|
(Continued from overleaf)
However, at that time Keith-Hill and I had no idea of the story that we had stumbled upon, which we would uncover in the months that followed.
Our findings in essence
Malcolm Keith-Hill and I learned that the 'cash for questions' charges against Neil Hamilton took three essential forms:
1) The first set of allegations was first published on 20 October 1994, in a front-page article in the Guardian. The story, written by lobby correspondent, David Hencke, claimed that Fayed's lobbyist, a man called Ian Greer, had paid Neil Hamilton and another MP, Tim Smith, £2,000 for each parliamentary written question that they had tabled in support of Mohamed Fayed. These questions related to Fayed's battle with Tiny Rowland of Lonrho plc following Fayed's acquisition of stores group House of Fraser, the parent of Harrods, nine years earlier in March 1985.
An additional allegation claimed that Hamilton and his wife had enjoyed 'free shopping' at Harrods. Tim Smith resigned after admitting privately to taking cash from Fayed directly (which had not been alleged). Hamilton and Greer, however, issued libel writs against the Guardian. The Guardian's original article is reproduced on pages 4/5 of the appendices.
2) The second set of allegations appeared six weeks later on 5 December 1994, contained within a letter from Fayed's solicitors to the Select Committee on Member's Interests. This time Fayed claimed that he had paid Hamilton directly bundles of £2,500 behind closed doors on eight occasions, totalling some £20,000 cash. It was stated that no witnesses were involved in any way.
Six months later in June 1995, Mohamed Fayed signed a witness statement for the forthcoming libel action, in which he reasserted twice that there were no witnesses to these alleged payments.
3) The third, final set of allegations was not made until nearly two years later on 27 September 1996, just three days prior to Hamilton's & Greer's consolidated libel actions were due to be heard. This time, witness statements were produced out of the ether from three Fayed employees who claimed that they had processed 'cash in brown envelopes', which Hamilton and Greer had supposedly collected from the entrance of Fayed's office block at 60 Park Lane, London. No explanation was offered for the three employees' late emergence.
Other allegations were also made, requiring no small effort to sort out who was alleging what against whom. To simplify matters, Keith-Hill and I encompassed all allegations in a chart, to which we later added footnotes. This can be found on page 6 of the appendices.
None of these allegations was supported by documentary evidence, nor any other evidence such as audio or video recordings - despite Fayed having a documented bent for secretly recording and archiving his private conversations for future blackmail attempts, and despite the fact that the entrance of 60 Park Lane had CCTV cameras connected to video recorders.
Nevertheless Keith-Hill and I remained sceptical - as any journalists would be going against the tide as we were - but over the following weeks the weight of evidence eventually convinced us of Hamilton's innocence. Indeed, we discovered that, despite the exhaustive investigations of Fayed and the Guardian, both of whom have massive resources, the only evidence supporting the 'cash for questions' allegations consisted of the testimony of Fayed and his three long-standing employees.
All Neil & Christine Hamilton's financial records were subjected to independent forensic examination. There were no unaccounted inputs during the period when he was alleged to have received Fayed's bribes, nor any reduction of use of credit cards, which the acquisition of illicit cash usually betrays
Hamilton also produced receipts which showed that he had purchased by cheque small antiques for his house during this period - though purchasing such artefacts would be one of the obvious methods to dispose of illicit cash without there being any trace.
Hamilton's bank statements also showed that he continued to withdraw small amounts of cash from ATM machines and from banks normally throughout the period he was alleged to have been receiving Fayed's bribes, including the one occasion for which the three employees gave a date (Sept. 1987).
These factors could only have two explanations. Either (a) Hamilton was innocent, as he claimed, or (b) Hamilton did indeed take Fayed's cash but concealed it, and with great cunning carried on using his credit cards normally and withdrawing cash from the bank normally to create the false impression that he hadn't taken the cash.
However, in the case of (b), such cunning behaviour was incompatible with Hamilton supposedly turning up at the entrance of Fayed's office block to take 'cash in brown envelopes' in front of prominent video surveillance. It was also incompatible with Hamilton and his wife telephoning Fayed's staff, whom they hardly knew, to demand 'envelopes', as alleged.
We also found a note among Hamilton's papers made by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, of a meeting between Hamilton and the Conservative Chief Whip, Richard Ryder, which had taken place on 19 October 1994, i.e. the day before the first set of allegations broke in the Guardian.
A few weeks before that, Fayed had failed in the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the 1990 DTI inspectors' report into his and his brothers' acquisition of House of Fraser. Immediately following the ECHR ruling, Fayed had communicated threats to Prime Minister John Major that he, Fayed, would make allegations against ministers Tim Smith, Neil Hamilton and Michael Howard, if Major didn't withdraw the DTI report and give him his passport. Major refused.
Butler's minute shows that Ryder told Hamilton that Fayed claimed to have proof of his allegations. Ryder warned Hamilton that Fayed had probably been setting him up for some time, and that this proof would probably include covertly-made tape recordings of their private conversations. Ryder warned Hamilton that it would be foolish to deny the allegations if such tapes could exist, but Hamilton assured him that the most Fayed could possibly have would be a letter of thanks he had sent after enjoying a private tour of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor's former villa outside Paris (on which Fayed owned a long lease) coupled to a complementary stay at the Paris Ritz (which Fayed owned outright).
In full knowledge of Ryder's warning, Hamilton issued libel proceedings against the Guardian when it published its 'cash for questions' story the following day. Furthermore, Fayed never has produced any tapes.
Once again, we formed the view that there could be only two explanations. Either (a) Hamilton was innocent, as he claimed, or (b) Hamilton was reckless to the point of delirium to sue for libel with the prospect of such tapes being produced and had merely been lucky that none had.
For obvious reasons we dismissed (b).
|
|
