Fab

by Howard Sounes

  Inside Court 34, Heather asked Justice Bennett for a £125 million settlement ($191.2m). She said this vast sum would enable her to support herself and Bea in the style they had become accustomed to, allowing her to buy a new London home (in the £10 million [$15 m] price range), a $4.5 million (£ 3m) New York apartment and an office in Brighton, giving her a total of seven residences, all of which had to be staffed, naturally. The balance of the divorce payment would be invested to generate an income of £ 3.25 million a year ($4.97m), on which she expected to be able to get by.

  Paul’s barristers argued in reply that Heather should leave the marriage with total assets of no more than £15 million ($22.9m), on top of which Sir Paul would pay for Beatrice’s nanny, education and security. Heather addressed the judge personally, relating details of Paul’s alleged assault on her with a wine glass in April 2006, also claiming her husband had colluded with the press in a hate campaign against her. The arguments went on all week. On Friday, a Beatles fan managed to approach Sir Paul in the corridor outside the courtroom with a copy of the White Album for signature. Paul refused. When the fan told Heather, she remarked mischievously: ‘That’s a pity. You are the sort of person who made him what he is today.’

  When the couple failed to agree a settlement within the week, Justice Bennett retired to formulate his own judgment. As Sir Paul waited, he consoled Nancy Shevell, whose unmarried 50-year-old brother Jon, a fellow executive with the family trucking firm, had been found dead of an overdose at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

  Justice Bennett emailed his draft judgment to Paul and Heather, who were called back to the High Court on Monday 17 March 2008 for the conclusion of their case. Paul was in a good mood when he came to court that morning, burbling to himself - ‘bup-bup-bup!’ - as he mounted the steps to Court 34. A more subdued Heather followed, dressed for the big day in a curious harlequin trouser suit of many colours.

  Behind the ‘No Admittance’ sign, Justice Bennett read his 58-page judgment aloud to the McCartneys. The headline result was that Sir Paul should pay Lady McCartney a lump sum of £16.5 million ($25.2m), meaning that, with the wealth she had acquired during their marriage, the charity worker would walk away with cash and assets worth £24.3 million ($37.1m), which was £100 million less than she’d asked for, and roughly what Paul had offered her two years ago. In addition, Paul would pay approximately £ 35,000 a year ($ 53,000) for Beatrice’s nanny and education. As much as anybody who has to go to court to end their marriage can be said to be victorious, Paul was.

  With Sir Paul’s agreement, and in order to quash press speculation about a case that had already generated acres of newsprint, with many wild allegations, the judge intended to do something very unusual. He wanted to publish his judgment in full on the court website, so the press and public could read the true facts of the matter. Normally, the terms of a divorce remain confidential. Although Heather had been pre-warned about this, the fact that intimate details of her case were about to become common knowledge took her aback. She asked for personal details about her and Beatrice to be redacted. Some were, but she still wasn’t happy, and in the dramatic final moments of the case the angry charity worker tipped a jug of water over Fiona Shackleton’s head.

  Heather emerged into the public corridor to announce to the press that she would speak to them outside. ‘We’ve got to do this in front of the TV cameras!’ she said, leading the pack away down the corridor towards the Strand.

  Sir Paul emerged from the courtroom minutes later with Ms Shackleton, her hair plastered down on her head like a dog that’s been put under a garden hose. Asked what the outcome of the case was, Paul said: ‘You will see - it will all be revealed!’ Indeed, the press were being given a printed summary of the judgment as his wife began her speech at the Strand gate of the High Court, surrounded by a large crowd of reporters, photographers and cameramen. In talking about the case, as she proceeded to do at length, Heather contravened a court order.

  ‘First of all, I just want to say I’m so glad it’s over,’ she said over the sound of passing traffic and the rustle of cameras, proclaiming herself happy with the £16.5 million settlement. It was as good as could be expected considering she wasn’t represented by a barrister (entirely her own fault). ‘Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well … so when they write the judgment up, they’re never going to try and make it look in my favour.’ She was angry that the full judgment was going to be made public, and would be appealing against this. ‘I wanted to keep the judgment private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that’s the only reason I’m talking. He’s always wanted it public because he wants to look like he’s this generous Sir Paul.’

  Away from the cameras, just inside the door of the Royal Courts of Justice, Heather’s sister Fiona told journalists that all the negative headlines about Heather in recent times had been orchestrated by Paul. ‘I can’t believe a man can be that low,’ she sniped, adding poisonously in case anybody had forgotten the history that had taken place in this very building: ‘He sued his three best friends, remember.’

