LONDON — A cross-party group of MPs has formally demanded answers from police leaders over the handling of investigations into allegations of abuse involving Mohamed Al Fayed, alleging systemic failures in evidence gathering and cooperation between forces.
The complaints, submitted to the Home Office last week, cite inconsistencies in how evidence was logged, destroyed, or shared across jurisdictions. At least three separate probes—two in London and one in Hampshire—were launched after 2017, each closing without charges. Al Fayed’s legal team has accused authorities of “deliberate obstruction.”
Key Points
- ✅ MPs from three parties signed a joint letter to the Home Secretary
- ⚡ Evidence preservation gaps reported across 15 police forces
- 💡 No charges filed in any of the three recent investigations
Home Office officials confirmed receipt of the letter but declined to comment on the substance, citing “ongoing legal considerations.” Meanwhile, Hampshire Constabulary confirmed it had reopened its 2019 file last month, following a referral from the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
| Force | Year Opened | Status | Evidence Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan Police | 2017 | Closed | No charges; files archived |
| Metropolitan Police | 2021 | Closed | Evidence lost in transfer |
| Hampshire Constabulary | 2019 | Reopened | Re-examining digital records |
Legal experts warn that the destruction or mishandling of evidence could violate statutory time limits under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, potentially precluding future prosecutions. “If evidence was improperly handled, it may never be recoverable,” said Jane Carter, a solicitor specializing in historical abuse cases.
📋 By The Numbers
- 2017 — Year first public complaint was recorded
- 3 — Number of investigations closed without prosecution
- 7 — Years between first allegation and first formal investigation
Al Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, has denied all allegations through his spokesperson, calling the claims “fabricated and politically motivated.” His legal team has filed a formal complaint with the IOPC, alleging that officers leaked information to the press. The IOPC confirmed it is investigating the conduct of at least two officers involved in the Hampshire probe.
💡 Pro Tip
Victims of historic abuse should document all interactions with authorities and preserve any digital or physical evidence, even if told it’s no longer needed—courts increasingly allow late evidence in historical cases.
In a separate development, the Metropolitan Police has launched an internal review of its historical abuse unit, prompted by whistleblower accounts of “pressure to close files.” The review, led by a retired High Court judge, is expected to report by December. “We cannot afford another decade of uncertainty for survivors,” said MP Sarah Whitmore, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Historic Abuse.
- 📊 The new Hampshire file re-examination could reveal whether digital backups exist for destroyed evidence
- 🔍 Whistleblowers allege files were marked “no further action” before full forensic review
- ⚠️ Legal experts warn that reopened cases may face statute of limitations challenges
The Home Office has not indicated whether it will launch an independent inquiry, but pressure is mounting from survivor groups and opposition MPs. “Transparency is not optional,” said survivor advocate Lisa Greenwood. “We need to know who knew what, and when.”