Conduct Committee
The conduct of Lord Ahmed
XXXX Report of Session 2019-21 - published XXXX XXXX 2020 - HL Paper XXXX
Chapter 3: Evidence of other witnesses who dealt with Ms Zaman in 2018 and 2019
212.In this chapter I consider the evidence of people who engaged with Ms Zaman and her allegations in 2018/19, to establish their views as to her credibility and my view as to the reliability of those views.
213.In his comments Lord Ahmed says I should have asked the police for their views on Ms Zaman’s reliability as a witness. This was dealt with in the report of the first investigation, where the police did not suggest that Ms Zaman had invented the allegations she made against Lord Ahmed.
Z
214.Z is a former chief crown prosecutor for North West England, with particular experience of prosecuting cases of child sexual exploitation and violence against women. He had advised Ms Zaman informally in 2018 and 2019. When we interviewed him, he told us that his account of his contact with Ms Zaman was drawn from memory as he had lost a lot of the emails between them about a year before the interview. All of his contact with Ms Zaman had been by phone or email.49
215.I asked him in general terms how he assessed the credibility of vulnerable people alleging sexual abuse and exploitation, many of whom had not previously been believed by the police or other authorities. He explained how he did this, and also explained the need to be alert to the possibility that somebody was making false allegations with a view to perverting the course of justice.
216.He said that Ms Zaman’s engagement with him was exactly what he would have expected of a victim of sexual abuse and exploitation, and that she showed none of the signs of having a hidden agenda:
“I am not telling you that she is not lying. What I am saying is that there was nothing in what she told me, and the way that she told me, that would give me the impression or allow me to conclude that she was perjuring herself or lying at all.”
217.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed criticised this line of questioning, arguing it was a “[c]ompletely unacceptable delegation of her [my] task”:
“[Z] is a witness supporting the Complainant–not an objective party. He cannot be asked to give evidence on how he assessed her credibility. That is for the Commissioner to determine.”
Analysis
218.Z has spent much of his working life considering whether evidence has been provided to a level that justifies prosecution. He has specialised in dealing with allegations made by people alleging sexual assault and exploitation. He did not claim to know the truth—as a prosecutor, he knows this is a matter for a court to determine—but he considered Ms Zaman behaved as a sexually abused and exploited complainant would. He was particularly convincing explaining the somewhat haphazard ways such complainants may disclose their evidence.50
219.I disagree with Lord Ahmed’s characterisation of Z as a witness supporting Ms Zaman if, by that, he intends to imply that Z was interviewed for that purpose, or at Ms Zaman’s request. While Z provided advice to Ms Zaman in 2018, this does not mean that his evidence to us was partial in her favour. I would also note that by asking Z for his account of how he would assess the credibility of Ms Zaman I was gathering evidence rather than delegating a task.
W
220.When W was approached by Ms Zaman, his first reaction was to worry that he might be being led into a trap: Lord Ahmed is influential in his community and the allegations Ms Zaman was making were things that were not usually discussed in the community.
221.He told us he was aware that Lord Ahmed had a reputation as a womaniser, had seen a story by D that Lord Ahmed had behaved improperly with a female journalist, and had seen a YouTube video in which a woman made similar allegations against Lord Ahmed.51
222.It was his caution in pursuing a story that risked repercussions that led him to contact D and G. The only reason he did not publish the story was that he didn’t have the backing of other media outlets with deeper pockets. As soon as the Newsnight broadcast was made he published the story.
223.W explained that once The Sunday Times had decided not to pursue the story, he considered that something powerful could still be published, though without either Lord Ahmed or Ms Zaman being named. However, Ms Zaman did not agree.
224.He was adamant that he could recognise when somebody was telling the truth and he recognised this in Ms Zaman.
225.We asked W how he would have reacted had D told him of the alleged phone call with Ms Zaman. He said:
“I would stop my relationship with [D] at the next moment because Tahira - if Tahira is lying, then I won’t pursue that case.”
226.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed noted this response, saying:
“[W] indicates he would have ceased contact with the Complainant had [D] told him she was lying. This demonstrates that he would prefer [D]’s word over hers. In turn this suggests that even witnesses on her behalf have doubts about her credibility.”
227.In her response to Lord Ahmed’s appeal submission, Ms Zaman, in denying the alleged conversation with D, had said, “Why would I confess this to a Pakistani person when I have stated how women are mistreated and blamed by my community”. We had asked whether the same objection would have applied to W. Ms Zaman explained that he was Indian, not Pakistani.
228.In his response to my draft factual report, Lord Ahmed suggested that this distinction was important, noting:
“I am aware that because of my views on Kashmir I am not liked by the Indian Government and many Indians would want to do me harm. The Complainant was obviously seeking to recruit somebody who would assist her in her plans to do me harm ie go along with her campaign to seek revenge.”
Analysis
229.W provided evidence that he had contacted other journalists and provided us with a link to the YouTube video referred to. He was acutely aware of the financial risks of making a false allegation, or one without sufficient corroborative or supportive evidence, and did his best to get this. He relied on his own judgement as well as the evidence of others and seemed to have taken relevant matters into consideration in reaching his decisions.
230.W’s views on Kashmir were not part of this investigation. There is no evidence to suggest his involvement was motivated by that issue and there is no evidence to suggest that in speaking to W, Ms Zaman was influenced by that issue. The fact that other journalists, including G and U, also engaged with Ms Zaman about her complaints suggests that Lord Ahmed’s views on Kashmir were not a relevant factor.
