“Our client is, at present at least, obviously unable to confirm with precision the number of people to whom the memorandum was circulated… Suffice it to say our client had become aware of the identity of a number of recipients to whom the memorandum was sent. The true extent of publication will, of course, be explored further in the event our client is forced to commence proceedings and he will employ all legal methods available to him, including by way of disclosure, in order to arrive at a complete list of those to whom the memorandum was initially circulated. What our client can confirm, however, is that the memorandum was sent to a number of Ambassadors, diplomats, Conservative Members of Parliament and other individuals in the Arab diplomatic corps in London. This group of people is, as your clients well know, extremely important to our client and to COMENA. Our client holds their opinion of him very dearly.”
“… she [the First Defendant] will be taken to the cleaners. Because we have started our DPA claim, and she’ll be forced to disclose what damage she’s done to me, and others, as well, and after that we’ll take libel action… … So, I said, in good faith, because the party asked me to sort it out, I said in good faith, if she wants to settle on terms that have got five provisions, number one, I want an apology. Number two, I want a retraction. Number three, I want a cease and desist. Number four, I want to know who she sent this paperwork to. After six months, we don’t know. Six months. Six months, she doesn’t want to share who sent the stuff to. Is that behaviour that can be condoned here?... Number five, an admission that she wrote this… If she had done this in good faith, given me these five points in good faith, I would not want to have sued her for damages. Do you know what my costs are to date,£260,000 . I could go there and give it to a COVID charity, which would help people. Instead, I’m wasting my time and wasting my money for absolute nonsense… [unclear] now will be incurred.£260,000 worth of costs, right? Nearly 300,000 now, after the DPA filings.£300,000 I would have wasted which I would have given to the party, to the poor, to other people. I have wasted this on this, so it is only fair now that I recoup as much of that, which I will donate to the party…”
“Access capitalism scandal: A dinner with Prince Charles, then the begging letter arrived” (“the ST Article”). The ST Article is also still available online (albeit behind a paywall). As the headline suggests, one of the main themes of the ST Article is what was called “access capitalism”
“Asked if Elliot was in effect operating a pay-to-play scheme, Amersi replied: ‘You call it pay-to-play, I call it access capitalism. It’s the same point. You get access, you get invitations, you get privileged relationships, if you are part of this set-up, and where you are financially making a contribution to be a part of that set up. Absolutely.’”
“A major Conservative donor received$4m from a company he knew to be secretly owned by a powerful Russian who was at the time a senior member of Vladimir Putin’s regime, according to three people with direct knowledge of his business dealings.”
“A legal letter seen by the Observer and sent to Ben Elliot, co-chair of the Conservative party and co-founder of the concierge company Quintessentially, is the latest sally in a year-long dispute involving Amersi and other party figures over a new Conservatives’ friends of the Middle East group, which he chairs. Amersi’s lawyers warn that unless the dispute is amicably settled, officials should set out proposals for reimbursing his donations and other costs. Amersi believes one of the reasons for his exclusion is that he exposed the ‘access capitalism’ he alleges Elliot presides over, in which he claims privileged relationships are extended to those who make hefty donations. His business dealing in Russia and an advisory role on a deal in Uzbekistan also faced scrutiny last year, but he denies any wrongdoing and a report on him by party officials did not flag any significant concerns.”
“64. The publication of each of the statements set out above has caused and/or is likely, if not corrected, to continue to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant. In support of his case on serious harm the Claimant will rely on the following: (1) Each of the meanings pleaded above is defamatory of the Claimant at common law and seriously so; (2) The First Defendant’s position as a former Member of Parliament lent significant authority and credibility to the allegations made by her; (3) The First Defendant’s position as Managing Director of the Second Defendant, an organisation having a long history of involvement of Parliamentarians, Ambassadors and other senior figures and of engagement between the Conservative Party, Conservative Governments and the Middle East, further added to the authority and credibility of the allegations she made against the Claimant; (4) By including within various of the published documents numerous embedded hyperlinks the First Defendant gave the impression that the material published by her was carefully researched, documented and accurate. When composing Document 12 she expressly referred Sir Nicholas Soames (but intending her words to be read by Ben Elliot) to those links as being carefully researched evidence supporting what the documents sent to him alleged; (5) All of the individuals targeted by the First Defendant to receive the statements (insofar as those recipients have been partially identified of described by the Defendants) are persons of standing and importance, whose opinion of the reputation of the Claimant is important to him because: (a) of their common membership of the Conservative Party and/or because of the influence those persons have over decisions including whether or not COMENA should be affiliated to the Conservative Party, and/or (b) of their involvement in the diplomatic service and hence the influence they have over whether to facilitate or resist engagement with COMENA and/or the Claimant, and/or (c) of their involvement in the assessment and tendering of advice on matters of National Security and hence the influence they have over the extent to which COMENA and/or the Claimant would be regarded by the Conservative Party or the Government of the UK as suitable to promote the interests of the UK or the Conservative Party. (6) The nature of the allegations, and the method of publication by the First Defendant, is such that the allegations or their substance was intended to and was likely to be repeated and republished by the original publishees and/or to percolate further amongst the political, diplomatic and security community and become the subject of media speculation and repetition. The republication set out in paragraph 60 above is relied upon as an example of this effect. The Claimant will rely upon such further republications as become known to him.” (1) Each of the meanings pleaded above is defamatory of the Claimant at common law and seriously so; (2) The First Defendant’s position as a former Member of Parliament lent significant authority and credibility to the allegations made by her; (3) The First Defendant’s position as Managing Director of the Second Defendant, an organisation having a long history of involvement of Parliamentarians, Ambassadors and other senior figures and of engagement between the Conservative Party, Conservative Governments and the Middle East, further added to the authority and credibility of the allegations she made against the Claimant; (4) By including within various of the published documents numerous embedded hyperlinks the First Defendant gave the impression that the material published by her was carefully researched, documented and accurate. When composing Document 12 she expressly referred Sir Nicholas Soames (but intending her words to be read by Ben Elliot) to those links as being carefully researched evidence supporting what the documents sent to him alleged; (5) All of the individuals targeted by the First Defendant to receive the statements (insofar as those recipients have been partially identified of described by the Defendants) are persons of standing and importance, whose opinion of the reputation of the Claimant is important to him because: (a) of their common membership of the Conservative Party and/or because of the influence those persons have over decisions including whether or not COMENA should be affiliated to the Conservative Party, and/or (b) of their involvement in the diplomatic service and hence the influence they have over whether to facilitate or resist engagement with COMENA and/or the Claimant, and/or (c) of their involvement in the assessment and tendering of advice on matters of National Security and hence the influence they have over the extent to which COMENA and/or the Claimant would be regarded by the Conservative Party or the Government of the UK as suitable to promote the interests of the UK or the Conservative Party. (6) The nature of the allegations, and the method of publication by the First Defendant, is such that the allegations or their substance was intended to and was likely to be repeated and republished by the original publishees and/or to percolate further amongst the political, diplomatic and security community and become the subject of media speculation and repetition. The republication set out in paragraph 60 above is relied upon as an example of this effect. The Claimant will rely upon such further republications as become known to him.”
