of the police’s review of her case
425.Lord Ahmed wrote on 5 December 2019:
“Ms Zaman is not a witness of truth which is clearly shown by the enclosed letter from the MPS which was in the [material relating to proceedings separate to this investigation]. The letter dated 9th May 2019 from an Acting Detective Chief Inspector states that in relation to each of her allegations either there was no evidence to support her allegations or, more significantly, that there was material which was unhelpful and undermined her allegations. You will see that there are annotations on the document which appear to be Ms Zaman’s stating that she disagrees with every finding, including the assertion that the A/Detective Chief Inspector is ‘independent’ of the investigating team.”
426.He came back to this letter in his response to the draft factual report, which we received on 20 January 2020. He wrote, referring to the letter sent to Ms Zaman by the police after their review of her case:
“The rationale for closing the investigation into the [S] included:
1. To date [Ms Zaman has] been unable to supply evidence or support for the allegation that she provided large sums of money in payment for his service.
2. Witness evidence suggests that [S] is an honest person who does not charge people for his services.
3. Witness evidence indicates that [Ms Zaman has] voluntarily provided gifts to [S].
4. There is no evidence of fraudulent behavior [sic] by [S].
In relation to the allegation of sexual assault against Lord Ahmed, the rationale for closing the investigation included:
Around the time of the alleged tea spiking incident, your medical records indicate that you had not been sleeping well, you were lethargic, tired, and suffering the side effects of your medication for depression/anxiety.
Telephone evidence provided to police is unhelpful and undermines the police investigation.
In relation to the allegation of witness intimidation by X, the rationale for closing the investigation included:
X denied that he sent the emails with any intention to intimidate or cause fear to [Ms Zaman]
There is no other supporting evidence, known or available, which assists [Ms Zaman’s] case currently.
[ … ]
[The letter from the police following their review of Ms Zaman’s case] is relevant to this investigation because it goes to the heart of whether Ms Zaman is a witness who is capable of being believed. In particular I draw your attention to the responses as follows
In relation to why Lord Ahmed was not arrested, it is stated “police were [in] possession of evidence in the form of statements and text messages that undermines your account. You had not disclosed these in the course of the police investigation. Also by your own admissions, you admit to engaging in consensual sex on 5 - 6 occasions after the initial assault allegation. Therefore this significantly undermines the prosecution’s case.”
In relation to whether a search warrant was not conducted of Lord Ahmed’s address, it is stated that “prior to Lord Ahmed’s interview, police were in possession of statements that undermine your account.”
In relation to why a search warrant was not conducted on [S’s] address, it is stated that “prior to interview, the police were in possession of statements that undermine your account.””
Analysis
427.This letter is dated 5 May 2019 and sets out why the police had decided that, following investigation, it did not intend to take any further action against Lord Ahmed, X or S.
428.The author of the letter explained that the police had been investigating very serious charges of sexual assault and fraud; that for the case to proceed there had to be a reasonable prospect of conviction; in order to convict, any prosecution must be in a position to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal offence has taken place; and that “in conducting this review I can only look at the evidence. My decision does not relate to whether the incident happened or not”.
429.I am not in a position to analyse the police approach to its investigation, nor do I think it would be right to do so. However, I note that the letter acknowledges that Ms Zaman had agreed that she had had a consensual sexual relationship with Lord Ahmed after their first sexual encounter and that there were text messages that undermined her account, which she had not disclosed. The police have subsequently confirmed that these messages were from Ms Zaman’s phone, which she provided to them and which are discussed above.
430.In light of what the letter itself said, I do not consider that it amounts to an allegation that Ms Zaman had not been truthful in her account to the police.
Finding
431.Lord Ahmed’s case that this letter shows Ms Zaman to be untruthful is not made out.
Ms Zaman’s text to X
432.On 12 December 2019 I wrote to Lord Ahmed in relation to the transcript of his police interview, recently received from the police. I wrote:
“On page 8 you say that you had seen a text from Ms Zaman to [X] that reads ‘When I love someone, I would do anything for them. But when someone fucks with me, I make sure they don’t do the same thing to anyone else. I am not denying that it was my choice to go with Lord, but what I did not know is that he was a user and pushed me to find someone. Even then anything of it until, Allah knows best’.
