Hearing transcripts

7 March 2008 - Afternoon session

24 (1.30 pm)
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have Mr Lefort there, have we?

81

1 Can you hear us?
2 A. Yes.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
4 MR HOUGH: Could the witness please be sworn.
5 MR BERNARD LEFORT (sworn)
6 (evidence via videolink, interpreted)
7 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Before we start, can I say that
8 we are not getting very clear sound from London, so
9 it is very difficult at this end.
10 Questions from MR HOUGH
11 MR HOUGH: Is your name Bernard Lefort?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you hearing me any better now?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. It is just that there is an echo.
15 When we speak, we can hear ourselves. It is still
16 the case, actually.
17 MR HOUGH: Would you like us to continue or shall we redial?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Redial, maybe.
19 MR HOUGH: Very well. (Pause). Is your full name Bernard
20 Lefort? Can you hear us now?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In 1997, I think you were a waiter at the bar
23 Le Bourgogne in Central Paris?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I do not know if you are aware of this, but that bar

82

1 was just downstairs from where Henri Paul lived.
2 A. Well, according to what I know, he was living a little
3 bit further down the street or up the street, but not in
4 the same building.
5 Q. But a few doors down then?
6 A. Yes, I became aware of it when I saw the police come
7 some days later.
8 Q. And I think the police came and took a statement from
9 you on 5th September, so about five days after
10 the crash?
11 A. Yes. That is correct.
12 Q. And do you have a copy of the statement you made with
13 you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Have you ever given any other interview to anybody,
16 official or unofficial?
17 A. No, no. No, journalists asked me questions but I said
18 that I did not know what they wanted from me and I could
19 not understand their attitude.
20 Q. We will come to one particular group of journalists in
21 a few minutes. Am I fair to say that you have never
22 received, and you are not expecting to receive, any
23 payment for your account of events?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now, dealing with some background, I think your half

83

1 sister is Myriam Lemaire, somebody we hope to hear from
2 a little later.
3 A. Myriam Lemaire.
4 Q. I think I might have said Lefaire by accident.
5 I think she owned the bar in 1997; is that right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And I think you began working in the bar on 15th August,
8 about two weeks before the crash?
9 A. I do not remember exactly.
10 Q. Well, if you see in your statement, you say that it was
11 since 15th August, you thought at the time.
12 A. Yes, but I do not remember exactly now. It was a time
13 of holiday in Paris.
14 Q. During the time that you were there, I think you
15 normally worked from lunchtime until 8 o'clock in
16 the evening, but you sometimes worked later?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I think M Paul was a regular customer of the bar?
19 A. Well, you know, people have been talking to me about it
20 for so long now, but it is not someone that I saw every
21 day. I saw from time to time.
22 Q. In your statement, you are recorded as saying that you
23 saw him three times in the period which we think is
24 perhaps the two weeks that you were working in the bar?
25 A. Yes, I remember once he got in the bar after having

84

1 played tennis.
2 Q. In your statement, you record one occasion when he came
3 in at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon for a sandwich
4 and a soft drink and another occasion on the evening of
5 Friday 29th August, when he came in in the early evening
6 for a drink?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you think that is right, do you?
9 A. Yes, well the only times I saw him, he was very quiet,
10 reading his newspaper on his own.
11 Q. When you saw him, was he drinking alcohol on those
12 occasions?
13 A. No, I did not see him drink alcohol. Maybe once
14 a panache, that is beer with lemonade but that is it.
15 Q. Did you ever speak to him, other than to exchange
16 pleasantries and take his order?
17 A. No, because he would always sit at the corner of the bar
18 reading his newspaper.
19 Q. Turning to Saturday 30th August, the day immediately
20 preceding the crash, were you working on that Saturday?
21 A. Normally I would have worked, yes.
22 Q. You are recorded in your statement saying that you
23 worked that day from 12.30, so lunchtime, until
24 11.00 pm, so working a little later than you often
25 worked. It is the last paragraph on the first page if

85

1 you want to look at it.
2 A. Yes, I can see it.
3 Q. And having looked at that statement, which you signed,
4 is that likely to be right that you were working for
5 that period that day?
6 A. Yes, yes, it is written in the statement. Yes.
7 Q. And that records that you worked behind the bar
8 the whole time apart from half an hour at 4 o'clock when
9 you went to do some shopping?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And was anybody working with you over that period?
12 A. Well, my sister.
13 Q. She has given a statement that she worked from 11.00 am
14 to 1.00 am, so a perhaps a little later than you but it
15 may not matter. You think that is right, do you?
16 A. Yes. She surely must have closed the bar.
17 Q. Just very briefly for us, can you describe what the bar
18 was like; how big it was, bar seats and tables, that
19 kind of thing?
20 A. Well, it was a rectangular room with three corners and
21 a bar all along the rest of the room and on the other
22 side were tables.
23 Q. How many tables, roughly?
24 A. Well, five to six, maybe in front of the bar and then in
25 the back were three or four.

86

1 Q. How busy did it get on an average evening?
2 A. Well, in the evening it was a little bit busier. At
3 lunchtime, you know, people came to have lunch but in
4 the evening, yes, people came to have a drink. There
5 were more people in the evening.
6 Q. On the Saturday, 30th August, when you were working
7 there, can you recall having seen Henri Paul at any
8 time?
9 A. Maybe I did, but I cannot remember.
10 Q. Can you look at your statement, it is towards the bottom
11 of the first page. You say there that you did not see
12 M Paul that day, and that if he had been in the bar, you
13 think you would have seen him. Does that help to jog
14 your memory?
15 A. Yes, if that is in, maybe I would have remembered but
16 I do not remember.
17 Q. I appreciate you may not remember now, but in
18 a statement signed by you just five days later, you say
19 that you did not see Mr Paul there and you think that
20 you would have seen him had he come in over that period.
21 Is that likely to be right?
22 A. I do not remember now. It was ten years ago but if
23 I said that at the time to a police officer, it must
24 have been true.
25 Q. One other matter, and this is dealt with on the second

87

1 page of your statement and it is the very last paragraph
2 of the statement: you told the French police that two
3 journalists who you believed were English had visited
4 the bar on the day before you gave the statement, so
5 4th September.
6 A. Yes, as a matter of fact.
7 Q. And you are recorded as --
8 A. Yes, it was in the days after the crash.
9 Q. And you are recorded in the statement as saying to
10 the French police that one of the English journalists,
11 or one of the journalists with an English accent, said
12 to you that if you told them that Henri Paul had drunk
13 two whiskies, he would give you whatever you wanted?
14 A. Yes, as a matter of fact, yes. I have seen other
15 journalists, plenty of journalists.
16 Q. But I think you were not prepared to tell that lie at
17 all, were you?
18 A. No.
19 MR HOUGH: Thank you very much, those are my questions.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
21 MR MANSFIELD: No thank you.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
23 MR KEEN: Thank you, sir.
24 Questions from MR KEEN
25 MR KEEN: Mr Lefort, my name is Richard Keen and I appear on

88

1 behalf of the parents of the late Henri Paul.
2 I just wanted to clarify one or two points in your
3 evidence, if I may.
4 We have a statement or deposition which you gave to
5 the Brigade Criminelle in Paris on 5th September 1997.
6 Is that the deposition that you have in front of you?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And would it be fair to say that your recollection of
9 events on 31st August 1997 was better on
10 5th September 1997, when you gave this deposition, than
11 it is perhaps now, ten years later?
12 A. Yes, of course.
13 Q. And is it also fair to say that you answered the police
14 questions and enquiries honestly?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I think we know already that the police had carried
17 out neighbourhood enquiries and spoken to your sister
18 who I understand was the owner of the bar where you were
19 working as head waiter; is that right?
20 A. That is right.
21 Q. And you told the French police that Henri Paul was
22 someone who occasionally came to the Bar de Bourgogne?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we look to what you actually told the police, if
25 you look to the bottom of the first page of your

89

1 deposition, you said:
2 "Since 15th August, I think I have seen M Paul about
3 three times; once during the week he came in at around
4 2.00 pm and had a sandwich and an Orangina.
5 "On Friday 29th August, he came in and had
6 a shandy", a panache, and then you say:
7 "I do not recall the first occasion", and you add:
8 "Whenever I saw him, he was alone. I have never
9 served alcohol to him. I did not see M Paul on Saturday
10 30th August throughout the entire day. I worked from
11 12.30 until 11.00 pm. I was away from around 4 to
12 4.30 pm to do a bit of shopping. I was behind the bar
13 the whole time. If M Paul had come in, there is no way
14 I would not have seen him. The bar is small."
15 A. Yes, as a matter of fact, yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, coming on to events after the crash,
17 did you find a large number of people coming in into the
18 bar who appeared to be journalists inquiring about
19 Henri Paul?
20 A. Yes. A lot of them.
21 Q. And you mentioned to the French police that on
22 4th September 1997, at around 8.00 pm, two journalists
23 who you believed by their accent to be English, came
24 into the bar.
25 A. Yes.

90

1 Q. Did these people say they were journalists, or did you
2 just assume because of the questions that they were
3 asking that they must be journalists?
4 A. No. I remember they submitted me some kind of press
5 cards.
6 Q. Thank you. One of them then said to you, and you quote
7 in your police statement:
8 "Tell me that he drank two whiskies and I will give
9 you whatever you want".
10 A. Yes, he offered me something.
11 Q. And as you told the previous lawyer, Mr Hough, you
12 refused to tell such a lie?
13 A. Yes, and I even called the police at the time to tell
14 the police officer about it.
15 Q. Did these people explain to you why they wanted you to
16 tell lies about Henri Paul drinking?
17 A. No. Not at all.
18 MR KEEN: Very well.
19 Thank you. No further questions, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?
21 MR CROXFORD: No thank you, sir.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
23 Questions from MR HORWELL
24 MR HORWELL: Mr Lefort, I only have a very few questions for
25 you. Do you now have a recollection of Saturday 30th

91

1 August 1997?
2 A. No and also, you know, after hearing so many times about
3 it, and for so long, you don't know what is what any
4 more.
5 Q. We have heard from a witness who says that he saw
6 Henri Paul in the bar that Saturday night at about 8.25
7 in the evening.
8 A. Maybe.
9 MR HORWELL: Thank you.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Lefort,
11 that is all we require. We are grateful to you for
12 coming and giving your time. Thank you. So --
13 MR HOUGH: That is the end of the videolink statement from
14 France. There are some statements that can be read and
15 in particular, one that probably ought to be read.
16 There are four statements in turn and I will deal
17 with each of them one by one and see whether there is
18 time and inclination for them to be read. The first is
19 a statement from Martin Smith and relates to the proving
20 of Channel 4 material.
21 Statement of MR MARTIN SMITH (read)
22 This is a largely administrative matter to enable
23 some of this material to be read next week:
24 "I Martin Smith, solicitor to the inquest, make the
25 following statement:

92

1 "I am a partner in the Regulatory Law Group at Field
2 Fisher Waterhouse LLP and am currently engaged as
3 solicitor to these inquests. My appointment though to
4 that position was announced on 5th June 2007.
5 "On 6th June 2007, Channel 4 Television Corporation
6 broadcast a documentary made by ITN Factual entitled
7 'Diana, the Witnesses in the Tunnel'.
8 "On 18th June 2007, I received a letter from
9 Mr Hall, partner of Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP who
10 represent the Ritz Hotel, Paris. In his letter, Mr Hall
11 asked the Coroner to 'use his powers to require
12 Channel 4 (and/or their servants or agents)' to provide
13 him and the Interested Persons to these inquests with
14 various materials.
15 "On 22nd June 2007, I sent a letter addressed to
16 Channel 4's Head of Legal Affairs making a request for
17 various materials including unseen footage of interviews
18 with relevant witnesses, tape-recordings of interviews
19 with relevant witnesses and all witness evidence
20 relating to the same.
21 "I corresponded with Channel 4 and its solicitors,
22 Simons, Muirhead and Burton ('SMAB') over the course of
23 last summer. On 5th October 2007, I wrote to SMAB
24 asking them to provide all unbroadcast evidential
25 material.