“the facts and matters relied upon in order to satisfy the requirement ofsection 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 that the publication of the statement complained of has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”
“it is not possible for the Court to rule definitively and conclusively on meaning and the related issues before certain documentation and information has been provided by the Defendants”
“6. Information as to solicitor and own client costs is privileged and confidential, unless and until the party asserts a specific entitlement to recover such costs, whether through the costs management process, or by way of summary or detailed assessment. At that stage the Court’s powers of case management and cost management engage, including the requirement to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing. 7. It is unclear on what basis an order that a party disclose solicitor and own client costs can be made, not least when it concerns previous claims which have been settled between the parties. If there is such a power for a court to make that order, it would seem to be an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the rights of confidence and privacy of the parties (including legal professional and/or litigation privilege). 8. When verifying a Precedent H, for the purposes of a costs management order pursuant toCPR 3.15 , and to assist the Court when making case management decisions pursuant toCPR 3.17 , the party’s solicitor must state that ‘This budget is a fair and accurate statement of incurred and estimated costs which it would be reasonable and proportionate for my client to incur in this litigation.’ The party is not required to state or disclose solicitor and own client costs. 9. Further information in relation to what the parties have spent on the Data Protection Claim beyond that set out above remains both privileged and confidential. Given the compromise on costs (the reasons for which are of course privileged) it is difficult to see how such information could assist the Court in managing this claim.”
“… [T]he Claimant is aware of individuals who had seen the publications, but understands from enquiries he has made with a number of individuals that not all of those individuals may be the original publishees. This demonstrates that the publications have been republished and percolated, and it is this that is causing the Claimant additional concern. Without the identities of the original publishees, the Claimant cannot determine conclusively to whom the publications (and each publication, bearing in mind they are all subtly different) were distributed).”
“I exhibit a Precedent H which details the Claimant’s costs incurred in the Libel Claim at the date of this statement insofar as the Claimant will seek to recover such costs from the Defendants. I should make clear that the amount in Precedent H is my estimate of the likely costs that the Claimant could recover on the standard basis for this stage of the action…”
“20. … [W]hat I said in [the] interview was that I had incurred£260,000 worth of costs. Mr Burgis appears to have taken this out of context to mean costs incurred for the legal action that I have taken against the Defendants. While I had, by that point, of course incurred legal costs in my legal action against the Defendants, I had also incurred the costs (both legal and out-of-pocket expenses) in setting up COMENA, at the request of and with the support of the Conservative Party, which was intended to promote a better relationship between the Conservative Party, the Government and the MENA region should COMENA be affiliated with the Conservative Party. That figure of£260,000 included those costs. 21. I further informed Mr Burgis in our Zoom interview on1 July 2021 that, if the First Defendant wanted to settle this matter, I wanted an apology, a retraction of the allegations contained in the [Memos], for her to cease and desist from making the same and/or similar defamatory allegations, to be told to whom she had sent the [Memos] and an admission that she was the author of the [Memos]. I explained to Mr Burgis that I did not want to have to sue the Defendants for damages nor would I be seeking to recover my costs if a suitable settlement could be reached. Indeed, the7 July 2021 article reports that ‘I do not want to hurt the [Defendants] nor ‘bankrupt’ them.”
“I maintain that I have achieved all that could realistically be achieved from [the Data Protection Claim] in obtaining the material that I did. It became clear that an overall settlement including the rectification and erasure of inaccurate personal data and an apology was not going to be possible. I am now therefore seeking vindication over the false and defamatory statements made about me by the Defendants. My position is that should this matter settle before significant further costs are incurred, I will not seek to recover all of my recoverable costs from the Defendants.”
“It appears to me that the Defendants are insinuating… that they are the defendants to these proceedings because they are an easier target. The reality, as became clear following receipt and review of the 14 May disclosure, is that Sir Nicholas Soames appears to have made no efforts to independently fact-check the publications complained of. It was my belief (and remains my belief) that Sir Nicholas was (mis)led by the First Defendant, and thus, although he should have conducted his own independent fact-checking, he is not the individual who should be held responsible for the publications complained of. Furthermore, by Sir Nicholas’ own admission in his email dated2 February 2021 to my solicitors, his position at President of the Conservative Middle East Council ‘is entirely honorary and carries with it no executive position or authority’. While I did say that ‘I have thus far spared Sir Nicholas the embarrassment of being sued based on his grandioseness (sic)’, this quote has been reported in the [FT] Article without the full surrounding context. I had explained to Mr Burgis that part of my decision not to sue was because Sir Nicolas had continued to recommend me for a ‘Trade envoy role’ in the Middle East. Sir Nicholas’ recommendation was prior to the appointment of Lord (Edward) Lister as the UK’s special envoy for the Gulf in February 2021. Sheikh Fawaz drew my attention in the meeting, arranged by the Ambassador of Kuwait, on11 May 2021 in the Bahraini embassy in London that if I should ever sue Sir Nicholas, his king would be ‘very upset’ because the King of Bahrain and Sir Nicholas attended the Royal Military Academy of Sandhurst together… It was made clear to me that if I sued Sir Nicholas it would make it difficult, if not impossible for the government of Bahrain to ever engage with COMENA. Finally, Sir Hugo Swire also discouraged me from commencing proceedings against Sir Nicholas due to the latter’s close proximity to the Prince of Wales (whose many charitable initiatives I support).”