231.Lord Ahmed argues that W’s comment that he would not have pursued Ms Zaman’s story had D spoken to him about the alleged phone call demonstrates that W had doubts about Ms Zaman’s credibility. While his response suggests that, had he believed Ms Zaman was not truthful, he would not have pursued the story, the rest of his evidence does not indicate any doubt about Ms Zaman. Rather a little later in his testimony he clearly indicated he believed Ms Zaman’s account, saying “she knew what she is saying is true and truth will prevail. Nothing can stop Tahira to get justice. She is a new age, professional woman. She will fight till the end”.
G
232.G is an investigative reporter with The Sunday Times, and its Northern Correspondent.
233.When we interviewed him on 25 August, he told us that he had been put in touch with Ms Zaman through W, who wanted to involve The Sunday Times because he wasn’t experienced in handling reports and investigations of this sort. He interviewed Ms Zaman a number of times and was convinced that she had had a relationship with Lord Ahmed. She told him that she had been groomed, taken advantage of and that Lord Ahmed had tried to pass on to someone else. He understood that Ms Zaman’s contact with Lord Ahmed had arisen entirely out of her hope that Lord Ahmed, through his Parliamentary position, would help her to get the police to investigate S, and that Lord Ahmed had agreed to help.
234.He explained that the problem with running the story was that it was not backed by an official investigation of some sort, and he didn’t feel there was enough evidence to run the article without such backing. He said that these were the reasons The Sunday Times did not pursue the story. He did not say that The Sunday Times did not believe her account.
235.He made the point that initially he had been appropriately sceptical of Ms Zaman’s account—he was aware that Lord Ahmed ended the relationship and he had to allow for the possibility that Ms Zaman was trying to get her own back for the ending of the relationship. However, he concluded that she was telling the truth. His impression was that Ms Zaman just wanted to be taken seriously.
236.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed considered that the G’ account of The Sunday Times deciding not to pursue the story contrasted with statements from Ms Zaman that she had decided she did not want the story to run.
Analysis
237.G is an experienced investigative journalist, working for a heavyweight national newspaper with a track record of serious investigative journalism. Neither he nor the newspaper would want to publish a story that could not be substantiated in court if a legal challenge to its accuracy was made.
238.There is no evidence that G or the newspaper disbelieved Ms Zaman, and the fact that he was still involved with the story months later (as evidenced by Ms Zaman’s email to W in September 2018) supports G’ assertion that he believed her.
239.His position moved during his contact with Ms Zaman from properly professional scepticism to a belief that she was telling the truth.
240.Lord Ahmed’s comments about contrasting accounts misunderstand the chronology of events. Following The Sunday Times’ decision not to run with the story, W was keen to publish something without naming either party. It was this story that Ms Zaman did not agree to.
U
241.U is a correspondent for BBC Newsnight, with which he has worked for over 20 years on various investigative projects. He was responsible for the broadcast on 14 February 2019 about Lord Ahmed, where Ms Zaman’s allegations of sexual exploitation were made.
242.He told us that during his investigation he had spoken to a number of individuals making allegations against Lord Ahmed, two of whom had been included in the final broadcast, in addition to Ms Zaman.
243.We asked what process he followed to satisfy himself that the complaints were genuine. He explained that, in relation to Ms Zaman, he had spoken to members of her family and friends, and had had the contents of her phone, and those of her friend Saima Butt, analysed.
244.When confronted by us with the allegation that Ms Zaman had a reputation as an habitual liar and asked if anyone he had interviewed had suggested this, he said that he had not heard any allegation of this nature, rather “completely opposite of that”.
245.He also explained that an investigation of the sort that he undertook would have to be signed off by both the BBC’s lawyers and by the editorial policy team “to ensure that we have acted fairly throughout and that, legally, we are as watertight as we can be. And it was signed off by both”.
246.In his response to my draft factual report, Lord Ahmed argued that other witnesses we spoke to were “individuals who have a vested interest in suggesting the veracity of the Complainant’s account as to do otherwise would completely invalidate and undermine their initial support of her. By way of example, U of the BBC is hardly going to now accept that he was involved in broadcasting a news story on national television based on the account of a witness who was lying”.
247.In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed also describes U’s attempts to verify Ms Zaman’s allegations as being similar to those of L.
Analysis
248.Newsnight is a flagship BBC programme, and U had been working for Newsnight for 20 years when he started investigating Ms Zaman’s story. In his interview, U explained the meticulous attention that was paid to accuracy and verification, not only by him as the investigator, but also by legal and policy teams at the BBC. He set out his processes for verification, which shows that his judgement was based on evidence as well as his own experience.
249.I spoke to U, and others, in order to discover what corroborative evidence they could provide in order to make a determination on the balance of probabilities about D and L’s accounts and Ms Zaman’s denial. While I accept that each witness will speak from a particular position, this does not necessarily invalidate their evidence, it is simply a matter to be borne in mind when making an overall evaluation. In these instances, there is no evidence that would suggest Z, W, G and U were protecting their interests such that their evidence ought to be considered invalid.
250.Lord Ahmed’s suggestion that U’s attempts to verify Ms Zaman’s story were similar to L’s is not accurate. As described above, L told us that his sources were people still living in Rochdale who, he said, were “people who knew her and knew about her life”. His sources did not include Ms Zaman’s family, her social circle or people living near to where Ms Zaman has lived in London for many years. U’s process included speaking to her friends and family, and analysing the contents of her mobile phone.
49 We also spoke to Z during my initial investigation. In that report he was referred to as [Z]
50 See paragraph 26 of the factual report in Appendix 2
51 In his response to the draft factual report, Lord Ahmed provided a witness statement from V, the woman in the YouTube video referred to by W. My remit in this investigation was only to evaluate the evidence he had submitted in his appeal to the Conduct Committee. I therefore did not consider it within my power to accept further new evidence.