Mazher Mahmood has finally tripped up after years of notorious stings

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/21/mazher-mahmood-tripped-up-notorious-stings

Version 0 of 1.

Mazher Mahmood was bound to trip up at some time. But it has taken far longer than I would have anticipated after a string of controversial, contentious stories over the past 15 years.

The Tulisa Contostavlos entrapment follows in a notorious line of sting operations that have been hotly disputed. Several trials resulting from his "investigations" have collapsed.

They include the prosecutions of five men he alleged to have plotted to kidnap Victoria Beckham in 2000; his story claiming three men were trying to build a "dirty bomb" in 2004; and the quashing of a conviction in 2010 of an Albanian immigrant for supplying drugs.

My interest in Mahmood's questionable journalistic methodology – the use of subterfuge allied to the creation of elaborate, often costly, fantasy scenarios – was first piqued in 1999 when he "exposed" the Earl of Hardwicke as a drug dealer.

At his subsequent trial, the jury sent a note to the judge explaining that they had convicted the man with great reluctance because Mahmood had used "extreme provocation" to induce Hardwicke to supply cocaine. The judge agreed and passed a suspended sentence.

In that instance, Mahmood used the same kind of disproportionate lure as he did with Contostavlos. In almost every case, he has coaxed his victims to break the law after holding out the promise of untold riches.

However, despite notable reverses, Mahmood has both avoided legal action and managed to hold on to his job. Even when the News of the World was closed after the phone-hacking scandal, he stayed with Rupert Murdoch's organisation by switching to the Sunday Times. Then, with the launching of the Sun on Sunday, he moved across to the red-top tabloid.

It is true that he had a signal success with his Pakistani match-fixing revelation, but there have been countless complaints about most of his so-called fake sheikh activities. Many of his victims have accused him of lying; none have been able to prove it.

That's why the Contostavlos case is so significant and why he might, at last, find it difficult to keep his job. According to the judge there were strong grounds to believe he had been caught lying.

The affront felt by the judge, Alistair McCreath, is barely concealed between the lines of his statement at Southwark crown court. He had been fooled by the journalist, whom he accused of lying in order to manipulate the evidence of a defence witness.

If I had been able to give evidence, as the lawyers for Contostavlos originally hoped, I would have spoken of the dubious circumstances in 1988 that led to his swift departure from the Sunday Times.

I would also have told how he rewrote history at the Leveson inquiry through his account of that episode.

In truth, deceit has been his business. It is the essence of the kind of subterfuge he has employed in journalistic enterprises that have brought investigative reporting into disrepute.

He, and his Sun on Sunday editors, clearly underestimated Contostavlos. She obtained good legal advice and did what no other complaining victim has successfully accomplished in the past by turning the tables on Mahmood by exposing the sins of man who has traded for years on exposing the sins of others.