Hearing transcripts

6 November 2007 - Afternoon session


12 (1.10 pm)
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, copies of my ruling
14 from last week are being made available to counsel as
15 soon as my clerk comes into court.
16 MR BURNETT: Thank you, sir. We will look at that later.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: They are approved subject to
18 editorial corrections and they can be handed down at
19 some appropriate moment tomorrow and subsequently put on
20 the website.
21 MR BURNETT: Thank you sir.
22 (Jury present)
23 MR HILLIARD: It does not look as if anyone is here. It
24 does not matter for moment, sir.
25 What we could do is the next available divider

46

1 I think should be 10, and if anyone would like to write
2 "10" on the plan, then they will know where it should
3 go. The plan could go in at 10 and if we write "11" on
4 the photographs, they can go in at 11.
5 With everybody's agreement, I am sure everybody else
6 noticed, but you had the answer for the speed limit just
7 before we broke off at 70. So there is no
8 misapprehension, as we all know, it is 50.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a good example of getting
10 the wrong answer from asking an unnecessary question.
11 Can you hear us in Paris?
12 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Yes, we can, sir, and we have
13 both witnesses here.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are very faint.
15 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Yes, we can hear you. Can you
16 hear us now?
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, thank you. Is Mr Clotteaux
18 there?
19 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: He is.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I call him then.
21 MR THIERRY CLOTTEAUX (affirmed)
22 Questions from MR HILLIARD
23 MR HILLIARD: Is your name Thierry Clotteaux?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I am going to ask you some questions first of all. My

47

1 name is Nicholas Hilliard, on behalf of the Coroner.
2 In 1997, were you a sergeant in the Central Accident
3 Bureau for Paris?
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. On 31st August of that year, you went to the scene of
6 the crash in the Alma Tunnel; is that right?
7 A. Yes, indeed.
8 Q. I think you made a statement about it on 20th May 1998.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. As at August of 1997, how long had you been in the
11 Central Accident Bureau for?
12 A. I had been there for three years.
13 Q. We have heard that you arrived at the scene with
14 Mr Brunet at about 00.53.
15 A. Yes, indeed, I think.
16 Q. What was your job when you got there? What were
17 the task or tasks that you had to do?
18 A. As a duty, because we were belonging to the BCA,
19 the central office for accidents, we were in charge of
20 any serious accidents in Paris.
21 Q. Right. When you got there, one of the things, is this
22 right, that you set about doing was trying to find
23 tyre marks on the road?
24 A. Not first. It is not the first thing that we did
25 because when we arrived on the scene, there were many

48

1 people already. There were a lot of policemen, a lot of
2 emergency people. So what we tried to do first was to
3 see what we could keep and preserve as an evidence.
4 Q. Right. Was that not an easy task with all the people
5 and the vehicles around?
6 A. Yes, indeed. In that type of collision, in that type of
7 crash, the first priority is the assistance to victims
8 of the accident and then it is just afterwards that
9 we try to preserve the things that we can find.
10 Q. Anyway, whilst you were there, we have heard already
11 that you marked some tyre marks with chalk on the road.
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. We have also heard already that you were making a sort
14 of sketch plan whilst you were there.
15 A. Yes, indeed, as we do for any accident.
16 Q. The last thing I want to ask you about is debris on the
17 road.
18 A. If I remember well, we found them after the emergency --
19 after we implemented this safety cordon, we found
20 the lights of the car under the firemen's truck and
21 we also found parts of the mirror of the car.
22 Q. I just want you to look at some photographs, please.
23 If we could start, it is our page 78 [INQ0001576],
24 figure 3 -- we are just going to get a photograph up on
25 the screen for you.

49

1 That photograph there, if you remember, that shows,
2 doesn't it, the entrance to the tunnel and you can see
3 that at the time that that picture was taken, there were
4 a lot of vehicles parked there, weren't there?
5 A. Yes, indeed.
6 Q. The next one you are going to see -- it is figure 4
7 [INQ0001576] -- but by the time that picture is taken,
8 obviously some at least of the vehicles have gone,
9 haven't they?
10 A. Yes, indeed.
11 Q. Can you see in the right-hand carriageway of the road,
12 slightly in the distance, there are some areas that have
13 been ringed with chalk?
14 A. I cannot see. I am sorry.
15 Q. You will see them more clearly in picture 5
16 [INQ0001577].
17 A. What I would like to add is that in the tunnel, the
18 lights were not so great. The lighting was not so
19 great.
20 Q. All right. But do you see the marks there with chalk?
21 A. Yes, I can see them now.
22 Q. If we just go back to picture 4 [INQ0001576], so that
23 you can see where they were on the road, can you see
24 there?
25 A. Yes.

50

1 Q. All right --
2 A. But it is difficult.
3 Q. It is. We understand.
4 Did you and Mr Brunet put those chalk marks round
5 the debris on the road?
6 A. I remember marks that we did regarding the position of
7 the car. These ones I remember. For these,
8 specifically, I do not remember.
9 Q. If you look please at picture 4 [INQ0001576], can you
10 see that where the arrow is pointing, there appears to
11 be certainly some marks on the picture? Can you see
12 those at the end of the arrow?
13 A. Yes, indeed, I can see.
14 Q. Do you know what that was?
15 A. No, I do not know. Really, I do not know.
16 Q. If you saw broken plastic or glass on the roadway, would
17 you have ringed it and marked it all?
18 A. Yes. Usually what we do is that we mark those that we
19 see.
20 Q. I did not hear you, what?
21 A. Usually, what we do is that we mark -- we circle
22 the ones which we see.
23 Q. Would you circle everything?
24 A. It depends.
25 Q. On what?

51

1 A. It depends upon the collision, upon the accident, but
2 for this specific one, I think that we circled
3 everything which had to be circled.
4 Q. At this time in the night, did you have any way of
5 knowing what debris came from the Mercedes or not?
6 A. It is quite difficult for me to remember. What I really
7 remember is that mirror -- the envelope that is
8 surrounding the mirror, I do remember that. I do not
9 remember for the rest.
10 Q. Presumably, at this time in the middle of the night, you
11 did not know whether any other vehicle had been involved
12 in a collision with the Mercedes, did you?
13 A. Yes, you are right. The only message that we got is
14 that there was a serious accident under the tunnel with
15 a VIP inside.
16 Q. Mr Mules -- you know who I mean?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What was Mr Mules' job in 1997?
19 A. He was working at the Criminal Brigade.
20 Q. He says, just so that you know, that accident
21 investigators told him that some debris was not picked
22 up because it was old debris.
23 A. I do not know. I have no knowledge about that.
24 MR HILLIARD: All right. Thank you very much.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?

52

1 MR CROXFORD: Looks like it is me again, sir.
2 Questions from MR CROXFORD
3 MR CROXFORD: M Clotteaux, my name is Croxford. I am
4 a lawyer acting for the Ritz Hotel. I would just like
5 to ask you one or two questions.
6 Major Mules also apparently has said that during the
7 course of the evening, through witnesses at the scene,
8 together with physical evidence -- that is tyre marks,
9 debris and paint on the Mercedes -- that he established
10 with the assistance of the accident investigators
11 working with him -- he reached a conclusion that it was
12 possible that a second car had been involved in this
13 crash. You were one of the accident investigators
14 working with Mr Mules, were you not?
15 A. Yes, indeed.
16 Q. You understood, did you not, that evening, that there
17 was a possibility that another vehicle had been involved
18 with the Mercedes?
19 A. Yes, I did. What we did is we informed Mr Mules about
20 this opportunity.
21 Q. You told Mr Hilliard a few moments ago that you circled
22 "everything which had to be circled". Do you remember
23 that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So you circled debris which you found in the road that

53

1 appeared to you to be associated with the crash that you
2 were investigating; is that right?
3 A. Yes, indeed.
4 Q. But you disregarded debris which was apparently old and
5 unconnected; is that right?
6 A. I do not remember that.
7 Q. But the material that you did circle appeared to be
8 a mixture, did it, of materials, lenses, from one or
9 possibly two vehicles?
10 A. Yes, there were lenses of the Mercedes and also from
11 another car which was not at all the Mercedes.
12 Q. If you had seen other plastic, first of all of the same
13 colour, you presumably would have circled that?
14 A. I think so.
15 Q. If you had seen other plastic that seemed to be of the
16 same thickness or shared the same design, you would
17 presumably have circled that as well?
18 A. Maybe.
19 Q. If you had thought that some other plastic or glass had
20 come from the same source as the materials that you did
21 circle, then you would have circled the other material,
22 wouldn't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR CROXFORD: I have no more questions.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?

54

1 Questions from MR HORWELL
2 MR HOUGH: Could we show figure 3 [INQ0001576] again please?
3 Mr Clotteaux, my name is Richard Horwell and
4 I appear on behalf of the Chief of London Police.
5 This is a photograph showing at least some of the
6 emergency vehicles that were at the scene that night.
7 Mr Clotteaux, obviously there is a very real possibility
8 that some of these vehicles disturbed the scene. Do you
9 not agree?
10 A. That is an opportunity, but the problem is that when you
11 arrive on such an accident scene, the priority first
12 would be the victims of the accident.
13 Q. Yes. Mr Clotteaux, we all fully understand that the
14 priority of everyone that night was to save the lives of
15 those involved if at all possible. Lives come first,
16 the scene comes second. Do you not agree?
17 A. Yes, indeed, we all agree on that.
18 Q. You were asked a question as to whether or not you had
19 inspected debris at the scene to see if it was of the
20 same thickness and of the same appearance. Did you
21 actually do that to look at debris, to see if it was of
22 the same pattern and of the same type?
23 A. No, not at all. Our duty here was to realise this plan,
24 this snap of the accident, and then it was up to the
25 Criminal Brigade to do so.