Please let me know how you accessed this message. What was its particular significance such that you shared it with the police?”
433.Lord Ahmed replied on 18 December to say that he could not recall how he accessed the message:
“I am not sure whether it was actually a text that I saw or was told it was in a text or that it was something that Ms Zaman said. Its significance to the police investigation was that it showed that Ms Zaman was capable of making false allegations for any perceived injustice that she saw.”
434.The text message was from Ms Zaman to X, sent on 10 January 2018. The text quoted by Lord Ahmed was part of a longer message which read:
“[X] I blocked and unblocked you because I didn’t want to let go. I tried my best to put things right but you didn’t forgive me. Why would you only forgive those you love. You have no love no feelings for me never did
I will heal with time insha’Allah.
I have proof I don’t just point finger at anyone without proof because I know when you point 1 finger at someone the rest of fingers are pointing at yourself.
I did NOT give [S] CONCENT [sic] to do what he did and do you know how I ended it with [J] who is millionaire, everyone looks up to him. I had proof and I give it to him good and proper. He is taller than you broader than you and strong than you. He got a slap which he will remember for the rest of his life. He deserved it and he was not able to go home that night and he couldn’t face his 1000 workers the next day.
When i love someone I would do anything for them but when someone fucks with me I make sure they don’t do the same to anyone else.
I’m not denying that it was my choice to go with Lord but what I didn’t know he was a user and he pushed me to find someone. Even then anything of it. Until …
Allah knows best.”
Analysis
435.It is possible to interpret Ms Zaman’s claim that “when someone fucks with me, I make sure they don’t do the same thing to anyone else” as a declaration that she will make false allegations for revenge. However, a more obvious reading is that when someone takes advantage of her she will respond and attempt to expose their behaviour publicly, to limit their ability to take advantage of others.
436.This reading would fit with Ms Zaman’s attempts to seek to prevent S and J from taking advantage of others.
Finding
437.Lord Ahmed’s case that this message is evidence of Ms Zaman’s willingness to make false allegations is not made out.
Allegations made in Lord Ahmed’s response to the revised draft factual report, sent to me on 13 March 2020
Ms Zaman lied to and deliberately concealed important information from Lord Ahmed
438.In his response to the revised draft factual report sent to Lord Ahmed in March 2020, he wrote:
“TZ’s conduct throughout has been to blatantly lie or deliberately conceal information and this can been seen here as she did not tell me, and it would have been very helpful if she had, that she had already revealed her identity to the police by meeting with DS Amjad Sharif in December 2016”.
Analysis
439.I have already found that Ms Zaman had always been ready to be identified to the police, and that Lord Ahmed was being deliberately untruthful when he asserted otherwise. Lord Ahmed has not previously said that Ms Zaman deliberately concealed from him that she had not identified herself to the police, so I do not accept Lord Ahmed’s claim here that she did so, if that is what he is claiming.
440.It may be that Lord Ahmed is actually complaining that Ms Zaman did not explain to him that when she mentioned making anonymous complaints she meant that her identity as a complainant should be concealed from those she was complaining about. He says it would have been ‘helpful’ for him to have known this.
441.I have considered in what way this would have been helpful for Lord Ahmed.
442.He claims that Ms Zaman told him in March 2017 that she did not want her identity known to the police, and that his parliamentary work for her ended at that point. If that had been what had occurred, I cannot see how it would have been helpful to Lord Ahmed to have known that previously she had given her identity to the police.
443.However, if, as I have found, Ms Zaman did not tell him that she did not wish the police to know her identity, then the fact that there is incontrovertible evidence that she has previously been happy for the police to know her identity seriously undermines Lord Ahmed’s account of her wishes.