“Sharing information about a person or an organisation, which is not immediately apparent from the public profile, with other interested parties is not uncommon in the sector in which I operate. It goes without saying that such communications are understood to be confidential by the sender and recipient and any further dissemination would be mutually agreed or obvious under the arrangements in which the information was passed on. It is integral to the political and diplomatic ecosystems to manage sensitive information carefully. That obviously require me to respect the confidentiality of the Unidentified Publishees, all of whom are experienced professionals. I would never have built a relationship with any of them if they did not trust me to be discreet and respectful…”
“a number of ambassadors recorded to me their shock and confusion following the Claimant’s allegations about The Prince of Wales and his household [a reference to the ST Article]. Respect of a kingdom’s Royal Family is regarded as essential diplomacy”
“On the evidence before the Court, there are legitimate concerns that the Claimant’s dominant motive in seeking this disclosure through the [Data Protection Claim] and not in this application is collateral. If prompt vindication was his dominant motive he could have achieved such vindication as was due simply by proceeding with a defamation claim in relation to the publishees identified by [the 14 May Documents]… Although it is accepted that the Court cannot conclusively make a determination as to the Claimant’s motive at this stage, the legitimate concerns arising from his conduct are a further factor that should be taken into account in the proportionality evaluation.”
“[The Claimant] complains of the publications to individuals; that is why I was surprised to see that you have a single serious harm paragraph. Each of [the] publications is a separate cause of action, and it must be supported in its own way by … proof of serious harm caused by that publication. As Mr Lawrence has done in his second witness statement, he has contacted several of the unidentified publishees, and they have given… evidence as to the effect of the publication on [them]. You could – and arguably should – had done that in relation to the named publishees, but you have not.”
“… to set out his proper particulars of serious harm to reputation that was occasioned by each publication. And because he would have to do that by amendment, he would have to apply to amend to add those particulars and then the Court would consider whether the particulars that were being advanced have a real prospect of success.”
“Insofar as it is possible to do so in the circumstances of this case, the pleading and our client’s evidence identifies the nature and extent of the reputational harm which has been caused and the likely source of that harm. The proposition that more is required of him is not correct as a matter of law or practice, and would impose an unnecessary and unrealistic threshold on an individual seeking vindication in circumstances similar to this case.”
“I went back to CCHQ in March 2020 to ask more question about CMEC. I suggested to CCHQ that, instead of starting a new organisation, we should try to bring CMEC back under the auspices of the Party, so as not to lose its rich legacy. I was provided by CCHQ with a letter from Ms Leslie to Brandon Lewis, then Chairman of the Party with regard to CMEC’s change in status to not being affiliated to the Party and the consequences flowing therefrom… It was explained to me that one of the reasons why CMEC had in fact disaffiliated was because of the Conservative Party Constitution requirements to submit annual statements of accounts and therefore disclose sources of funding. There were suggestions (made directly to me by the CCHQ Outreach team and in publicly available articles) that CMEC had been taking money to provide access…”
“To my mind, the cleanest and simplest way to resolve the disputed facts I discuss below is for the witnesses in the Defendants’ evidence to take the stand, and have their evidence properly tested. I invite them to do so, as I intend to, and to waive privilege from which they might otherwise benefit. This will give me a chance of a fair trial in this case. … I wish to be clear that the individual response of a small handful of recipients of the memorandum are in any case not my sole concern in this claim. My concern is the cumulative impact which publication of the memoranda by the Defendants had (and continues to have) on my reputation among broad political and diplomatic circles within which it was the intention of the Defendants and/or correctly foreseen by them that the allegations made against me would spread… I have received a considerable amount of information about the circulation of the memoranda within the diplomatic community and the impact thereof on my reputation and on the relationships between members of that community. I do not feel that it would be right to identify the specific persons who have provided me with this information given the damage that it might do to the wider diplomatic interests of the countries involved and to the UK’s relationship with those countries.” … I wish to be clear that the individual response of a small handful of recipients of the memorandum are in any case not my sole concern in this claim. My concern is the cumulative impact which publication of the memoranda by the Defendants had (and continues to have) on my reputation among broad political and diplomatic circles within which it was the intention of the Defendants and/or correctly foreseen by them that the allegations made against me would spread… I have received a considerable amount of information about the circulation of the memoranda within the diplomatic community and the impact thereof on my reputation and on the relationships between members of that community. I do not feel that it would be right to identify the specific persons who have provided me with this information given the damage that it might do to the wider diplomatic interests of the countries involved and to the UK’s relationship with those countries.”
“Thank you for this. I have had more incoming from both sides on this than everything else put together this week. I have a meeting set on this tomorrow and it is nonsensical that the Party has been put in this position. I am happy to speak before or call you afterwards…”
“I have seen details of the questions that [Leslie] is posing about Mohamed – the sources for which seem to be press articles (esp Forbes). But I assume that [name redacted] or others have supplied you with that material anyway. The Forbes article to which Sir David was referring has been provided in the evidence. It was published, on10 October 2006 , under the headline, “The Incredible Shrinking Metromedia”
“When RUSI agreed in principle on1 July 2021 to accept a donation from my foundation [Sir David] endorsed that agreement on2 July 2021 , but then suspended that endorsement by7 July 2021 meaning that I was asked not to disburse funds. On1 August 2021 I was informed that Sir David had again given the donation the ‘green light’ only to be told some hours later by a member of the RUSI fundraising team that he had changed his position and that the donation was again suspended, to be revisited by the year end. RUSI ultimately did not follow up on this.”
“No explanation was provided to me for Sir David’s decision. Nonetheless, RUSI continued to engage with me and I was again requested to disburse funds on1 August 2021 (supported, I was told at the time by a member of the RUSI fundraising team, by Sir David) in accordance with the Invoice only for it to be again suspended that same day at the instigation of Sir David (as I was informed by the RUSI fundraising team), possibly because (it was suggested to me by the same member of the RUSI fundraising team) of the publication of the [ST Article]. But again no formal explanation was provided to me… All this start/stop demonstrated unequivocally to me that Sir David had an effective veto over any donation I might make and that although not the sole cause of his decisions, those decisions were, I believe, contributed to by the damage done to my reputation in his eyes by the [Memos] published to him by the Defendants.”