  Heather’s appeal was unsuccessful, and the next day Justice Bennett’s judgment was published in full, giving the public unprecedented detail not only of the divorce but of Sir Paul’s personal life. The star had effectively sanctioned the court to tell the world what he was worth, where he lived and what security he had. The rationale, perhaps, was that the document showed him to be an honest man, while Justice Bennett came to highly critical conclusions about Heather Mills McCartney. His words made fascinating reading.

  ‘The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude in the face of, and overcoming her disability,’ His Lordship wrote at the start of his judgment, adding that Heather was ‘a kindly person … devoted to her charitable causes’ and that she had conducted her own case with ‘steely, yet courteous determination’. That was the best he could say about her.

  The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.

  This was damning, and the subsequent details proved very revealing.

  During the case, Heather argued that she was ‘wealthy and financially independent in her own right’ before she met Paul, claiming to have been a millionairess since 1999. She earned approximately £ 200,000 a year ($306,000) as a model, and up to £ 25,000 an hour ($38,250) as a celebrity speaker. If Heather persuaded the judge she was already a woman of means she could expect a higher settlement. But the judge decided Heather’s claims of being rich in her own right were ‘wholly exaggerated’ and lacking corroboration. ‘During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements … No bank statements were ever produced.’ Her tax returns showed her annual earnings were in the more modest range of £11,500 to £112,000 ($17,595 - $171,360) prior to her marriage. Also, there was no paperwork to support her assertion that she gave the rest of her income to charity.

  The judge referred to Paul’s marriage to Linda McCartney:Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how even during his relationship with the wife [Heather] in 1999 to 2002 he was grieving for Linda. I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive. But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda. It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda. Upon being married to the wife he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife. The wife for her part must have
felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief.

  To that end, the judge rejected Heather’s claims that she and Paul had lived together as man and wife since March 2000, accepting Sir Paul was correct in saying they only started cohabiting on their wedding night in June 2002, when they also stopped using contraception.

  As Paul had made clear, there was ‘considerable volatility in their relationship’ leading up to the big day at Castle Leslie. ‘There were good times, there were bad times,’ noted the judge, ‘and the relationship always left in the husband’s mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other.’

  Justice Bennett described Heather’s claim that Paul had bought the house in Beverly Hills as a gift for her as ‘wishful thinking’. She claimed to have passed up business opportunities for his sake. ‘I would have made millions,’ Heather told the judge extravagantly during the case, saying her husband held her back. Yet tax returns showed Heather earned more during her marriage than before it and, far from hindering her career, Paul had arranged for her to interview Paul Newman on Larry King Live. Heather alleged that Paul frustrated her charitable activities, and failed to make good with his promised donations. On the contrary, the judge found that Paul introduced Heather to the animal welfare organisations she now associated herself with, notably Viva!, while his sister-in-law Jody Eastman introduced Heather to the Adopt-A-Minefield organisation, to which Paul had given an astounding £3.4 million ($ 5.2m) during their marriage.

  Heather had taken credit for ‘counselling’ Paul after his bereavement and said she had helped him get on better with his children, particularly his adoptive daughter Heather (of whom almost nothing was seen these days). She also helped him write songs, encouraged him to tour, and helped with set design and stage-lighting. ‘I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist, ’ she had told the court. Paul agreed that Heather helped him over Linda’s death, but denied she encouraged him to get back on the road. ‘He firmly said that she contributed nothing to the tours,’ reported Justice Bennett.

  Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention. I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his ‘business partner’ is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.

  Her claim to have been Paul’s psychologist was ‘typical of her make-belief’.

  Sir Paul was an immensely rich man before he met Heather and the judge noted that he’d grown richer during the marriage, through touring rather than record sales. He quoted Sir Paul on the records he had made during the marriage - including Driving Rain, Standing Stone and Chaos and Creation in the Backyard - saying that though they had been critically acclaimed, the work ‘has not yet been profitable’. The judge saw no evidence to corroborate Heather’s claim that her husband was twice as rich as he said he was. As to Heather’s own assets, they were principally due to her husband’s generosity. Justice Bennett listed the numerous gifts and loans Sir Paul had given his wife, and addressed the repeated requests Heather had made to MPL for £450,000 ($ 688,500) to clear a nonexistent mortgage on her Thames Reach apartment. ‘Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband,’ the judge noted.

  In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful … it damages her overall credibility.

