Editing Neil Hamilton (politician) (section)

==Legal cases==
===BBC libel case (1984–1986)===
On 30 January 1984, a ''[[Panorama (British TV programme)|Panorama]]'' programme, "[[Maggie's Militant Tendency]]", was broadcast. The programme made a number of allegations regarding Hamilton's past and more recent activities. These included his attending and giving a fraternal speech in 1972 to the [[Italian Social Movement]] (MSI), an Italian neo-fascist party led by one of [[Benito Mussolini]]'s ex-ministers, [[Giorgio Almirante]],<ref>[http://www.jta.org/1973/05/24/archive/parliament-debate-on-recommendation-to-strip-msi-leader-of-his-immunity "Parliament Debate on Recommendation to Strip Msi Leader of His Immunity"], ''JTA'', 24 May 1973.</ref> Hamilton's membership of the [[Eldon League]], and his involvement with the Powellite faction of the [[Monday Club]] and the far-right activist, [[George Kennedy Young]], the former Deputy Director of MI6 and Chairman of the [[Society for Individual Freedom]]. The programme also made the claim that Hamilton gave a [[Nazi salute]] in Berlin while "messing around" on a parliamentary visit in August 1983. A Nazi salute is a criminal offence in the Federal Republic of Germany.<ref>Robert Kahn, ''Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study'', p. 15 (2004). {{ISBN|9781403964762}}.</ref> In October 1986, Hamilton and his fellow MP [[Gerald Howarth]] (one of his closest friends), sued the [[BBC]] for libel along with [[Philip Pedley|Phil Pedley]], a former chairman of the [[National Young Conservatives]], who had appeared on the programme.<ref name="guardian.co.uk">{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/hamilton/article/0,2763,195592,00.html |work=The Guardian | location=London | title=Who will listen to his story now? | first=Jamie | last=Wilson | date=22 December 1999 | access-date=26 March 2010}}</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper highlighted Hamilton's admission in ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' in an article he wrote after the court case that he did give "a little salute with two fingers to his nose to give the impression of a toothbrush moustache."<ref name="guardian.co.uk"/>

The prosecution was financed by [[Sir James Goldsmith]]<ref>[[Marcel Berlins]], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/31/hamiltonvalfayed.law "Price of backing a loser"], ''The Guardian'', 31 January 2000.</ref> and [[Taki Theodoracopulos|Taki]], ''The Spectator'' columnist. [[David Davis (British politician)|David Davis]], then a director of [[Tate and Lyle]], persuaded that company to donate a sum to the cause. [[Lord Harris of High Cross]] (who helped to finance Hamilton's failed libel action against Mohammed Al-Fayed 13 years later), also raised approximately £100,000.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-hamilton-affair-the-cost--rightwing-donors-united-by-their-loathing-of-fayed-1134008.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220618/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-hamilton-affair-the-cost--rightwing-donors-united-by-their-loathing-of-fayed-1134008.html |archive-date=18 June 2022 |url-access=subscription |work=The Independent | location=London | title=The Hamilton Affair: The cost – Right-wing donors united by their loathing of Fayed | first=Kim | last=Sengupta | date=22 December 1999 | access-date=20 May 2010}}</ref>

During the case, Hamilton said he saw himself as being "the [[Mike Yarwood]] of the [[Federation of Conservative Students]]"<ref>''Daily Telegraph'', 17 October 1986.</ref> and that he frequently did impressions of public figures such as [[Frankie Howerd]], [[Harold Wilson]], [[Edward Heath]], [[Charles De Gaulle]] and [[Enoch Powell]]. Hamilton said he had coloured himself [[blackface|black]] in 1982 to look like [[Idi Amin]] and dressed as Canon James Owen on a boat on the [[River Cam]].<ref>''The Daily Telegraph'', October 1986.</ref> He said he would have twenty character witnesses: "My main character witness was going to be [[Norman St John Stevas]]."<ref name=STNH>Neil Hamilton, ''Sunday Times'' News in Focus feature, 26 October 1986.</ref> In a ''Sunday Times'' article, Hamilton denied there was any malicious intent behind the salute. He also pointed out that one person present at the incident, [[Julian Lewis]], was a Jew and that a "number of his relatives were killed by the Nazis during the war".<ref name=STNH/>

