I cannot leave uncorrected certain remarks made by Sir Geoffrey Bindman, solicitor for Amnesty International in the Pinochet case (see [2009] Gazette, 21 May, 9). As is well known, my firm acted for Senator Pinochet.

However much Sir Geoffrey might wish they were otherwise, the facts are simple – and innocent.

My partner, Michael Caplan QC, acted on behalf of Senator Pinochet. Lord Hoffmann sat on the first appeal to the House of Lords when Amnesty International intervened.

After the first appeal, information was brought to our attention of possible links between Lord Hoffmann and Amnesty. We wrote to Amnesty’s lawyers, Sir Geoffrey’s firm Bindmans. We received a reply informing us that Lord Hoffmann was a director and chairperson of Amnesty International Charity Ltd. Bindmans also stated that, together with other senior legal figures, he had helped in the organisation of a fund-raising appeal for a new building for Amnesty International. They reminded us that this firm had contributed £1,000 to that appeal.

From these facts Sir Geoffrey claimed at the time that those at this firm who represented Senator Pinochet had been aware of Lord Hoffmann’s position. He now asserts that they had deliberately concealed that knowledge in order to keep available a challenge to the decision of the House of Lords if it went against the client.

We explained at the time that the decision to make a donation to Amnesty had been made by the partners of this firm and not by Michael Caplan. Neither he nor any of the partners recalled that decision at the time of the first appeal, nor did they recall Lord Hoffmann’s links to Amnesty – if they were ever aware of them. Despite these assurances, which were expressly accepted by the House of Lords in its ruling (see R v Bow Street Magistrate, Ex p. Pinochet (No2) HL, p129C) and by the Crown Prosecution Service, on behalf of the government of Spain, it is sad that Sir Geoffrey should still refuse to accept either the findings of the law lords or the word of a highly respected member of his own profession.

Sir Geoffrey concludes his letter by saying that what saved Senator Pinochet ‘was another cunning manoeuvre’, referring to the medical reports ‘delivered to the home secretary’. The inference is obvious – unfortunately Sir Geoffrey has clearly forgotten that it was the home secretary himself, and not this firm, who asked for, arranged and received direct, the medical reports in question.

Perhaps, for once, fact is not stranger than fiction.

Christopher Murray, senior partner, Kingsley Napley, London