  Heather now possessed cash and property totalling £7.8 million ($11.9m), mostly thanks to Paul. She was spending at a rapid rate, though, having blown £3.7 million ($5.6m) during a recent 15-month period - including £184,463 ($282,228) on private planes and helicopters - and she apparently expected to continue living the high life. By her calculation, she would spend £499,000 a year on holidays ($763,470); £125,000 on clothes ($191,250); £ 30,000 a year ($45,900) on equestrian activities (even though she did not ride, as the judge noted); and £39,000 a year ($59,670) on wine (even though she hardly drank). Bennett was scathing: ‘Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too”.’

  Heather was greatly concerned about her personal security, telling the court she’d received death threats, and claiming Sir Paul was behind stories about her leaked to the press, which compromised her security. As a result, she claimed to have spent £ 349,862 ($ 535,288) on security men, and expected to spend £ 542,000 a year ($829,260) to provide her and Bea with round-the-clock protection in future. Despite being asked repeatedly by the judge, she failed to produce ‘one single invoice or receipt’ to substantiate these expenses, while Heather’s fortress mentality contrasted to what Paul told the court about his own security.

  Aside from when he was on tour, Sir Paul said he’d never felt the need for full-time security people, not until Heather insisted on it. He acquiesced to her request, but had reverted to his freewheeling ways since their separation. He had no full-time bodyguards in Sussex, relying on estate workers to keep their eyes open for intruders. ‘The only person with me on a permanent basis is my PA, John Hammel.’ John did not stay with him at night, however, and he and Linda had brought up their kids largely without protection.

  It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and, at times, ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages. I do not want this for Beatrice. I am rarely photographed with Beatrice. She needs as normal an upbringing as possible, and surrounding her with round-the-clock security is not the way to achieve this.

  Paul added that Heather’s attitude to the press was contradictory: she courted attention, yet complained about what the papers published. The judge noted that Heather had been ‘her own worst enemy’ at times.

  Heather had attempted to bring allegations about Paul’s conduct into the divorce case; that is, the lurid allegations leaked to the press in October 2006. ‘The conduct complained of by the wife can be summarised as follows,’ recapped the judge.

  Prior to their separation at the end of April 2006 the husband treated the wife abusively and/or violently culminating in the unhappy events of 25 April 2006 … He abused alcohol and drugs. He was possessive and jealous. He failed to protect the wife from the attention of the media. He was insensitive to her disability. Furthermore, it is alleged that post-separation the husband manipulated and colluded with the press against the wife and has failed to enforce confidentiality by his friends and associates. The wife blames the husband for the leaking to the media of her Answer and Cross-Petition which alleges in strong terms unreasonable behaviour by the husband against her. The husband has failed to provide her with a sufficient degree of security from the media and generally he has behaved badly.

  In reply, Sir Paul’s QC told the court about Heather’s conduct after the separation. ‘First, it is said on 25 June 2006 the wife illegally bugged the husband’s telephone, in particular a call between him and his daughter Stella in which Stella made very unflattering comments about the wife,’ the judge summarised. ‘It is further said the wife subsequently leaked the intercepted material to the press so as to discredit him.’ (This had seemingly led to a Sunday Mirror story, ‘The Maccagate Tapes’).

  Second, on 17 October 2006 the wife, or someone acting on her behalf, leaked to the media some or all of the contents of her Answer and Cross-Petition which contained untrue
and distorted allegations against the husband in order to discredit him. Third, the wife has failed to abide by court orders re[garding] confidentiality. On 31 October 2007 and 1 November 2007 the wife gave several interviews to UK and US television stations in which she made many false statements about the husband and these proceedings in order to discredit him. Individually and collectively these actions, it is said, represent a deliberate attempt by the wife to ruin the husband’s reputation.

  Somebody leaked Heather’s Answer and Cross-Petition to the press.

  Both the wife and the husband accuse each other of doing it. The wife says that the husband did it in order to capitalise on his good press and to blacken the wife’s name for making such unfounded allegations. The husband says the wife did it in order to blacken his reputation.

  The judge chose not to decide who was lying.

  In his closing comments, Justice Bennett said that if an applicant came before him with an excessive claim, which they failed to back up with logical arguments, then they had themselves to blame if they failed to get what they wanted. ‘This case is a paradigm example of an applicant failing to put a rational and logical case and thus failing to assist the court in its quasi-inquisitorial role to reach a fair result.’ He ordered that neither Paul nor Heather disclose further details to the media. Even Heather learned to be bound by this order and, unable to say anything of substance about her husband, and with plenty of money to spend, she faded into the semi-obscurity from whence she had come, occasionally popping up on TV, and employing a succession of public relations consultants, who found themselves hard-pressed to improve her image. One spent much of his time trying to turn Heather’s Wikipedia entry to her favour.