“My recollection of our conversation on24 December 2020 is that Ms Leslie gave me a summary of what has [happened] and her concerns about COMENA as subsequently set out in the memoranda and said that she thought that they should be put before the proper security channels. I agreed to do so and said that she would probably not receive a response. I told her that I had never previously heard of the Claimant. My duty was simply to pass on the information to the appropriate body. It was not necessary for me to form a view about the Claimant and I do not remember doing so. I did not distribute the memoranda elsewhere or discuss their contents. I am not involved with the Arab Diplomatic Corps or the possible affiliation of organisations such as COMENA. I have formed a negative view of the Claimant as a result of matters arising subsequently which have been the subject of widespread media coverage and I contributed to the ‘Lawfare’ Parliamentary debate on20 January 2022 where I referred to this case.”
“3. On18 December 2020 , I had a conversation with Charlotte Leslie in person at her home. In that conversation I informed her that I had heard that Sir Hugo Swire MP and the Conservative Party were in the process of setting up another organisation similar to CMEC. Ms Leslie was understandably perturbed by this. 4. I had never heard of the Claimant until alerted by Sir Hugo of his organisation. I recall that Sir Hugo mentioned the source of funding and may also have referred to the Claimant’s motivation to be rewarded with an honour. 5. On30 December 2020 , Ms Leslie then sent to me by email a copy of the memorandum which has now been controversial in this case. Ms Leslie’s email to me was timed at 1.52pm and at 11.56pm I responded to her with an email containing the words ‘plainly a total bounder! With some very odd fish for company. More than enough to kill it off I think.’ 6. A further email exchange took place the following day,31 December 2020 . At 9.31am, Charlotte responded to me saying, ‘thanks Crispin. Good to know I am not alone in feeling uneasy about this. Apparently Johnnie Astor & Trish are supportive.’ At 10.46am I responded, ‘supportive of you or this Melmotte figure’. Then at 11.06am Charlotte responded ‘sorry not clear. Of Mr Amersi’. 7. As far as my view of the memo is concerned, it contains first-hand evidence that a Conservative Party organisation focusing on the Middle East was proposed on the basis of being funded by the Claimant. The purpose of this organisation appeared to be both [to] supplant CMEC and by extension its founding purpose that was to support the 1980 EU Venice Declaration in support of Palestinian statehood, instead replacing it with support for the highly controversial Abraham Accords which are properly seen as a betrayal of aspirations for Palestinian statehood by some of the leading Gulf Arab monarchies. 8. That the Claimant’s money and business appeared to have its roots in the UAE, a leading promoter of the Accords, only reinforced my concerns over what was going on. The Claimant seemed to be overtly seeking UK status through the honours system in reward for his political donations to the Conservative Party and in my estimation, this raised further doubts over his motives. 9. I did not circulate the memo further nor did I share my view of the Claimant’s headline traits beyond my conversation with Charlotte. 10. I consider it a touching thought that my private view of the Claimant’s merits, confirmed and/or reinforced by this memo, could have such a devastating impact upon his reputation so as to justify Court action. 11. The reporting of his affairs since, the reported conduct of his business in Uzbekistan, his relations with the Prince of Wales’ charities, his disgraceful and indefensible use of a rich man’s tool, ‘lawfare’ against Charlotte Leslie, just served to confirm my conclusion from the memo. The Claimant’s case is that the memo was sent to persons of standing and importance whose opinion of the Claimant’s reputation was important to his aspirations. However, affiliation decisions would not be taken by or involve me in any event. It is certainly true that I would have argued against affiliation of COMENA had I offered my view or if it had been sought, but that was due to the reasons explained above in this statement and not a result of the memo written by Charlotte…”
“a dishonest and corrupt financier with a mysterious past”
“Even had Mr Blunt not been personally affected by the memoranda at all (which his evidence strongly contradicts), this would not detract from my claim that my reputation was harmed by the dissemination of the Defendants’ memoranda in political and diplomatic circles; in the event it is perfectly clear that the memoranda seriously harmed my reputation in Mr Blunt’s mind.”
“I do not believe that he [said this] because there was no basis for him to hold such a view. Never have Sir Hugo and I ever discussed this.”
“3. My involvement in this matter began when the Claimant telephoned me, and that was before any material from Ms Leslie was received. I cannot be sure when that call took place but it came to me completely out of the blue, although I was aware of the Claimant before he called me. The Claimant said that he was establishing a new organisation to represent the Conservative Party in the Middle East region. He said that the organisation was to be funded by him. I told the Claimant that his approach was ill-conceived and unacceptable. I asked him what he was trying to achieve, and he replied that he thought that CMEC was no longer a suitable organisation to represent the Conservative Party in the Middle East, and that he wanted to set up COMENA which would have a wider geographical remit. I said to the Claimant that his idea would not work and that, in my view, he was trying to destroy CMEC which was a long-standing established organisation. I said that I felt that it was inappropriate for the Claimant to parachute himself into the situation and for him to go around the Gulf region with what would effectively be a Conservative Party calling card. 4. I was immediately of the view that the structure of the new organisation was completely improper because an MP’s liaison group should be run by an MP and not run by a donor. An organisation led by a donor would look too much like an attempt to buy influence. I believed CMEC, or anything like it, should be about parliamentary liaison, not Party influence. 5. The memorandums written by Ms Leslie which are a basis for the Claimant’s claim were sent to me on3 January 2021 by email. 6. When I received and skim-read them – which is all I ever did – I could see that they concerned the Claimant and his intention to establish a group to represent the Conservative Party in the Middle East region. I had already spoken to the Claimant about what I thought. 7. I did not need to read a memorandum from Ms Leslie to form a negative view of the Claimant. My view of him was not created by the memorandum but rather because I did not believe that a donor should lead as Chairman or promote an organisation such as the one suggested by the Claimant. 8. I was subsequently aware of negative press coverage of the Claimant demonstrating his self-discrediting conduct and it is that which has most influenced my current view of him. 9. I did not discuss the memorandums with anybody else and did not copy them on to any other recipients…”
“I have had 20 calls on this week – pro and against I would like a proper report on Amersi himself as a due and proper person – we might have to speak to number ten to ask their friends for some info.”
