pounds 150,000 limit set in Hamilton case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.AN AWARD of more than pounds 150,000 damages would be excessive should Neil Hamilton win his cash-for-questions libel action against Mohamed Al Fayed, a High Court jury was told today.
Starting his summing up, Mr Justice Morland said that the jury should remember that any award must be proportionate to the injury done.
Media reports of pounds 1m plus awards for personal injury were misleading, he added, in that 90 per cent or more of such sums were to pay for a lifetime's worth of nursing or lost earnings. The element of compensation for physical injuries was often only 10 per cent of such an award.
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 pounds 150,000 for pain, suffering, disability and loss of enjoyment of life.
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 had 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 Fayed has established that Mr Hamilton is guilty of corruption in his capacity as an MP."
Mr Hamilton is suing Mr Fayed over allegations on a January 1997 Channel 4 Dispatches programme that he had corruptly demanded rewards in return for asking parliamentary questions on behalf of the Harrods boss.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments