Why Mohamed al-Fayed's victims' legal pursuit of Harrods is unjust

The legal pursuit of the late Mohamed al-Fayed and his enablers is more than justified, but going after soft-touch Harrods misses the point of justice, says Tom Wood

The recent revelations about the late Mohamed al-Fayed have a weary familiarity. Shades of Jimmy Savile with a bit of Harvey Weinstein, a slice of Rolf Harris, and on and on going back to our own royal ladykiller Henry VIII.

They all have traits in common. They were all gross sexual predators enabled by their powerful positions to get away with their outrageous behaviour for years, all aided and abetted in their behaviour by acolytes, paid or otherwise. None of these men could have got away with it for so long without the cover provided by others.

Sometimes, the reckoning for these types comes during their lifetime and, like Weinstein and Harris, they end up in jail. For most, however, judgment only comes after their death, and so it was for Fayed. Except that for him it was no revelation. I was surprised when the truth about Harris emerged, but no one with the slightest knowledge of al-Fayed’s life could have been surprised.

As his victims come forward in droves and compensation lawyers sharpen their knives, it’s worth asking two questions: how did he escape prosecution for so long and are his victims pursuing the right targets for compensation?

The answer to the first question is familiar: many victims were so overawed by his power that they could not face a confrontation. Some accepted monetary settlements and signed legal non-disclosure agreements.

There’s no doubt that al-Fayed was a difficult target in his lifetime. For all his sins, he was not stupid. He would have made sure there were few if any independent witnesses; many victims were lured onto his territory, sometimes abroad, where they were vulnerable.

Mohamed al-Fayed, former owner of department store Harrods, has been accused by dozens of women of rape and sexual assault (Picture: Peter Macdiarmid) | Getty Images

And he had a phalanx of minders, security staff, and lawyers. A truly horrible tale made worse by the fact that al-Fayed was not hiding in plain sight, he was hardly hiding at all.

The main reason why he was not prosecuted on any of the numerous occasions he was reported to the police is simple. In addition to those above, in each case there was insufficient evidence to suggest to prosecutors there was a reasonable chance of conviction.

The legal rules established to protect the innocent, also sometimes protect the guilty. It’s difficult but it’s the price we pay for the checks and balances in our legal system.

The softest touch

There’s another issue that intrigues me about the al-Fayed case. Why is the thrust of compensation against department store Harrods, and not al-Fayed’s estate and his acolytes?

He was the perpetrator of these crimes, Harrods is a brand, a business he sold over a decade ago. Claiming on Harrods is a bit like someone taking legal action against the man who bought my house ten years ago, for something I did when I lived there.

The answer’s simple and unedifying. I suspect the wily al-Fayed has tied his money up so that, even after death, he’s a hard target. Harrods, however, is the softest of targets, with a worldwide brand to protect, and wealthy new owners prepared to pay to save it.

If al-Fayed’s acolytes are found culpable, they should be pursued. His estate should be pursued for any compensation due. Harrods may be the softest touch but going after it misses the point of justice.