“they are both as bad as each other. Keen to have neither.”
“We have to close this down. We need a proper report on Amersi and [Leslie] and I think we should kick both into the very long grass and also instruct them both to down tools as the only loser in this is the party through no fault of its own. Agree?” (4) On11 January 2021 , there was an exchange of emails between unidentified people at the Conservative Party with the subject “Mohamed Amersi”: 16:02 Hi team, Have CRD ever done a check on him and if so (sic) can we do one please. [Redacted] has asked for quite a deep dive. 16:03 No problem. When does he need it by? 16:03 End of week would be cool. 16:07 We checked him for leaders group renewal in August, (attached). I can get [redacted] to see if it need and (sic) update. (5) On12 January 2021 , apparently in response to the request for an updated report on the Claimant, an unidentified person sent a further email attaching an updated report (“the Report”). It stated: “CRD Recommendation: Minor Concerns. Fine to proceed with minor concerns.”
“Where are you on Mohamed as these kind of letters do not help. Everyone has to down tools on both sides-NOW.”
“CRD check attached. Nothing too bad”. (7) On15 January 2021 , there is a further email from an unidentified person (again, I would infer, Mr Elliot), which appears to refer to the dispute between the Claimant and the First Defendant: “We have asked both to calm down – as I told you – to stop legal letters, lobbying from their friends, politicians, ambassadors with a view after the next board meeting to seek a path to peace and reconciliation. All what you would do if you were us. Everyone should down tools and keep quiet. Thanks…” (8) On25 April 2021 , someone in the Conservative Party sent an email to Tom Skinner, the Conservative Party’s Head of Operations, Visits and Events, and another undisclosed person with a no10.gov.uk email address regarding “Mohamed Amersi Breakfast”: “Can we get CRD to do some really thorough checks before we go any further, just check there’s nothing that’s going to surprise us eg any controversial PPE contracts, no links to any potential bailouts, no close links to shady characters etc etc.”
“Nothing bad came back from CRD on this.”
“Happy New Year my friend. I know you said I shouldn’t disturb you before the 4th but this is out there. Not causing any damage but obviously a little awkward. Let me [know] if and when you want to chat about it; otherwise we now have 130 supporters [for COMENA], 100 needed and going very strong!!!”
“He confirmed to me that my ‘problem’ was Sheikh Fawaz as he was obstructing the progress of COMENA.”
“3. The concerns that I had in relation to COMENA were set out in my letter to Ben Elliot of12 January 2021 (exhibited… with his response). These related to the longstanding relationship between CMEC and the Arab Diplomatic Corps, the varied and conflicting accounts, raised my concerns and I requested that these concerns were addressed for the sake of Diplomatic confidence in the Party and its affiliated groups. 4. A meeting between me and the Claimant took place in May 2021 which was organised through the Kuwaiti Ambassador. At the meeting, the Claimant spoke about his charities and his background. 5. The Claimant opened the meeting by talking about his charitable activities and donations to Bahrain charities, which were not correct, and made me immediately suspicious of him from the outset. The Claimant said that he had accompanied HRH Prince Charles during a visit to Bahrain and that he (the Claimant) had made donations to charities during that visit. In fact, I was in Bahrain at that time, and I was accompanying HRH Prince Charles as I do on every visit by the Prince. I attended every meeting and never saw the Claimant during that visit. The Claimant was not part of the delegation and I have subsequently checked that fact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bahrain. Rupert Goodman was also present on that visit and he told me that the Claimant was not there. So I have been able to check with two sources the falsity of what the Claimant had said to me. 6. The Claimant made that claim at the start of the meeting and so I was put on notice straight away that the Claimant’s claims were verifiably untrustworthy. 7. I shared my account of this concerning episode with another ambassador. That other Ambassador told me that the Claimant had also made untrue claims about him about a different matter. 8. I formed a view of the Claimant’s character as a result of my interaction with him at the time rather than anything in the memorandum.”
“I write as Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain and on behalf of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Bahrain and my colleagues and members of the Arab Diplomatic Corps in the UK to express my concern regarding reports that a party donor, Mohammed (sic) Amersi, is setting up an alternative Conservative Middle East Council by the name of ‘The Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa’, called COMENA. As a member of the Arab diplomatic corps and the wider diplomatic community in London, I share the sentiment of many colleagues when I say that I have some concerns regarding the formation of such a group. For over forty years, the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) has occupied a special place in politics between the Middle East and United Kingdom. CMEC has long performed an important role in facilitating dialogue between our respective regions, one built on forty years of trust and hard work. I also note that the Arab diplomatic corps are fully engaged with CMEC today and that the quality and significance of what CMEC does since their de-affiliation from the Conservative Party has not subsided in any way. In fact, I can speak on behalf of all my Arab League colleagues when I say that we have seen more and not less engagement with the Conservative Party since CMEC’s status changed as an affiliated group. Thus, naturally the Arab diplomatic community in London have found it disturbing to see varied and conflicting accounts of the Conservative party’s backing of ‘COMENA’ and have found ourselves on the receiving end of a restricted and confidential legal letter, addressed to CMEC’s director, Charlotte Leslie, which has come into circulation. I would be very grateful to you for some clarity on this matter, and I hope these concerns will be addressed for the sake of diplomatic confidence in the party and its affiliated groups, which are stronger and more important to us than ever.”
“Thank you very much for your letter dated 12 January. The Party’s relationship with Bahrain and the Middle East is, as ever, crucially important to us, as is your own friendship and support. I myself have a personal love of your wonderful Country and visit each year as a guest of His Royal Highness the Crown Prince to the Grand Prix. I am indeed aware of the creation of this new group and am very sorry it has caused some confusion. I am in touch with both groups (the Conservative Middle East Council and The Conservative Friends of the Middle East and North Africa) and will write again in due course to clarify any issues.”
