Lord Levy last night claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign by unnamed figures who wanted him to be the fall-guy of Scotland Yard's cash-for-honours inquiry.
Tony Blair's chief fundraiser delivered an angry riposte to claims he had encouraged another suspect in the police investigation to change her evidence. As the 61-year-old peer was thrust yet again into the spotlight, he complained of being the victim of a "media-style trial".
The latest twist in what one MP dubbed "a soap opera of an investigation" came after the Guardian successfully defeated an attempt by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to halt a story in which it said detectives were investigating whether Lord Levy urged Ruth Turner, the Prime Minister's gatekeeper, to "shape the evidence" she gave to the police.
Later, a High Court ban that prevented the BBC running the story last Friday was lifted because effectively it had appeared in the newspaper.
Nick Robinson, the corporation's political editor, said: "Ruth Turner wrote a document in which she expressed her concern that Lord Levy had put to her a version of events which she believed to be untrue."
He said the BBC had not seen the document but had been told about it by more than one source, one of whom said Ms Turner, 36, had wished to draw her concern to the attention of Mr Blair and Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff.
The fierce attack on the integrity of Lord Levy prompted an indignant response from Neil O'May, his solicitor, who in a statement insisted the Labour peer "categorically denies any wrongdoing whatsoever".
Mr O'May added: "All the reports appear to be based on second-hand information given by someone or some people who are intent on smearing Lord Levy."
Earlier, Mr Blair was asked about his confidence in Ms Turner and Lord Levy. He replied: "I have got absolutely nothing whatever to say on this issue."
Ms Turner has been arrested twice, once under suspicion of perverting the course of justice, and Lord Levy has been arrested twice, once under suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Both deny any wrongdoing.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article