55

1 Q. I am sure, Mr Clotteaux, that you will agree that
2 the best person to determine whether or not debris
3 relates to a particular accident is a scientist.
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 MR HORWELL: Thank you.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard?
7 MR HILLIARD: No, thank you.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
9 Thank you, Mr Clotteaux, that will be all that
10 we require of you. We are very grateful to you for the
11 time that you have given to us in giving your evidence.
12 Thank you.
13 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Sir, can I just tell you that
14 Mlle Moufakkir is present and in the waiting room?
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
16 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: We received a lengthy fax over
17 the lunch hour, I think for her testimony, which was in
18 English. The interpreter is going through that with her
19 but it is not yet completed. If that really is relevant
20 to her evidence, it would be helpful if we could have
21 a break so that she could finish having that translated
22 to her.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Are you aware what this
24 document is?
25 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: I have not seen it myself. Just

56

1 one minute because the solicitor may have some news.
2 It has just been confirmed that if this is relevant
3 to her evidence -- and I presume that counsel have asked
4 for this to be faxed through to us --
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, I think it is material that
6 I have just been handed before we adjourned.
7 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Yes, so could we have a 15-minute
8 break to allow the translation to her to be completed?
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, that seems reasonable.
10 MR HOUGH: Sir, yes.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: 15 minutes, members of the jury.
12 (1.35 pm)
13 (A short break)
14 (1.50 pm)
15 (Jury present)
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Are we ready now in Paris? Can
17 you hear us?
18 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Yes, we can hear you.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. I call Mlle Moufakkir
20 then.
21 MR HOUGH: Is your name Souad Moufakkir?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
23 MISS SOUAD MOUFAKKIR (affirmed)
24 Questions from MR HOUGH
25 MR HOUGH: Mlle Moufakkir, and my name is Jonathan Hough and

57

1 I ask questions on behalf of the Coroner.
2 I think you and your boyfriend of the time, Mohamed
3 Medjahdi, witnessed events in the Alma Underpass in
4 Paris in the early hours of 31st August 1997.
5 A. Yes, indeed.
6 Q. And I think you were interviewed by the French police at
7 around 6 o'clock in the evening later on that Sunday and
8 you made a statement. Is that right?
9 A. Yes, that is right.
10 Q. I think Mr Medjahdi was also interviewed by the French
11 police at around the same time.
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. He was also, I think, interviewed by an examining
14 magistrate 17 days later. Is that also right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you have in front of you your statement and his two
17 statements?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I think you and Mr Medjahdi were interviewed together in
20 1998 by a television production company called Fulcrum;
21 is that right?
22 A. I think it was for news.
23 Q. Pardon me, sorry?
24 A. I think it was for news.
25 Q. Have you seen a copy of the transcript of that interview

58

1 today?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Has the interpreter shown any documents to you over
4 the last hour or so?
5 A. I did not understand your question, sir.
6 Q. Have you been shown, over the past hour or so,
7 a document which the interpreter has interpreted for
8 you?
9 A. Yes, no. I do not know.
10 Q. Can you be a little more specific, please?
11 A. Can you please repeat the question maybe more precisely
12 because I do not really understand what you mean and
13 what you want me to answer.
14 Q. Have you been shown any documents in the past hour or so
15 which have been interpreted to you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What are those documents?
18 A. It was with respect to what happened at that time.
19 Q. Do they include the transcript of an interview about
20 what happened at that time?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now after the interview for the news programme, a few
23 years later I think you and Mr Medjahdi separated,
24 didn't you?
25 A. Yes, that is right.

59

1 Q. Then later, in January 2004, you were interviewed,
2 I think, by a British journalist, Alexander Hitchen. Do
3 you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. He was accompanied by an inquiry agent instructed on
6 behalf of Mr Al Fayed, called Michel Kerbois. Do you
7 remember that?
8 A. Yes, but I do not know if he was acting on behalf of
9 Mr Al Fayed.
10 Q. Other than the interview to the news programme and
11 the interview to Mr Hitchen and the interview with
12 the French police, have you given your account of these
13 events to anybody else?
14 A. Yes, another channel.
15 Q. Which channel was that?
16 A. It was a Chinese one, I think.
17 Q. Do you know when you gave your account to that Chinese
18 television channel?
19 A. I do not remember.
20 Q. Have you ever received any payment for your account of
21 these events from any media outlet or anybody else?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Are you expecting any payment in the future for your
24 account of these events?
25 A. No.

60

1 Q. Thank you. Can I take you back to the events of
2 31st August 1997? I think you were travelling as
3 a passenger in a Citroen BX car; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I think the colour of that car was light grey. Is that
6 also right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The car, I think, was registered in the 77 department.
9 Is that also right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I think the car was being driven by Mr Medjahdi.
12 A. That is right.
13 Q. You were travelling through Paris on the embankment
14 expressway on the north bank of the Seine, weren't you?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. And you were travelling I think from east to west; that
17 is to say, towards Trocadero?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you remember, as you were driving along the
20 embankment road and before you got to the
21 Alma Underpass, what speed your car was travelling at?
22 A. I do not remember.
23 Q. In the interview by the television company, Mr Medjahdi
24 said, I think in your presence, that he was travelling
25 at about 80 to 90 kilometres per hour. Do you agree

61

1 with that?
2 A. That is possible.
3 Q. As you were driving along, do you remember if the
4 windows of the car were open?
5 A. You mean our car? Our windows?
6 Q. Your car, yes.
7 A. I do not remember.
8 Q. Do you remember if the car stereo was on or not?
9 A. I think it was the case.
10 Q. Can I now take you to the events immediately around
11 the Alma Underpass and could you look, please, at a plan
12 on page 15 [INQ-JB1-0000015] of a large bundle in front
13 of you? Do you see there your route from the right of
14 the plan to the left of the plan, towards the tunnel?
15 A. Yes, that is right.
16 Q. Now, as you were going along that road, before you
17 entered the tunnel, can you remember how heavy
18 the traffic was on that road?
19 A. It was fluid traffic.
20 Q. Which lane were you travelling in?
21 A. The right lane.
22 Q. Did you have to pull out to overtake any vehicles as you
23 came towards the entrance of the tunnel?
24 A. I am totally lost, I am sorry.
25 When we entered the tunnel, no.

62

1 Q. Were you aware of your vehicle being overtaken by any
2 vehicles before you entered the tunnel?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Can we now look at a photograph on page 40
5 [INQ-JB1-0000040] of that bundle showing the view into
6 the tunnel? Do you recognise that as your view into the
7 tunnel at first?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then can we look at page 43 [INQ-JB1-0000043] and
10 page 44 [INQ-JB1-0000044] of the bundle please? Do you
11 recognise those as photos going further into the tunnel?
12 A. That is right.
13 Q. Now I would like to focus in my next questions on the
14 crash that you became aware of. Is that all right?
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. Now looking at this photograph [INQ-JB1-0000044], what
17 position in the tunnel had you reached when your
18 attention was drawn by events behind you?
19 A. What do you mean, when the crash started or when?
20 Q. When you first heard or saw something behind you, where
21 had you got to in the tunnel?
22 A. I do not remember.
23 Q. Could you look please at the statement you gave to
24 the police? It is a one-page statement.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The one at 6 pm?

63

1 MR HOUGH: Yes, that is right. I think in the second
2 paragraph, about four lines down, do you see the
3 sentence, "Notre vehicule etait bien engage dans le
4 souterrain"?
5 Madame Interpreter, can you interpret that sentence?
6 THE INTERPRETER: "Our vehicle was really in the tunnel".
7 MR HOUGH: Do you recall telling the French police that you
8 were well inside the tunnel by the time that you heard
9 anything behind?
10 A. That is right.
11 Q. Had you gone over halfway into tunnel by the time that
12 you heard sounds behind you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you nearly at the exit slope by the time that you
15 heard it or were you some way away from the exit slope?
16 A. Close to the exitway.
17 Q. What first attracted your attention to something behind
18 you? Was it what you heard or what you saw?
19 A. What I heard.
20 Q. Can you describe what you heard?
21 A. Brakes first.
22 Q. Brakes. Then what next?
23 A. And then a crash.
24 Q. Did you at any time hear the sound of a collision
25 between two vehicles?

64

1 A. No.
2 Q. When you heard the sound of the brakes, did you look
3 around?
4 A. Not really. I went back. I turned back.
5 Q. When you turned back, what could you see behind you?
6 A. The car driving beside me, riding aside.
7 Q. What colour of car was it?
8 A. You mean the Mercedes?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Black, I do not remember.
11 Q. This vehicle which you now know as the Mercedes, which
12 direction was it going in when you first saw it?
13 A. Rather from the left to the right.
14 Q. When you first saw it, how far was your car ahead of it?
15 A. 80 metres as a max.
16 Q. I think you told the French police that your vehicle was
17 about 30 or 40 metres from the Mercedes at the time that
18 it impacted with the side of the tunnel. Does that help
19 your recollection at all?
20 A. Yes, it was really, really close.
21 Q. When you first saw it, was it gaining on you or were you
22 moving away from it?
23 A. It was gaining on us.
24 Q. Were you able to estimate its speed at all?
25 A. Not at all.