====BBC collapse====
In mid-trial and without cross-examining Hamilton, the BBC capitulated on 21 October 1986. The Director-General, [[Alasdair Milne]], stated he was instructed to do so by the Governors of the BBC. The corporation was directed to pay the men's legal costs. Hamilton and Howarth were awarded £20,000 each and in the next edition of ''Panorama'', on 27 October, the BBC made an unreserved apology.<ref>''The Times'', 28 October 1986.</ref> The settlement of the case raised serious concerns regarding political pressure and the intimidation of witnesses. Before the BBC defence lawyers had an opportunity to interrogate Hamilton, the Board of Governors met during the trial and instructed the BBC Board of Management to settle the case: "the BBC executives at this meeting expressed serious doubts about the decision. It was pointed out the BBC had not even begun to put its case".<ref>Simon Freeman and Henry Porter, "BBC to settle Tory libel case", ''Sunday Times'', 19 October 1986.</ref>

The National Young Conservatives hinted at a stitch-up at the BBC. The chairman, [[Richard Fuller (Bedford MP)|Richard Fuller]], told the Eastern Area Young Conservatives: "I find it strange that they have apparently decided to settle now, when things appeared to be going well."<ref name=FiddickBarker>Peter Fiddick and Dennis Barker, "BBC in crisis over libel case deal", ''The Guardian'', 20 October 1986.</ref> Attention focused on the actions of Malcolm McAlpine, a cousin of [[Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green|Alistair McAlpine]] the treasurer of the Conservative Party: "He denied yesterday that he had promised Mr Hamilton that he could 'deliver' the governors behind a settlement".<ref name=FiddickBarker/>

====Witness allegations====
In the immediate aftermath of the BBC settlement, allegations of witness intimidation abounded. A BBC internal memorandum to the Board of Management claimed some 17 witnesses had been intimidated into changing their testimony.<ref>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1986/oct/31/hamilton-and-howarth-v-british#S6CV0103P0_19861031_CWA_38 Hamilton and Howarth v. British Broadcasting Corporation], ''Hansard'', HC Deb 31 October 1986 vol 103 c272W.</ref> A BBC source stated:<blockquote> "Nearly all the defence witnesses have had a quiet word in their ears. Only two or three people connected with Tory politics who would have given vital evidence for us now stick to their testimony. Some previously expressed disgust at incidents they had witnessed. Now they claim to have witnessed nothing."<ref>John Merritt, "Tories Nobble BBC Claim", ''The Daily Mirror'', 20 October 1986<br />Anne Spackman, "New evidence emerges in BBC Libel Case", ''The Independent'', 25 October 1986.</ref></blockquote>

Howarth and Hamilton said the case against Pedley would not be dropped and Pedley said he would not be joining the BBC decision. The ''Financial Times'' reported, "A solicitor for Mr Hamilton and Mr Howarth said later that their linked libel action against Mr Philip Pedley... would continue. Mr Pedley indicated that he intends to continue the case."<ref>David Thomas, Raymond Hughes and Michael Cassall, "MP urges resignations at BBC after libel settlement", ''Financial Times'', 22 October 1986.</ref>

The media began to focus on the remaining unsettled case. ''The Guardian'' reported that "The spotlight had swivelled to Phil Pedley, the Tory defendant who remained adamant he would fight on alone, backed by independent funds and, he claims, a wide range of Conservative supporters."<ref>"Fighting on alone", ''The Guardian'', 22 October 1986.</ref> Pedley did not name the supporters but the then chairman of the Young Conservatives, [[Richard Fuller (Bedford MP)|Richard Fuller]], pledged financial support to the fight and in a meeting with [[Jeffrey Archer]], Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Fuller resisted Archer's demand to back down.<ref>David Sapsted, "MP's get damages", ''The Times'', 20 October 1986<br />Dennis Barker and Peter Fiddick, "Young Tory in Archer Meeting", ''The Guardian'', 21 October 1986.</ref>