93

1 "SMAB replied the same day, expressing surprise at
2 my request and essentially refusing to provide the
3 material in question without being ordered by the court
4 to do so.
5 "On 15th October 2007, I filed an application in
6 the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
7 representing an order requiring production of certain
8 documentation. This application was heard in two parts
9 by Mr Justice Eady at hearings on 19th October and
10 26th October 2007 and resulted in the two orders annexed
11 at exhibit MLS1.
12 "Pursuant to this application, SMAB provided me with
13 the following material on the dates indicated. I also
14 set out the reference number assigned by the inquest to
15 each of these materials which I now produce to
16 the court.
17 "Provided by SMAB on 19th October 2007:
18 "Footage and transcripts of the following
19 interviews."
20 And then there is a series of interviews with Kenny
21 Lennox, Laurent Sola, Lionel Cherruault, Mark Butt,
22 Martine Monteil, Phil Hall, Pierre Hounsfield, Pierre
23 Suu, Sebastien Masseron, Nikola Arsov, Jacques Langevin,
24 Frederic Mailliez.
25 "Provided by SMAB on 24th October 2007:

94

1 "Footage and transcripts of the following
2 interviews: Greg Allen-Waters, Mr Bourdon, Remy and
3 Koblenz(?).
4 "Provided by SMAB on 29th October 2007:
5 "Notes of accounts of Paul Martin, Gary Dean,
6 Laurent Sola, Phil Hall, Lionel Cherruault, Serge
7 Benhamou, Clarence Williams, Jacques Langevin,
8 Nikola Arsov, Dr Frederic Mailliez, Remy Gaston Dreyfus,
9 Ken Lennox, Serge Arnal, Fabrice Chassery,
10 Michel Dufour."
11 "Provided by SMAB on 30th October 2007:
12 "Handwritten note made by Janice Sutherland of
13 interview with Serge Benhamou.
14 "Provided by SMAB on 1st November 2007:
15 "Extracts from journalists' notebooks containing
16 accounts of Stanley Culbreath, Clarence Williams, Pierre
17 Suu, Laurent Sola, Ken Lennox, Serge Arnal.
18 "I disclosed all of this material to the interested
19 persons shortly after it was received, after it had been
20 reviewed to take account of considerations of
21 relevance."
22 And Mr Smith says:
23 "I believe the facts stated in this statement are
24 true."
25

95

1 Statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
2
3 The next statement is a statement of Tom Foley
4 adducing a one-page set of responses to questions by
5 Mr Tomlinson. Mr Foley's statement reads as follows:
6 "I Tom Foley, Legal Secretary to the inquests, make
7 the following statement:
8 "When Richard Tomlinson gave evidence on
9 13th February 2008, Mr Mansfield asked whether he might
10 be shown the name of the person who was referred to in
11 Witness A's proposal. It did not prove possible to
12 provide this information to Mr Tomlinson on that day.
13 "The solicitor to the inquests, Martin Smith, met
14 Mr Tomlinson on 27th February 2008 to communicate
15 the name in question to him and ask him three questions
16 about it. A document outlining these questions and
17 Mr Tomlinson's responses to them is exhibited to this
18 statement."
19 I go to that document "Questions for Richard
20 Tomlinson":
21 "Question: [There is a redacted word] is the name
22 of the person who Witness A says was the subject of his
23 assassination proposal (about Milosevic)?
24 "Answer: I do not recognise this name at all.
25 "Question: Do you think it is possible that this

96

1 may in fact have been the name involved?
2 "Answer: It could be, it is over 16 years ago,
3 I have no positive recollection or negative
4 recollection.
5 "Question: Is there any comment you want to make
6 about the name?
7 "Answer: Simply that I do not recognise this name
8 at all.
9 "Question: Could you have confused the two names?
10 If so, how?
11 "Answer: In 1992 I would not have confused
12 the names but in the passage of time, I cannot say one
13 way or another."
14 That page is signed by Mr Tomlinson and dated 27th
15 February 2008. Mr Foley's statement concludes:
16 "I believe the facts stated in this statement are
17 true."
18 That is Mr Foley's statement.
19 The third statement to be read is that of Didier
20 Georges Gamblin, and this is a statement which is being
21 read as uncontroversial.
22 Statement of DIDIER GAMBLIN (read)
23 It is for reference purposes [INQ0007081 - read out in court] and it
24 takes the form of a report by Police Lieutenant Gigou
25 dated 3rd October 1997, timed at 17.00 hours. It begins

97

1 with personal particulars, the name Didier Georges
2 Gamblin, Fire Safety Officer at the Ritz Hotel and he
3 provides personal details.
4 Then as to the facts, he says this:
5 "I understand that I am being interviewed as
6 a witness under Letter Rogatory."
7 And he gives the details of that, which the jury has
8 heard before and he says:
9 "The names of the people under investigation" that
10 is the paparazzi "are not familiar to me.
11 "If they are paparazzi, I must know some by sight
12 because I saw some when I was in Rue Arsene Houssaye on
13 30th August 1997. In fact, I will tell you what
14 happened on 30th August 1997. On 30th August 1997,
15 I started work at 2 pm on Mr Paul's instructions. That
16 had been agreed since the previous Thursday and
17 confirmed on Friday 29th August 1997. I was supposed to
18 be at the entrance to the building at 1 Rue Arsene
19 Houssaye in the lobby near the concierge's room. My job
20 was to make sure that when they arrived, the Princess
21 and Dodi did not have any problems with the paparazzi,
22 knowing that they had been followed by them for quite
23 a while. Then we were to help them in and out of the
24 building if necessary. I was with my colleague
25 Gerald Gueheneux.

98

1 "In answer to this question, I have done this kind
2 of thing before, especially at the Neuilly house when
3 the Al Fayed family needed protection. It is true that
4 it is not my normal job but we were some distance away
5 from the people to be protected because their bodyguards
6 were closer to them. I was not given any particular
7 instructions on 30th August 1997. We were just supposed
8 to ensure the paparazzi did not come too close to
9 the couple or be too intrusive.
10 "The couple arrived at about 7.15 in the evening.
11 My colleague and I had been told by M Paul that the car
12 was leaving the Ritz to go to the flat but when they
13 were approaching, we were not warned that they were
14 about to arrive, as sometimes happens. When the two
15 cars arrived, the Mercedes and then the Range Rover,
16 there were about ten photographers following them. They
17 were on motorbikes and scooters but there was a car as
18 well. It could have been a white 205.
19 "When the couple came down, the photographers rushed
20 towards them. My colleague had to intervene and push
21 them back a bit. There was a slight incident at that
22 point, because my colleague must have got hold of a lens
23 to push the group back. That annoyed the photographers.
24 No blows were exchanged, the photographers just told us
25 not to give them a hard time or they would call more

99

1 photographers and let the English know and then we would
2 have another 20 photographers on our backs. They made
3 those kind of threats to us.
4 "I asked them to calm down and so did my colleague.
5 Gerald and I went into the building. I phoned Mr Paul
6 to ask if we were just supposed to protect the couple of
7 if we should also stop the photographers taking any
8 pictures. Mr Paul said we should just protect them and
9 let the photographers take pictures, as long as
10 the paparazzi did not come near the cars and stayed at
11 the end of the street.
12 "So I went out and explained to the paparazzi that
13 with the equipment they had, they could take photos from
14 a bit further away to leave the couple enough room when
15 they came out again. I asked them to keep quiet and
16 calm and stay about 10 metres away but if there were any
17 further incidents, we would have to do something.
18 "The journalists took it in good part and we came to
19 an agreement. In answer to your question, the English
20 bodyguards did not have to intervene during the incident
21 I mentioned to you. They protected the couple. It was
22 our job to keep the journalists back.
23 "To answer your question, the Princess and Dodi
24 never at any point asked us to apologise to
25 the paparazzi. I think they must have seen that we had

100

1 to push the journalists back but they did not worry
2 about it. It was really nothing to make a fuss about.
3 It was the journalists who got in a state, not us.
4 "From the little I saw of the couple, they did not
5 seem to be annoyed by the journalists. I felt that they
6 had had enough of it and didn't want them to show
7 themselves. I would describe the journalists involved
8 in the incident as follows:
9 "A European man about 45 years of age wearing jeans,
10 a shirt and a bomber jacket, I think, who must have been
11 on a scooter, I think. Greying hair, fairly long, who
12 has a limp and is well-known in paparazzi circles. That
13 was the man who threatened to call in his English
14 colleagues and he was the one I went to talk to and come
15 to an arrangement with. I would be able to recognise
16 him. In any case, I think from the stories going round
17 afterwards, that you [the police] took him in for
18 questioning.
19 "The one whose lens my colleague touched is a man
20 with slightly darkish complexion, but European, younger,
21 taller, with brown hair, well-built, wearing jeans and
22 a shirt, brownish and maybe a bomber jacket. He was
23 aggressive and he himself admitted that he had flown off
24 the handle a bit without being provoked.
25 "I would be able to recognise him. If I saw

101

1 the photographers who were outside the building again,
2 I would be able to recognise some of them.
3 "In particular, there was a short fat man with curly
4 hair and glasses and he was very aggressive too. He did
5 not like it when they were asked to move back a bit.
6 Like some of the others, he thought that when they were
7 moving back, they were being told not to take photos.
8 I would recognise him.
9 "There was a man without a camera who was acting as
10 lookout outside the building to see when the couple were
11 leaving. He had brown hair, he was younger with a
12 thinnish face, aged about 20 to 25. He realised I had
13 seen him. I would recognise him.
14 "The paparazzi did not cause any trouble while they
15 were waiting. They waited around the building and did
16 not come too close. They had spotted the cars.
17 "Mr Paul had rung me to say that the couple were due
18 to come out at 9.00 pm but it took longer. Mr Paul told
19 me that he was going to leave the hotel. The call was
20 made at around 7.30. Mr Paul had come to the end of his
21 day and he was going home. He told me that in so many
22 words. He also said that my job would be finished when
23 the couple left the flat to go to a Paris restaurant,
24 le Benoit. That is what had been arranged.
25 "My colleague Gerald was due to stay over for the

102

1 night because he was on night duty and I was coming back
2 at about 8 o'clock the following morning, 31st
3 August 1997, to work the Sunday with Gerald. Gerald was
4 due to finish at about 9.30 on the morning of 31st
5 August 1997.
6 "Mr Paul would definitely have come and joined me in
7 Rue Arsene Houssaye at about 8 o'clock, as he had told
8 me. We were going to look after the couple in
9 the daytime on Sunday and when they left the flat.
10 "The couple came out at about 9.45 in the evening.
11 Although we had come to an agreement with the paparazzi,
12 they did not do what we asked them. They came closer to
13 the car than expected. Although they didn't rush
14 forward as they had done when the couple arrived. When
15 the couple's car drove off, they went completely crazy.
16 They called their motorbikes and set off like lunatics
17 to follow the car. They could have knocked pedestrians
18 over on the pavement. People had to press themselves
19 against the wall to let the paparazzi's motorbikes past.
20 They were driving on the pavement.
21 "I went away at about 10.30 and left Gerald there as
22 arranged. I went home and at about 1.30 in the morning,
23 I had a phone call from M Tendil telling me about
24 the accident. Because of my position, I went straight
25 to the hotel. I was surprised to hear that the couple

103

1 had come back to the hotel instead of going to le Benoit
2 restaurant. I think that must have been decided in
3 the car because of the number of paparazzi following
4 the car. I think they decided it was better to have
5 dinner at the hotel where Dodi was at home and it would
6 be quieter for them.
7 "M Tendil told me there had been a lot of trouble
8 when the couple got to the hotel at about 10 o'clock.
9 The outside grilles had had to be closed which is only
10 done when there is an invasion of paparazzi. I was also
11 surprised when I heard that M Paul was at the hotel in
12 the evening because he had told me on the phone that he
13 was going home. Mr Tendil explained that he had told
14 M Paul about the problems and said that the couple were
15 coming back to the hotel, so M Paul returned to
16 the hotel.
17 "I note that you are showing me an album of 34
18 photos."
19 I wonder if at this point the jury could have a look
20 at the album which should appear under tab 6 of the jury
21 bundle. The witness goes on:
22 "After looking at them carefully, I can tell you
23 that I definitely recognise the person on page 3, 5 and
24 6 as the short fat man who was very aggressive and must
25 have threatened us that he would call the English

104

1 photographers. I recognise the man on page 3 in photos
2 5 and 6 [so that is Serge Benhamou] as the short fat man
3 who was very aggressive and must also have threatened us
4 that he would call the English photographers.
5 I recognised the man on page 4 in photos 7 and 8 [that
6 is Fabrice Chassery] He is definitely the one who was
7 acting as lookout. On page 11 are photos [that is
8 photos 21 and 22, Romuald Rat]. I definitely recognise
9 the photographer involved in the incident with Gerald.
10 He is the one whose lens Gerald touched. On page 9,
11 photos 17 and 18, [that is David Odekerken] I definitely
12 recognise one of the photographers who was at
13 the building. On page 15, 29 and 30 [that is Laslo
14 Veres] I definitely recognise the man with the limp who
15 threatened to call English colleagues.
16 "Lastly, there are some faces that look vaguely
17 familiar. I think I recognise some of the photographers
18 who were near the building on pages 1, 2, 5 and 7."
19 That is Serge Arnal, Nikola Arsov, Stephane Darmon
20 and Jacques Langevin:
21 "I am not quite so sure about the man in photos 12
22 and 13."
23 Those are different people. Photo 12 is
24 Alain Guizard, photo 13 is Jacques Langevin:
25 "In any case, there weren't any problems with these

105

1 last ones. I note that you are showing me and album of
2 13 photos entitled Ritz film. I recognise the people
3 I mentioned to you in the first album. In photo 6,
4 I definitely recognise the hard core of paparazzi who
5 were following the car when it left the Rue Arsene
6 Houssaye at about 9.30 and those are the photos taken
7 outside of the Ritz by CCTV.
8 "In answer to your question, I worked with M Paul
9 all of the time and he was quite normal on
10 30th August 1997 on the phone as well. I have worked
11 with him since 1989 and he has always been normal and
12 professional at work. I have nothing further to add."
13 And it records that Mr Gamblin confirmed and signed
14 the statement .
15 Those are three statements, there is a fourth one
16 adducing reports of Professors Forrest and Professors
17 Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston on toxicology, they are
18 rather longer, it is a matter for you, sir, when you
19 would like those read.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have a lot of reading next
21 week, so we might get them out of the way this
22 afternoon.
23 MR HOUGH: There are two statements of Tom Foley adducing
24 these reports. I will read both of those statements
25 before reading the reports.

