Sir: I was amused to read once more the lies
of Neil Hamilton (Payed paid me noth- ing', 19 October). Most of these were con- tained in his witness statement for the trial we were expecting to begin on 1 October. He evidently did not relish the thought of a week-long cross-examination of these claims on oath and instead preferred the less challenging course of writing articles and giving television interviews.
At the door of the court Mr Hamilton backed down and now complains of having to endure trial by media. He has never sat- isfactorily explained why he passed up the opportunity of trial by judge and jury. It has always seemed improbable that an MP trained as a barrister and experienced in the ways of libel could — at the door of the court — throw his hands up at the cost of going to law. He has never answered the $64,000 question of why his two counsel, and even his solicitors, refused to act for him at the end. They knew something that Spectator readers don't.
Mr Hamilton is now venomous about Mr Al Fayed, upon whom he fawned for four years, notwithstanding his knowledge, for a significant part of that time, of the conclu- sions of the very DTI report he now uses as evidence of Mr Al Fayed's lack of probity. `Fayed paid me nothing.' Come, come, Mr Hamilton. Forget the brown envelopes (although those who handed them to you and took your telephone calls about them do not). What about your week's holiday at the Ritz, where you ran up a bill of £5,000 (at today's prices)? And your holiday at his Scottish castle? Remember all your £185 hampers? And your personal accessories? Not to mention the Harrods pork and beef sausages. Mr Al Fayed may not have a head for detail, but he knows when he's bought a man.
Finally, Mr Hamilton richly accuses the Guardian of 'ignoring the confidentiality of disclosed documents'. This is true only in that we sent the four most senior privy councillors at Westminster a disturbing memo indicating an improper attempt to stifle the very course of action which Mr Hamilton had chosen to judge him in pref- erence to the courts — the select commit- tee procedure. The Speaker of the House of Commons appeared to share the con- cern about this memorandum and the doc- ument has now been referred to the Com- mittee on Standards and Privileges.
We have refrained from publishing many detaiA of Mr Hamilton's misbehaviour as an MP and as a minister of the present Government. Restraint is doubly hard when Mr Hamilton makes widespread claims in The Spectator and elsewhere which are confounded by documents we have seen but which he knows we cannot disclose. There should be an exemption to the disclosure rules to enable any party to litigation to nail lies being told publicly by another party particularly if, having seen the relevant documents, the other party withdraws from the action. If Hamilton writes many more articles such as this, perhaps there soon will be.
Alan Rusbridger
Editor Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1
Previous page
