Harrods boss Mohamed al-Fayed's idea of what is fact and what is fiction may be "warped", the judge in the Neil Hamilton libel trial has suggested.

The former MP for Tatton is suing Mr al-Fayed over allegations that he had corruptly demanded and accepted cash payments, gift vouchers and a free holiday at the Paris Ritz, in return for asking parliamentary questions on behalf of Harrods.

Summing up the case at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Morland said: "You may have come to the conclusion that Mr al-Fayed's evidence in detail is inconsistent and unreliable.

"That he has made many wild and unsubstantiated allegations about all manner of people and that at times he is vindictive towards those who he thinks have let him down or double-crossed him.

"You may have come to the conclusion Mr al-Fayed's obsessional attitude and beliefs have distorted his perception of the truth and he is suffering from a great sense of grievance for what he considers to be the unfair way he was treated in the DTI inquiry and application for British citizenship."

'Memory is defective'

The judge went on: "By his own admission his recollection for detail and his memory of events is defective.

"His versions of events and occasions when he alleges payments were received from him by Mr Hamilton have varied and been markedly inconsistent, one with another.

"All these matters mean, you may think, that Mr al-Fayed's appreciation of what is fact and what is fiction and what is truth and what is fantasy is warped."

He then told the jury if they found the main thrust of Mr al-Fayed's evidence credible, it would be dangerous to act upon it unless they were satisfied that independent evidence backed up his claims.

He was speaking of the evidence given to the trial by Mr al-Fayed's former personal assistant, Alison Bozek, who is now a solicitor, secretary Iris Bond and security guard Philip Bromfield.

He added: "It's for you to decide whether, in fact, it does so confirm his evidence.

"Mr Desmond Browne QC suggested they had given false evidence either from mistaken loyalty towards Mr al-Fayed or from fear of Mr al-Fayed or by way of exchange for past favours of future financial benefit."

'Cogent confirmation'

The judge continued: "You will carefully consider these suggestions and the allegation of conspiracy.

"If you are satisfied that Ms Bozek, Ms Bond and Mr Bromfield were not guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or of conspiracy to commit perjury and are highly convinced they have told you the truth on essential matters, you may think their evidence provides cogent confirmation of the main thrust of Mr Al Fayed's evidence that Mr Hamilton received cash payment from him."

Earlier in his summing up, the judge had suggested to the jury that should Mr Hamilton win his libel case, any damages higher than £150,000 would be "excessive".

Mr Al Fayed denies libel and pleads justification.

The hearing was adjourned until Monday when the judge will complete his summing up.

He said he hopes to send the jury out to consider its verdict at about 1130GMT.