106

1 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
2 First statement, dated 3rd March 2008:
3 "I Thomas Foley, Legal Secretary to the inquests,
4 make the following statement:
5 "On 6th February 2008 Professor Baccino, the French
6 expert instructed in the investigation into the death of
7 James Andanson, gave evidence by videolink. Following
8 his oral evidence, transcripts of his evidence were
9 provided to Professor Forrest, the expert toxicologist
10 who has already given evidence in relation to Henri Paul
11 and to experts instructed by interested persons.
12 The experts also had access to expert evidence from
13 the original French judicial dossier of
14 the investigation. Professor Forrest produced a report
15 for the Coroner dated 20th February 2008, a copy of
16 which is attached to this statement as exhibit 1.
17 "On 25th February, the solicitors for Mr Al Fayed
18 provided to the Coroner a report in response, written by
19 Professors Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston. A copy of that
20 report is exhibited to this statement as exhibit 2.
21 Professor Oliver was asked to review that report and he
22 produced a further report dated 2nd March, a copy of
23 which is exhibited to this statement as exhibit 3. I am
24 aware that it has been agreed by all interested persons
25 and the Coroner that these reports should be read to

107

1 the jury in view of the narrow area of disagreement
2 between the experts."
3 And then Mr Foley says he believes that the facts
4 stated in the statement are true.
5 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read)
6 Then the second statement, 5th March 2008, again
7 identifies Mr Foley as legal secretary to the inquests
8 and then says this:
9 "On 3rd March 2008, I made a statement by which
10 I exhibited various reports by Professors Forrest and
11 Professors Vanezis, Oliver and Johnston.
12 "On 4th March 2008, Professors Vanezis, Oliver and
13 Johnston produced a supplemental report, which I exhibit
14 hereto."
15 And he confirms the facts in that statement.
16 I begin by reading the first of those reports,
17 the report by Professor Forrest, dated 28th February
18 2008:
19 "This statement should be read together with
20 the previous reports and statements I have been asked to
21 produce in connection with this inquiry.
22 "I have now been asked to review the toxicology
23 report prepared by Dr Mathieu-Daube following his
24 examination of a sample obtained at post mortem from
25 a body subsequently identified as being that of

108

1 Mr James Andanson.
2 "I have reviewed the transcript of Professor Eric
3 Baccino's evidence given to the inquest on the afternoon
4 of 3rd February 2008. I have also been provided with
5 a copy of the translation of the report of
6 Dr Mathieu-Daube made following the analysis of a sample
7 of coagulated blood obtained at the post mortem.
8 "My understanding, on the basis of the inquest
9 transcript, is that there is no issue about the identity
10 of the deceased or the continuity of the samples
11 submitted to Dr Mathieu-Daube. I will thus deal only
12 therefore with the toxicological issues in this report.
13 "From the documents I have reviewed, I understand
14 that a vehicle fire occurred on the evening of 4th May
15 2000. Professor Baccino attended at the locus of the
16 fire at about 5.15 pm the following day and examined
17 there the badly burnt body of a male subsequently
18 identified as being the body of Mr James Andanson.
19 "Professor Baccino carried out a post-mortem
20 examination on the body on 10th May 2000, when he
21 obtained samples of neck muscle, buttock muscle,
22 meninges and a blood sample from the portal vein for
23 toxicological examination.
24 "The portal vein carries blood from the intestines
25 to the liver.

109

1 "Professor Baccino also noted that the liver was
2 the only identifiable organ present. The portal vein
3 carries blood from the intestines to the liver.
4 "Professor Baccino also noted a red colouration in
5 the blood vessels. Such a colouration can be caused by
6 the inhalation of carbon monoxide in life.
7 "Dr Mathieu-Daube was asked by Judge Marty to
8 examine two samples, in sealed containers numbered 4 and
9 5, for the presence of carbon monoxide, hydrogen
10 cyanide, stupefying substances and drugs.
11 "The original French instruction refers to
12 'substances stupefiantes' and 'substances
13 medicamenteuses'. I understand that, in France,
14 'substances stupefiantes' may usually be intended to
15 refer to narcotics or drugs of abuse, whereas
16 'substances medicamenteuses' would usually be intended
17 to refer to drugs used in medical practice.
18 "The contents of sealed container 5 are not
19 described in the papers I have seen and were not
20 reported by Dr Mathieu-Daube as having been analysed.
21 "Dr Mathieu-Daube describes the contents of sealed
22 container 4 as being 4.5 grams of coagulated blood of
23 a brick red colour.
24 "He did not analyse this sample for cyanide,
25 although he had been instructed to carry out such an

110

1 analysis.
2 "He analysed it for carbon monoxide, using a gas
3 chromatographic method and for haemoglobin by
4 a spectrophotometric method and then used these data to
5 calculate the saturation of the haemoglobin in
6 the sample with carbon monoxide reporting a result of
7 98 per cent.
8 "In an appendix to this report, I set out how
9 the calculation of the proportion of carboxyhaemoglobin
10 in the sample could have been done. Using the data
11 Dr Mathieu-Daube reports for the carbon monoxide and
12 haemoglobin results, I calculate carboxyhaemoglobin
13 proportion to be slightly less than 98 per cent, namely
14 95 per cent of the total haemoglobin.
15 "He describes using a high performance liquid
16 chromatography (HPLC) technique to screen the sample for
17 drugs and toxins and found none to be present.
18 "Comments:
19 "When a fire burns it produces fire gases. Fire
20 gases are often highly toxic, quite apart from the fact
21 that they will usually contain insufficient oxygen to
22 sustain life. The complete burning of carbon, present
23 in plastics, wood, flesh, fuels and plastics produces
24 carbon dioxide, which has an asphyxiating effect on
25 living creatures, but which cannot be meaningfully

111

1 measured in post mortem blood samples. The incomplete
2 burning of carbon produces carbon monoxide which is
3 highly toxic. It has a much higher affinity for
4 haemoglobin, the red pigment in blood that carried
5 oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, than does oxygen
6 itself. By combining with haemoglobin to produce
7 carboxyhaemoglobin, it thus interferes with
8 the transport of oxygen from the lungs to the tissues.
9 It also binds to the iron containing proteins in
10 the electron transport chain in the cells of the body
11 which is intimately involved in the conversion of food
12 substances and oxygen to energy within the cells. Thus
13 even if oxygen reaches the cells of a person poisoned
14 with carbon monoxide, the cells will have their ability
15 to use that oxygen interfered with.
16 "Blood with a high proportion of carboxyhaemoglobin
17 is a deep red colour. Living patients poisoned with
18 carbon monoxide often look pale as blood may be shunned
19 away from the skin, but after death, the tissues are
20 usually a deep red colour.
21 "If the fuel for the fire contains both nitrogen
22 containing compounds and carbon, for example, some
23 plastics or flesh, then cyanide may be produced.
24 "Cyanide also interferes with oxygen utilisation and
25 transport by the body and deceased patients poisoned

112

1 with cyanide will usually have tissues that are a deep
2 red colour. Again, if they reach hospital alive, they
3 may look pale and shocked.
4 "There are many other toxic compounds present in
5 fire gases, depending upon the nature of the fire,
6 the fuel, and the supply of oxygen to the fire.
7 Normally the only two measured post mortem are cyanide
8 and carbon monoxide.
9 "Persons who die in fires and who were alive when
10 the fire started often, but not always, have high levels
11 of carboxyhaemoglobin and cyanide in their blood post
12 mortem. Low concentrations may reflect death as being
13 due to other causes than the toxic effects of the
14 inhalation of fire gases or of them being dead at the
15 time the fire started.
16 "When the state of the body permits, the presence of
17 sooty material in the airways indicates that
18 the deceased has been breathing fire gases before death.
19 Such a finding complements toxicological analyses which
20 should never be interpreted in isolation.
21 "My experience is that very few persons who die in
22 fires have a carboxyhaemoglobin of 80 per cent. This is
23 also reflected in the scientific literature. A
24 carboxyhaemoglobin concentration of in excess of 50 per
25 cent is usually regarded as being lethal. Higher

113

1 concentrations, when considering all cases of poisoning
2 with carbon monoxide, not just fire deaths, are often
3 found in the deceased. This is the case in otherwise
4 fit persons who have not also taken overdoses and who
5 die as a result of inhaling vehicle exhaust gas
6 particularly when the engine is run from cold in an
7 enclosed space such as a garage.
8 "The carboxyhaemoglobin in this case is thus
9 unusually high.
10 "This may have several causes which may not be
11 mutually exclusive.
12 "Errors in the measurement of either the carbon
13 monoxide or the haemoglobin in the sample, or both,
14 could produce an erroneous carboxyhaemoglobin result.
15 An artefactually low haemoglobin measurement and/or an
16 artefactually high estimate for the carbon monoxide
17 concentration in the sample could provide
18 the explanation.
19 "Some workers, in cases like this, have measured
20 the iron concentration in the blood sample and used this
21 to calculate the haemoglobin concentration in preference
22 to using a spectrophotometric method of the haemoglobin
23 in the sample, as was used in this case. This is
24 because of concerns about the problems of measurement of
25 haemoglobin in a degraded sample by spectrophotometric

114

1 methods. Both sulphhaemoglobin and methaemoglobin may
2 confound the measurement of haemoglobin in a sample by
3 spectrophotometric means, depending upon the method
4 used. Both may be present in degraded samples obtained
5 from partially burnt cadavers.
6 "There is the possibility that direct exposure to
7 fire gases after death could have resulted in the blood
8 in the portal vein absorbing carbon monoxide producing
9 an artefactually elevated result. In this respect,
10 a scientific paper from Finland describes a case where
11 a body was partially burnt after the deceased was
12 murdered and high concentrations of cyanide, attributed
13 to diffusion of cyanide from fire gases in the blood,
14 but a low carboxyhaemoglobin was observed.
15 "It is necessary to consider the hypothesis that
16 the deceased could have been dead before the fire
17 started. Whilst this hypothesis cannot be totally
18 excluded and I do not consider it to be probable,
19 the data are also compatible with the deceased dying in
20 the fire with a possible contribution being made to
21 the carboxyhaemoglobin by post mortem diffusion of
22 carbon monoxide into the blood in the portal vein.
23 Artefacts in the analytical process as a result of
24 underestimating the concentration of haemoglobin in
25 the sample could also have contributed to the high

115

1 carboxyhaemoglobin result.
2 "The concentration of haemoglobin in the sample of
3 portal blood is higher than would normally be found in
4 life. This may reflect dehydration, with water being
5 driven out of the sample by the heat of the fire. This
6 obviously raises the possibility that the heat may also
7 have degraded the haemoglobin in the sample.
8 "The general toxicology screen was done by HPLC.
9 This technique, combined with Diode Array Detection
10 (DAD) has been used more widely in Continental Europe
11 than in the UK. A commercial system, the Millennium
12 system produced by the Waters Corporation achieved a
13 degree of market penetration. It was used, for example,
14 by Dr Pepin when he examined the samples attributed to
15 Henri Paul. He also used a number of other techniques.
16 "In general, one single analytical procedure may not
17 cover all of the toxic compounds that might be present
18 in a sample. A combined approach using immunochemical
19 techniques, HPLC (with Diode array detection) and gas
20 chromatography/mass spectroscopy will give greater
21 confidence that a negative result truly reflects
22 the absence of narcotics and medicinal drugs in
23 the sample. This is particularly so when the sample may
24 be degraded.
25 "There is also the point that heat may destroy

