Judge warns against 'excessive' libel payments

Mr Justice Morland today warned the jury against making an excessive award to Neil Hamilton as he summed up in the former Tory MP's libel action against Mohamed Al Fayed.

More than ?150,000 damages would be too big an award should Mr Hamilton win his cash for questions libel action, the judge said.

The jury should remember that any award must be proportionate to the injury done, he said.

Mr Hamilton, his wife Christine and Mr Fayed listened as the judge said that even the most grievously injured person - who was blind, deaf, paralysed, brain damaged and unable to communicate - was most unlikely to be awarded as much as ?150,000 for pain, suffering, disability and loss of enjoyment of life.

"No doubt you would agree that damages for the most grievous physical injuries should not be less than damages for defamation.

"Taking into account all the factors, including anything for Mr Hamilton's claimed loss of his political and business career, you may well think, if you find for him, that an assessment of damages in excess of ?150,000 would be excessive."

Mr Hamilton is suing Mr Fayed over allegations on a January 1997 Channel 4 Dispatches programme that the then MP had corruptly demanded and accepted cash payments, gift vouchers and a free holiday at the Paris Ritz in return for asking parliamentary questions on behalf of Harrods.

The judge said any damages should vindicate Mr Hamilton's true reputation, restoring it to what it had been before the alleged libel, and reflect the humiliation, stress and upset caused by Mr Fayed.

The sum could be increased by way of aggravated damages to take into account the way the case had been conducted.

Mr Justice Morland pointed out that there had been no word of apology from Mr Fayed, who had waged a "sustained attack" on Mr Hamilton since the broadcast.

Mr Hamilton had been cross-examined for two days and the verbal attacks by Mr Fayed from the witness-box had been "vicious", he said.

"He not only accused Mr Hamilton of corruption but gratuitously called him a homosexual prostitute and accused him of renting boys for [lobbyist] Ian Greer."

The judge went on to make it plain that he was not indicating one way or another whether any award should be made, or what it should be.

"You may have come to the conclusion that Mr Al Fayed's obsessional attitude and beliefs have distorted his perception of the truth," he said.

"Although confused, inconsistent and varying in detail, the main thrust of Mr Al Fayed's evidence was that Mr Hamilton received payments from him for his parliamentary activities; this is, of course, denied by Mr Hamilton."

The judge moved on to the evidence of three Fayed employees - his former personal assistant, Alison Bozek, who is now a solicitor, secretary Iris Bond and security guard Philip Bromfield which, if the jury found it convincing, he said, was "capable in law of confirming the thrust of Mr Al Fayed's evidence, being independent of his".

The judge said that the jury might think that Ms Bozek was a "very confident" witness.

She had joined Mr Fayed's employment in 1981 as an air stewardess/secretary on his private plane and had been his executive personal assistant for many years before leaving to complete her solicitor's training with a firm which included Mr Fayed among its clients.

When asked by Desmond Browne, counsel for Mr Hamilton, whether she was prepared to lie for Mr Fayed, she had said that she would not "for anybody" risk nine years of hard work to become a lawyer.

The judge said that Mr Fayed did not have to establish that every detail of his charge of corruption was true but that it was true in substance and in fact.

The jury was told to decide whether it was more likely than not that the allegation was true.

"Because of the seriousness of the charge, the law requires proof on the allegation to be clear and highly convincing.

"Keep that principle in mind at all times when considering the question of whether Mr Al Fayed has established that Mr Hamilton is guilty of corruption in his capacity as an MP."

He told the jury to remove from their minds any preconceived notions about either individual, and said that they should not be concerned with party politics or sleaze in the Conservative party.

The jurors had heard that another MP, Tim Smith, had admitted receiving cash for questions from Mr Fayed but that was no evidence that Mr Hamilton received a similar payment.

"There is no such thing in England as guilt by association," he said.

"Remember the all-important question. Did Mr Hamilton accept Mr Al Fayed's hospitality as a reward for parliamentary services rendered, for parliamentary questions asked, early day motions signed?

"If you are highly convinced that it was such a reward and Mr Hamilton knew it was intended as such a reward, corruption would be proved."

Mr Fayed denies libel and pleads justification.