65

1 Q. How did Mr Medjahdi react to the events behind?
2 A. I do not really understand your question.
3 Q. Did he move to one side or the other? Slow down?
4 Accelerate? How did he drive in response?
5 A. He speeded up.
6 Q. Now, moving away from the Mercedes for a moment, before
7 your attention was drawn by the sound of the crash, did
8 you see any other vehicles in the tunnel?
9 A. Yes, one.
10 Q. Where was that vehicle when you first saw it?
11 A. Just beside us, just in front of us.
12 Q. Did you say beside you and in front of you?
13 A. It was really before the accident.
14 Q. How far had you got into the tunnel when you first saw
15 this other vehicle?
16 A. I do not know.
17 Q. But had you got into the tunnel when you first saw it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was it in the left-hand lane?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What model and make was this car?
22 A. It was a white car.
23 Q. Can you remember what size or type of car it was?
24 A. A Fiat one.
25 Q. Can you remember what type of Fiat car it was, what

66

1 model?
2 A. No, I do not.
3 Q. When you first saw this car it was, you have said, in
4 the left-hand lane and slightly ahead of you. Was it
5 going faster than you or slower than you?
6 A. Same speed as ours.
7 Q. Was it travelling in any kind of unusual way or just
8 going straight ahead?
9 A. It was usual.
10 Q. Did Mr Medjahdi adjust his driving in any way when you
11 and he became aware of this other car?
12 A. I asked him to overtake him.
13 Q. And did he accelerate in response?
14 A. Yes, we overtook it.
15 Q. So when you became aware of the Mercedes crashing behind
16 you, where was the Fiat car at that point?
17 A. I did not see it.
18 Q. Was that because it was behind you or ahead of you?
19 A. It was behind us.
20 Q. I do not think you mentioned anything about this Fiat
21 car in your statement to the French police, did you?
22 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry. We have a problem. We still have
23 the picture on the screen. Can we see you? Thank you.
24 MR HOUGH: I do not think you mentioned the Fiat car when
25 you spoke to the French police, did you?

67

1 A. No.
2 Q. I think you read and signed your statement to the French
3 police as an accurate record of your evidence, didn't
4 you?
5 A. Yes, indeed.
6 Q. Then, in 1998, when you were being interviewed for the
7 news documentary programme, when you and Mr Medjahdi
8 were being interviewed together, you were asked about
9 other cars that you saw in the tunnel after the
10 collision and the make of those cars, weren't you?
11 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry for that.
12 MR HOUGH: Perhaps I should repeat my question because of
13 the interruption from the flamboyant ringtone.
14 I think that when you and Mr Medjahdi were
15 interviewed for the TV programme, you were asked about
16 cars that you saw in the tunnel after the collision and
17 the make of those cars, weren't you?
18 A. Yes, I think so.
19 Q. You did not mention having seen a car before the
20 collision which you could identify the make of, did you?
21 A. That is right.
22 Q. In the same interview, you and Mr Medjahdi were both
23 asked specifically if you saw a small white car in the
24 tunnel near to the Mercedes, weren't you?
25 A. That is right.

68

1 Q. And Mr Medjahdi said that he was not paying much
2 attention and while there could have been a car, he
3 could not say anything, didn't he?
4 A. That is right.
5 Q. And you did not add anything or contradict him, did you?
6 A. That is right.
7 Q. Before you spoke to the inquiry agent and to Mr Hitchen
8 in January 2004, you knew that the police and media were
9 interested in a white Fiat Uno, didn't you?
10 A. That is right.
11 Q. I think it was only after you became aware of those
12 facts, the fact that the police and media were
13 interested in a white Fiat Uno, that you first mentioned
14 a white Fiat Uno. Is that right?
15 A. Not immediately.
16 Q. Can you please explain?
17 A. It was not them who told me about this Fiat Uno. It was
18 through the media, through the news on TV.
19 Q. Looking back now, can you actually remember having seen
20 a Fiat Uno or is that something that you heard about
21 later?
22 A. It was much later. I was aware much later.
23 Q. The journalist from The People who interviewed you, that
24 is Mr Hitchen, wrote in an article that you had
25 deliberately kept your silence about the white Fiat Uno.

69

1 Is that something that you told him?
2 A. No.
3 Q. He said that you had kept your silence because of fear.
4 Is that something that you told him?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Can we turn now to the driver of the car that you saw
7 which you have described as a white Fiat? Were you able
8 to see his face while his car was overtaking yours?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. For how long did you see his face?
11 A. It was quite quick. I was more focusing my attention on
12 the German Shepherd dog.
13 Q. We will come to the dog in a second. While you were
14 looking at the other car, was Mr Medjahdi between you
15 and that other car?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was he obstructing your view at all?
18 A. Not at all.
19 Q. Were the lights on in this other car?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The lights inside the car itself, rather than its
22 headlamps?
23 A. I do not know.
24 Q. When you looked at the driver of the other car, was his
25 face turned towards you, in profile or away from you?

70

1 A. Both.
2 Q. So he was turning his head from side to side, is that
3 what you are suggesting?
4 A. That is right.
5 Q. What description can you give of him?
6 A. He had brown hair, Mediterranean type.
7 Q. Can you say anything about his age?
8 A. Around 30.
9 Q. Now, Miss Moufakkir, I am going to show you five
10 photographs on the screen and I would like you to look
11 at them and not to make any comment about any of them
12 until you have seen all of them. Is that all right?
13 A. That is all right.
14 Q. Can we first show the two photographs of the gentleman
15 with the red car? This is [INQ0019913] and
16 [INQ0019914].
17 I do not know how well you can identify the person
18 on these photographs, but the first two photographs are
19 of the same man.
20 Can we now move to a third photograph, please, which
21 is of a man and a woman with a car? Could you look at
22 the man in that photograph, please?
23 Then the next photograph is a photograph of seven
24 people in a line [INQ0002417]. Can you look at
25 the faces of these seven men?

71

1 Then finally [INQ0002419] please. Can you look at
2 the faces of these five men?
3 Perhaps that photograph can be taken down now.
4 Having seen those five photographs, do any of the people
5 in those photographs correspond to your memory of the
6 person you saw in the Fiat Uno?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now I think you were saying that your attention was
9 drawn by a dog in the car. Where was that?
10 A. Behind, on the back of the car.
11 Q. I think you were able to identify the breed of the dog;
12 is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It was a German Shepherd, I think you just said. Is
15 that right?
16 A. That is right.
17 Q. Can you remember the colour of the dog and its size?
18 A. It was a dark dog, brown or black, with black spots, but
19 he was rather a brown, such as a German Shepherd.
20 It was a really nice dog.
21 Q. Did it have any distinguishing characteristics or things
22 on it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, moving away from the Fiat car, after you heard the
25 Mercedes in collision behind you, did you see any other

72

1 vehicles coming up behind you?
2 A. At that very time, no. I was not concentrating. I was
3 focusing on the car.
4 Q. Could you look please at your statement and at
5 a paragraph which begins "A ce moment ..."?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you see there that you say that after or at the time
8 of the collision, you saw "... some other vehicles
9 coming up behind the Mercedes which were cars, six or
10 seven in number". Does that help you to recall?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How far were those cars behind the Mercedes?
13 A. Quite far.
14 Q. Were there any --
15 A. After the collision, you mean?
16 Q. Yes. Were there any motorcycles coming up behind the
17 Mercedes?
18 A. No.
19 Q. As you were going through the tunnel, did you see any
20 motorcycles at any stage?
21 A. No.
22 Q. As you were approaching the tunnel and going through it,
23 did you see any bright or flashing light at any point?
24 A. You mean at the time of the collision? After the
25 collision? When?

73

1 Q. At any time.
2 A. I think yes.
3 Q. At what stage was that?
4 A. When the -- during the collision, when the car was
5 hurting(?).
6 Q. Where was the light coming from?
7 A. I do not know.
8 Q. Is it possible that it was the headlamps of the Mercedes
9 as it moved from one side of the tunnel to the other?
10 A. Maybe.
11 Q. I do not think you mentioned in your statement or any of
12 the interviews having seen a bright flashing light, did
13 you?
14 A. No, I have never been asked about that.
15 Q. Now, after the collision, did you stop in or near the
16 tunnel?
17 A. No, we did not stop.
18 Q. Where did you drive to before you did stop?
19 A. Not very far from the exit. We went out of the tunnel
20 to ask for emergency services.
21 Q. How far did you go before you did stop?
22 A. In between five to six minutes.
23 Q. Did you end up phoning the emergency services at all?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Why was that?

74

1 A. Because at the moment when we exited the Alma Tunnel,
2 we heard the noise of the emergency vehicles.
3 Q. I think you got in touch with the police, to tell them
4 that you had seen events, by telephone at about
5 2 o'clock the following day. Is that right?
6 A. That is right.
7 Q. By that, I mean later on that Sunday.
8 A. That is right.
9 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
10 Some other lawyers may have some other questions for
11 you.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
14 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
15 MR MANSFIELD: Good afternoon, my name is Michael Mansfield.
16 Can you hear all right?
17 THE INTERPRETER: That is all right, sir.
18 Q. I represent Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son was killed in
19 the crash. I am sorry, I have a few questions about
20 what you saw. Before you heard the brakes in the tunnel
21 of the Mercedes, you say you saw a white Fiat Uno. My
22 question is this: what drew your attention to the white
23 Fiat before you heard the brakes of the Mercedes?
24 A. Because it was driving much too close to us. It did not
25 want to overtake us. It did not want to slow down.