116

1 compounds of interest that may have been present in
2 the blood before death.
3 "Thus whilst many compounds of interest would have
4 been detected by the single test carried out, one cannot
5 be totally confident that all compounds of interest that
6 may have been present in the blood at the time of death
7 would have been detected.
8 "No test for volatile substances was carried out.
9 Obviously in a sample for such heat, any analysis for
10 ethanol (alcohol) would yield results that, at
11 the least, would be very difficult to interpret.
12 Nonetheless, in suspicious fire deaths, it can sometimes
13 be useful to look for other volatile substances in
14 blood. Occasionally, arson accelerants may be detected,
15 although volatile substances can be found in many cases
16 of fire deaths, making such results difficult to
17 interpret.
18 "Conclusions:
19 "The carboxyhaemoglobin concentration is higher than
20 is usually seen in a fire death. This may reflect
21 analytical artefact and/or post mortem diffusion of
22 carbon monoxide into blood in the portal system once the
23 abdominal wall burnt away. In my opinion the results
24 are likely to reflect death in a fire, but
25 the hypothesis that the deceased was dead before

117

1 the fire started cannot be totally excluded given such
2 a badly burned body. I do not think this is
3 a hypothesis that is at all likely.
4 "The general toxicology screen may have missed
5 compounds of potential interest, both by virtue of
6 the characteristics of the test itself and by
7 the potential effect of the heat of the fire on the
8 blood sample submitted.
9 "If additional information becomes available, for
10 example Dr Mathieu-Daube's analytical notes, standard
11 operating procedures and instrumental tracings and
12 print-outs, then I would be able to prepare
13 a supplementary report provided sufficient time is made
14 available."
15 And then the expert makes the appropriate expert
16 declaration.
17 Sir, I am going to spare the court the reading of
18 the appendix. I think Mr Burnett has something else to
19 raise before I start on the next report.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, I am conscious that everyone will need
22 a break before too long and I say this without any
23 disrespect to Mr Hough but at least speaking for myself,
24 following that expert's report was quite difficult as he
25 read it and it just occurs to me that during the break,

118

1 it may be possible, with my learned friends, to see
2 whether we might between us agree with whether we could
3 condense those that are to follow, perhaps just to their
4 conclusions. It may not be possible.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am sure that would be excellent
6 and I am sure the jury would strongly approve of that,
7 if you can do it.
8 MR BURNETT: Sir, I am conscious, also that the jury may
9 have also found it not so easy to follow it. And of
10 course they will have the benefit of your summing-up in
11 not too much time from now which will make it all
12 crystal clear.
13 MR HOUGH: I am very surprised that Mr Burnett does not know
14 his sulphhaemoglobins from his methhaemoglobins, but
15 a lot of sense is made there.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will break off for quarter an
17 hour now, members of the jury.
18 (2.40 pm)
19 (A short break)
20 (2.56 pm)
21 MR HOUGH: With the benefit of that break, we have been able
22 to cut a little bit out of the remaining reports, with
23 the assistance of my learned friends to my right.
24 The next is from Professors Vanezis, John Oliver and
25 Johnston. It is in response to Professor Forrest's

119

1 report which has just been read and the experts indicate
2 that the report should be read with previous reports and
3 statements which they have individually and collectively
4 produced in connection with these inquests and they
5 record that they have been provided with a transcript of
6 the evidence given by Professor Baccino and with
7 Professor Forrest's report just read and they then say:
8 "Pathology:
9 "The basis of the analysis, and the conclusions
10 drawn from it by Professor Forrest are dubious.
11 Professor Forrest accepts that he cannot rule out that
12 Mr Andanson was dead before the fire commenced but then
13 concludes that he does not think this is a likely
14 hypothesis. We fail to see how he can reach this
15 conclusion. The pathological features of the case do
16 not provide sufficient information. In the light of the
17 compromised and contaminated material available,
18 the death should properly be called 'unascertained'. Of
19 particular concern was that there was no lung tissue
20 available for consideration, which therefore prohibited
21 a search for inhaled soot particles.
22 "Additionally, the red colouration referred to and
23 described as being typical of COHB [carboxyhaemoglobin]
24 can also be present for other reasons, including from
25 the direct effect of a fire on a dead body.

120

1 The concentration of 95 per cent or above is far in
2 excess of any concentration of COHB normally seen in
3 fire-related deaths. One would normally find
4 concentration of 50/60 per cent, sometimes lower,
5 depending also on the interaction of cyanide.
6 "In those circumstances, a figure of 95 per cent
7 plus is exceptional and puzzling and provides no basis
8 whatsoever for saying with any confidence that
9 Mr Andanson was alive at the commencement of the fire.
10 "Toxicology:
11 "Consequently, there is insufficient and inadequate
12 information to assess whether the deceased could or
13 could not have been dead before the fire started.
14 We accept and agree that this possibility cannot be
15 excluded, but do not accept that on the information
16 available, Professor Forrest can realistically assess
17 the probability of whether Mr Andanson was dead or alive
18 before commencement of the fire.
19 "Similarly, we do not accept that the concluding
20 sentence of paragraph 40 of his statement is sustainable
21 on the basis of the information available.
22 "In those circumstances, and subject to the above
23 comments, and to what is set out below, we would accept
24 the report of Professor Forrest if:
25 "(i) the words 'I do not consider it to be problem'

121

1 were deleted from paragraph 32.
2 (ii) the final sentence of paragraph 40 was deleted.
3 "The level of carboxyhaemoglobin in the specimen
4 recovered was reported as being 98 per cent and
5 calculated by Professor Forrest as 95 per cent. This
6 latter figure agrees with our own calculation (as made
7 by Professor Oliver). Neither of these figures can be
8 achieved in life from the deliberate or accidental
9 inhalation of carbon monoxide. Consequently, the
10 possibility that the measured level could not have been
11 created during the fire either in whole or in part by
12 the diffusion of carbon monoxide into the portal vein as
13 described by Professor Forrest cannot be discounted.
14 Excluding evidence from the pathologist, the creation of
15 the measured level of carboxyhaemoglobin in total by
16 diffusion of carbon monoxide would be indicative of
17 death before fire. Alternatively, post mortem diffusion
18 could have enhanced the achieved by inhalation of
19 the fire gases whilst alive at the start of the fire."
20 And then Professor Forrest responds to that in
21 a report dated 2nd March 2008. In which he sets out
22 some preliminaries and then says this:
23 "There is, in fact, little difference between us
24 [that is to say himself and the other experts]
25 particularly in respect of matters of fact.

122

1 The principle differences in opinion relate to
2 the assessment of the relative probabilities that
3 the pathological and toxicological findings made on
4 examination of Mr Andanson's body might reflect either
5 that Mr Andanson was dead when the fire in the vehicle
6 where he was found started, or that he was alive when
7 the fire started.
8 "The hypothesis that Mr Andanson was dead when
9 the fire started does not necessarily mean that he had
10 a low carboxyhaemoglobin proportion in his blood at the
11 time the fire started. It is at least possible, for
12 example, that he could have died in the vehicle (or even
13 elsewhere) following inhalation of exhaust fumes, but
14 the paraphernalia usually associated with such a mode of
15 death, such as a hose leading from the exhaust to the
16 vehicle interior, was then removed and the fire started.
17 Such a situation, for which I understand that there is
18 no evidence and which I set out simply as a hypothetical
19 possibly, would be an example of a case that runs
20 counter to the usual received wisdom that a low
21 proportion of the carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood of a
22 body found dead at the locus of a fire indicates that
23 the deceased was unlikely to have been alive when
24 the fire started and that a high blood
25 carboxyhaemoglobin indicates that the deceased was alive

123

1 and breathing fire gases containing carbon monoxide
2 during the fire.
3 "There is no doubt that the proportion of
4 carboxyhaemoglobin in the 'blood' sample in the present
5 case is unusually high. It is unusual to find
6 a carboxyhaemoglobin even as high as 80 per cent in
7 the blood of a person who has died following
8 the inhalation of fire gases.
9 "Consequently, the high concentration of
10 carboxyhaemoglobin found in the present case cannot be
11 taken, in my opinion, as an indication that there was
12 anything unusual about the case other than the extensive
13 degree of burning of the body present. As I have
14 indicated, it is unusual for a toxicologist to be asked
15 to measure carboxyhaemoglobin in such a severely burnt
16 body. The high carboxyhaemoglobin certainly cannot be
17 taken as a reason for rejecting the hypothesis that
18 Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started in itself.
19 "Thus on the basis of the available data, it is my
20 opinion that the results are explicable on the basis
21 that the deceased was alive when the fire started and
22 breathed fire gases containing carbon monoxide before he
23 died. The scientific evidence base that suggests blood
24 can become saturated with carbon monoxide during a fire
25 when the victim was dead before the fire started is

124

1 deficient, but it is not a possibility that can be
2 rejected out of hand.
3 "Whether or not Mr Andanson was dead when the fire
4 started is of course ultimately a matter for the jury.
5 It may be that if, after taking into account all of
6 the evidence, they consider that the prior probability,
7 that Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started was
8 high and, consequently, that the toxicology results may
9 not be inconsistent with that hypothesis. If, on the
10 other hand, they consider that the prior probability of
11 him being dead when the fire started was high, then they
12 may decide that the results are not inconsistent with
13 that hypothesis. The real difficulty comes if all of
14 the other evidence does not enable an assessment of the
15 relative probabilities of M Andanson at the time
16 the fire started or dead at the time the fire started to
17 be made. In that case, I would say that the toxicology
18 results could be used to support the hypothesis that he
19 was alive when the fire started.
20 "If any credence were to be given to the third
21 hypothesis that I have suggested, that Mr Andanson were
22 to have been dead as a result of poisoning with carbon
23 monoxide before the fire started, then I do not believe
24 that the toxicology results would be of any assistance
25 in differentiating between that hypothesis and

125

1 the hypothesis that he was alive when the fire started
2 with, by implication, a normal carboxyhaemoglobin
3 concentration in his blood at that time.
4 "In short, my position is that for the reasons
5 I have set out, I consider that the results support
6 the hypothesis that he was alive when the fire started
7 to a greater degree, but do not exclude the hypothesis
8 that he was dead when the fire started. The final
9 conclusion depends on taking all the evidence into
10 account."
11 Then Professors Johnston, Oliver and Vanezis have
12 the last word in a report dated 4th March 2008:
13 "We agree with Professor Forrest that there is
14 little difference between us in respect of matters of
15 fact.
16 "However, we disagree with Professor Forrest's
17 assertion that the results of the toxicology and
18 pathology support the hypothesis that Mr Andanson was
19 alive when the fire started.
20 "As Professor Forrest points out it is uncommon for
21 toxicology laboratories to have to examine samples
22 collected from bodies that are as badly burnt as in
23 the present case. Consequently the scientific and
24 medical evidence as to whether or not a deceased was
25 alive when the fire started is not well documented in

126

1 the medical and scientific literature.
2 "Despite support of results from the medical and
3 scientific literature, Professor Forrest then goes on to
4 construct a scenario that supports his view that
5 Mr Andanson was alive when the fire started and fits
6 with the scant information that is available in
7 the scientific literature. However Professor Forrest
8 acknowledges the possibility that Mr Andanson was dead
9 when the fire started 'is not a possibility that can be
10 rejected out of hand'.
11 "It is our opinion that the toxicology and pathology
12 findings in this case do not support either view. That
13 is, the toxicology and pathology findings do not
14 indicate whether Mr Andanson was alive or dead before
15 his body was burnt in the fire.
16 "Using the evidence available to us, we cannot
17 conclude that Mr Andanson was alive when the fire
18 started, but neither can we or Professor Forrest exclude
19 the possibility that Mr Andanson was dead when the fire
20 started.
21 "In short, the toxicology is inconclusive and
22 therefore non informative about whether Mr Andanson was
23 alive or dead when the fire started."
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is all in the last words,
25 isn't it?

127

1 MR HOUGH: So those experts would say.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, members of the jury, you
3 are probably rather relieved having heard all that that
4 Mr Andanson's death is one removed from the deaths into
5 which we are inquiring, but there we are. That is all
6 as far as the jury is concerned this afternoon.
7 MR HOUGH: I am afraid they don't have to hear any more
8 statements from me, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, I have some
10 matters to deal with the counsel in relation to possible
11 outstanding witnesses which needs to be cleared up, but
12 we don't need to keep you for that. Resume again on
13 Monday next week. We will be sitting Monday, Tuesday,
14 Wednesday, Thursday next week, not Friday. The main
15 thrust of the evidence next week is going to be
16 introducing the paparazzi evidence but it will be an
17 awful lot of reading, so I am afraid it may be not
18 the easiest week, but it has to be done because
19 we cannot get the paparazzi here themselves.
20 So, see you on Monday at half past 9.
21 (Jury out)
22 Discussion re further evidence
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, in dealing with
24 the matters that we are about to deal with, it seems to
25 me that the appropriate course is to make a contempt of

128

1 court order that there should be no publication of
2 the argument that is put before me in the period about
3 to follow, but that that should extend until the jury
4 has returned its verdict. But my decision at the end of
5 the argument should be a matter that should be open to
6 publication and I think probably with the reasons for
7 it, if I am minded to give any reasons of any
8 consequence, which I would suspect I might in certain
9 instances.
10 MR BURNETT: Yes, well, sir, as everyone who is about to
11 address you knows, we are concerned with questions of
12 whether certain further witnesses should be called and
13 certain further inquiries be made and, in our
14 submission, it would be appropriate for a postponing
15 order of the sort you have identified because
16 inevitably, it will be necessary for those making
17 submissions to refer to evidence and essentially deploy
18 arguments which it would be inappropriate for the jury
19 to encounter in any form.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It may not be very far removed in
21 some instances from the kind of submissions that
22 we would have at the end anyway.
23 MR BURNETT: Certainly sir, so we would support that
24 approach. As to any ruling you make, sir, that is
25 a different matter and you will no doubt look at it when

129

1 you have made such rulings as you do.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, Mr Mansfield, do you take
3 the same view, or do you want to try to persuade me
4 otherwise or what?
5 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, yes, in principle. The only concern
6 might be if a ruling had reasons attached which --
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I had wondered about that, yes.
8 MR MANSFIELD: -- might at this stage pre-empt further
9 submission, that is all.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 MR MANSFIELD: I do know what reasons there could be --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, if you are happy with
13 regard to all the witnesses with decisions and no
14 reasons --
15 MR MANSFIELD: No reasons at this stage.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: -- at this stage.
17 MR MANSFIELD: And it may be that a later stage is not too
18 far down the line. For example, anticipating that
19 the evidence does conclude before the Easter break and
20 that will there will be an opportunity that you are
21 contemplating at that stage for an address from us,
22 short though it may be, it may be at that point, if you
23 felt inclined, reasons could be published then.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. I am not minded anyway to
25 give very detailed reasons, even on submissions at that

130

1 stage, because I think the time would be better spent in
2 preparing the summing-up rather than going into a lot of
3 reasons.
4 MR MANSFIELD: No, I do follow that. I am just suggesting
5 that that might be at a later appropriate time for
6 reasons to be given. Otherwise, for my part, I merely
7 ask that the decision be given.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The decision would certainly be
9 given in open court.
10 Mr Keen?
11 MR KEEN: Sir, I am essentially neutral on the issue of
12 further evidence and further witnesses. My only
13 observation, and I hope it is not out of place, would be
14 that if there is to be a decision, then strictly there
15 must be reasons for that decision and there is
16 the theoretical possibly that a party might, for
17 example, seek review of a decision and then reasons
18 would have to be available.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
20 MR KEEN: I merely raise that point because going forward,
21 it might not be entirely satisfactory if there was
22 merely a bald decision and no reasoning with it. In
23 saying that, I do not seek to imply that I am already
24 contemplating an application for judicial review.
25 I would rather wait for your decision and then seek to

131

1 review it.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
3 MR MANSFIELD: Could I just clarify one thing? I am not
4 suggesting that there should not be reasons, but they
5 should not be published.
6 MR CROXFORD: I was going to say exactly that, with respect.
7 There should be reasons but that your Contempt of Court
8 Act order should extend until after the jury have
9 delivered their verdict.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. The only difficulty is that
11 giving reasons to those who are here and restricting
12 their publication is I think going to place
13 a considerably difficult burden on the press in case of
14 this kind.
15 MR CROXFORD: I venture no observation about whether it is
16 difficult or not, sir, but the primary concern must be
17 the effect upon the jury and the due discharge and --
18 I am pushing at an open door, I know, here.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Of course.
20 MR CROXFORD: One would expect reasons in this day and age,
21 with the greatest respect, it may well be that giving
22 your reasons now may assist all those who are
23 participating in the inquest to further refine
24 the documents which you already know are all underway,
25 insofar as there is any cross-fertilisation and we are

132

1 talking about a very short period of time when no doubt
2 there are lots of other things that the press can
3 report.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
5 MR HORWELL: Decision only should be published in our
6 submission.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, and given at this stage?
8 MR HORWELL: Yes.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But no reasons given?
10 MR HORWELL: Sir, there must be reasons, for arguments ...
11 sir, there must be reasons for the arguments advanced
12 but it cannot be right, especially as we are so near to
13 the retirement of the jury for those reasons to be given
14 and published.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, once they are given, there
16 is a danger, particularly in this case, that they will
17 be published because we are concerned not just with
18 the responsible media that we have here, but there is
19 foreign media and there is a risk of it coming back
20 round the world, isn't there?
21 MR HORWELL: I appreciate that. But whatever may happen
22 outside this jurisdiction, at least you can control what
23 happens within it.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Up to a point.
25 MR HOUGH: Yes. I am only adding to what has been said; in

133

1 our submission, it should be decision only that be
2 published.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett?
4 MR BURNETT: That is rather what I was hinting at, when
5 I suggest that had we might need to revisit that when we
6 know your decision on the controversial points and
7 the bare bones reasoning for it.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well now, can we deal with --
9 I think probably the best starting point with regard to
10 further evidence at this stage is the Metropolitan
11 Police's email.
12 If I can take the witnesses one by one and see if
13 there is any area of dispute, if we start with Dr Melo,
14 I think the position there is that her evidence ought to
15 be read if we are unable to secure her attendance, which
16 we are still trying to do, but there are increasing
17 indications that we may have difficulty getting her.
18 MR BURNETT: Sir, that would be our submission. I am not
19 frankly certain at this stage whether her evidence would
20 be capable as being read as uncontroversial under
21 Rule 37 or whether it would be necessary technically to
22 introduce it as hearsay.
23 If it needed to come in as hearsay, we are hoping to
24 hear from Vincent Delbreilh at some stage next week.
25 And he could do that.

134

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is really a matter of
2 the report; we are having difficulty getting hold of
3 Dr Melo. She is on holiday at the moment. She has not
4 been answering any of our requests to tell us whether
5 she is prepared to give evidence. The French
6 authorities have been unable to serve an effective
7 summons.
8 MR MANSFIELD: I was going to make a preparatory remark. We
9 have not had the email, I am afraid.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: From the Metropolitan Police?
11 MR HORWELL: It is the problem that is so often experienced,
12 it went at 12 minutes past 6. I will just find out if
13 it went to all interested persons as well as the court.
14 MR CROXFORD: Last night?
15 MR BURNETT: Sir, I think Mr Smith may have forwarded
16 the email last night but there is nothing terribly
17 mysterious about it --
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. They are all pretty
19 straightforward.
20 MR BURNETT: Sir, would it help if I whizzed through them,
21 indicating what our view at least would be in submission
22 to you.
23 The first is Dr Melo who you have dealt with.
24 The second is Keith Brown and the Met suggest his
25 statement should be read in order to ensure that there

135

1 is formal identification of Dodi Al Fayed's body.
2 Sir, that is a precaution which is wise to take.
3 That would be Rule 37.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
5 MR BURNETT: Ditto Dr Peter Wheeler to ensure formal
6 identification of the body of the Princess of Wales.
7 The fourth witness they mention is Mr Delbreilh who
8 is in any event coming, we hope next week. So that is
9 covered.
10 The fifth is Adrian Grater and the note in the email
11 is simply this:
12 "His statement dated 21st February 2008 should be
13 read as he interviewed a variety of witnesses who
14 corroborate Kelly Fisher's account of her engagement."
15 Sir, whether that is necessary is really a matter
16 that you can reflect upon. But it is a short statement.
17 The next is Mr Mules and the note was:
18 "We would ask that a few parts of his statements be
19 read which we will identify as we now do not have
20 the ability to cross-examine him."
21 In principle, if there is material evidence that
22 that officer would have given which we are now going to
23 be deprived of, then it can be introduced as hearsay.
24 The next was Assistant Chief Constable Gargan who
25 has provided some answers to the questions he was asked

136

1 following his attendance here and that we would submit
2 should be read via the hearsay route.
3 Next is Frederic Lucard. Everyone will know that
4 the inquest Secretariat has continued in its attempts to
5 try to find him and to secure his attendance. One has
6 to realistically recognise that that is becoming
7 increasingly unlikely and in those circumstances,
8 we would submit that his evidence should be introduced
9 via the hearsay route.
10 There are then two witnesses, Christophe Lascaux and
11 Alain Remy, Christophe Lascaux has also been asked by
12 Barlow Lyde and Gilbert on behalf of the Ritz.
13 Alain Remy is one of those witnesses we had hoped to
14 appear in November but did not show up. Both of those
15 we submit should be introduced via the hearsay route.
16 Then the Met suggest that four witnesses should be
17 read who provide supporting evidence that Mr Andanson's
18 death was suicide; those are Franck Doveri, Sophie
19 Deniau, Christian Maillard and Jean-Gabriel Barthelemy.
20 Our submission on those would be that you have
21 chosen to introduce evidence from the dossier --
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will finish up with a complete
23 inquiry into Mr Evans --
24 MR BURNETT: Yes, via --
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It does not need a lot of

137

1 imagination to see what Mr Mansfield would want.
2 MR BURNETT: Sir, we would respectfully suggest that if
3 the reading of the four of those would lead to a request
4 of the reading of six more which it is inevitably going
5 to, the points have been adequately covered and there is
6 no need for that to come in.
7 Next is Barbara Broccoli in respect of whom we were
8 provided a statement about a week ago. The inquest
9 teams have been in touch with Miss Broccoli, I think
10 yesterday, to seek some further information and once
11 that is to hand, it is likely that we at least would be
12 suggesting that her evidence should be introduced via
13 the hearsay route.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, and I do make the point here
15 that it is not very helpful to be presented with
16 a statement by one of the interested persons in
17 circumstances such as this. It would be much better if
18 we were told about the witness and then had
19 the opportunity of taking the statement ourselves from
20 the witness, because the difficulty is we get
21 the information that much later in the day and then
22 there are problems in tracking down the witness and
23 speaking to her.
24 MR BURNETT: Yes, sir. We would endorse that, particularly
25 as we are coming to the end of the inquest process. If

138

1 new witnesses come out of the woodwork, it would be much
2 better, we would respectfully submit, that interested
3 persons who get knowledge of those witnesses pass their
4 particulars immediately to Mr Smith so that he, on your
5 behalf, can make inquiries but he has in any event been
6 making inquiries of Miss Broccoli who is in a jungle in
7 Central America and who will not be able to give
8 evidence by videolink and so such evidence as comes from
9 her will have to be via the hearsay route.
10 Last on the Met list was Della Davis who needs no
11 introduction. Our respectful submission would be that
12 Mrs Davis' evidence which supports that of her husband,
13 as you may remember, can adequately be introduced via
14 the hearsay route rather than troubling her to come all
15 the way from North Wales, only for her to give her
16 evidence and very little to be asked of her.
17 So those are the Met witnesses so far as we are
18 aware of them.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We might as well deal with
20 the other witnesses who have been mentioned. Gamblin
21 has already been read now?
22 MR BURNETT: Yes, he has now.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And then there is Hewitt who is
24 sought I think by Mr Al Fayed.
25 MR BURNETT: Yes.

