Ex-Tory MP’s action over ‘cash-for-advocacy’ story dismissed

A judge has dismissed former British Conservative MP Tim Yeo’s libel action over a “cash-for-advocacy” claim and called his evidence untrue and dishonest.

Mr Yeo, who was seeking substantial compensation, said his reputation was damaged by articles in the Sunday Times which followed a lunch with two journalists from the paper’s Insight team posing as representatives for a solar energy concern in the Far East.

They alleged that he was prepared to, and offered to, act in a way that was in breach of the House of Commons code of conduct by acting as a paid parliamentary advocate. Mr Yeo would reportedly push for new laws to benefit the business of a client for a daily fee of £7,000 and approach ministers, civil servants and other MPs to promote a client’s private agenda in return for cash.

They also contained comment to the effect that Mr Yeo had shown a willingness to abuse his position to further his own financial and business interests.

Times Newspapers said the June 2013 publications were true, fair comment and responsible journalism on matters of public interest.

‘Clandestine’

After Mr Justice Warby dismissed the case at London’s High Court, Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens said: “This is a victory for investigative journalism. It vindicates the role of the press in exposing the clandestine advocacy by MPs for undisclosed interests.”

Mr Yeo (70), who represented South Suffolk for more than 30 years until the last election and was chairman of a committee on energy and climate change, was not in court to hear the judge say that some of his evidence was “utterly implausible” and he did not present “convincingly”.

The judge said he was unable to accept Mr Yeo’s evidence that he had forgotten a reference in an email to a “generous remuneration package”.

“I accept that Mr Yeo is genuinely interested in green technology, and that he has given advice and help to some in this field without seeking or accepting any material reward,” the judge said.

“However, the May 13th email was short and clear. It was plainly suggesting a consultancy with generous remuneration. It is not credible that this was not present to Mr Yeo’s mind at all.”

The judge said experience suggested that those who are “not interested in money tend not to get much”.

“I can think of none who convincingly claim to have no interest in money, yet end up with an annual income in excess of £200,000.”

He said Mr Yeo went to the meeting knowing that its purpose was to discuss the prospect of a consultancy, involving work for which the client was prepared to pay generously.

PA