IN THE COURT OF MOHAMED

Frank Johnson wonders when Mr Al Fayed will call a dozen red-bearded dwarfs in his defence

THOUGH no lawyer, I assume that all precedents and points of law touching upon Hamilton v. Al Fayed are to be found in Jamdyce v. Jarndyce or, better still, Beachcomber's lengthy Case of the Twelve Red-Bearded Dwarfs. Beachcomber, for the benefit of younger readers, was for decades the surreal columnist of the old Daily Express. On leaving the High Court one evening this week, I consulted Michael Frayn's useful Beachcomber anthology. 'A Mrs Tasker is accused of continually ring- ing the doorbell of a Mrs Renton, and then, when the door is open, pushing a dozen red-bearded dwarfs into the hall and leaving them there.'

The details of that case need not, as lawyers say, detain us here. Its resem- blance to Hamilton v. Al Fayed resides, apart from its picturesque implausibility, in such passages as: 'The first sensation came when Mrs Tasker submitted a list of over 7,000 people whom she wished to call as witnesses.' The judge asked, 'Surely they cannot all be connected with the case. For instance, I see here the name of a Cabinet minister. Also, a well-known film actor. And that distinguished sailor Rear Admi- ral Sir Ewart Hodgson?' Counsel: 'I under- stand he knows one of the dwarfs.'

Sitting in the High Court for the past week or so, one asked oneself, 'Surely they cannot all be connected with the case?' But they must be. Otherwise, as name after famous name falls from Mr Al Fayed's lips in the witness box, the judge presumably would have stopped him. Mr Al Fayed did not mention a distinguished sailor. But he had at least one Cabinet minister. And, as his days of cross-examination passed, he submitted the names of the Duke of Edin- burgh in his capacity as organiser of assassi- nation; the late Mr Tiny Rowland as payer of bribes; Mr Michael Howard as accepter of aforementioned bribes; Mr Hamilton as homosexual; Mr Hamilton as prostitute; Mr Hamilton as homosexual prostitute; Lady Thatcher, not necessarily as either of the latter, but certainly as a conspirator against Mr Al Fayed; and, just to be bipartisan, Mr Jack Straw as refuser of Mr Al Fayed's fabled British passport on the orders of MI6 and, indeed, MI5. At the time of writing, Mr Al Fayed is still in the witness box, and so this may not be the exhaustive list.

An unusual case, as Beachcomber would say; and a gripping one. As the days length- ened in Court 13, the outside world had no reality or significance except insofar as it affected our case, the case by which all of us in the press seats and public gallery were by now hypnotised. But, as always for us lay- men, we can follow only the non-technical stuff. Every now and then, judge and two leading counsels talk and dispute among themselves in their learned tongue. The rest of us are cast adrift.

'My Lord, this is contrary to Phipson,' said Mr George Carman, for Mr Al Fayed, interrupting Mr Desmond Browne's cross- examination of the owner of Harrods. 'Yes, Phipson is clear,' commented the judge. Mr Browne, reflecting, does not think he is doing anything contrary to Phipson. But he seems to think Phipson has to be borne in mind. We press on. An hour or so later, Mr Carman was up again, refreshing his learned friend's memory of Phipson. No one answers the question that is by now on all our lips: who is this Phip- son? He cannot be famous. Otherwise Mr Al Fayed might have mentioned him. On the other hand, perhaps he is famous in his field, like that distinguished sailor Sir Ewart Hodgson. Another possibility is that he is famous, but has not conspired against Mr Al Fayed, which would make him an unusual figure in this case.

By a process of elimination, we deduced that Phipson was (is?) an important 'I'm afraid our brown envelopes are sub judice.'

lawyer. His rule has something to do with whether, in cross-examination, counsel can mention a document or an exhibit which the cross-examinee does not admit to have seen. I am sure it is more complex than that. But it seemed to prevent Mr Hamil- ton's side mentioning in detail a lot of things it wanted to. Perhaps Mr Al Fayed began to think after a while that this Phip- son sounded like a great guy, worthy of a Harrods Christmas hamper.

Still, Mr Browne, in pursuit of Mr Al Fayed, was able to drag in quite a lot. For example, he got in a taped telephone con- versation between Mr Al Fayed and the late Tiny Rowland. Mr Browne had asked Mr Al Fayed whether it was his practice to tape his own telephone conversations. Mr Al Fayed replied that it was not. Mr Browne produced his tape, presumably supplied by forces hostile to Mr Al Fayed.

On it, Mr Rowland asked Mr Al Fayed whether the conversation was being taped.

Mr Al Fayed replied that it was not. When the tape ended, Mr Al Fayed's demeanour was of complete calm. The conversation may have been taped, but it was nothing to

do with him. It must have been done by his security people, he explained. But it was

the first phrase on the tape which seemed to be almost as enigmatic as the tape's ori- gin. Mr Al Fayed was heard genially telling Mr Rowland, 'I am talking about your cock, not my cock.'

Surprisingly, Mr Carman did not rise to plead that the aforementioned member

was contrary to Phipson. Surely Phipson had something to say about the member being introduced without warning. But per- haps it did not come within the category of an exhibit previously unseen by the witness. An alternative explanation is that the entity referred to was a metaphor: Mr Al Fayed's characteristic way of referring to his for- tune in relation to Mr Rowland's. Having already had occasion last week to quote Mr Al Fayed in this general area, I apologise to readers for appearing preoccupied with

the subject. As the judge occasionally advised Mr 8rowne when he thought a line of questioning was exhausted, I shall move on to my next subject.

The choice is varied. Mr Browne produced not just a tape, but a video. It thus became a sort of multimedia cross-examination, lack- ing only the Internet. It was on this video — of Mr Al Fayed having a meal at Harrods with his arch enemy Mr Rowland during one of their truces — that Mr Al Fayed casually assured Mr Rowland that Mr Hamilton was not only greedy but 'a homosexual, a prosti- tute'. Asked by Mr Browne if he really believed that, Mr Al Fayed explained, 'It was just a discussion. It was rumours.' Mrs Hamilton, seated next to her husband, looked especially unconvinced by that one.

But before we form any opinion of the progress of Hamilton v. Al Fayed, we must hear Mr Hamilton enduring the same ordeal by cross-examination. The case, as Beachcomber would have put it, continues.