139

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I should mention that having been
2 contacted by Mr Roulet indicating that there is further
3 evidence that he would be able to give the inquest that
4 he had overlooked, which are also effects and we need
5 the comments of Dourneau and Musa, they have now been
6 seen and signed statements have been obtained from them.
7 They I think are in Paris at the moment and it will be
8 necessary to call all three of those witnesses before
9 the end of the inquest to deal with the additional
10 matter. The statements, if they have not already been
11 disclosed by email will be in the course of this
12 afternoon, two of them have only just been signed and
13 I think the plan is that we know Mr Roulet's only date
14 is Monday week. Mr Musa can do that date. Mr Dourneau
15 is apparently on holiday so there may be problems about
16 having his evidence in person. But that can be
17 explored.
18 MR BURNETT: So far as the others are concerned -- if I say
19 the others, other than two that we will have a debate
20 about, Mr Hewitt we have indicated. Sir, our respectful
21 submission in respect of Mr Hewitt is that such evidence
22 as he can give which goes to what he describes as some
23 threats, if one puts it at its highest, made to him
24 a long time ago when he was having a relationship with
25 the Princess of Wales are so far removed from

140

1 the circumstances of the crash to suggest that it would
2 really not be a useful exercise to call him and we have
3 of course heard from Mr Hasnat Khan, who has given
4 evidence of unpleasant communications to him arising in
5 similar circumstances.
6 So, our submission, sir, would be that it is
7 a matter for you of course, but it would not be
8 inappropriate to conclude that it was inexpedient to
9 call him.
10 Sir, we have also had a request that a witness
11 called Maraire(?) be read I have to say I have
12 completely forgotten what he says, even though I know I
13 was told only a day or two ago.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It does not ring a bell with me.
15 MR MANSFIELD: It is a telephone bell. I put this, or at
16 least the essence of it, to earlier witnesses from
17 France. He telephoned Henri Paul on the day, that is
18 the Saturday, twice, leaving a message for a meeting for
19 dinner and when he did not get a message, he rang again
20 in the evening at about the appointed hour. He says a
21 little bit more because he knows Henri Paul quite well,
22 but that is what it is about.
23 MR BURNETT: I am grateful. Mr Mansfield did in fact
24 explain that to me only two days ago, but I confess it
25 had completely slipped my mind. But sir, that evidence

141

1 we submit can readily be introduced by the hearsay
2 route. It may even be uncontroversial.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
4 MR BURNETT: There is then an email that has been given to
5 me which has come from Mr Benson at 3 o'clock, which
6 raises some other issues.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does this deal with witnesses?
8 We asked for this yesterday, at the latest by yesterday
9 evening.
10 MR BURNETT: Sir, I think I am in a position to deal with
11 it. The first are Le Maire and Le Tellier and the note
12 is:
13 "I trust that successful contact with both of these
14 witnesses has been achieved by your office and
15 arrangements for them to give evidence by videolink have
16 been made."
17 I believe the answer to that is yes. Attempts have
18 been made --
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have had some difficulty with
20 reluctance.
21 MR BURNETT: If it is impossible to secure their attendance
22 via videolink, their evidence will have to be introduced
23 via the hearsay route.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
25 MR BURNETT: Mr Benson then alludes to a potential witness

142

1 who was drawn to his attention and in turn to ours,
2 which is in hand, is as much as I can say at this stage.
3 There is then a mention of a witness called
4 Jean-Pierre Alidiere who is another barman at the Ritz
5 whose evidence could certainly be read as hearsay and
6 the last is Sandra Coudlot who was Henri Paul's cleaner
7 and gives some evidence in her statement about
8 the bottles that might usually be in his flat. Again,
9 that is evidence which you might feel could be
10 introduced via the hearsay route. It is unrealistic to
11 suppose that in the time left we are going to secure
12 their attendance by videolink.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that likely to be disputed?
14 MR BURNETT: Sir, yes, it is disputed because it does not
15 tie up entirely with the evidence that we have already
16 had from M Garrec.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
18 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I have been discussing, particularly with
19 Mr Hough, over the past two or three weeks the question
20 of Mr Le Van Thanh. Quite apart from the fact that
21 I understand a witness statement was recently taken from
22 him, I do not know whether it has been signed off or
23 not, we certainly have not seen it --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I have not seen it.
25 MR CROXFORD: The Metropolitan Police were there a month ago

143

1 taking the statement with the French police. There are
2 a couple of witnesses associated with Van Thanh that
3 Mr Hough and I condescended to detail with. I do not
4 think it is controversial. It is an Officer Dumas, if
5 I remember rightly and I want to say, a Mr Pencil but I
6 know that is not the right name, Mr Hough knows very
7 well who I refer to, the officer that investigated
8 Mr Le Van Thanh at the time. Mr Pencil, I will use
9 the name for clarity, was the man who gave some evidence
10 about the repainting of the car contemporaneously with
11 the --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I wait with interest to see what
13 is in Mr Van Thanh's statement, but I am somewhat
14 sceptical whether it is going to take the inquest any
15 further.
16 MR CROXFORD: In light of the non-controversial scientific
17 conclusions in respect of his car, the unfortunate
18 feature, of course and I am not casting brickbats, was
19 that his photograph was put up with the impressive dog
20 at the time when the scientific evidence clearly showed
21 what it showed and the material investigations by the
22 French authorities showed why they had excluded him.
23 It is just a question of completing the picture.
24 MR HOUGH: I think the intention has been to introduce
25 the evidence of all the inquiries, French and English,

144

1 in relation to Mr Le Van Thanh through the medium of
2 Detective Sergeant Easton who was involved in those
3 inquiries. It has recently come to our attention that
4 some inquiries have been undertaken very recently but
5 those are yet to be put into statement form because of
6 having to deal with liaison authorities and once they
7 are, the final statement of Mr Easton will be put
8 together and provided as soon as it is available.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are going to need it pretty
10 soon. We only have very few more days.
11 MR HOUGH: I agree and as I understand it, the French
12 authorities are being pressed. If the material cannot
13 be made available, then simply all the inquiries which
14 have been carried out will be put forward in evidence by
15 Mr Easton.
16 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I do not imagine that is intended to be
17 excluding the contemporaneous material of investigation,
18 that is Dumas and the man I have called Pencil but
19 Mr Hough knows broadly who I have in mind.
20 MR HOUGH: I agree the draft statement we have worked on
21 does include the French investigations and Mr Papic(?)
22 AKA Pencil.
23 MR CROXFORD: I was close.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Can we go down this list of
25 witnesses and see if we can pick them off one by one as

145

1 it were.
2 Dr Melo? Any observations about that? We will
3 introduce her evidence by the hearsay route if we cannot
4 get her. Any objections?
5 Keith Brown and Dr Wheeler? I imagine nobody wants
6 to say anything about them.
7 Delbreilh, with regard to the prescriptions?
8 Sergeant Grater, I am not exactly clear what
9 evidence is sought here.
10 MR HORWELL: It is the inquiries that were made some time
11 ago to confirm Kelly Fisher's evidence of engagement
12 party. I have not looked at it for some time. It is
13 certainly engagement and/or wedding. We would submit
14 there has been quite an imbalance of evidence after
15 Kelly Fisher gave her evidence as to the status of their
16 relationship. And we suggest that this has become
17 relevant evidence.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is pretty far removed really
19 whether she was engaged or was not engaged.
20 MR HORWELL: Sir, I agree, but we have heard nonetheless,
21 however far removed that may be, we have heard evidence
22 from other witnesses who have given a contrary
23 indication. And this is a statement which will take but
24 minutes to read, but it is confirmation from witnesses
25 in the United States of America to the evidence of that

146

1 relationship that Kelly Fisher gave.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anybody object?
3 MR MANSFIELD: It is difficult to know how to deal with this
4 because it is one thing for witnesses to come here and
5 give evidence about it and be asked about the conditions
6 or circumstances. It is quite another for somebody to
7 say, well, we made a lot of inquiries some months ago or
8 even a year ago, these are the people we inquired of and
9 this is what they said and they are not subject to any
10 cross-examination.
11 If my learned friend feels it is relevant, then
12 the question really ought to be the attendance of those
13 witnesses, or it is peripheral because it is dealing
14 with a party that is said to have taken place,
15 I believe, the year before, it is 1996.
16 Therefore we would submit that if there are key
17 witnesses to be given on that topic, they should be
18 here, rather than dealt with in this way.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think it is peripheral, really.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: Sir, it is unrealistic to suppose at this stage
22 unless we were for the sake of these witnesses to have
23 a separate day which may well take us beyond Easter,
24 it is unrealistic to suppose their attendance can be
25 secured either here or --

147

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a fairly marginal issue
2 here.
3 MR BURNETT: It is. I am conscious of fact that for a short
4 period, many, many weeks ago, it was an issue that
5 generated a great deal of excitement.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have the tape.
7 MR BURNETT: It is a very peripheral issue in the overall
8 question of how these two people came by their deaths.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think we will not have any more
10 evidence there.
11 Then the next one is Mules. I think we obviously
12 need to identify the parts of his statement.
13 MR HORWELL: Sir, I simply have not had time. They are very
14 few but I will on Monday. They are passages I would
15 have put to him had I had the opportunity to
16 cross-examine him.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anybody have anything to say
18 there?
19 MR KEEN: There may be further passages --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You had better have a look as
21 well.
22 MR KEEN: I simply put up the marker that we will also
23 address that.
24 MR CROXFORD: He will affect some of the paparazzi, he will
25 affect one or two other bits and pieces but that will be

148

1 dealt with at the bar, sir. I do not think it is
2 a question of talking to him.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Gargan there is no problem about,
4 because that is simply answering questions that have
5 been raised.
6 Lucard?
7 MR KEEN: I think just one observation on that, sir.
8 Lucard's evidence falls into two parts. He was what was
9 termed the car jockey who brought the Mercedes round to
10 the Rue Cambon and he speaks to doing that and to
11 the car taking off. Not a problem --
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And there is something about "you
13 won't catch me" as well, or something like that?
14 MR KEEN: He speaks to that but there is a second part at
15 the end of statement where he is attributed to having
16 heard certain comments by Tendil and it does seem to me
17 to be a little difficult to see how as a matter of
18 expediency it would be appropriate to adduce hearsay
19 evidence of what Lucard said he heard from Tendil when
20 nobody sought to ask Tendil when he was in the witness
21 box whether he said what was attributed to him. At the
22 end of the day it is a matter of expediency, I suppose,
23 because of course one could get over that by recalling
24 Tendil and then going back through it, but I wonder
25 whether anyone considers it is a matter of materiality

149

1 such as to be --
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We think we have found him now,
3 but the problem is persuading him to come to give
4 evidence.
5 MR KEEN: I am happy that he comes and gives evidence, sir.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will get him if we can, we
7 would like to, but we are doubtful whether that will be
8 achievable. Can we leave this over until the time comes
9 to read his evidence?
10 MR KEEN: I am content to do that, sir, I am just concerned
11 about hearsay of hearsay when the matter was not put to
12 the actual source of the statement.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will look into that.
14 Lascaux and Remy. Hearsay route, very well.
15 Della Davis. I think there was an issue as to
16 whether her evidence could be read or whether she ought
17 to be called.
18 MR HORWELL: As you understand, sir, it is evidence
19 we cannot accept. We do submit that this is now so
20 peripheral in terms of the issues this jury have to
21 consider.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I do not think Mr Mansfield would
23 agree with that.
24 MR HORWELL: I am sure he would not. But if every time
25 a witness said: I told my wife or: I told my husband

150

1 we then go to the spouse concerned, we would still be on
2 the first stage of these inquests.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Why can't it be read as
4 uncontroversial?
5 MR HORWELL: It is an extraordinary act of remembrance of
6 a telephone conversation ten years ago.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: She had better come then.
8 Does anybody else want to have any input?
9 Barbara Broccoli, we are working on that at the
10 moment.
11 Hewitt? Mr Mansfield?
12 MR MANSFIELD: I was really reserving oral submissions for
13 the two other matters I have. I am not going to take up
14 your time --
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I really think Hewitt falls into
16 the same "fallen away" category as the Kelly Fisher
17 engagement.
18 MR MANSFIELD: I accept that.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much. I do not
20 suppose anybody wants to say anything about Roulet,
21 Dourneau and Musa until they have seen what their
22 statements say.
23 And then Mr Horwell, do you want to push Doveri,
24 Denaiu, Maillard and Barthelemy?
25 MR HORWELL: Sir, having heard your comments, I respectfully

151

1 agree and so I will withdraw those from the list.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Have we covered Maraire?
3 MR BURNETT: I think everybody is content on that front.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That gets us back to what we are
5 really here about.
6 MR BURNETT: Sir, would you reiterate that certainly from
7 now on there is a Contempt of Court Act order in place
8 postponing reporting of what follows until after
9 the jury have given their verdict.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Indeed, yes.
11 Submissions by MR MANSFIELD
12 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I think, beginning, if I may, going back
13 to the question of reasons. I think there will
14 obviously have to be reasons and they will have to be
15 available, in my submission, not published.
16 If the concern is obviously lack of control over
17 what may happen beyond these shores, certainly it is not
18 unknown obviously for those reasons to be made available
19 to those representing the interested parties with
20 the usual undertakings. That is the only qualification
21 that I would make as a further suggestion.
22 Sir, with regard therefore to the two remaining
23 matters, we have set the matters out very clearly in
24 letters and correspondence. I am going to avoid
25 repeating the material that is in the letters but

