Letter: No chance for Fayeds to clear their name
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.Sir: Your comment of 11 June upon the unconfirmed reports that this company might be floated on the stock market made much of the 1990 Department of Trade and Industry report on the takeover of the of House of Fraser in 1985 and the critical comments made by the two inspectors.
As the Government itself made clear in the case of Fayed vs the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights in 1994, the contents of the report were no more than the inspectors' opinion and they had taken into account hearsay which would not be admissible in a court of law.
It was not the inspectors' function to reach any conclusions as to whether any offences had been committed. Those who did have that responsibility, the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that there was nothing to warrant criminal proceedings. The report did not lead to any civil proceedings, nor was there a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, nor was there any move to seek the disqualification of the Fayed brothers as company directors.
Because no case was ever brought the Fayed brothers were never able to demonstrate in court the wrongheadedness of the inspectors' opinion. At the same time, the report was protected by privilege and so the Fayed brothers were not able to institute proceedings for libel. As Lord Mishcon said in the House of Lords at the time, it is the worst of all worlds when someone is accused in an official report but denied any means of defending himself because no action is taken upon it.
MICHAEL COLE
Director of Public Affairs
Harrods
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments