Yesterday’s BBC Today programme interview, in which a former Harrods employee detailed calmly, but chillingly, her terrible experiences of sexual abuse at the hands of Mohammed Al-Fayed, took me back.
In the late 80s, I did a management training contract at Harrods and was occasionally tasked with manning the reception of Al-Fayed’s private office on the top floor.
So I was saddened but not shocked to listen to the allegations. It also reminded me of what many at the BBC said after Jimmy Savile had been exposed: you sort of knew he was a wrong-un, had heard the gossip and certainly wouldn’t want to be left alone in close proximity, but you personally had no evidence on which to base a complaint.
So I heartily applaud those who are now, many years later, prepared to voice their harrowing experiences which, by all reports, is encouraging others to come forward.
It is vitally important that the rich and famous who abuse their power for sexual gratification, with no regard whatsoever to the consequences for their victims, are held accountable for their behaviour.
In my current role it is also the communications dimension of these complaints that interests me.
There is a growing trend for what are essentially legal challenges to be first run through the lens of publicity rather than the other way round. As regular advisers in this sphere, we quite often see complainants now deciding to speak to the media and securing a documentary, or print copy, having had their complaints to the police discontinued – allegedly due to lack of evidence. Holding a press conference – as Al Fayed’s accusers’ lawyers did this morning – is an additional and effective route to reach a maximum audience.
Many readers of the reports that follow won’t fully appreciate the fact that these are as-yet-untested allegations aired prior to launching a civil claim, where the bar is lower than the criminal burden of proof. Such claims, often funded through conditional fee agreements, are considered by claimants as the only remaining route to achieve court-approved recognition of the trauma they say they have suffered. Some will simply want the financial recompense that is the civil courts’ remedy, but for others the aim is to ensure the defendant answers for their ‘crime’ in a public forum, and for there to be a judicial decision at the end of the process. This could forever act as validation.
Of course where this powerful use of media can wreak lasting and real havoc is on the life of an innocent, wrongly accused, and those close to them. We’ve also advised on such cases. The reality is that it’s extremely challenging to restore a reputation that, by the time of a trial, may have faced years of intrusive media discrediting. The very same media subsequently pay scant regard to the successful defence of a civil claim in lieu of proof of innocence delivered by a jury.
Neither Savile nor Al-Fayed can now answer for their actions in any court, demonstrating how crucial swift and fair charging decisions by the CPS are to both complainant and defendant. But it also demonstrates the incredible power (and responsibility) of the media – both documentary broadcast and investigatory print.
A lot rides on the complainants convincing journalists that there is a case to answer.
September 2024