Labour accused Conservative Central Office of organising a cover-up over claims that Hamilton had given a Nazi salute on a visit to Berlin and sought to question the then party chairman, [[Norman Tebbit]].<ref>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1986/oct/21/engagements#S6CV0102P0_19861021_HOC_165 PMQs], ''Hansard'', HC Deb, 21 October 1986 vol 102 cc940-6<br />Ivor Owen, "Labour calls for statement on alleged libel case interference", ''Financial Times'', 22 October 1986<br />John Pienaar, "Tebbit leaning on Tories over BBC", ''The Independent'', 22 October 1986.</ref> [[Dale Campbell-Savours]] claimed he had evidence in the form of a letter from Pedley to the former Party Chairman, [[John Selwyn Gummer]], demonstrating Conservative Central Office (CCO) had contacted witnesses.<ref>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1986/oct/23/bbc-court-case#S6CV0102P0_19861023_HOC_283 BBC (Court Case)], ''Hansard'', HC Deb 23 October 1986 vol 102 cc1307-10.</ref> Tebbit confirmed one witness had been in touch with CCO. "I am aware that one potential witness sought advice from Central Office but was told that no advice could be given..." Tebbit accused Campbell-Savours of making his accusations behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege and left the chamber to make his reply.<blockquote> "My staff are appalled and disgusted. They are filled with contempt for a man who can make these sort of accusations of a criminal offence against a member of staff, who, Mr Campbell-Savours knows damn well, is not guilty of it."<ref>Anthony Bevins, "Top Tory named in BBC Row", ''The Independent'', 24 October 1986<br />Alan Travis, "Labour accuses Tories of Libel Pressure", ''The Guardian'', 24 October 1986.</ref></blockquote>

On 25 October, the press reported new evidence of inappropriate witness contact.<ref>Anne Spackman, "New Evidence emerges in BBC libel case", ''The Independent'', 25 October 1986.</ref> Later that day, Hamilton announced that he was dropping the action against Pedley. However, Pedley reaffirmed that he "had no intention of withdrawing from the case."<ref>David Hencke, "MP drops Young Tory libel action", ''The Guardian'', 27 October 1986.</ref> Hamilton's announcement failed to quell demands for an enquiry and Campbell-Savours denounced Tebbit's tactic of making his statements outside the House of Commons chamber, accusing him of "a deliberate ploy to avoid placing himself in contempt by misleading the House in a personal statement". He invited Tebbit to make a statement in the House.<blockquote>"If he refuses, then the country will know that a conspiracy of silence is being engineered by senior figures to hide the truth."<ref>Anthony Bevans, "Tebbit challenged to make statement on BBC case", ''The Independent'', 28 October 1986<br />- Alan Travis, "Tory Squeeze Claim", ''The Guardian'', 28 October 1986.</ref> </blockquote>More information appeared in the press alleging witness interference, including the Hogan Memorandum, the internal BBC document listing the witnesses who had changed their account.<ref>Alan Travis, "Tory Squeeze claim", ''The Guardian'', 28 October 1986.</ref> ''The Independent'' revealed the existence of a taped conversation of a Tory witness being "shaken rigid" by Central Office's suggestion that the Berlin events had not happened and "no other witness would substantiate or give evidence about those alleged incidents" and the witness was told no other witness would back his account. The witness said, "this was like a bad dream."<ref>Anne Spackman and Anthony Bevins, "BBC witness shaken rigid", ''The Independent'', 29 October 1986.</ref>

Campbell-Savours claimed this was proof of BBC nobbling and announced that he was sending his evidence to Sir [[Michael Havers]], the Attorney General.<ref>[[James Naughtie]], "MP claims tape proof of BBC nobbling", ''The Guardian'', 5 November 1986.</ref> In the Commons, Campbell-Savours stated:<blockquote> "Central Office set about an elaborate attempt to interfere directly with potential witnesses. Attempts were made to manage and rig statements by Mr. David Mitchell. I repeat what I have said previously, but additionally I am able to say today that there is a tape in existence that confirms the nature of the conspiracy to hide the truth, and which identifies persons. Today I have sent a transcript of that tape to the Attorney-General. I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that it is but one of two tapes. I await a transcript of the second tape."<ref>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1986/nov/04/bbc-libel-action BBC Libel Action], ''Hansard'', 4 November 1986.</ref></blockquote>

