Appendix 2: Lord Ahmed’s response to complainant’s response
1.The complainant—TZ—has provided a response to my Grounds of Appeal. This is a response to that document.
2.The document further exposes and lays bare the fact that the complainant is-not a credible witness and not capable of belief. Her response is telling in a number of key respects.
3.TZ asserts that [D] and [L] are ‘lying, openly and knowingly’. Despite this TZ has not specifically denied the evidence presented by them and, in fact, has presented material which supports what [D] has said.
4.Whilst questioning why she would have confessed to a ‘Pakistani person’ TZ goes on to state that he ([D]) was a ‘disgruntled journalist ..... someone offended that I chose to go to a reputable media organisation such as BBC Newsnight instead of them. I contacted and emailed several media outlets, and chose someone highly regarded’.
5.This is extremely telling in a number of respects. Firstly, it shows that, by her own admission, TZ did approach a number of media outlets in order to disseminate her story about me, in essence seeking to ‘sell her story’ to the media.
6.Secondly, the fact that she ‘chose’ to go elsewhere and which led to [D] being ‘disgruntled’ means that she did, in fact, approach him. Whilst she now says that it was she that chose to go elsewhere, [D] states that it was her false account of what I did that led to him not pursuing the story. Strikingly, TZ does not deny that an email was sent by [W] and that [D] was approached with the aim of publishing the article. She does not deny that The Sun newspaper was approached and decided not to run with the article. Critically, she does not deny that there were conversations between her and [D]. By stating that [D] visited her father at his home in Rochdale after BBC Newsnight contacted me she has provided confirmation of what [D] has said in his statement that he knew her father because the families came from the same village.
7.She does not deny that [D] did not pursue the publication of the article. As TZ accepts in her response that the article that she wanted to have published would have sold like ‘hot cakes’, she clearly approached [D] for this purpose. Given the above, the Committee can now accept that TZ did approach [D] with a story about me and wanted it published as [D] and [L] state in their witness statements. There is, therefore, support for what they say and that they are, therefore, credible witnesses of truth.
8.As I have always maintained TZ is not a credible witness of truth and her statement that ‘it would be odd for me to make something up’ is odd in itself. Why riot say, as might be expected of a witness of truth, that she did not approach [D] to publish a story about me; that the article· that [W] sent to [D] was a fabrication; that she did not have a conversation with [D] as he asserts in his statement. Indeed; her statement that ‘there is NO media quote or statement to be found ANYWHERE that can be linked to me stating: “METOOMYLORD’” is again an odd statement to make. It is not a denial in that she says that she·never expressed such a phrase but an assertion that nothing would be found with this phrase which could be linked to her. This shows TZ’s true character and ability and·willingness to distort the truth to her advantage. TZ needs to be asked whether she was involved in any manner at all with the email that was sent to [D] by [W]. She needs to provide all her emails that she says that she sent to media outlets. It is highly unsatisfactory, indeed unfair, that I cannot question TZ as to her assertions in this process. I ask that she is called to the Committee hearing and that I and/or my legal representatives are permitted to question her and, in the meantime, she is asked to provide the emails as stated above.
9.TZ confirms what I have said all along that she was in love with me because she states ‘Also this is not a question of whether I was in love or not with Lord Ahmed . . .’. Had the Commissioner permitted me to question TZ during the investigation, or investigated the matter properly, this would have been clearly established. It would have supported my assertion that her false allegations against me arose from my breaking off the relationship with her and causing her to act as she did. Her admission now that she was in love with me is critical to the case and completely explains how she behaved and why. The Committee now has this admission and must weigh it in favour of my appeal.
10.TZ asserts that [L] ‘is lying when he says I have always been estranged from my family before this documentary. My family have always come back and forth, as we were not estranged. I have helped organised [sic] my siblings’ weddings before (we are four brothers and four sisters).’ Either TZ is lying now or she has lied previously when in a letter to the police dated 22 September 2019 she said: I would like to make you aware of the impact all this has had on me.My physical and mental health has suffered. My family have turned against me. They feel their reputation has been destroyed. I can no longer attend family gatherings as I am not welcomed. I can’t even attend my own brother’s wedding and it was made clear to me that I was not allowed to show my face.” (Emphasis added). TZ appears to be able to lie at will and with ease and, as with all those who lie, cannot keep up with what lies they have told and when.
11.TZ states that she has received ‘death threats simply by speaking up’. I would ask that TZ produce evidence of those death threats and all reports she made to the police in this regard.
12.TZ asks that you consider the Judicial Review Bundle and states that my assertion that her JR was a failure is incorrect. As is crystal clear TZ was refused permission to judicially review. It was clearly and self-evidently a ‘failure’. Had this material/information not been placed before the Commissioner by me, the investigation could have been misled, as could this Committee. TZ’s application for judicial review_ was refused· on the_ merits. TZ’s assertion that it had merits is, therefore, patently false. The Committee will be aware that I repeatedly requested that the Commissioner consider this material carefully. She failed to do so. Given that TZ refers to it in her response I would urge the Committe to consider the material especially the approach of the police to TZ’ s complaints of rape and sexual assault. [The officer who dealt with Ms Zamman’s allegations] on 9th November 2018 stated that there were “No witness or CCTV to corroborate what happened. I asked her if I could go through the details of the letter with her and she declined”. [The officer who dealt with Ms Zamman’s allegations] in November 2018 in a summary of the complainant stated: “Ms Zaman has made several allegations to police either written or on video about a number of men who she believes have abused and exploited her either financially or sexually”. Each of her separate allegations contribute to one another and become relevant when considering her consistency and integrity. There are number of evidential difficulties in all of the allegations she has made. An evidential point which would cause any jury significant difficulty will centre around the timing of her reports being made and a pattern of reporting to various organisations, which appear to display an escalation of gravity in her allegations when she is disappointed with the outcome of her complaints”.
13.TZ’s attitude above is reflected in her approach to the Commissioner whom she criticised for not taking up her original complaint but now, having determined the complaint in her favour, the Commissioner can do no wrong. If TZ does not get her way, she resorts to criticism and allegations. She wanted to pursue her relationship with me because she loved me but when I broke off the relationship, she resorted to the tactic described above: criticism and allegations against me. It is clear that no-one is immune to this tactic as TZ makes unfounded allegations and assertions on a regular basis and continues that in her response by alleging serious misconduct, if not criminal activity, on the part of a police officer. TZ states that ‘I can provide evidence for how the statement made by the investigating officer in charge of the case was incorrect or false’. This· is a highly serious allegation without any foundation whatsoever. This is clear indication that TZ is prepared to make, and has made against me and others, false allegations without any basis in fact. She simply cannot be accepted as a credible witness of truth. Indeed, TZ’s family have been themselves involved in dishonest activity. The Mail Online reported that TZ’s brother was involved in a massive fraud. Please see attached article.·TZ states that her son was forced to drop out of University due to the mental trauma he had knowing what happened to his mother. One might speculate whether, in. fact, it was due to this case.
14.TZ’s response provides even more material to show that she is incapable of belief and that she cannot be relied upon as a witness of truth and, therefore, my appeal should be allowed.
15.I ask that the Committee, on the basis of fairness and natural justice, call TZ and that I or my legal representative be permitted to ask her questions about her complaint and that, in the meantime, she is asked to provide the material set out above.
Lord Ahmed
14th July 2020