152

1 I would like a moment and we are obliged to you for
2 allowing a moment orally just to develop them. So that
3 it is clear, the two matters are that the Duke of
4 Edinburgh you should consider or reconsider him being
5 called as a witness in the case and in relation to Her
6 Majesty the Queen, that various inquiries, not very
7 many, should at this stage be made of her and I will
8 itemise those in a moment.
9 Sir, may I deal with the position as far as the Duke
10 of Edinburgh is concerned first?
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
12 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, the way I would seek to develop it is
13 this. I will do it in brief form and I do not wish to
14 pre-empt, obviously, the submissions that are coming
15 from all parties, still less of course your own
16 summing-up but needless to say, what I am about to say
17 has a bearing on all of that.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
19 MR MANSFIELD: The starting point is this that at the end --
20 and I am sorry to go back all these months. I am not
21 going to read too much out, but I merely give references
22 so you may see where it is and you may in fact remember
23 in any event, because it was your opening that I have
24 gleaned various matters from. It was on 3rd October,
25 all those months ago, on page 82. Having reviewed

153

1 a large number of matters over a day and a half you
2 said:
3 "At the end of it all you will be faced with
4 the overriding question of whether what happened was
5 anything more than a tragic road accident."
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
7 MR MANSFIELD: I start with that because plainly that is
8 a matter that the jury will still have to consider.
9 It is not resolved at this stage, despite
10 the correspondence that has been proffered on behalf of
11 the Metropolitan Police and therefore, that is the first
12 stopping point.
13 If the jury, in approaching it, are not on the usual
14 balance of probabilities sure about that, then they
15 obviously do have to -- and no doubt you will be
16 directing them with regard to the other possibilities
17 that are open to them -- consider what they are.
18 And as you also pointed out on another page earlier
19 to that one, of course those possibilities are not
20 limited to the possibilities that are based on
21 the beliefs of the person, namely the interested person
22 that I represent, Mohamed Al Fayed.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Of course.
24 MR MANSFIELD: And therefore, there will be a number or
25 a gradation of possibilities that follow from that.

154

1 Now, with regard to the primary objective, asking
2 for the Duke of Edinburgh to be considered as a witness,
3 that goes right back, if I may say so, to the beginning
4 in a way of or origin/source of Mohamed Al Fayed's
5 assertions and belief which stem from Princess Diana's
6 own fears.
7 You indicated very clearly to the jury -- it is
8 page 79 -- you did not indicate all of the issues that
9 you had distilled on a previous hearing, but you did
10 list a number. And we concur with the issues that you
11 distilled. The first one was: Diana's fears for her
12 life. And you came back to that on page 99 in this way:
13 "There is no doubt that Diana expressed fears from
14 time to time about her personal safety, including
15 the possibility of a staged car accident. Expression of
16 these fears goes back in time long before any
17 relationship with Dodi. You will have to consider
18 the extent and context of these fears and whether they
19 are relevant to a conspiracy to murder her."
20 And you go on to indicate that careful examination
21 will be required.
22 The reason I start with those is this: those are
23 general fears but in fact, historically speaking,
24 the fears were not just expressed in particular terms in
25 documents in 1995. As you will recall -- and there has

155

1 been a reference, I can forgive all the references if
2 you need them -- is that in the year 1995 and 1996 -- in
3 other words, in the summer of the year before she
4 died -- similar fears for her safety were being
5 expressed to other people, long before they were
6 expressed to Mohamed Al Fayed.
7 The obvious witness with regard to this is
8 Roberto Devorik, who came late one afternoon.
9 I appreciate it will be a matter for the jury in the
10 light of your observation, she made very clear to him
11 that her fears were in fact linked to the Duke of
12 Edinburgh. She said it in 1995 and she repeated similar
13 fears on a flight to Rome in June 1996.
14 Now, I appreciate that the witness, Devorik, may
15 have viewed them with less seriousness than she did, but
16 they are of interest because she is indicating that she
17 is regarded by the Royal Family as a threat. And there
18 was a very important passage where Mr Devorik said that
19 she feared being blown up in a helicopter, a car or
20 "a thing like this", meaning a small private aircraft,
21 and obviously he found that difficult to accept, and she
22 said:
23 "Roberto, you are so naive, don't you see, they took
24 my HRH title, now they are going slowly to take my kids"
25 and he asked why they are "going to kill you."

156

1 Diana replied, "They don't want to understand me,
2 I am a threat in their eyes. They only use me when they
3 ask me for official functions and then drop me again in
4 the darkness. They are not going to kill me by
5 poisoning me or in a big plane where others will get
6 hurt, they will either do it when I am on a small plane,
7 in a car, when I am driving or in a helicopter".
8 Those are clearly remembered words. It will be for
9 the jury to assess why in 1996 she is saying that.
10 Now, without reading the further passages, similar
11 sentiments are spoken to Mohamed Al Fayed. He has given
12 evidence to you that in the summer he was told a very
13 similar thing. So, in fact, this is not just about what
14 Mohamed Al Fayed may believe; it in fact has a train of
15 thought that goes back to at least 1995 and possibly
16 before that. But certainly in document form we have it
17 in 1995 in the Burrell note, in the Mishcon note which
18 you know about.
19 The reason why we say this is important is of course
20 if the jury are going to examine it, they will want to
21 consider whether there is a connection between what
22 happened -- and obviously I am not developing that at
23 the moment, the features of what happened in
24 the tunnel -- and her perceptions, since she is
25 obviously within the Royal Family and Mohamed is not, as

157

1 to what was being said.
2 It did not stop with Mohamed Al Fayed. Very
3 recently, another witness from the United States of
4 America indicated that she had been told similar things
5 by Dodi over the telephone. That was Melissa Henning.
6 So therefore, it comes right up to the doors as it
7 were, of the tunnel; these sentiments are being
8 consistently expressed.
9 Now, it is linked to something else that
10 Mohamed Al Fayed also said and in both of these cases --
11 and I appreciate this is not a trial and therefore,
12 the fact that things are not challenged may not have
13 the same meaning as they do in an ordinary case where
14 one expects things to be put and challenged and so
15 forth. So, I accept it is not necessarily to be read
16 too largely that it was not challenged but nevertheless,
17 he also indicated this.
18 May I just read this passage:
19 "Princess Diana told me that she had proof that her
20 life was in danger and that she kept it in a wooden box
21 with her initials on the top of the box that
22 Paul Burrell knew about. She told me that if she was
23 ever killed or anything happened to her, I must make
24 sure that the contents of this box" --
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Where was this, can you remind

158

1 me?
2 MR MANSFIELD: Certainly. It was on 18th February this year
3 and the reference is page 5 lines 8 to 13.
4 In fact, there is a further reference that he makes
5 to Lady Sarah McCorquodale who later that week, in
6 the week following the crash, as she agreed she did,
7 went to collect the items that had been brought back and
8 he says there was a remark made to her by him about
9 finding the box and keeping it safe.
10 So, there is, as it were, a link between these two
11 items. Of course, the box, I do not perhaps need to
12 elaborate because you remember the significance, whether
13 it is in or out of a lift, whether it is the right box
14 is still very difficult to ascertain.
15 But plainly there were a number of things at one
16 stage in a box. There is a real issue between obviously
17 the police officer himself, Mr Milburn, and Lady Sarah
18 McCorquodale as to whether the Duke of Edinburgh's
19 letters were amongst them and there is a big difference
20 between Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Paul Burrell over
21 that issue.
22 So, although I think at the moment it has not been
23 rounded out or bottomed out, it seems that still all
24 trace of whatever was put in that box has gone. All of
25 it.

159

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, the original of the Duke's
2 letters, we don't know where they are.
3 MR MANSFIELD: We don't know where they are.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Whether they were any others --
5 MR MANSFIELD: That is the next problem. The reason
6 we submit bearing that train of thought the way I have
7 put it is relevant to the jury's consideration, that
8 really the only person that can actually deal with these
9 issues, namely the perception that Diana had with
10 regard, as expressed through witnesses vis a vis
11 the Duke and in other words, the perception needs to be
12 dealt with. But also the existence of letters.
13 May I put it in short form?
14 It is inconceivable, that would be our submission,
15 that having got married in 1981 to Prince Charles and
16 dying in 1997 that Prince Philip only wrote a small
17 number of letters in 1992.
18 Therefore we say there must be letters from an
19 earlier period and, because one of the letters is
20 actually saying in 1992 there are limited points of
21 contact, that is why Prince Philip is writing it, there
22 must have been letters thereafter.
23 If one then sets it against the background, if I may
24 just summarise it, the background between 1992 and 1997
25 for the Royal Family, if you remember, as was confirmed

160

1 ultimately, November 1992 became annus horribilis, not
2 entirely due to Diana, obviously. But there is a
3 sequence of events that begins with the Morton book, the
4 denial of participating in the Morton book. That is in
5 June. Then in August have you the Squidgygate, the
6 Diana tapes. Then you have the proposed separation, as
7 it were, coming thereafter and of course, the key point
8 which comes two years or three years later in 1995 in
9 November is the Bashir interview.
10 Now, the Bashir interview has been alluded to on
11 a number of occasions where witnesses have obviously
12 seen it and what is very clear in the Bashir interview
13 is that it is a precursor of the very same words that
14 I have read out in relation to Devorik.
15 In other words, she is seen as a threat, a strong
16 woman who is going to resist, not go away and you may
17 recall that various witnesses at various times in
18 the case have observed what effect these things had upon
19 the Royal Family.
20 So for example Commander Jephson, who clearly was
21 very closely connected with these events, said of the
22 Morton book and the expose thereafter was that the Royal
23 Family and those surrounding them were mortally offended
24 by that book and that is only at the start.
25 Mr Burrell, for what it is worth, is indicating that

161

1 they were bristling with hostility about that book and
2 that is before one gets to the exposure in the Diana
3 gate or Squidgygate tapes, before one ever gets to
4 the Bashir interview.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have to get back to the tunnel
6 in 1997 and the problem is that there is absolutely
7 nothing to connect the Duke of Edinburgh with the events
8 in the tunnel. It has been sought to do it through MI6
9 but the difficulty with that is that has all rather
10 melted away, has it not, with the MI6 evidence?
11 MR MANSFIELD: Well, if I may say, it may take a different
12 form, but it has not melted away.
13 May I put it in this form. As you yourself said in
14 our opening, there will be issues that arise and issues
15 that drop away as the inquest goes on because it is an
16 inquiry rather than a trial. The way in which we put
17 the position as far as the Duke of Edinburgh is
18 concerned is in this way. That is why I began with: is
19 it anything more than an accident?
20 Now, if the jury are considering whether it is
21 anything more than an accident because of features which
22 we will have to adumbrate in the later submissions to
23 you as to why we suggest that it is --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You see, unlawful killing which
25 is the verdict that you are focusing on at the moment,

162

1 isn't it --
2 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: -- is one thing but unlawful
4 killing to which the Duke of Edinburgh was a party is
5 another. It is one stage further down the line and
6 the problem is that without going into all the issues
7 that might arise with regard to unlawful killing, my
8 problem is how you attach Prince Philip to this
9 conspiracy?
10 MR MANSFIELD: May I now attach it, if I can?
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
12 MR MANSFIELD: It is in this way. One of the possibilities
13 here, and we say there is plenty of material to support
14 it, obviously the question of the Duke directing or
15 giving an order, I accept, there is no direct evidence
16 that he did that.
17 But on the other hand if the jury feel this there
18 was -- and we would submit and this is a word I used to
19 various witnesses -- a "serious climate of hostility",
20 not just dislike but a serious climate of hostility such
21 that the Duke of Edinburgh is contributing to that
22 climate of hostility and of course, the inquest is not
23 entitled to point fingers in any event.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
25 MR MANSFIELD: In any event, the jury is not allowed to say

163

1 it is X, Y and Z --
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But I think the test for
3 the witness is necessary or expedient.
4 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, and we would suggest that it is
5 necessary and expedient with regard to certainly
6 allaying fears, rumours and so forth that you have
7 mentioned on many occasions but in particular, part of
8 the matrix of the background in particular contribution
9 to a hostile environment such that there are those
10 within the Establishment, which has been the word used
11 by Mohamed Al Fayed, who have very strong animosity
12 towards what was culminating in August and ultimately in
13 the tunnel; namely a woman who has threatened
14 the monarchy.
15 You will remember that she had a meeting that was
16 not publicised with -- he was not Prime Minister then
17 but Prime Minister in waiting, Tony Blair, in the very
18 year that he took office.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Hardly a meeting, it was a social
20 occasion.
21 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, a social occasion but various issues
22 were discussed on a more formal level. One of them was
23 in fact the threat that she posed to the monarchy.
24 I think it now may be difficult to remember as I put to
25 a number of witnesses just how much threat she posed at