75

1 It was really close to us. Too close to us.
2 Q. In 2004 in January, when you were interviewed by
3 the journalist, did you say to him that at that stage,
4 when it was too close to you, it was "driving very fast
5 in the outside lane"?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So first of all, you did not say that to him? I want to
8 be clear.
9 A. No, I did not say that.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I wonder if I could go over the
12 interpretation. The interpreter said "trop vite",
13 rather than "tres vite", so I wonder if the interpreter
14 could make it clear.
15 A. I neither said "too fast" or "very fast". I did not say
16 that at all.
17 Q. All right.
18 A. What I said to this journalist was that as the car was
19 driving too close to us, I asked Mr Medjahdi to overtake
20 it because -- as it was too close to us. The driver was
21 also looking for something on the seat close to him, so
22 it was rather dangerous driving.
23 Q. Did you get the impression that the car, the white Fiat,
24 slowed down when it was close to you?
25 A. I do not remember. Maybe.

76

1 Q. Maybe. All right.
2 You thought the behaviour of the driver was very
3 strange, didn't you?
4 A. That is right.
5 Q. And you were quite frightened by what was happening?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you tell the journalist that you stared at the
8 driver and that you will never forget him? Did you say
9 that?
10 A. No. That is not true.
11 Q. Did the driver of the white Fiat have a strange
12 expression?
13 A. I would not say strange. He was looking for something
14 on the seat close to him.
15 Q. Was his manner very odd? Just in the seconds that you
16 saw him, was his manner odd?
17 A. I do not remember.
18 Q. Now did you see what happened to the white Fiat that you
19 saw? Where did it go?
20 A. We overtook it, it remained behind us and, just after
21 that, we heard the collision.
22 Q. Yes. Now when you say "collision", do you mean the
23 collision between the Mercedes and the tunnel?
24 A. That is right.
25 Q. So as far as you are concerned, you never saw any

77

1 collision between the Mercedes and this white Fiat?
2 A. No.
3 Q. One other matter: I want to suggest to you that there
4 were motorcycles -- a motorcycle at least, one
5 motorcycle -- in the tunnel following you, following the
6 collision between the Mercedes and the tunnel. Do you
7 think it is possible that there was one motorcycle and
8 you may not have noticed it because of the panic of the
9 crash?
10 A. Maybe. I do not know.
11 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you very much.
12 MR KEEN: No questions, sir.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?
14 MR CROXFORD: May I just ask about one thing, sir?
15 Questions from MR CROXFORD
16 MR CROXFORD: Madame, my name is Croxford. I represent
17 the Ritz Hotel. I would like to ask you about one
18 thing.
19 After you had heard the sound behind you and you
20 turned round, I think you said that you saw that there
21 were other cars apart from the Mercedes and this white
22 car travelling behind you. Is that right?
23 A. Far behind.
24 Q. You were paying close attention at that stage to the
25 Mercedes, presumably?

78

1 A. That is right.
2 Q. At some stage it was slewed across the road, was it?
3 A. Yes, it was going from left to right.
4 Q. Your view of the road immediately behind the Mercedes
5 was obviously obstructed by both the Mercedes and
6 the white car?
7 A. Yes. That may be what happened, but I did not see
8 the Fiat.
9 Q. But at some stage before you left the tunnel, you saw
10 these other cars in the distance on the slope, was it,
11 coming in towards the tunnel?
12 A. That is right.
13 Q. You will have seen them presumably just before or just
14 after you had started going up the up-slope out of the
15 tunnel?
16 A. Yes, because I was looking behind me because I was
17 afraid that other cars could arrive in another crash.
18 Q. Can I just ask you about one other thing? You were
19 asked some questions about seeing this journalist. Did
20 you say anything to the journalist about your being
21 afraid for your own safety?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. I did not say it like that.
25 MR CROXFORD: Thank you, Madame.

79

1 Questions from MR HORWELL
2 MR HORWELL: Madame, my name is Richard Horwell and I appear
3 for the Chief of London Police.
4 I just want to put these events into their proper
5 order of time. You made a deposition at 6 o'clock on
6 31st August 1997.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In that deposition, you said that at the moment you saw
9 the Mercedes spin and strike the pavement, immediately
10 after you saw other vehicles coming up behind the
11 Mercedes, "six or seven in number".
12 A. You mean they were close to Mercedes?
13 Q. Yes, passing the Mercedes, and you added, "I cannot say
14 if these six or seven vehicles stopped to help".
15 A. As I told you, I could see these other cars when we were
16 exiting the tunnel and I could see -- from this slope,
17 the exit slope, I could see the cars behind the
18 Mercedes.
19 Q. There was no mention in that deposition of your having
20 seen a white Fiat Uno.
21 A. That is right.
22 Q. Why not?
23 A. I have not been asked all these questions, all that type
24 of questions, "Were there any cars already when
25 I entered the Alma Tunnel?" and so on, so I was not

80

1 asked that type of question.
2 Q. These six or seven other cars, they drove around the
3 Mercedes, did they?
4 A. Yes, around --
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. -- to avoid it.
7 Q. Did you also say in that deposition, "I have no
8 recollection of seeing any two-wheeled vehicles"?
9 A. That is right.
10 Q. On that same day, your then boyfriend, Mohamed Medjahdi,
11 was seen by the police and he made a deposition.
12 A. That is right.
13 Q. Do you know that he made no reference to having seen
14 a white Fiat Uno?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. In 1998, you and Mohamed were interviewed by
17 a television company.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In the course of that television interview, you and
20 Mohamed were asked whether you had seen any other cars
21 in the tunnel.
22 A. I think so.
23 Q. We have the transcript, and I suggest you were asked
24 that, and you, Madame, were actually asked what makes or
25 models of car were seen in the tunnel. The answer that

81

1 we have to that question, and this is an answer from
2 you, Madame, is, "I could not tell you [what makes or
3 models of car were also in the tunnel]".
4 A. That is right.
5 Q. Why did you not say to the television interviewer that
6 you had seen a white Fiat Uno?
7 A. Because Mohamed has asked me not to speak about it.
8 Q. Why not?
9 A. Because he did not want to be bothered again, he did not
10 want to be called again and to have to redo what we did
11 already.
12 Q. Then finally, in 2004, you were interviewed by an
13 English journalist, Alexander Hitchen.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. By this time, were you still with Mohamed or had you
16 separated?
17 A. We had separated.
18 Q. This is the first time on which you mentioned having
19 seen a white Fiat Uno.
20 A. That is right.
21 Q. As you have heard, the journalist has reported that you
22 had said to him that you had not mentioned the Fiat Uno
23 before because you felt too scared; is that right?
24 A. Maybe, yes.
25 Q. Scared of what?

82

1 A. By the whole story.
2 MR HOUGH: Thank you.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hough?
4 Further questions from MR HOUGH
5 MR HOUGH: Just one matter. Mlle Moufakkir, can you hear
6 me?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When I was asking you questions earlier, I asked you if
9 the Fiat which you saw was travelling in any kind of
10 unusual way or just going straight ahead and you said
11 "it was usual". When you were answering questions to
12 one of the other lawyers, you told him that it was
13 driving rather dangerously. Which of those is right?
14 A. Earlier on you asked me the question regarding the speed
15 of the car and I answered that the speed was usual.
16 Q. No, I asked you if it was travelling in any kind of
17 unusual way or just going straight ahead and you said
18 that it was usual. The reference for those here is
19 page 69, line 4.
20 A. I did not pay attention, sorry.
21 Q. Then also, when I asked you some questions, I asked you
22 if you had said to the journalist that you had not
23 mentioned the Uno because you were scared and you told
24 me that you had not said that. Then, when you were
25 being asked questions a few moments ago by Mr Horwell,

83

1 you said that maybe you had said that, that you were
2 scared of the whole story. Which of those statements is
3 right?
4 A. The second one is the right one. I was scared.
5 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much. I have no further
6 questions.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
8 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, before she goes, I wonder if there is
9 one question that could be asked.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 Further questions from MR MANSFIELD
12 MR MANSFIELD: One question: were you ever approached by
13 the British police for an interview after 2004, or at
14 any time?
15 A. No.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
18 MR HOUGH: Sir, that is all everybody has for this witness,
19 thank you very much.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much, Madame.
21 Thank you for your time. That is all that will be
22 required. We are grateful to you.
23 MR HOUGH: Sir, I think that is the end of the videolink
24 evidence today.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is all from France today,

84

1 thank you very much.
2 MR HOUGH: Sir, I think a ten-minute gap will be required to
3 move the equipment from the witness box, to allow
4 Mr Read to get into it.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, we will have our ten-minute
6 gap a bit earlier then.
7 (3.05 pm)
8 (A short break)
9 (3.17 pm)
10 (Jury present)
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So I call Mr Read.
12 MR ANTHONY READ (recalled)
13 Questions from MR HILLIARD
14 MR HILLIARD: You are going to need to take an oath or
15 affirm.
16 A. I appreciate I am still under oath. Would that be
17 sufficient?
18 Q. I would think that is sufficient.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You may want to sit down,
20 Mr Read. You will be there for some time.
21 A. Thank you, sir.
22 MR HILLIARD: I have the report you prepared in December
23 2006 in relation to these events. We have not had this
24 from you, but at page 76 of it, you just set out
25 something about your occupation and your experience and

