"The jury are wrong. They are wrong, they are wrong," the former Conservative minister, Mr Neil Hamilton, insisted yesterday after losing his High Court libel action in London against the Harrods' owner, Mr Mohamed Al Fayed. He faces financial ruin and the possibility of losing his u £700,000 rectory home in Cheshire and a bill for legal costs that could amount to more than u £1 million. At the end of what was the last extraordinary libel case of the century involving a high-profile British figure, there were gasps from the public benches in Court 13 when the forewoman of the jury confirmed that after more than eight hours' deliberation they were satisfied that "on the balance of probability" Mr Fayed had established that Mr Hamilton was corrupt in his role as a Conservative MP.
Revelling in the verdict that came after bitter five-week trial, Mr Fayed declared he was vindicated. "Christmas has come early," he said. He accused Mr Hamilton of "wasting" everyone's time by bringing the case and he suggested the former MP should spend Christmas with another disgraced Tory MP, Jonathan Aitken, who was convicted of perjury earlier this year. "To have someone like Neil Hamilton, he knows exactly what he has done, he knows exactly what he has committed, he knows that he is corrupt."
Mr Hamilton sued the Harrods' owner over a claim that he made in a Channel Four documentary in 1997 that he corruptly demanded and accepted cash, Harrods' gift vouchers and substantial hospitality at Mr Fayed's Ritz Hotel in Paris in return for asking parliamentary questions.
Mr Hamilton maintained throughout the case that he was not corrupt and the allegations were "a pack of lies".
Further allegations of sleaze were attached to the Hamilton-Al Fayed libel case when it was alleged that Mr Hamilton demanded u £10,000 from the oil company, Mobil, in consultancy fees. The High Court jury asked for clarification on the issue during its deliberations. It may never be known on which issue - "cash for questions" or the Mobil affair - the jury decided not to believe Mr Hamilton.
After the verdict, Mr Hamilton and his wife, Christine, who was struggling to fight back tears, said they faced financial ruin as a result of suing Mr Fayed. As the impact of the jury's decision began to take its toll on the couple, Mr Hamilton, standing with his arm around his wife outside the High Court, replied with a weary "yup" when asked if the couple was financially ruined by the legal action.
He was "stunned and devastated" but he continued to insist he was not corrupt. "At the moment I just feel cold inside. Of course I am stunned by the jury's verdict and continue to deny that I acted corruptly in the pursuit of my parliamentary and ministerial duties. I would never have embarked on this action had I been guilty of the charges against me."
The usually formidable Mrs Hamilton was for once unable to offer an opinion and when she was asked how she felt during the libel case, she said simply: "I can't tell you that now, but I will." The Conservative Party chairman, Mr Michael Ancram, who has been engaged in a great deal of damage limitation in recent weeks over the selection of a candidate for Mayor of London and the defection of the MP, Mr Shaun Woodward, put a brave face on the verdict. "I have noted the verdict of the jury and I hope that this is the end of a sad and unpleasant episode which has been damaging to our party.
"I trust that the personalities involved will now retire from the scene. They certainly can expect little understanding from this party if they do not."