Finding
444.I can see that it would have been helpful to Lord Ahmed to have known Ms Zaman’s position from the beginning, as he would then have had the opportunity to construct an account that fitted the facts when he corresponded with the police in April 2017, was interviewed by the police in July 2018 and during my investigation in 2019.
445.However I do not think it reflects well on Lord Ahmed that he blames Ms Zaman for the ambiguity in her original email to him that led him to give his dishonest account of her wishes, nor does it reflect well on his judgement that he thinks this is a legitimate complaint to make to me.
446.Lord Ahmed’s allegation that Ms Zaman lied to him or deliberately concealed information is not made out.
Ms Zaman’s allegations again Lord Ahmed are malicious
447.In his response to the revised draft factual report sent to Lord Ahmed in March 2020, he wrote:
“TZ freely embarked on a personal relationship with me in September 2017 and when I ended it, she was upset and maliciously sought to exact revenge by making false allegations against me”.
Analysis
448.In his police interview he said the reason for her allegedly false accusations against him was because she blamed him for the breakup of her relationship with X.
449.I have found a number of the allegations made by Ms Zaman to be, on the balance of probabilities, true.
450.Where I have not upheld her complaints I have not found any evidence of dishonesty. For instance she never attempted to bolster her complaints by saying that Lord Ahmed had sent her compromising WhatsApp messages encouraging her relationship with X, which would have been a safe thing to do as she knew all the messages had been deleted.
Finding
451.Lord Ahmed’s assertion that Ms Zaman has made malicious false allegations against him is not made out.
Ms Zaman lied when she said she had discussed the assault on 2 March 2017 with Lord Ahmed
452.In his response, Lord Ahmed also wrote:
“her written statement dated 23rd July 2019, TZ stated that after the incident in the car on the 2nd March 2017, I apologised to her and asked her not to make a formal police complaint. She further stated that I only continued to assist with her case if she assured me that she would not make an allegation against me. Not only is this a lie, but it is also at odds with all of her other accounts in which she says she blocked me immediately following the alleged car incident and only got in touch with me by sending a text in July. If she had blocked me immediately after this car incident, I ask rhetorically, when would this conversation have even taken place?”
Analysis
453.I have looked at all the accounts that Ms Zaman has given of the events prior to her blocking Lord Ahmed on the phone, and none of them say she did so immediately after he put his hand on her leg on 2 March 2017.
Finding
454.Lord Ahmed’s allegation that Ms Zaman lied about this matter is not made out.
Ms Zaman set up a fake Facebook account
455.In his response to the revised draft factual report Lord Ahmed referred to a comment Ms Zaman made in her interview with us on 12 September 2019 that “the police had told her that X had complained to them that she had set up a fake Facebook account … .”. He said that “this shows that TZ is quite capable of producing fake evidence”.
456.In her 12 September interview Ms Zaman said that she had not created a fake Facebook account.
457.There is nothing in the police material to suggest that it had any other evidence to support this allegation by X.
Analysis
458.An unsubstantiated claim by X to the police that Ms Zaman had set up a fake Facebook account, for which the police seemed not to have found any corroborating evidence, does not show that Ms Zaman is capable of creating false evidence.
Finding
459.Lord Ahmed’s allegation is not made out.
Ms Zaman’s mobile phone evidence
Lord Ahmed’s allegation
460.At different stages in the investigation Lord Ahmed expressed some doubt about the evidence made available by Ms Zaman from her phone. We therefore carefully examined the extent to which the material she provided purporting to be data retrieved using Dr Fone can be relied upon.
461.This material Ms Zaman provided included:
- text messages in CSV, HTML and XML format;
- WhatsApp data in CSV and XML format.
462.Among the messages there were:
- 182 text messages between Ms Zaman and X. These date from 24 November 2017 to 14 January 2018.
- 5,880 WhatsApp messages between Ms Zaman and X. Where the material is dated (some is undated), it runs from 17 October 2017 to 10 January 2018.
463.The WhatsApp messages provided as evidence by Lord Ahmed and Ms Zaman in their written evidence all appeared in the material retrieved using Dr Fone. Lord Ahmed got the messages from X, and Ms Zaman from her own phone.