85

1 I think it would be very helpful if we started with
2 that.
3 A. Okay, sir.
4 Q. So do you want to tell us about that please?
5 A. I have been an officer in the Metropolitan Police and
6 been employed for 32 years now, and for the last
7 28 years I have been attached to traffic division.
8 I have attended the technical training wing and driving
9 school at Hendon and completed courses in motorcycling,
10 advanced driving, HGV driving and PSV driving.
11 Q. PSV being?
12 A. Public service vehicles. I have also completed courses
13 in accident investigation and reconstruction, vehicle
14 examination and tachograph calibration and I hold City
15 and Guild certificates in road accident investigation,
16 drivers' hours, recording equipment, examination and
17 calibration techniques and the advanced certificate in
18 motor vehicle examination, testing and vehicle
19 technology.
20 Q. Don't worry about the next part.
21 A. I am a member of the Institute of Traffic Accident
22 Investigators.
23 During my services, I have gained a wide experience
24 of road traffic accidents, driver and vehicle behaviour
25 and other related matters. I have been employed

86

1 exclusively in the investigation of fatal and serious
2 road traffic accidents for the last 20 years and have
3 attended the scenes of many such incidents.
4 I was the senior collision investigation officer for
5 South-West London from 1999 until 2005, since when
6 I have been the joint senior collision investigator for
7 the whole of the Metropolitan Police.
8 Q. Right. Over the years, I do not know, as far as scenes
9 of major road traffic incidents are concerned, have you
10 been to hundreds, thousands? I do not know. You help
11 us.
12 A. In the 20 years, probably thousands. Approximately 200
13 per year, I would guess, for 20 years.
14 Q. Right. What was your first involvement, please, with
15 the event on the night that we are concerned with in
16 1997?
17 A. I very first became involved in this in March or April
18 of 2004, when the senior investigation team of
19 the Operation Paget requested the attachment of an
20 accident investigator on the team because of the
21 involvement of the Mercedes in the collision that
22 occurred in the underpass.
23 Q. As I have already said, you prepared a report, is this
24 right, dated 10th September of 2006.
25 A. That is correct.

87

1 Q. And in the course of your work, have you worked not
2 simply on your own but also with a number of other
3 people?
4 A. Yes, I have. Primarily that is with TRL, which was
5 formerly known as the Transport Research Laboratory.
6 Q. Sorry, somebody coughed and I missed that. What is it
7 now called?
8 A. It is now called "TRL", the initials.
9 Q. What is the Transport Research Laboratory?
10 A. Initially it was part of the Ministry of Transport and
11 researched not only collisions, but road safety aspects
12 and various other studies connected with all forms of
13 transport. They have now become, I understand, an
14 agency of the Government and are, for all intents and
15 purposes, a private company.
16 Q. In particular, I think, two of the people there you have
17 worked with, one is Mr Peter Jennings; is that right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Just help us, what is he?
20 A. Mr Jennings is a scientist. He was formerly employed by
21 the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory and
22 he now works privately or he works for the Transport
23 Research Laboratory.
24 Q. And Mr Iwan Parry?
25 A. That is correct. He is also an employee of TRL and he

88

1 specialises in computer simulation.
2 Q. What was the purpose of involving Mr Iwan Parry?
3 A. The tyre marks and the debris that was left at the scene
4 may or may not have been involved in this collision, and
5 the primary purpose of using Mr Parry's skills was to
6 determine whether it was feasible that this particular
7 vehicle would leave those tyre marks. Were the two tyre
8 marks connected, the two lots of tyre marks connected?
9 That was the primary purpose.
10 Q. Lastly, Dr Searle, someone else you worked with on this;
11 correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Who is he?
14 A. He is a private collision investigator who has been
15 engaged by solicitors Barlow Lyde & Gilbert on behalf of
16 the Ritz Hotel.
17 Q. To start with the good news, as between you and
18 Mr Jennings and Dr Searle, there is a large measure of
19 agreement. Is that right?
20 A. That is correct.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, that is a relief, members
22 of the jury.
23 MR HILLIARD: So that we all know where we are going, in
24 particular that there was a collision in the vicinity of
25 the entrance to the Alma Tunnel between the Mercedes,

89

1 driven by Henri Paul, and a white Fiat Uno.
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. You are agreed about that. We will look at why in
4 a moment. Is this right, that the principal differences
5 of opinion -- again, we will come to those in due
6 course, but is this right -- those are where the impact
7 between the two vehicles was, quite what the nature of
8 the impact between the two vehicles was and what course
9 the vehicles may have taken before the point of impact;
10 is that right?
11 A. That is it in a nutshell, yes.
12 Q. Now none of you went to the scene at the time, did you?
13 A. That is correct. We worked solely on the information
14 that was contained in the French dossier and some other
15 information that we have collected subsequently.
16 Q. How much of a disadvantage is it in seeking to
17 reconstruct an incident with material of the sort that
18 you have? How much of a disadvantage is it to all of
19 you that you were not there on the night?
20 A. I am not sure I could put any sort of level of
21 disadvantage on it. It would certainly have been much
22 better if we had been present on the night and, to that
23 extent, we are, of course, dealing with second-hand
24 information. I think it is obvious that that is
25 a secondary level of information. It would have been

90

1 much more preferable if somebody had been there at
2 the scene.
3 Q. Because you are working effectively at one removed?
4 A. We are and we are dependent upon the information that
5 has been collected.
6 Q. Now you have seen, haven't you, the photographs taken by
7 the French photographic branch. You have seen all of
8 them. We have some of them that we handed out this
9 morning.
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. We don't have a precise time that they were taken or
12 the identity of the person who took them. Is that
13 right?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. In addition, there were various plans that were drawn,
16 is that right?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Mr Clotteaux and Brunet made theirs. Mr Pourceau added
19 his part. I think Major Farcy there produced a large
20 plan, is this right, with all their information on it?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Then between you, I think the three of you -- yourself,
23 Mr Jennings and Dr Searle -- had produced an agreed
24 plan, is that right?
25 A. That is correct.

91

1 Q. Then from that, at my request, you have used that, but
2 then added some information to that. That is the plan
3 we handed out this morning.
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Do you have that there?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. We will look at the details of it in due course, but can
8 you just help with one thing? Do you see there is
9 a reference to two items from the Mercedes in this
10 carriageway, the carriageway we are looking at?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. You will see the Mercedes right-door mirror. That is
13 straightforward enough. But the Mercedes light, can you
14 just help us? What light was that?
15 A. That was the front right indicator cowling or
16 the reflecting part of the indicator.
17 Q. Right. Just one other thing to touch on at the moment
18 on the plan that we looked at this morning: the pieces,
19 they are described here as "white glass" and "red
20 glass".
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "pieces of
23 plastic". Would that be right?
24 A. That is right. The labels on this plan have been taken
25 directly from the French plan and that is how they were

92

1 described in the French plan.
2 Q. Just while we are on them, do you have the pieces of
3 plastic there?
4 A. Yes, I do, sir.
5 Q. I am just go to ask that they are passed along so that
6 we all know how much we have and what we are talking
7 about. Just before we hand it over, let's just see.
8 We have one bag, is this right, containing red pieces of
9 plastic?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And they are just in one bag?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. That is straightforward enough. Then in the other
14 packet are pieces of plastic that we hear come from
15 the Mercedes. Those are white coloured. Is that right?
16 A. Well, they are clear.
17 Q. Clear. You are quite right. Are they in three separate
18 bags?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. Is that sorted by size?
21 A. Yes. They have been looked at by a forensic scientist
22 in this country and she sorted them out into the three
23 sections.
24 Q. What are we going to part with? There is no point
25 handing stuff over that nobody can see through the

93

1 plastic. Are they all ...
2 A. They are all reasonably visible.
3 Q. We will pass those round now if we can. Thank you.
4 (Pause)
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do we need to give these any
6 identification or are they going to disappear into
7 history?
8 MR HILLIARD: I think it would not hurt if we did give them
9 some identification.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: This is the first time that we
11 have had anything that is not a document that has gone
12 into the jury bundle.
13 MR HILLIARD: I think the rules -- I am grateful to
14 Mr Burnett, because I did not know -- suggest that
15 we might have to call them "Coroner 1" and so on, so
16 perhaps we can call them C1 and C2.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: C2A, B and C?
18 MR HILLIARD: Yes.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We can do that.
20 MR HILLIARD: Is it something like this: 21 red pieces and
21 55 clear pieces?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Who will look after them?
24 MR HILLIARD: We will appoint someone. Perhaps we will
25 worry about that at the end. We will find someone.

