| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Saudi al-Qaeda backers using UK libel law to counter criticism | |
| 2004-05-22 | |
One of Mr. Asserson's clients, Rachel Ehrenfeld, had a British deal to distribute her new book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It" (Bonus Books), canceled because of a legal threat by one of the Saudis she wrote about. Mr. Asserson declined to reveal who that person was. In the mid-1990's, Charles Glass, an ABC reporter who spent a decade as the network's chief Middle East correspondent, tried to interest British publishers in a book about Saudi Arabia and the corrupting influence of its royal family, but was turned down on libel grounds. "One publisher called me later, very embarrassed, and said that the legal people would not take the risk," Mr. Glass said in an interview. With Mr. Unger's book, the publishers admitted they were worried about a possible lawsuit from one of the deep-pocketed Saudis who were mentioned, even though none explicitly made such threats. Lawyers say these plaintiffs are doing what is called in the libel business "forum shopping" — bringing their cases in Britain because they know they will be unlikely to win in the United States or other more media-friendly jurisdictions. That is not the case, say lawyers who have represented Saudis. Regardless, the Saudis have had good results lately in British courts. Several months ago, the High Court ruled against the European edition of The Wall Street Journal in a case involving a 2002 article reporting that Saudi authorities were monitoring some 150 bank accounts for possible links to terrorism. Two of the suspect accounts, The Journal reported, were maintained by Mohammed Jameel, a prominent Saudi businessman, based in Jedda. Mr. Jameel sued and won. Less than a month later, The Mail on Sunday, in London, settled a libel case with another Saudi businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, whom it had accused in a 2002 article of helping finance terrorist activities. The newspaper agreed not only to print an abject apology saying that most of the claims in its article were completely wrong, but also to pay a substantial sum to a charity chosen by Mr. Bin Mahfouz. "Mr. Bin Mahfouz is a well-known libel plaintiff in Britain — he has successfully concluded two libel suits in recent years and is currently involved in two more — and is mentioned in Mr. Unger's book, among a host of other people. Official allegations against him are well known. In Oct. 2001, for instance, the United States Treasury Department described a charity controlled by him as "an Al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen." Mr. Bin Mahfouz's litigiousness is seen by people familiar with the discussions around Mr. Unger's book as a chief reason why Secker & Warburg decided not to publish it. In an interview, Mr. Unger mentioned Mr. Bin Mahfouz as someone whose tendency to sue may have had a chilling effect on Secker & Warburg, but he defended his reporting. "It's not as if I'm going after Mr. Bin Mahfouz in any particular way," Mr. Unger said. "There are specific allegations that have been made against him by the American authorities." Laurence Harris, a partner at Kendall Freeman, which represents Mr. Bin Mahfouz in Britain, said that his client had sued in British courts because of his ties to the country. "There is a substantial connection between my client and his family and this country," Mr. Harris said. "They have homes and businesses here, and their reputation is very important to them." He rejected claims that Mr. Bin Mahfouz was opportunistically taking advantage of the British libel laws. "It's wrong to categorize my client as someone who's lying in wait for any unsuspecting publisher to slip his name into a book so he can sue," Mr. Harris said. "But it's perfectly true that we've been active here in making sure that when people write things that aren't fair, we've worked to get them corrected or to bring legal proceedings." He also said that Mr. Bin Mahfouz had never threatened to sue Mr. Unger and that "House of Saud," in fact, quotes Cherif Sedky, Mr. Bin Mahfouz's chief legal adviser, at length as denying any connection to terrorism. "The publications we've brought proceedings against are all ones where we were not consulted before publication," he said. Libel laws in the United States and Britain are almost mirror images. In the United States, the person bringing the case has to prove not only that what was reported was false, but also that the publisher was at fault. In Britain, the burden falls the other way. The published statements are presumed to be false, and to win, the defendant has to prove that what was said is true. People accused of having ties to Irish Republican terrorism used to sue quite readily, and quite successfully, because witnesses were so unwilling to come forward, said Martin Soames, a media litigation lawyer at the British firm DLA. "You wouldn't get a line of men in balaclavas saying, `Yes, I was with him when he planted the bomb,' " he said. The same holds true for the Saudis, he added. "The hot allegation at the moment is the connection to Al Qaeda funding," he said. | |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #1 *Tap . . . tap . . .* Still broken. Fred, know any good surprise meter repairmen? |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-05-22 6:42:56 PM |