====Statement contradictions====
Press interest turned to Hamilton's past statements about the Berlin visit, over which Tory witnesses were alleged to have been pressured to say that they had not seen goose-stepping or Nazi-style salutes. Hamilton had given a categorical denial he had made a Nazi salute in Berlin to John Selwyn Gummer, the Party Chairman, in January 1984:

:"Dear John... I make it absolutely clear that, whilst in Berlin, I did not do any goose-stepping nor did I at any time give Nazi salutes. Indeed, I have always thought the latter was a criminal offence in the Federal Republic."

Writing in the ''Sunday Times'', Hamilton admitted making "a little salute" in the Reichstag.<ref>Neil Hamilton News in Focus feature, ''Sunday Times'', 26 October 1986<br />David Leigh and Paul Lashmar, Nazi Salute storm refuses to die down", ''The Observer'', 2 November 1986<br />[[Paul Foot (journalist)|Paul Foot]], "Spot the Goose", ''Daily Mirror'', 3 November 1986.</ref> Hamilton's admission had the effect of reaffirming the testimony of the two witnesses who alleged he had given a Nazi salute in Berlin and exposing those witnesses who had reversed their position.{{citation needed|date=February 2019}}

====Dropping of libel action against the Young Conservatives====
Hamilton and Howarth reversed their earlier position and dropped their libel action against Pedley. They said that extracting an apology from Pedley was not "worth the bother".<ref>''The Times'', 27 October 1986.</ref> On 3 December 1986, Pedley refused the offered settlement terms and asked for a hearing in open court. Justice Simon Brown ruled that Hamilton and Howarth be debarred from alleging Pedley's words were libel and should pay Pedley's costs.<ref>''The Financial Times'', 4 December 1986.<br />[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neil_Hamilton_v_Pedley_Liability_Costs_Panorama_Case.jpeg High Court written judgement], 14 July 1987.</ref>

Pedley made a statement from the steps to say he stood by his words in the ''Panorama'' programme and restated he had never said the MPs were Nazis, rather their behaviour was part of a pattern that would harm the Party and in the case of Hamilton's Berlin behaviour, the Final YC Report accused Hamilton of "batty eccentricity". On the more substantive allegations, Pedley said he reiterated the points made in the YC Report had been called into question.<blockquote>"I consider I have the responsibility to vindicate the good work done by the members of that committee. Several have endured abuse and hate mail following publication of their names in the Young National Front paper Bulldog and other extremist papers. I hope this will now cease, together with set-ups and the surveillance and harassment of other witnesses; in my case by private security companies."<ref>Pedley Prepared Court Statement, 3 December 1986<br />- "A thoroughly moderate man", ''Time Out'', 17 December 1986.</ref></blockquote>

In December 1986, Hamilton was appointed [[Parliamentary Private Secretary]] to [[David Mitchell (politician)|David Mitchell]].

===Cash-for-questions===
{{Main|Cash-for-questions affair}}
On 20 October 1994, ''The Guardian'' published an article which claimed that Hamilton and another MP, [[Tim Smith (UK politician)|Tim Smith]], had received money, in the form of cash in brown envelopes. It claimed the money was paid to the men by [[Mohamed Al-Fayed]], the owner of [[Harrods]]. In return, the men were to ask questions on behalf of Al-Fayed in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]]. Smith admitted his guilt and resigned immediately. Hamilton claimed innocence but was forced to resign five days later, on 25 October 1994.