“I thus had absolutely no need to invent a spurious visit to Bahrain which I had not attended to fabricate a connection to that country, and I did not do so. My CV is well-furnished with experiences in Bahrain on which I could draw.” (2) Second, the Claimant states that, during their meeting, he and Sheikh Fawaz had discussed COMENA’s potential board, and that the Claimant had told him that the allegation that he had been making false claims about the people who had signed up to be on the board was untrue. The Claimant claims that Sheikh Fawaz had told him that his country’s main concerns about him, and COMENA, were his links to Russia and that he had told the Sheikh: “… that he should have no concerns whatsoever about my very historic dealings in Russia which were no different to global law firms and M&A advisors, engaging in the Russian markets. But it fell on deaf ears as he preferred to believe the version set out in the Defendants’ memoranda.” (3) Finally, in relation to the letter to Mr Elliot that Sheikh Fawaz exhibited to his witness statement (see [118] above), the Claimant says: “… this has been described to me by my contacts in Arab diplomatic circles as a shocking overreach (not least given that His Excellency was not the Dean of the Arab Diplomatic Corps) and an unauthorised representation of the position of the Corps. I was recently informed by a contact in the Arab diplomatic sphere that the Arab Diplomatic Corps found the favour shown to the Defendants by His Excellency and his team at the Bahrain Embassy in the United Kingdom over COMENA both improperly partisan, and at odds with the suspicion with which they treated CMEC after its decision to disaffiliate without informing them.”
“A witness statement must indicate: (1) which of the statements in it are made from the witness’s own knowledge and which are matters of information or belief, and (2) the source for any matters of information or belief.”
“3. My involvement in this matter began when the Claimant wrote to me asking for a meeting. I had never met the Claimant, and did not reply to him. 4. Then, Ms Leslie called me by telephone just before the Christmas holidays in 2020. She told me that the Claimant was planning to set up a new organisation to rival the Second Defendant, a plan about which I had previously heard only as vague gossip. 5. During that telephone conversation, Ms Leslie said that she had prepared a memorandum upon the subject and I asked her to let me see a copy of it. In the light of that conversation, I agreed with Ms Leslie that in his role as Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party, Mr Elliott (sic) needed to see the memorandum. 6. Ms Leslie sent a copy of the memorandum to me by email and I sent it on to Ben Elliott. The letter under which I sent the memorandum was dated4 January 2021 . I thought that Mr Elliott should know about the contents of the memorandum and I only sent it to him because I felt that its whole purpose dictated that he should see it. I did not send it to anyone else. 7. I recall speaking on the telephone to Mr Elliott on the day I sent the memorandum and him informing me that he knew what the problem was and that the Board of the Conservative Party also were already aware of the matter. 8. I do not know what Mr Elliott did with the memorandum once he had received it from me. 9. At the time, I became aware that the Claimant had been naming people who supported his intention to set up his new organisation, to be known as COMENA. Amongst those was Sir David Liddington (sic), another former Conservative Member of Parliament. 10. I spoke to Sir David Liddington and told him that the Claimant was using his name and that of Theresa May as people who had accepted positions in COMENA, and Sir David told me that he had done no such thing. Sir David expressed displeasure that the Claimant was using his name.”
“I did want to bring to your attention some negative reactions from CMEC. I have attached a copy of a note being circulated by Charlotte Leslie that has been passed to us at COMENA. As you can see it is libellous to COMENA and Mohamed, and has implications for the Conservative Party, and ministers too. Its unpleasant, as you can see, and inaccurate. This will be dealt with in the appropriate fashion, the intention being to stop this action by Charlotte in as sensible manner as possible… I can’t see any reason why you need to be drawn into this, but I didn’t want you to be blindsided by it.”
“Throughout successive meetings of the Council of Arab Ambassadors, concerns were raised in connection with the suitability of Mr Amersi to lead the COMENA initiative. These concerns came in the context of a report prepared by CMEC questioning Mr Amersi’s background for COMENA leadership and highlighting questions about his motives and alleged proximity to some foreign actors. Subsequently, these concerns were further amplified when some Amersi-related reports started to appear in the press. Notwithstanding concerns about Mr Amersi’s motives and connections, there was general agreement in the Council of Arab Ambassadors that we should not involve ourselves in an internal Conservative Party matter and that we should deal with any entity that the Party might wish to affiliate to and appoint as an interface with MENA States. In contrast, a few colleagues suggested that we should relay our concerns about Mr Amersi’s background to the party…”
“Imagine my dismay in early January 2021 when I learned that Charlotte Leslie had issued memoranda that called into question Mr Amersi’s bona fides and suitability to lead. I was shocked and contacted Mr Amersi. To his credit, he furnished me with the details, including a reply from Mishcon de Reya. I understood from the outreach team that this did major damage to his initiative. This was not the man that I had come to respect and admire. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Ms Leslie. Although I am a member of many Party affiliated organisations and attend a multitude of Friends of groups, I have never been introduced or attended any Conservative Middle East Council events. Sadly for me, given the memoranda, the lobbying by a Party stalwart and grandee and other former Parliamentarians associated with CMEC, the impact on Mr Amersi was negative and I had to respond to queries from the many associates that I had introduced to Mr Amersi. Unfortunately, given that it was a blue on blue spat the Party did not act as I was hoping or expecting to resolve the issue and was horrified that someone who had done so much for the Party was being trashed very publicly and left hanging out to dry. Over the past year, it is well documented that I have tried to resolve the dispute, but unfortunately, my efforts have been severely rebuffed. I have always believed that your client has had his character unfairly besmirched and had no choice but to resort to legal action to vindicate his reputation.”
“[The Claimant] does not know that I have been forced to seek alternative arrangements due to the impact such an appointment would have on our business reputation. Likewise, his own initiative that would have been a major asset for the Party, our country and the MENA region is stalled because of the memoranda, the lobbying against it and the paralysis of the Party structures in resolving it.”