94

1 All right. Now, Mr Read, just to make sense perhaps
2 of those pieces, in October of this year, did you,
3 Dr Searle and Mr Jennings complete a joint report
4 together which really set out what you agreed about and
5 what you did not?
6 A. That is correct. We did.
7 Q. To complete that report, did you have access to all of
8 the other work that people had done in the course of the
9 investigation?
10 A. Yes, indeed. Dr Searle had possession of the work that
11 we had completed and we had had possession of a certain
12 amount of work that he completed.
13 Q. Because of work that had been done and investigations
14 that had been made -- I am looking at paragraph 1.2 of
15 your joint report -- were you all three satisfied that
16 the red pieces of plastic were from the rear light cover
17 on the left-hand side of a Fiat Uno car, as fitted, the
18 light cover, between May of 1983 and September of 1989?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. So that is one thing that we can be absolutely sure
21 about. There is no dispute from anyone that those red
22 pieces are from the rear light cover left-hand side of
23 a Fiat Uno.
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Again, from your joint report, the clear pieces had come

95

1 from the front indicator cover of the Mercedes. Is that
2 right?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Those are clear -- we might expect, perhaps, I do not
5 know, a front indicator to be yellow, orange or
6 something of that sort.
7 A. That is right.
8 Q. Can you help us about clear pieces and coloured pieces
9 in the indicator?
10 A. Yes, I believe that this vehicle had either a coloured
11 bulb to make it the appropriate amber or orange colour
12 or an inner lens that was the appropriate colour.
13 Q. So that is the explanation for the clear pieces from
14 the front indicator cover of Mercedes.
15 All those pieces were looked at by a scientist under
16 a microscope, is that right?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Doing that, it was possible to see that they were not
19 scored or marked or abraded as if they had been much run
20 over by traffic?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. In addition -- and again, I am looking at your joint
23 report -- did you look and was work done on the front
24 right of the Mercedes car? Yes? Look there for what
25 could be found there. I am getting at paint marks.

96

1 A. I beg your pardon. In France, the investigations looked
2 at some buckling and what indentations of white paint on
3 the front right wing and the front area of the front
4 right door of the Mercedes.
5 Q. It is figures 18 and 19 [INQ0001598], is it not, in
6 the little bundle that we handed out this morning?
7 A. That is correct. That shows primarily the wing, but
8 there is a small amount of similar material on the
9 leading edge of the front right door as well.
10 Q. Let's take it in stages. I am looking at your
11 paragraph 1.4 first of all.
12 Was there a smear of black plastic on the Mercedes
13 which scientific examination showed had a composition
14 consistent with the rear bumper used on the Fiat Uno,
15 again between May of 1983 to September 1989?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Now, I do not know, can we see the smear of black
18 plastic in that picture? If not, can we see the sort of
19 area where it was? If you are not sure, then it is an
20 agreed fact and we don't need to guess.
21 A. I think I would rather not. Thank you.
22 Q. Then, and in addition, were there paintmarks on the
23 Mercedes, and the paint, was it white paint from a range
24 again used on Fiat Uno cars between May of 1983 and
25 September of 1989?

97

1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. Putting together all of that material, so the pieces
3 found on the road and then the traces found on the
4 Mercedes, were all three of you quite satisfied that
5 there had been a collision between a white Fiat Uno and
6 the Mercedes?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Now we will come back in due course to the where and
9 the how of that collision, all right.
10 One of the questions, is this right, that you
11 considered in your report was the viability of using the
12 Fiat Uno deliberately to engineer a collision with
13 the Mercedes. Is that right?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. I just want to start. I am afraid it is going to
16 involve, for you, darting around your report, but I just
17 want to try to draw first of all the threads together of
18 your report on that point.
19 For you, if turn please to page 57 of your report --
20 this is your report, as I say. It is your
21 paragraph 10.20.1. Do you have that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. First of all, in your view and in your experience, how
24 easy is it to cause two vehicles to come together in
25 a pre-arranged manner?

98

1 A. It is surprisingly difficult, even when a great deal of
2 planning has gone into it and the vehicles are set up.
3 If I can give an example, I staged six crash tests in
4 August of this year. These were several months in
5 the planning. They were on a runway, an airfield
6 runway, which was absolutely straight. They were car
7 into a pedestrian, so one of the objects was stationary,
8 and of those six tests, only four really worked as they
9 were planned. So given an absolute ideal set of
10 circumstances, we were still only able to make four out
11 of the six work properly.
12 Q. That example is with -- what, one part of the setup is
13 stationary, representing the pedestrian?
14 A. That is correct, yes.
15 Q. If you have one party to the collision being someone who
16 may try to avoid the collision, what effect does that
17 have?
18 A. Well, it might be that it would make it virtually
19 impossible. You would need to be able to bring the
20 vehicles together. If we have one person that is trying
21 to avoid the collision, you cannot guarantee that.
22 Additionally, particularly in a small vehicle like a
23 Fiat Uno, the driver of that is in very, very severe
24 possibility of sustaining life-changing injuries himself
25 or herself.

99

1 Q. All right. We will come back to that.
2 Now, the Princess of Wales and Mr Al Fayed were
3 travelling in that particular Mercedes that we can see
4 on the screen [INQ0001598] and we will come to
5 the details of that particular vehicle in due course.
6 As you know, it might have been that they had
7 travelled either in the other Mercedes or in
8 the Range Rover which left from the front of the Ritz;
9 yes?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now I want to ask you about planning to use a Fiat Uno
12 deliberately to collide with any of those vehicles; all
13 right? Turn if you would, please, to page 52 of your
14 report.
15 It begins at your paragraph 10.17.1. Would you
16 start, please, with any comment you have and any reasons
17 for that, first of all with the Mercedes that they were
18 actually in?
19 A. Yes, sir. The Mercedes that was actually being used
20 that evening has a kerbside weight of just a little
21 under 2,000 kilograms, 2 tonnes, and this would increase
22 slightly to about 2,070 with the four passengers.
23 The kerbside weight of a Fiat Uno is 900 kilos, just
24 under 1 tonne. With the passenger, this would increase
25 to just a little less than 1 tonne. The Mercedes is

100

1 therefore over twice the weight of the Fiat.
2 In addition to the weights of the vehicles involved,
3 you should also take into consideration the speeds that
4 they were travelling at. It is clear that the Mercedes
5 was travelling probably somewhere in the order of twice
6 as fast as the Fiat. So had the impact been more than
7 a glancing blow, the effect on the slower, lighter Fiat
8 is going to have been much greater than any effect that
9 would have been sustained by the Mercedes and in these
10 circumstances the Mercedes would have been relatively
11 unaffected; its direction, its path would have been
12 virtually unaffected.
13 Q. Now, that is in relation to, as it were, between
14 a Fiat Uno and the Mercedes that they were actually in.
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Just help us, as far as the other vehicles are
17 concerned, so Fiat Uno in relation to a Range Rover and
18 Fiat Uno in relation to the other Mercedes, does
19 the same point apply or not?
20 A. It does, sir. The Range Rover, depending upon which
21 model Range Rover we are talking about, weighs between
22 a little under 2 tonnes and 2.2 tonnes. The other
23 Mercedes that was in use earlier that day is an S600, so
24 it is a slightly larger, heavier vehicle, a little over
25 2 tonnes again. So the same principle applies for these

101

1 two vehicles.
2 Additionally, of course, if the convoy had travelled
3 as it had been earlier on in the day, there would have
4 been two vehicles running line astern anyway as well.
5 Q. If someone had been planning a collision in this
6 particular tunnel, I want you to help us next, please,
7 with the prospects for survival in the event of a crash
8 or collision in that tunnel.
9 It is some time since we have had our first big
10 album of pictures, but if we turn to page 43
11 [INQ-JB1-0000043] just to remind ourselves, it is
12 a picture of the inside of the tunnel. Now one side
13 obviously has the pillars down, has it not, with their
14 corners that we can see?
15 A. That is correct, sir.
16 Q. Then the other side, there is the kerb, but is it fair
17 to call that essentially a smooth surface, except there
18 are some indentations every so often?
19 A. Yes, sir, there are small ceramic tiles that have been
20 used to line the wall of the underpass. They have a
21 slightly angular concave profile.
22 Q. So those, as it were, are two of the options. There is
23 the pillars on one side and the wall on the other?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Can you turn, please, to page 63 of your report? You

102

1 have a section there, haven't you, "Survivability of the
2 collision"; yes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Here, of course, the impact was with the corner, is this
5 right, of one of the central pillars?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the effect of that?
8 A. Well this is a very small area, which had the effect of
9 concentrating all the impact forces in a small area
10 centred on the front of the Mercedes. I think it is
11 fair to say that it is also agreed that the vehicle was
12 yawing at the time -- that is swerving to the left
13 immediately prior to impact -- and that following this,
14 it hit the pillar and spun off anti-clockwise, coming to
15 rest in the right-hand lane, facing the direction from
16 which it had come. The narrow profile of the impact and
17 its position in the centre of vehicle meant that the two
18 main energy-absorbing structures, the longitudinal
19 chassis legs, were missed.
20 Q. Now, you are going to lose me. The principal
21 energy-absorbing structures missed because of this
22 impact on the corner in the front of the vehicle?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. What are they and how do they work?
25 A. All vehicles, including vehicles of this age, although

103

1 techniques and technology has gone on and become much
2 more efficient -- but the front of the vehicle is
3 designed to crumple with an impact. I think most of us
4 will have heard of crumple zones. The object of the
5 crumple zone is to absorb the energy of the impact and
6 slowly dissipate that energy, rather than allowing it to
7 be transported straight into the occupants.
8 One of the principal energy-absorbing structures are
9 two legs that stick out at the front of a vehicle.
10 The engine sits between them basically. They are
11 designed to concertina or bend in a gradual progressive
12 manner, absorbing the energy of the impact and therefore
13 not transferring it into the occupants of the vehicle.
14 These were missed because the area of the impact with
15 the pillar was so narrow.
16 Q. So that corner of it coming straight down the middle of
17 the car?
18 A. Indeed, yes.
19 Q. What was the result of that?
20 A. It did not perform quite as progressively as it ought.
21 Q. "Perform" or "deform"?
22 A. "Deform", I beg your pardon. It did not deform quite as
23 progressively as it was designed to. Although having
24 said that, of course, the engine was there and was
25 performing an element of energy absorption. Therefore,