====Libel action against ''The Guardian''====
Hamilton brought legal action for [[libel]] against ''The Guardian''. Hamilton joined [[Ian Greer]], a parliamentary lobbyist, as a co-plaintiff. In the process, the [[Bill of Rights 1689]] was amended by the [[Defamation Act 1996]] to allow statements made in Parliament to be questioned in court.<ref>Robert Shrimsley, "Guardian Case MP seeks law change", ''Financial Times'', 15 February 1996.<br />{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/1468-2230.00087 |volume=60 |issue=3 |title='Only Flattery is Safe': Political Speech and the Defamation Act 1996 |year=1997 | journal=Modern Law Review | pages=388–393 | last=Williams | first=Kevin}}</ref>

On 30 September 1996, the day before the start of the trial, Hamilton and Greer settled, citing a conflict of interest and lack of funds. ''The Guardian'' greeted the Hamilton collapse with the headline "A Liar and a Cheat". [[Alan Rusbridger]], editor of ''The Guardian'', said: "The decision by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer must be one of the most astonishing legal cave-ins in the history of the law of libel" and called for the issues to be examined by Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the Inland Revenue.<ref>[[David Hencke]], [[David Leigh (journalist)|David Leigh]] and David [[Pallister]], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1996/oct/01/hamiltonvalfayed.davidhencke "A Liar and a Cheat"], ''The Guardian'', 1 October 1996.</ref>
They each paid £7,500 towards the paper's legal costs. All the "cash-for-questions" evidence was sent to Sir [[Gordon Downey]], the [[Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/196466.stm |title=Timeline of Hamilton Cash for Questions Case |work=BBC News |access-date=21 July 2016}}</ref> On 1 October 1996, Hamilton appeared on the evening television program, ''[[Newsnight]]'', and engaged in a live debate with Alan Rusbridger, the editor of ''The Guardian''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0142.htm |title=Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report |website=UK Parliament |date=20 February 2017 |access-date=5 July 2019}}</ref>

====Enquiry====
The "cash for questions" parliamentary enquiry took place in 1997, led by Downey. Hamilton vowed that if the "Downey report" found against him, he would resign.

[[Edwina Currie]], a former health minister, gave evidence. She told the inquiry that, in May 1988, Hamilton had been unmoved by a set of photographs that depicted smoking-related cancers; that is, harm to young people which might be caused by a product (tobacco) that he promoted.<ref>''The Independent'', 5 July 1997.</ref> Hamilton argued the pictures were irrelevant. Both Hamilton and [[Michael Brown (British politician)|Michael Brown]] had received a £6,000 [[honorarium]] and hospitality from [[Skoal tobacco|Skoal]] Bandits.<ref>{{cite web|author=The Committee Office, House of Commons|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp01140.htm |title=House of Commons – Standards and Privileges – First Report |website=Publications.parliament.uk |access-date=5 May 2012}}</ref> In December 1989, the sale of Skoal Bandit products was banned in the UK by the Secretary of State for Health, [[Kenneth Clarke]].<ref>[http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/safety-ban-on-skoal-bandits-1.598902 "Safety ban on Skoal Bandits"], ''The Herald'', 14 December 1989.</ref>

Downey reported that he found the evidence against Hamilton in the case of Al-Fayed "compelling". Hamilton received over £25,000 and had deliberately misled Michael Heseltine, then [[President of the Board of Trade]], in October 1994, when he said he had no financial relationship with Ian Greer. In a phone conversation, Hamilton gave an absolute assurance to Heseltine that there was no such relationship, but he had received two payments from Greer in 1988 and 1989, totalling £10,000.<ref name=IndDM>Donald McIntyre, [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-clear-response-to-the-cash-for-questions-mps-1248896.html "A clear response to the cash for questions MPs"], ''The Independent'', 4 July 1997.</ref> Hamilton had asked for payment in kind so the money would not be taxable. He also failed to register his stays at the [[Hôtel Ritz Paris]] and at Al-Fayed's castle in Scotland in 1989.<ref>"The sleaze report: Five men who fell below the standards that Parliament demands from an MP - Hamilton: cash and a stay at Ritz; Smith: accepted cash in return for lobbying; Grylls: Misled committee over dealings Bowden: Did not declare; Brown: Failed to register", ''The Independent'', 4 July 1997.</ref>

On 3 July 1997, the enquiry found Hamilton guilty of taking "cash for questions". ''[[The Independent]]'' wrote: "Sir Gordon, contrary to Hamilton's confident expectations, had no compunction about concluding that he did indeed take cash in brown envelopes" and called on the new party leader to "expel the miscreants".<ref name=IndDM/> Hamilton, Smith (also found guilty), Brown and [[Michael Grylls]] were harshly criticised. If Hamilton and Smith had remained in parliament, Downey said he might have recommended long periods of suspension for both. Hamilton rejected these findings, whereas Smith, who had stood down, accepted them, apologised for his conduct, and retired from politics altogether.