“I was directly asked about issues with the formation of COMENA and why it had not yet got off the ground. I did not want to go into the contents of the [Memos]. However, various questions were asked of me about my Russian and Iranian links. At the same event, I was sitting on a table with a Parliamentarian who wishes to remain anonymous, who asked me questions about the contents of the [Memos]. I had to explain that I had been to Israel more times that I had to Iran and that far from their questions about links to the Kremlin, I had only visited Russia on three social occasions since 2008 (which was the year I stepped down from the MegaFon board).”
“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.”
“a claimant cannot succeed in establishing liability in respect of publications which do not cause serious harm, because there is some other publication that does, or because serious harm is caused by the ‘publication’ taken as a whole”: [47]. As to the Court’s task when evaluating whether a publication has caused serious harm to reputation, Warby LJ explained that the nature and extent of the publication will be relevant ([49]): “I do not agree that this analysis requires proof that each individual publication caused serious reputational harm. There will doubtless be cases in which an individualised approach is both possible and necessary. That might be so, for instance, in a case of publication to a small number of identified individuals only one of whom turns out to have believed the allegation complained of. But the statutory words ‘its publication’ are flexible enough to embrace other kinds of case, including the typical case of media or online publication involving a mass of individual publications to numerous unknown individuals. There is no principled objection to the application in such a case of a modified version of the traditional pragmatic approach of the common law, which is to consider the relevant publications collectively when assessing reputational harm…”
“… the reasons for that unfriendliness and the extent to which it was based on the allegations published to Sir Alan… is the subject of … disputed evidence. This is not an issue which can be resolved against [the Claimant] without a trial.”
“Sheikh Fawaz says in his witness statement that he ‘formed the view of the Claimant’s character as a result of my interaction with him at the time rather than anything in the [Memo]’… However ‘at the time’ in that sentence appears to refer to a meeting said to have taken place in May 2021 and Sheikh Fawaz’s (disputed) account of that meeting. He does not give any evidence about the impact of the [Memos] on him at the time of the publication, in January 2021 which substantially undermines the inference invited in the Amended Particulars of Claim. Again this would be a matter to be explored in evidence with him at trial.”
“I don’t care about her or CMEC”
‘I have not made a dishonest deal in my life, in Russia or elsewhere.’
‘Donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.’
‘He knew God and the devil and everybody.’ [13] In 2005, Amersi cut a deal that made him millions. The owners of the US group Metromedia wanted to exit Russia. The jewel of their assets was one of St Petersburg’s biggest fixed-line telecoms companies, PeterStar. They found a buyer: a Luxembourg company called First National Holding which already had a stake in PeterStar. Amersi helped put the$215m deal together. When the sale was completed in August 2005 he received a small equity stake and the right to sell that stake to the buyers, which he promptly did, making him$4m . [14] Ostensibly, First National Holding’s owner was a Danish lawyer, Jeffrey Galmond, who in the 2000s was embroiled in a brutal corporate battle against one of the most formidable oligarchs of the Putin era, Mikhail Fridman. Both sides claimed to be the rightful owner of a disputed stake in MegaFon, a Russian telecoms company worth billions of dollars. The legal battle culminated in a May 2006 ruling in a Zurich arbitration tribunal. It concluded that Galmond was not a telecoms tycoon but acting as a frontman for Leonid Reiman, a senior member of the Putin regime. [15] When Putin became Russia’s president in 2000, the former KGB officer brought with him some of those with whom he had run St Petersburg in the years after the collapse of communism. Reiman was one of them. A fluent English speaker, he had worked in the city’s telecoms department, alongside Putin’s then wife Lyudmila, overseeing deals in the newly liberalised telecoms market. [16] Putin named Reiman as his minister in charge of the telecoms industry. But according to the Zurich arbitration tribunal, Reiman had also amassed private interests in Russian telecoms. Some of the telecoms assets that had passed to the group that Reiman was found to control had been misappropriated from the Russian state, the tribunal found. Its ruling was subsequently upheld by the Swiss Supreme Court and endorsed by other courts elsewhere. [17] Reiman, who declined to comment for this article, has previously denied the allegations that Galmond — who insists that he was the owner of the telecoms empire — was acting as a frontman for him. [18] Ahead of the 2005 PeterStar deal, the allegation that Galmond was fronting for Reiman had appeared in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. But Amersi says his lawyers produced a ‘path to fortune memo’ on the sources of Galmond’s wealth that was ‘pretty good’
‘Who am I going to go and ask and say, “Oh, is Galmond the owner or is his wife the owner or is his secretary or Mr Reiman?” Who would tell me that? Let’s get real.’ [19] His relationship with Galmond appears to have deteriorated shortly afterwards. Amersi allegedly delivered a message from Fridman to the Danish lawyer threatening that he ‘would be imprisoned’ unless he agreed to pay$2bn to the Russian oligarch for the disputed MegaFon stake. The alleged 2006 incident is recounted in a New York lawsuit, brought by a fund controlled by Galmond, that was dismissed after a banker who was party to the case vanished and the other parties agreed it should be dropped. [20] Amersi says he did relay a message to Galmond that Fridman wanted$2bn for the stake but that he did not make the imprisonment threat nor did the oligarch ask him to. Fridman declined to comment. Amersi’s dealmaking stretched from Nepal to Dubai and beyond. From 2007 to 2013, he served as an adviser to the executives of TeliaSonera, a Scandinavian telecoms company that had interests across the former Soviet Union. With the exception of Mauritania, he says he has done business in every country in the Middle East and north Africa. Rubbing shoulders with royalty [21] Having made his money, Amersi began to amass influence. But the millions he dispensed would in time draw scrutiny. He set up a charitable foundation in 2012 registered in the Bahamas and says his priorities as a philanthropist have been in education, youth empowerment and social cohesion. [22] He also became a client of Quintessentially. Its founder, Elliot, ‘connected us to the Prince of Wales’, says Amersi. At a 2018 event at Lancaster House Amersi posed in flower-patterned black suit with his Russian-British partner, Nadezhda Rodicheva, also known as Nadia, flanking Elliot’s aunt, Camilla Parker-Bowles. In 2015 Amersi became a trustee of the Prince’s Trust International, an organisation founded by Parker-Bowles’ husband, the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles. Amersi stood down recently after two terms. [23] Amersi says Elliot seemed to act as an ‘unofficial treasurer’ for the Tories and ‘started seeking donations from me and Nadia for the Conservative party even before he became chair’
‘You begin by learning how to make money. Then how to hang on to it. And then finally how to give it away.’ [25] He had by that stage already given£10,000 each to Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Rory Stewart — who says he later returned the money — during the leadership election to choose May’s successor as Conservative party leader and prime minister in July 2019. More money followed after Johnson’s victory. In total, Amersi has given half a million pounds to the party, twice the amount donated by his partner and outspending over the past three years more celebrated Tory donors such as Lord Ashcroft, Zac Goldsmith and Lakshmi Mittal. [26] Now Amersi wants to take up a position helping to manage the Conservatives’ relations with the Middle East, an important geopolitical region for the UK. [27] The party already has a body that takes delegations of MPs to the region: the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC), founded in 1980. In 2019, CMEC ceased to be formally affiliated with the party, allowing it to accept non-Conservatives as members and seek wider funding. Amersi claims ‘the party clearly felt there was a vacuum in its and the government’s UK-Middle East relations, which should be addressed’
‘How dare she insult me?’ [34] Amersi says his legal costs are approaching£300,000 , ‘which I could have given to the party, to the poor, to other people’
‘We have done nothing wrong.’