104

1 the forces that were experienced by the occupants
2 differed and it differed by being greater than it would
3 otherwise have been.
4 Similarly, the extent of the intrusion of the pillar
5 into the car was greater as well. If it had hit a flat
6 surface, bringing all the energy-absorbing structures
7 into play, the deformation to the front of the vehicle
8 would have been much less than it actually was and
9 the forces transferred into the occupants would have
10 been proportionally less as well.
11 Q. Now on the other hand -- I am turning over the page,
12 your page 10.24.2 -- had the Mercedes left the road to
13 the right, what would have been the position then?
14 A. Well, the vehicle of course would still have been
15 involved in an impact, but it would have been with
16 a smooth wall. Now, this would either direct the
17 vehicle away from it or possibly cause the vehicle to
18 spin off up the road in a much less severe and sudden
19 manner to that which it experienced with the impact with
20 the pillar. Smooth walls similar to this are now being
21 used on UK motorways where there is insufficient room
22 for traditional safety barriers to be used.
23 Q. Looking over the page for you, was it your view that
24 a collision of that kind would be much less severe than
25 impacting with the corner of a central pillar and, as

105

1 a result, less severe collision with an associated
2 increase in survivability?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Then your paragraph 10.24.1, please. What was your view
5 about accurately predicting where the impact would be?
6 A. Again, I think it is a point that is in general
7 agreement. The vehicle swerved to the right and then to
8 the left. There was a point of disagreement about how
9 it arrived at that first swerve to the right, but it
10 swerved at least twice, by agreement.
11 It is open to complete luck -- if that is the right
12 word to use -- complete chance, as to whether
13 the vehicle would have swerved left, right and left or
14 it could equally have swerved to the right and impacted
15 with the wall. There is absolutely no way that one
16 would be able to predict which side of the underpass
17 the Mercedes would leave the road surface.
18 Q. Does it follow that predicting the front of the vehicle
19 going straight, as it were -- with the corner of one of
20 those pillars coming straight into the front of the
21 vehicle, in your view, impossible to predict?
22 A. It may well have happened. It may equally well have not
23 happened. It is not predictable.
24 Q. Now, even if all of that could have been planned, one
25 possibility is, of course, that the occupants of the car

106

1 would have been wearing seat-belts.
2 A. Yes, they would or could.
3 Q. Page 65, please, of your report. Were you satisfied
4 that seat-belts were not being worn?
5 A. Yes, I am.
6 Q. That was because?
7 A. They were examined, there was no marks on them to
8 suggest that they had been worn. There was a vague but
9 not a very positive point being made that Mr Jones may
10 have been in the process of putting his seat-belt on at
11 the moment of impact, but the examination of the marks
12 of the seat-belts determined that they were not being
13 worn at the moment of impact.
14 Q. In addition, if you just look at your report -- do you
15 have that -- the damage to the rear of the front seats,
16 was that indicative of the rear-seat occupants having
17 been propelled forward into the front seats?
18 A. Absolutely, sir. There is absolutely no doubt that
19 the rear-seat passengers were not wearing seat-belts.
20 That is a combination of examination of the seat-belts
21 themselves and the damage that was sustained by the rear
22 of the front seats.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: When you referred to Mr Jones,
24 I think you meant Mr Trevor Rees-Jones or
25 Mr Trevor Rees.

107

1 A. I beg your pardon, sir, yes, I do.
2 MR HILLIARD: Was it your view that the wearing of
3 seat-belts by the rear-seat passengers would have
4 significantly increased the possibility of their
5 survival?
6 A. Yes, it would.
7 Q. And, of course, Mr Rees in the front right seat survived
8 and he was not wearing one; yes?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Which you have indicated proves that the crash was
11 survivable; yes?
12 A. I believe it is, yes.
13 Q. Dr Searle's view is that had the Princess and
14 Mr Al Fayed been wearing seat-belts, it is unlikely that
15 either of them would have sustained fatal injuries. Do
16 you agree with that?
17 A. I do. I feel it is slightly out of my field of
18 knowledge, biomechanics, but it is not a statement
19 I would disagree with.
20 Q. We will come on in due course to the question of the
21 speed at impact, all right, with pillar 13. But is this
22 right? It was well in excess of the limit and I think
23 the experts, the three of you, were agreed that it was
24 65 miles per hour, plus or minus 5 miles per hour, so
25 between 60 to 70 miles per hour.

108

1 A. That is correct.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: At impact?
3 A. That is correct, sir, yes.
4 MR HILLIARD: Now, suppose the vehicle at impact had been
5 going at the speed limit which, if we put it into miles
6 per hour, it is 31 -- is that right?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. So that is about half the speed, yes. What is
9 the likely effect of that in terms of the severity of
10 the crash?
11 A. Well, if we assume that the same type of crash occurred,
12 ie one with the central pillar, it would still be quite
13 a severe impact, but it is common sense that it would be
14 much less severe, at 30 miles per hour, than it would be
15 at 60 to 70 miles per hour.
16 Q. So if at speed limit and with seat-belts being worn?
17 A. I think we could almost guarantee it would be
18 survivable.
19 Q. Now I want to look next, please, at the particular bit
20 of road we are concerned with, the layout, the speed of
21 the Mercedes and the potential speeds of vehicles used
22 by the paparazzi; all right?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. You will want page 7 of your report. It is your
25 paragraph 2.1.3. Now, if we can just deal first of all

109

1 with the expressway, as it has been called, but from, as
2 it were, leaving the Place de la Concorde and going down
3 into the Alma Tunnel. Do I have this right? Is that
4 about 1,000 metres worth of road?
5 A. It is sir, yes.
6 Q. And, as we know, subject to a 50 kilometres per hour or
7 31 miles per hour speed limit; is that right?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. For about 260 metres, just so that we have distances,
10 going west of Place de la Concorde, so towards
11 the tunnel, the road runs at ground level. Is that
12 right?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Then there is a descent to the Alexandre III bridge; is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Then it comes back up again; is that right?
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Q. Then, is this right, there is about 300 metres to go to
20 the Alma Underpass?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. As you get closer to the Alma Underpass, we know that
23 there is that sliproad on the right -- yes?
24 A. That is right.
25 Q. -- where traffic can come on to the expressway; correct?

110

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What I want you to help about please -- and it is your
3 paragraph 10.28; page 68 of your report -- I just want
4 to deal with the question of priority; all right? So
5 we can imagine that we are just coming up to before
6 the tunnel on the expressway and there is that road on
7 the right from which traffic can join the expressway.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Does the French system operate on the principle of
10 priority to the right; that is that you give priority to
11 vehicles from your right?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And is the implication of that -- this is your
14 10.29.5 -- that vehicles on what might be considered
15 a main road are nonetheless required to give precedence
16 to traffic joining from a lesser or a minor road?
17 A. That is right. It is the complete opposite to the
18 situation on UK main roads.
19 Q. Then, just as far as lighting is concerned, having gone
20 beyond that -- this is your 2.121, page 10 -- so imagine
21 that we have now gone beyond that road that can bring
22 traffic onto the expressway, the road descends into
23 the underpass, is this right, the level of lighting
24 decreases whilst the light coming from the mouth of the
25 underpass immediately in front of a driver increases?

111

1 Is that right?
2 A. Yes, that is correct, sir, and that is because the lamp
3 columns stay at the same height in relation -- or
4 increasing height, rather, in relation to the road
5 surface as the road drops into the underpass itself.
6 Q. Right. So less light from that for the driver, but then
7 more light from the tunnel?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. As far as the road surface was concerned, was that
10 apparently dry and in good condition in August of 1997?
11 A. From what I have been able to determine from the French
12 dossier, yes, sir.
13 Q. Again, as far as weather conditions were concerned,
14 warm, dry and clear at the time of the collision?
15 A. Indeed, and that comes again from the French dossier.
16 Q. Now, as far as the Mercedes itself is concerned, turning
17 please to page 16 of your report, in July of 2005, in
18 company with other officers, did you go to the vehicle
19 compound of the Paris police?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Was that where the Mercedes had been kept?
22 A. Yes. It was split between two green shipping
23 containers.
24 Q. Was the vehicle brought back to this country -- I say
25 brought back -- brought to this country?

