MEDIA STUDIES
We are promised a great spectacle: Mr Al Fayed's first appearance in a British court
STEPHEN GLOVER
It all seems a very long time ago, part of another world. The Tory party has long since disowned Mr Hamilton, and its lead- ership does not regard with much relish a libel trial that will rake over old coals. But it is hardly Mr Hamilton's fault that the process has taken so long. The wheels of justice grind slowly, and especially so in this instance because both Mr Al Fayed and the government, in the person of the Solicitor- General, tried to ensure this matter never came to court.
Back in July 1997, the inquiry overseen by Sir Gordon Downey, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, came to a con- clusion that was undeniably damaging to Mr Hamilton. The report found that the evidence 'points compellingly to the conclu- sion that Mr Hamilton accepted cash pay- ments from Mr AI Fayed in return for lob- bying services'. Sir Gordon seems to have reached this judgment largely on the basis of the testimony of three former employees of Mr Al Fayed, Nonetheless, the procedu- ral shortcomings of the Downey inquiry were pointed out by many people, including myself in this column (29 November 1997). The inquiry did not take evidence under oath or apply the rules of due process. Mr Hamilton was not represented by counsel and had no right to cross-examine witness- es. There was no process for discovery or disclosure of documents.
Mr Hamilton was anxious to clear his name and issued a writ against Mr Al Fayed, citing the Dispatches programme. However, Mr Al Fayed's lawyers took the line that, as the matter had already been considered by Parliament, in the guise of Sir Gordon Downey's inquiry, its judgment could not be second-guessed by another
court. Article Nine of the 1689 Bill of Rights provides that 'the freedom of speech in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Par- liament'. Mr Hamilton's lawyers countered that it was not clear that the Downey inquiry represented the collective view of Parliament, particularly since the relevant select committee had declined to endorse Downey's conclusions about the brown envelopes. Moreover, Mr Hamilton's right to a fair trial would scarcely damage the parliamentary process.
In the summer of 1998 Mr Justice Pop- plewell ruled in the High Court that the allegations against Mr Hamilton could be properly determined in a court of law. Mr Al Fayed fought on. Rather bizarrely, he was joined by Ross Cranston, the Solicitor- General, on behalf of the Speaker and Par- liament. Notwithstanding this heavy artillery, the Appeal Court ruled in March of this year that Mr Hamilton's case could go ahead. Still Mr Al Fayed would not give up. He took his case to the House of Lords where his counsel, Michael Beloff, QC, said that the case would undermine 'the author- ity of Parliament and the respect held for Parliament . . . An alternative verdict can- not be excluded and that is a threat to the dignity of Parliament.' This is an unattractive argument to those who think the courts, not Parliament, are best placed to decide what is true and what is false. Last month five Law Lords unanimously rejected the claim that the Downey report had removed the right of the courts to adjudicate on Mr Al Fayed's allegations. A victory for justice and com- mon sense, I would say.
It is difficult not to respect Mr Hamilton's persistence. He is not a rich man and he has been opposed by those for whom money is little or no object. It would have been an out- rage if the allegations against him had never been tested. For the fact remains that they have never been considered in a court of law. Mr Hamilton's own libel action against the Guardian collapsed in October 1996. (He and the newspaper have never been able to agree on the reasons behind his withdrawal.) Then came the Downey inquiry with its defective procedures and unsatisfactorily vague conclusion. So, although the allega- tions against Mr Hamilton may be widely believed, and were electorally significant, until this moment they have not been sub- jected to the scrutiny of a court. In a couple of weeks we are promised a great spectacle. Desmond Browne, QC, will appear for Mr Hamilton; George Carman, QC, for Mr Al Fayed. Mr AI Fayed is due to be cross-examined first. Though he has been involved in libel actions in the past, until now he has never appeared in a British court to give evidence, so this case, on the assump- tion that there is no last-minute settlement, will mark a new departure for him. But it will be much more than a great spectacle. Mr Hamilton's guilt or innocence in respect of these charges remains one of the great unanswered questions of our time. If Mr Hamilton is guilty, he has abused the trust of many people and maintained a lie on an epic scale. If he is innocent, he has been grievously wronged, not just by Mr Al Fayed, but also by the Guardian, which has relied almost exclusively on Mr AI Fayed's allegations in the many stories it has written about the disgraced ex-MP. I believe the jury will arrive at the right answer, and eagerly await its verdict.
Afew people may have found last Sun- day's splash in the Sunday Times perplexing. Geoffrey Robinson, the former Paymaster- General, was said to be 'in possession of photographs of a senior Cabinet minister in a compromising position'. A youth was alleged to be involved. It was obvious who the minister was, but for those slow on the uptake the Guardian and the Express on Monday offered the name of Peter Mandel- son as the most likely object of this smear.
There is no evidence that this photograph exists. If it does, I think it unlikely that Mr Robinson would hawk it around. So in a way it was a rather grubby non-story, presumably given to the Sunday Times by Mr Robinson's friend and former spin doctor to Gordon Brown, Charlie Whelan, though he has denied it in colourful terms. But the fact that the paper should have chosen to run it so prominently so soon after Mr Mandelson's appointment is significant. When Mr Man- delson was based in Downing Street, the press lived in terror of him. Then came the photograph of 'Peter's friend' in the Sunday Express and the Guardian's revelation of Mr Robinson's £373,000 loan to Mr Mandelson. He may have been rehabilitated, but news- papers have tasted blood, and they see that in Belfast he is out on a limb. Some are determined to get him.
Previous page