‘I have been subjected to a political and legal assault for more than six months. Amersi has been able to use expensive lawyers to bring a legal sledgehammer to our small organisation.’
“I cannot speculate on what Mr Hatt may have known at the time but, for my part, it is untrue that I was aware of Mr Reiman’s concealed ownership of First National Holding, so I could not have possibly engaged in discussions about this.” [12] Amersi said that at the time of the PeterStar deal he believed First National Holding was owned by a Danish lawyer called Jeffrey Galmond. That is disputed by a third person who spoke to the Financial Times, who described meeting Amersi on a number of occasions before 2005. [13] Amersi was “keen to help”
“It is complete nonsense that I said at these alleged ‘series of meetings’ that the companies were owned by Leonid Reiman and that Reiman was looking for ‘friendly bankers he could trust’.” [15] Reiman declined to comment. He has previously denied secretly owning Russian telecoms assets. Galmond still insists that he was their true owner. [16] In January 2005 — months before he made$4m from First National Holding — Amersi was appointed to the board of the Russian telecoms company MegaFon. A legal fight between Reiman’s faction and the oligarch Mikhail Fridman had broken out over a disputed MegaFon stake. It had led to news reports in the Wall Street Journal and the FT about allegations that Reiman secretly owned telecoms assets through First National Holding. Despite being on the board of the company at the centre of the fight, Amersi has said he was not aware even of rumours about Reiman’s hidden interests. [17] Amersi said he did serve as a messenger between Fridman and Galmond but “knew nothing” about Galmond being a front for Reiman. He also said he met Reiman himself to discuss the dispute but was unaware he had an interest in it beyond his role as Putin’s telecoms minister. [18] Amersi is now fighting a legal battle against former Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie, which has cost him£300,000 in legal fees. Last year she wrote memos raising questions about his past business dealings after learning of his plans to start a rival to the Tory Middle East group she runs. [19] Two people with knowledge of the matter say Leslie was warned that she risked facing legal action by Fridman, the oligarch she had mentioned in the memos she wrote on Amersi. [20] But Fridman rejected any suggestion that he had sanctioned any warning that he would bring legal action against Leslie. His spokesperson said: “Mr Fridman has had no relationship with Mr Amersi for 15 years. He was not aware of these allegations, finds them deeply offensive and categorically denies any involvement in any threats of legal action against Ms Leslie.” [21] The origin of the warning is unclear. Amersi said he had told Lord David Hunt, the Tory peer seeking to mediate in the dispute: “It’s much better to keep third parties out of all this correspondence and out of the memos that Charlotte is writing because it will invite trouble.” [22] But describing to the FT his conversation with Hunt, Amersi added: “I’m not going to lie to you, I’m not going to make something up. What I’m saying to you is, I never used the word ‘Fridman’.”
“For future events, in order to prevent accusations of undue influence, recommend that interaction with Ministers responsible for telecommunication infrastructure is kept to a minimum.”
“Happy new year my friend. I know you said I shouldn’t disturb you before the4th but this is out there. Not causing any damage but obviously a littleawkward. Let me if you want to chat about it; otherwise, we now have 130supporters, 100 needed and going very strong!!!”
“This is doing the rounds. I am minded to get my lawyers on top of this. If wedon’t nip it in the bud. It’s likely to continue……let me know what you think?”
“I did want to bring to your attention some negative reactions from CMEC. I have attached a copy of a note being circulated by Charlotte Leslie that has been passed to us at COMENA. As you can see it is libellous to COMENA andMohamed, and has implications for the Conservative Party, and ministers too.Its unpleasant, as you can see, and inaccurate. This will be dealt with in theappropriate fashion, the intention being to stop this action by Charlotte in assensible a manner as possible. … I can’t see any reason why you need to be drawn into this, but I didn’t want youto be blindsided by it if it came up.”
“As promised, the note [redacted] is passing around middle easternembassies.”
“I would like a proper report on Amersi himself as a due and proper person-we might have to speak to number ten to ask their friends for some info.”
“They are both as bad as each other. Keen to have neither.”
“Call me before you do anything! Needless to say it’s totally confidential!!!” to which Mr Stacey immediately replied “Totally I haven’t and won’t share x”
“Dear Ben & Amanda You are in receipt of an anonymised memo presumably authored and/or authorised and/or distributed by Charlotte Leslie/CMEC. Please find attached a response thereto by my Counsel.”
“We need a proper report on Amersi and [redacted] and I think we should kick both into the very long grass and also instruct them both to down tools as the only loser in this is the party through no fault of its own.”
“… I have seen details of the questions that [redacted] is posing about Mohamed – the sources for which appear to be press articles (asp Forbes). But I assume that [redacted] or others have supplied you with that material anyway.”
“Can we get CRD to do some really thorough checks before we go any further, just check there’s nothing that’s going to surprise us eg any controversial PPE contracts, no links to potential bailouts, no close links to shady characters etc etc.”