112

1 A. Yes, it was.
2 Q. If you go, please, to your paragraph 6.1, page 17, can
3 you help us, please, with some details about the car?
4 A. Yes, sir. It was a black Mercedes 280S saloon. It was
5 left-hand drive of course. The registration number was
6 688LTV75. It was powered by a 2.8 litre fuel-injection
7 engine with a five-speed automatic gearbox. It was
8 first registered in France on 13th September 1994 and
9 the last recorded mileage which was noted on
10 4th August 1997 was just over 41,000 kilometres. That
11 is a little over 25,500 miles.
12 Q. All right. Once the vehicle was here, you obviously had
13 an opportunity to examine it, is that right?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. And you took the opportunity?
16 A. We did.
17 Q. I just want to look at some parts of your investigation,
18 but not many, because there is no dispute about this
19 again. 6.9 -- I think we have seen this in
20 photographs -- is this right, that both driver and
21 passenger airbags had deployed?
22 A. Yes, they had.
23 Q. Then, for a reason that will become clear not now but
24 later, I just want to deal with your paragraph 6.10. So
25 6.10, did you examine the exhaust system for signs of

113

1 exhaust gas leakage?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Then over the page at the bottom, were you satisfied
4 that until the point of the collision, the exhaust
5 system had been in a good serviceable condition and that
6 it had not leaked?
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. Did you check the vehicle for any sign of tampering?
9 A. Yes, we did. In company with David Price from TRL,
10 we made a very thorough examination of all mechanical
11 aspects of it and we came to the conclusion that it was
12 in a good roadworthy condition. There were no
13 contributory defects. In addition, we examined it for
14 signs of tampering or devices being attached to it and
15 we found no signs of that at all.
16 Q. So no dispute again, is this right, between anybody that
17 there was no question that there was any mechanical
18 fault that had caused or contributed to the crash?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Page 23, did you obtain a comparison vehicle?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. What was that?
23 A. This was a black left-hand drive Mercedes 280S saloon.
24 This was registration number M562SGY.
25 Q. That also had a 2.8 litre fuel-injected engine and

114

1 a five-speed automatic gearbox?
2 A. Yes, it had. For all intents and purposes, it was an
3 identical vehicle.
4 Q. But it had done a few more thousand miles, I think.
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. Just help us. We have heard about whether the car is
7 a high-powered car or not. What is the answer to that
8 question, your paragraph 6.16?
9 A. No, sir. It is not the high-powered car that it has
10 been made out to be in the past. In fact, this
11 particular model of Mercedes has the smallest engine in
12 the S class range. It is a very heavy car, as
13 I mentioned, weighing nearly 2 tonnes. During our
14 testing, we found that its 0 to 60 time, which is
15 generally seen as a guide to the performance of
16 a vehicle, measured between 11 and 12.65 seconds
17 depending upon its load. At the time it was made,
18 the published road tests for when it was new give
19 a 0 to 60 time of 10 seconds.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. If I could just compare that for you with a vehicle with
22 a similar performance time. It has almost identical
23 performance to a Nissan Primera 2 litre.
24 Q. What about the ride of the vehicle; your paragraph 6.19?
25 A. The vehicle is an executive saloon. It is a large

115

1 vehicle. It has a relatively soft ride compared with a
2 normal family saloon and there is a substantial amount
3 of body pitch and roll.
4 Q. Will you just explain that?
5 A. "Pitch" is the vertical movement of the vehicle as the
6 front rises or falls under acceleration or braking. You
7 can see this in modern vehicles, when you break heavily,
8 the nose dips. In this vehicle and in vehicles of this
9 age, this was not particularly unusual as
10 a characteristic of large vehicles of that era. It had
11 quite soft suspension and would rock backwards and
12 forwards quite easily.
13 "Roll" is the same sort of movement, but from side
14 to side.
15 Q. How did you find that when you first drove it?
16 A. I found it a little unexpected and I found that the
17 vehicle required relatively careful handling initially.
18 When -- over time and as I became more familiar with it
19 and during some of the extreme testing that we subjected
20 it to, I found it to be a very capable vehicle, it held
21 the road very well and it was subject to a small degree
22 of oversteer when it was being cornered hard. If
23 I could explain?
24 Q. That means ...?
25 A. "Oversteer" is the tendency of a vehicle to follow

116

1 a slightly tighter radius than the one that the driver
2 is attempting to follow.
3 Q. What is the effect of that?
4 A. In extreme, it means that the vehicle is not quite going
5 in the direction that the driver intends.
6 Q. Now the substantial amount of body pitch and roll, what
7 I want to know is this: could that have been, as it
8 were, peculiar or particular to the vehicle that you
9 were using or is that common to all Mercedes of this
10 type?
11 A. It is common to all vehicles of this type, not just
12 Mercedes. Large executive saloons tend to be quite soft
13 in suspension, in their handling characteristics, simply
14 because the executives that they are transporting in
15 the back like a soft ride.
16 Q. Right. Now, 6.23, another part -- I am not dealing
17 comprehensively with your examination of the vehicle,
18 you understand, Mr Read, just some parts of it which are
19 perhaps significant for our purposes.
20 The gearbox, can you help us about that, please?
21 6.23, page 25?
22 A. The vehicle was fitted with an automatic gearbox, as
23 I mentioned. It is also fitted with a mode selector.
24 This is an "S" and an "E" on the transmission tunnel.
25 The "S" is a standard setting. It is recommended for

117

1 all normal driving conditions. The "E" is an economy
2 setting, and this causes the gearbox to shift up and
3 down gears at slightly lower driving speeds.
4 Q. If you move from one setting to the other -- we just
5 heard about a change in engine noise.
6 A. Indeed.
7 Q. If you move from one setting to another, would that make
8 a noise?
9 A. This particular setting, no. If one changes gear
10 manually or uses the kick-down facility to change gear
11 automatically, then that can result in an increase in
12 engine noise.
13 Q. Did you test that, changing down manually?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Was there an increase in speed in the tests that you
16 were doing?
17 A. There was a small increase in speed. Whilst travelling
18 with the standard mode selected, I was able to kick it
19 down, that is forcing the throttle pedal to the floor
20 and automatically making the gearbox change down
21 a speed. I was able to do that at speeds up to about
22 80 miles per hour. This was associated with an increase
23 in engine noise. Manually I was able to do the same
24 with speeds of up of 87 miles per hour. The vehicle
25 continued to accelerate.

118

1 Q. So that might account for an increase in engine noise?
2 A. It might. The weight and performance of the vehicle at
3 that sort of speed did not significantly increase
4 the speed of the vehicle, but it did significantly
5 increase the noise from the engine.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard, when you reach
7 a convenient point, I think we will break off.
8 MR HILLIARD: That is as good as any.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Very well then. We will finish
10 now, members of the jury, and resume tomorrow morning.
11 I think now that we are on to English witnesses,
12 10 o'clock is probably a more agreeable start. We will
13 continue with Mr Read's evidence tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
14 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, may I detain you for a moment once
15 the jury have gone?
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Certainly. Yes.
17 (Jury out)
18 Submissions by MR MANSFIELD
19 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I am grateful.
20 It does not concern the substance of your ruling in
21 relation to rule 37, although what I am about to say may
22 have a bearing in the long term, in particular on an
23 individual's submissions in relation to that.
24 It really concerns your observations this morning in
25 relation to a particular group of witnesses. May I just

119

1 raise this, because rather than let it rest or leave it
2 in abeyance for a number of days, there is a continuing
3 concern and urgency. May I explain what it is?
4 There is no intention whatsoever to cause any
5 difficulty with the cooperation and agreement that has
6 been reached with the French authorities, but there does
7 appear still to be a serious and continuing
8 misunderstanding, if one looks carefully at what has
9 been said today, particularly for the reasons that have
10 been given.
11 One of the reasons that has been given by the French
12 authorities is that the witnesses have already provided
13 you with statements and given evidence on numerous
14 occasions and they will have nothing new to say.
15 Now, I will not elaborate, but it is perfectly clear
16 that that is really quite inadequate because firstly
17 it is a misunderstanding about the nature of these
18 proceedings and the ambit of these proceedings.
19 So, for example, there are questions that will arise
20 pertinent to these proceedings that have actually not
21 been asked of these witnesses on any previous occasion.
22 I can give three very quick categories which will
23 illustrate it.
24 Firstly, as you heard when I asked questions of
25 Mr Carpenter now many weeks ago, there is clearly

120

1 missing film and photographs which have never been
2 explained and, as far as one can see, have never even
3 been questioned by the French authorities.
4 Clearly there would be a desire to certainly
5 ascertain whether that is true, not purely for its own
6 sake but because, of course, very obviously, if there
7 are films that show the journey from the rear of
8 the Ritz to the tunnel and, furthermore, photographs in
9 the tunnel, the relevance does not need to be elaborated
10 upon. That is one category. Of course the British
11 police have never had an opportunity -- or at least they
12 have asked, but have been refused. So that is a level
13 of cooperation which could in fact develop.
14 There is a second category, and that is that again
15 this category could deal with and they have not been
16 asked to deal with, which was opened to the jury, and
17 that has been the background of events in the summer of
18 1997 before we ever reach Paris. The background
19 concerns the behaviour of some of the very same
20 paparazzi and what they were doing.
21 Caught up in that, and I do not go further at the
22 moment, is undoubtedly a particular individual that has
23 been mentioned to the jury and has now been mentioned in
24 evidence and that is Mr Andanson, his presence in
25 the South of France and so on. In fact, none of the

121

1 photographers/paparazzi except one have ever been asked
2 in any detail about him, his background, his movements,
3 his modus operandi or anything of that nature. So that
4 is a whole area that has not in fact been touched upon
5 at any stage.
6 So one can begin to see that these particular
7 areas -- it is not as though one is going over old
8 ground. One is going over new ground, in fact, with
9 these witnesses.
10 We would ask that the French authorities, I am
11 afraid, are approached again, bearing in mind the
12 different ambit and the different approach that
13 the inquest will have. Sir, that is the first point
14 we make in relation to the reasons given.
15 The second reason we are concerned about, because
16 again -- as you stated, the public policy or
17 ordre publique is a very broad legal term. What does
18 not appear -- at least if it has been considered, it is
19 not present -- is the guidance that the Ministry of
20 Justice normally requires to be applied in interpreting
21 and construing that. I handed it up last week and it is
22 plain that the approach to the public policy does not
23 embrace the particular reason, which is damage to
24 relations between the media, the Government and
25 the general public. That certainly does not fit within

122

1 the guidance that is given in interpreting that term.
2 The problem is that whilst we are being assured --
3 you are being assured -- that this cooperation will
4 continue, a very similar phrase could be used in
5 relation to d