464.There were also 57 text messages between Ms Zaman and Lord Ahmed dated from 22 February 2017 to 28 December 2017. These consisted of:
- five text messages between them arranging for Ms Zaman to send her statement to Lord Ahmed;
- one text message from Lord Ahmed to Ms Zaman, dated 2 March at 6:53pm saying ‘I am inside.’; and
- one text message from Ms Zaman to Lord Ahmed at 5:45pm on 14 July 2017 asking whether he had received a reply from the Metropolitan Police.
465.There is then a gap until 3 October 2017, when there are exchanges between the two that suggest they are on good and affectionate terms.
466.Then, on 28 and 29 November 2017 messages show Ms Zaman expostulating with Lord Ahmed about his treatment of X; saying that he has blocked her from WhatsApp; and saying she was sorry for everything, which produced responses from Lord Ahmed that he was also sorry, but it was too late—“You both did it behind my back and then you both refused to accept it. He is apologised now … otherwise it’s damaged my trust”.
467.Ms Zaman replied to say she had done nothing wrong; she had been thinking of having a relationship with X but wanted to tell Lord Ahmed about the situation before making a decision. She said she had been honest with Lord Ahmed and had done nothing wrong.
468.On 28 November 2017, Lord Ahmed messaged her saying, “You told me that you saw him on FaceTime. Then I find out that you met at my house. How dare you use my house without my permission … you discussed positions for sex—I saw the text .. touched or not”.
469.A few seconds later he sent a final text “No more text please Bye”.
470.Ms Zaman then sent 19 messages between 28 November and 4 December 2017, expressing anger at being blamed for something she hadn’t done, expressing sadness and bewilderment at what had gone wrong; saying on 1 December 2017 that X was not speaking to her, asking for help, and expressing resignation.
471.On 15 December she asked Lord Ahmed to call her, and repeated this on 26 December 2017.
472.On 27 December 2017 she sent three messages:
- “Did you plan it with [X]?”
- “Do you share your girlfriends?”
- “[X] is loyal to you he wouldn’t dare ask your partner out without your permission”
473.Her last message, on 28 December 2017, was:
“You would be pleased to know that its OVER between me and [X]. I didn’t know it got to you sooo bad that you were actually jealous of us? And there was nothing you could do about it”
474.X refused us access to his phone, so we were not able to compare any phone records he might have with those of Ms Zaman. However, in an email to Ms Zaman of 4 April 2018 he said, “I have over 3000 whatsapp messages from you”.
475.Lord Ahmed told us that all the data had been wiped from his phone before he gave it to his grandchildren in late 2017 or early 2018. However, he also said that he had been able to retrieve the text exchanges between himself and K on 5 December 2017 to give to the police.
476.In his written response of 23 July 2019, Lord Ahmed referred to there being “some 4000 messages sent from Ms Zaman to [X].”
Analysis
477.Dr Fone is a genuine provider of mobile phone apps to manage mobile phone data, including data recovery. It is consistent with the nature of data retrieval apps that only some data was retrievable. What can be retrieved will depend on a number of factors including how soon after data is deleted an attempt to retrieve it is made and how the phone saves and overwrites its internal memory.
478.Lord Ahmed accepted the authenticity of the text message on 2 March 2017. The WhatsApp messages between Ms Zaman and X produced by Lord Ahmed—which had been provided by X—were also found on Ms Zaman’s phone.
479.Both Lord Ahmed and X refer to there being 3–4,000 WhatsApp messages sent by Ms Zaman to X. There were 5,881 WhatsApp messages between them, so their estimates seem reasonable and this adds to the likelihood that these messages are genuine.
480.No evidence has been produced that any of these messages are fake.
Finding
481.I consider that material provided to us by Ms Zaman, having used Dr Fone to retrieve messages, is authentic and Lord Ahmed’s doubts to be unfounded.
15 Q is a journalist Ms Zaman contacted after I had told her I could not investigate her complaint in 2018.