Free from fear or favour
No tracking. No cookies

Mazher ‘Fake Sheik’ Mahmood Off the Hook in Prince Harry Case 

The News of the World hired security guards from a Daniel Morgan murder suspect to protect Mahmood in court

Court artist sketch of Alan Smith (left) and Fake Sheikh Mazher Mahmood found guilty at the Old Bailey in London, of conspiring to pervert the course of justice in 2016. Photo: Alamy

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

The settlement of Prince Harry’s action against the News of the World will come as a relief to Mazher “Fake Sheik” Mahmood. Even though Murdoch’s legal team were not going to call him as a witness, the trial would have been highly embarrassing for the paper’s star reporter.

Prince Harry’s barrister would have explored Mahmood’s alleged intimidation of a key witness in the 1999 trial of the actor John Alford. More than twenty years after Alford was jailed for supplying cocaine to the Fake Sheik, the witness confessed that she gave false testimony under oath.

Byline Times has obtained new evidence that the News of the World hired security guards from the Daniel Morgan murder suspect Jonathan Rees. The paper said they were there to provide “personal protection” for Mahmood during the trial but Alford insists their real purpose was to intimidate witnesses.

‘What We’re Doing is Illegal’ – The Private Investigator, the Daily Express Editor and the Daniel Morgan Report

Gary Jones once worked for the News of the World and the Daily Mirror. Today he edits the Daily Express. Will he figure in the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, out next week? Brian Cathcart considers the evidence

Mazher Mahmood was one of those accused of “routinely using” illegal methods to get stories. Initially, he was going to be called to give evidence — surprising given he is a convicted perjurer — but News Group eventually decided against it.

The end of the litigation case means that the court cannot examine disturbing new evidence of Mahmood’s role in the high-profile conviction of the ITV London’s Burning star, John Alford, in 1999.

Alford was the victim of an expensive and elaborate “sting” to persuade him to supply cocaine to the Fake Sheik. He was found guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison. 

He has always protested his innocence, accusing the News of the World and Mahmood of presenting false evidence against him. Three years ago he brought a successful claim against the paper in the hacking litigation and obtained substantial damages.

full and fair reporting of #MURDOCH ON TRIAL

We need incisive, independent, and accurate reporting on this trial to understand and expose exactly what Murdoch’s publisher has been up to. And with our expertise in media corruption investigation, Byline Times and Hacked Off are the only organisations that can offer you unique insights. 

One of the witnesses in Alford’s trial was a News of the World secretary called Sarah Issitt. She was part of Mahmood’s retinue when the actor was targeted and made a statement backing up the Fake Sheik’s narrative.

She said Alford was not pressured to supply drugs during a dinner at the Savoy Hotel. Despite the fact that video and audio recordings were made throughout the operation, Mahmood claimed that his personal recording device had not worked during the meal. 

When she came to give evidence at the trial in 1999, however, Issitt broke down in the witness box and the judge had to order an adjournment to allow her to compose herself. 

During this break, despite the fact that a witness under oath is forbidden from discussing their evidence with another witness, she was seen talking to Mahmood.

A detective sergeant took a statement from both Issitt and Mahmood stating that they had not discussed the case. 

Did Murdoch or the Met Delay the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report?

Peter Jukes, co-author with Alastair Morgan of Who Killed Daniel Morgan and the Untold Murder podcast, gives his personal take on the unprecedented intervention of the Home Secretary in the publishing of a report into the unsolved 1987 crime

Two decades later, Sarah Issitt has come clean. Her testimony against John Alford was false, she says. In a statement made in October 2021, she said “I am very remorseful about not telling the truth during the trial”. She said that this was one of the reasons she “broke down when giving evidence” adding that she “felt sorry for Mr Alford about what was happening to him, but I felt trapped”.

She said that during the trial, Mahmood “made an effort to keep close to me” — “I knew he wanted me to stick to the agreed story, and to not deviate from it or tell the full truth”.

Mahmood also wanted her to “stick to the agreed line about the dinner conversation being light (i.e. not too ‘heavy’) in terms of asking Mr Alford to get the drugs, which was untrue as Mr Alford had been heavily pressured …”.

John Alford, who defended himself, has also given his version of what happened in court on the day Issitt broke down. He says that during the trial “some ‘heavies’ came and sat in the public gallery when I was conducting cross-examination. I considered that they were intimidating the witnesses”.

He asked the judge to find out who they were. He says that when the “heavies” said they were “Mazher Mahmood’s security,” the judge ordered them to leave.  

During the adjournment, Alford claims he saw Issitt “being berated in the café/smoking area by Mr Mahmood”.

He adds that he “told the police and both Mahmood and Issitt had to make statements in which they denied they were talking about the case”.

EXCLUSIVE

The Daniel Morgan Murder: The Silencing of David Cook

James Doleman interviews the man once described by the family of Daniel Morgan as the only Metropolitan Police detective they ever trusted

Byline Times has obtained a copy of Sarah Issitt’s statement — made just fifteen minutes after Alford had seen her and Mahmood talking. She insisted she and Mahmood had not discussed the case. John Alford says this statement was false and was further evidence she was being intimidated.  The News of the World claimed the intimidation was coming from Alford’s supporters. 

In its report of the trial, Mahmood branded the actor a “flaming liar” and said “his thuggish friends made efforts to intimidate” witnesses. He wrote that they “even attempted bare-faced intimidation tactics” with Alford spitting “at one witness” and a member of his family shouting at a reporter:  “What goes round comes round. You’ll get sorted out. We know who you all are now’.” 

Two of John Alford’s supporters — his partner Tina Mahon and the boxer Terry Marsh — brought successful libel actions against the paper over these claims. Mahon settled out of court and Marsh was awarded £30,000 in damages.

The “heavies” that Alford mentioned were provided by the private detective agency run by Jonathan Rees, one of the prime suspects in the 1987 murder of his partner Daniel Morgan.

A News of the World invoice, seen by Byline Times, shows that on the day Sarah Issitt gave evidence, Rees charged the paper more than £300 for the supply of “two personal protection security operatives”.

We were not able to confirm John Alford’s claim that one of these bodyguards was Garry Vian, a convicted drug dealer and the brother of the man suspected of carrying out the actual murder of Daniel Morgan.

We asked NGN for a comment. The company did not reply.


Written by

This article was filed under
, , ,