Fake Sheikh ‘did not need to see Tulisa convicted to keep his job’

The reporter dubbed the ‘fake sheikh’ was a journalist not a policeman who did not need to see former X Factor judge Tulisa Contostavlos convicted to keep his job, a court heard.

Posing as wealthy film financier, Mazher Mahmood, 53, convinced the singer she was in the running for a £3.5 million role in an Oscar-winning Bollywood movie alongside Leonardo DiCaprio.

Jurors heard that after flying her first class to Las Vegas and wining and dining her at London’s Metropolitan Hotel, she offered to get him white sweets – code for cocaine.

The former N-Dubz was arrested and charged after her pal, Michael Coombs, sold half an ounce of the drug to Mahmood’s alter-ego, Samir Khan, for £800.

But the trial collapsed in July 2014 and Mahmood was suspended by his bosses after he gave evidence in the trial.

Mahmood is accused of conspiring with his 67-year-old driver, Alan Smith, to change a witness statement which said she was anti-drugs.

He is also accused of misleading the court during a pre-trial hearing in which he allegedly denied knowledge of a conversation in the back of Smith’s car.

The pair chose not to give evidence at the Old Bailey, where they are on trial for perverting the course of justice.

But in his closing speech today (Thurs), John Kelsey-Fry, QC, defending Mahmood, asked jurors: ‘Would Mr Mahmood have anything to fear from that first version of the witness statement?

‘And if the answer is no to that question, then the entire prosecution case doesn’t make sense.’

He said: ‘Mr Mahmood is not a policeman, he’s a journalist.

‘His job is to carry out investigations and, if his information turns out to be true, secure evidence of it so that the newspaper can run a story, a splash, a sensation if you like. But that’s his job.

‘While the prosecution may say he boasts of the number of convictions resulting from his work, securing convictions is not actually his job.

‘Now, of course, if the newspaper publishes one of his investigations and the subject of that article in question sued for libel, saying, “it’s not true, I never arranged for the supply of cocaine”, and they won, you may think it would be damaging for Mr Mahmood.

‘If there was a criminal trial and the jury found they could not rely on Mr Mahmood’s evidence when he or she arranged to supply drugs, that might be a knock to Mr Mahmood.

‘But if the criminal case was stopped on the basis of a successful argument that it was entrapment – in other words she did what the newspaper said she had done but had been pressured to do so when she would not normally otherwise done so – but she had done what the newspaper said, would that be the end of the world for Mr Mahmood?’

Mr Kelsey-Fry said the prosecution rely on Mahmood’s ‘ego’, ‘success rate’ and desire to impress his new bosses at the Sun.

‘Even if that’s right and fair, such damage he might perceive from a story that was true failing to result in a trial, is as nothing compared to the consequences of perverting the course of justice,’ he said.

The QC added that the serious criminal charge has put Mahmood’s job and 20-year career at stake.

Prosecutors say contact between Mahmood and Smith and the journalist’s evidence in court in the Tulisa case amounts to compelling evidence of the guilt.

But Mr Kelsey-Fry said: ‘We suggest, on proper analysis, far from being compelling so that the only explanation is the guilt of these two men, to the contrary, the prosecution approach is fundamentally flawed and illogical and on occasions defies common sense.

‘They are bold words and I’m going to have to make them stick.’

Mahmood, of Brighton Road, Purley, Surrey, and Smith of Daffodil Way, Dereham, Norfolk, deny conspiring to pervert the course of justice and are on unconditional bail.

The trial continues.

mfl

ends