====Libel action against Al-Fayed====
Hamilton also brought a legal action for libel against Mohamed Al-Fayed. On 16 January 1997, Al-Fayed appeared in an edition of the ''[[Dispatches (TV series)|Dispatches]]'' documentary series on [[Channel 4]].<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0157.htm "Appendix 33 – continued: Appendix 1 Channel 4 and Fourth Estate Press Releases"], Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report, House of Commons, January 1997.</ref> He claimed that Hamilton had demanded and had accepted cash payments of up to £110,000,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/573630.stm "Hamilton loses libel case"], ''BBC News'', 21 December 1999.</ref> Harrods' gift vouchers and a free holiday at the [[Hôtel Ritz Paris]] in 1987, in return for asking questions in Parliament on behalf of Harrods. While Hamilton did not deny the holiday, he continued to maintain that he was innocent of improper conduct.

On 31 July 1998, Hamilton's action was approved for a court listing. Funds for the action were donated by [[Lord Harris of High Cross]], the [[Earl of Portsmouth]] and Taki, who raised £50,000.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/576284.stm "The odd couple behind the odd couple"], ''BBC News'', 23 December 1999.</ref> Other contributors to the fund included [[Simon Heffer]], [[Norris McWhirter]], Peter Clarke, [[Lord Bell]], [[Gyles Brandreth]] and Gerald Howarth (Hamilton's co-plaintiff in the BBC action). Some Conservative MPs (approximately 40 of the 165) also made contributions. In total, approximately £410,000 was raised.<ref>''The Independent'', 23 December 1999.</ref>

The jury trial commenced in November 1999. Hamilton and his wife were cross-examined by [[George Carman]] QC. Carman put to Hamilton that he had acted corruptly to demand and then take £10,000 from [[Mobil Oil]] in 1989 for tabling an amendment to a finance bill. At the time, Hamilton was a member of a Commons select committee on finance.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/575299.stm |work=BBC News | title=The undoing of Neil Hamilton | date=22 December 1999 | access-date=26 March 2010}}</ref> Al-Fayed said Hamilton had taken the money either in brown envelope cash payments or through Ian Greer. Hamilton said in his own evidence: "I have never received a penny from Mr Fayed; I have never asked."<ref>Matt Wells [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/11/hamiltonvalfayed.mattwells "'I lacked candour but I am not corrupt'"], ''The Guardian'', 11 December 1999.</ref> His counsel, in the closing comments, argued that Al-Fayed's assertions had destroyed his client's reputation.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/16/hamiltonvalfayed "Hamilton's 'tragedy' was to help Al Fayed"], ''The Guardian'', 16 December 1999.</ref>

On 21 December 1999, the jury unanimously decided in favour of Al-Fayed, declaring Hamilton corrupt.<ref name="Greedy">{{cite news |last1=Wells |first1=Matt |last2=Wilson |first2=Jamie |last3=Pallister |first3=David |title=A greedy, corrupt liar |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/22/hamiltonvalfayed.conservatives |access-date=15 December 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=22 December 1999 }}</ref><ref name="Sleaze"/> A year later, Hamilton lost his appeal against the decision,<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/21/hamiltonvalfayed "Neil Hamilton loses libel appeal"], ''The Guardian'', 21 December 2000.<br />- {{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1080920.stm |work=BBC News | title=Neil Hamilton loses libel appeal | date=21 December 2000 | access-date=26 March 2010}}</ref> and was refused leave to appeal to the [[House of Lords]] on 2 April 2001.