164

1 that time. Now, if the jury consider that she did pose
2 a threat, and she then conjoins in a family also seen
3 undoubtedly in some quarters to pose a threat and I do
4 not need perhaps to go through the -- this is why
5 the Davis conversation is of some importance and
6 the files that do exist in relation to Mohamed Al Fayed
7 is of some importance; it is for the jury to consider
8 whether these are factors which suggest without knowing
9 on the outside who exactly did what when, but if there
10 is in fact sufficient hostility here at a very high
11 level and undoubtedly there is the -- I think it is in
12 the statement by Mohamed Al Fayed and Mr Burnett
13 referred to it when he took, as it were, in chief
14 Mohamed Al Fayed through his evidence, there is
15 the article ironically published on the very day of
16 the crash in The Sunday Mirror, August 31st.
17 That is in his statement, he has read it. Not all
18 of it is right, but some of it is. But what is said in
19 there and what the quotation is I appreciate of course,
20 Palace sources, what does this mean?
21 But there is a very descriptive two columns on the
22 attitude particularly of the Duke of Edinburgh towards
23 this relationship. And towards --
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is a newspaper article.
25 MR MANSFIELD: It is, but we would submit it reflects

165

1 precisely the strain I have been going through, namely
2 what she was saying about the Duke of Edinburgh to some
3 people and why she had fears and of course her actual
4 activities, whether it is the book, the tape,
5 the interviews and whether of course -- and after
6 the interview with Martin Bashir, the divorce was
7 virtually announced within a month of that and we are
8 then into 1996 and then there is the other strain of
9 thought here, is a woman who is becoming politicised,
10 with a small P, and taking a very active role in
11 relation to matters which no doubt the Royal Family
12 commonly are thought not to participate in. And I do
13 not elaborate it at this stage but that is Angola and so
14 forth, Cambodia and the landmine issue.
15 So this is why we say the jury would be perfectly
16 entitled to stand back from this case and say, well,
17 this was a woman who had a particular track record who
18 was undoubtedly -- one only has to read the Bashir
19 interview to realise how much hostility would be
20 engendered by that. So, it is never seeing anything in
21 isolation, it is seeing all of it in a cumulative effect
22 that therefore, at the end of all of this, there is
23 a question that really only the Duke of Edinburgh can
24 answer --
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is it your case that there is

166

1 evidence to implicate the Duke of Edinburgh in
2 a criminal conspiracy?
3 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, if you would like a straight answer to
4 it, there is no direct evidence, I accept that.
5 Obviously.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Indeed Mr Macnamara said, when he
7 gave evidence, "I have never suggested that the Duke of
8 Edinburgh was involved in the conspiracy".
9 MR MANSFIELD: Yes. But the problem here, we are right at
10 the nub of the problem: it is impossible for an
11 interested party, even with some facilities as this one
12 has, unlike most interested persons who don't have those
13 facilities.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You see, I think we are getting
15 back to the difficulty of assertion and indeed, no doubt
16 in your client's case belief on the one hand, and
17 evidence on the other. One cannot simply pull in
18 everybody to give evidence because there is an assertion
19 made against them which it is then argued, well, they
20 had better come along and explain themselves in court
21 and tell the jury what the --
22 MR MANSFIELD: I am not putting it in that way. We have
23 been very careful in the way that we have framed
24 questions to witnesses and so forth and one appreciates
25 that a mere assertion is not enough. On the other hand,

167

1 of course, it is -- I take a small illustration and
2 I have used it before. If a relative does not accept
3 that it was suicide, then the relative is entitled to
4 have that matter examined, even though it is an
5 assertion by the relative.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I appreciate that you will say --
7 at least I imagine you will say -- that unlawful killing
8 is a verdict that is open to the jury if a whole series
9 of building blocks all fall into place.
10 MR MANSFIELD: Yes.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is one thing but it is
12 another surely to say that the Duke was involved in it.
13 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, that is opposite ends, as it were.
14 There is a landscape in between.
15 The landscape in between is this: what the jury will
16 be looking at is: is there evidence -- I think I am
17 pre-empting what we are going to be putting in a written
18 document but is there evidence from which this jury
19 could reasonably infer to the reasonable standard of
20 proof required for unlawful killing that this was an
21 unlawful killing?
22 That is all I am examining. Is there material from
23 which, in a sense, they can be sure? Having rejected
24 accident, obviously if they accept accident, we don't go
25 anywhere near this. I plainly accept that.

168

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not sure, you are starting
2 from the wrong end, aren't you?
3 MR MANSFIELD: It may not matter which end from the purposes
4 of the jury you start from. In any event, if one is
5 looking at this possibility of unlawful killing then no
6 interested person, unless it is quite a remarkable case,
7 will ever be able to produce evidence to show --
8 unless -- well, even in the Lawrence killing it was not
9 possible, but it is very difficult for an interested
10 person to say X did it.
11 What normally happens and only for these purposes do
12 I, as it were, embrace the criminal approach to these
13 matters, a jury will be told: well, you will never,
14 members of the jury, get direct evidence of a conspiracy
15 and that is where there is somebody in the dock and
16 there is not here. All you can ever do, mostly, before
17 certainly the very latest technology in eavesdropping,
18 all you can ever do is to piece things together from
19 circumstances --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Circumstantial evidence and
21 inference. It is one thing getting the conspiracy
22 there; it is another thing attaching individual people
23 to it.
24 MR MANSFIELD: All we have to do for the purposes of the
25 inquest is -- we may not be able to attach individuals

169

1 to it, but there may be a set of circumstances from
2 which the jury would say to themselves well -- and
3 I will put it shortly and bluntly: here were two people,
4 the son representing a family who was certainly not
5 accepted, that is putting it at its very, very lowest,
6 not accepted and possibly loathed, and in relation to
7 Diana's activities, the fields within which she was
8 working as she has described them, also generating
9 hostility.
10 In order to deal with that aspect of it, the person
11 who she herself is naming, not all of the time but some
12 of the time and whose letters have disappeared and that
13 is why I have linked the two together, the only person
14 who can really deal with attitude to Diana in order to
15 dispel any suggestion that that is a remote building
16 block for unlawful killing, not directed by the Duke of
17 Edinburgh, it is the way in which he may have fed into
18 the thinking of the day, either attitudes to
19 Dodi Al Fayed himself or attitudes to Princess Diana by
20 that stage, the extent to which she posed a threat.
21 He may say: she posed no threat at all, I was not
22 remotely bothered by what she was doing. In which case,
23 that part of the possibly of an unlawful killing, that
24 part of it -- because there are other features beside
25 the Duke's own attitude to this -- may be allayed. But

170

1 in addition, he is the only person because Brigadier
2 Hunt-Davis was not in a position to deal with it.
3 Were there other letters? If there were later
4 letters, where are they? What did you say in those
5 later letters?
6 The key period, we would submit, is of course
7 the period between the Bashir interview,
8 the announcement of the divorce, which is basically
9 November 1995 onwards.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There is not any evidence that
11 there were any later letters.
12 MR MANSFIELD: There is some evidence that there were.
13 Whether the jury in fact at the end of the day accept it
14 is another matter, but there is evidence.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There is some pretty flaky
16 evidence from Simone Simmons, but that is about the high
17 point, isn't it?
18 MR MANSFIELD: That is a matter for the jury and I would
19 hope possibly that that is not a judicial description
20 you would give to her in the presence of the jury. You
21 may say to the jury that they might like to consider her
22 carefully or so forth.
23 Of course, there are a number of witnesses who give
24 evidence that the jury may or may not accept; that is
25 a matter for them, but there is evidence there. And she

171

1 is dealing with the fact that she did see other letters
2 and some of the descriptions that Paul Burrell gives of
3 what he said he saw is not different to Simone Simmons'
4 descriptions, cruel letters and so on.
5 Of course, that is in the eye of the beholder but
6 the Simmons evidence is very clear, because she gives it
7 a different date. In other words, they cannot possibly
8 be the letters that have been produced in 1992 and of
9 course, the interesting thing is, as you have already
10 pointed out, where are the originals of the letters in
11 1992?
12 They have plainly disappeared --
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: However they got there, I suppose
14 Mr Burrell is the strongest candidate to have them, if
15 he still has.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, if he still has. We don't know, he may
17 be the strongest candidate, but what Lady Sarah
18 McCorquodale said is she did not give them to him
19 anyway, so he may not be a candidate. Now, if
20 Lady Sarah McCorquodale is right and the police officer
21 is wrong in recollecting the conversation that he had
22 with her in his notebook --
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, the fairies did not magic
24 them away, did they?
25 MR MANSFIELD: Quite. So the question is therefore how many

172

1 people had access to that set of premises at that time?
2 Of course, a very limited number of people had access.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are getting a little bit close
4 to addressing the Coroner on fact at the moment.
5 MR MANSFIELD: Yes and I apologise for that. It is very
6 difficult to deal with the concepts which I am trying to
7 do now which is to delineate unlawful killing unattached
8 to a particular individual of which a jury may say, yes,
9 there is a level of hostility here which we understand
10 could generate sufficient hostility to amount a staged
11 accident.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Having listened to the evidence
13 for five months or so and having heard your submissions,
14 I think I can see the thrust of where you are going on
15 this.
16 MR MANSFIELD: That is the real point in relation to
17 the Duke. There are some subsidiary questions which
18 actually can be directed elsewhere but that is the main
19 thrust of it.
20 Can I have one moment?
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
22 MR MANSFIELD: So, I think the summary of all of that thrust
23 comes down to a well-known phrase and that is: if she
24 was regarded by those in authority, difficult to say
25 which ones or how, because we are not inside the Royal

173

1 Household and of course, we appreciate you cannot call
2 the whole of the Royal Household in relation to this,
3 but if she was regarded as historically other figures
4 sometimes have been, as a troublesome priest, someone
5 who, given what is now happening throughout the summer,
6 the publicity --
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We are not going back to the 16th
8 century, are we?
9 MR MANSFIELD: Not quite. Given what some politicians do
10 these days, I think there sometimes is a comparison.
11 However, I do not go into that.
12 I think it is the most convenient way of indicating
13 the ambit of what I am saying here is if she is regarded
14 as somebody who stepped outside the box seriously and is
15 now providing those in authority with a problem for
16 the future because of her alliance and clearly there is
17 plenty of evidence to show that it was a serious
18 alliance in the summer and although some will have tried
19 to characterise it as a summer romance, there are many
20 others who have seen it quite differently. If there was
21 a perception that this is the way in which this
22 relationship was developing, the word I put to a very
23 early witness, you may remember, I cannot remember now
24 whether it was Brigadier Hunt-Davis, I think it probably
25 was, that there was a desire to -- he asked me the same

174

1 question that you have: there was a desire to curtail
2 this relationship. That it had to end because on all
3 fronts, personal, political and particularly
4 the monarchy itself was being --
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is one thing curtailing
6 a relationship; rather a different thing curtailing
7 a life.
8 MR MANSFIELD: Yes and of course, there are different
9 grades. It depends whether the object of the exercise
10 was to kill, seriously harm, or the word I used
11 the other day, to cause such a shock that
12 the relationship ends in circumstances which could not
13 be achieved in any other way.
14 Plainly, those are possibilities that the jury will
15 have to consider in the context of was she regarded as
16 somebody who was now a serious threat.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are running conspiracy to
18 frighten as well as conspiracy to kill?
19 MR MANSFIELD: In a sense, not being a trial, I do not think
20 we necessarily have to run anything. We are posing what
21 the possibilities are that this jury and anyone else who
22 has been looking at these matters may conclude in
23 relation to the environment -- and you have been kind
24 enough to allow a large hinterland or environment to be
25 examined here to see whether, when you get to the point

175

1 as it were, the very point in the tunnel, what happened
2 in the months before becomes extremely relevant.
3 So, I think you probably do get the drift --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I do yes.
5 MR MANSFIELD: -- in relation to the Duke of Edinburgh.
6 I do not adumbrate all the questions which would arise
7 that have not been answered by anybody else. They
8 fairly obviously flow.
9 But the relevance is in that context.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 MR MANSFIELD: It may be convenient -- I see the time and
12 it is Friday and the sun was shining, but not any
13 more -- if I can pass to Her Majesty.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
15 MR MANSFIELD: There is a link between the two. In
16 Her Majesty's case, we are merely asking if she is asked
17 the questions. As far as we understand it, she has
18 never been approached, unlike the Duke who was
19 approached originally and refused to cooperate.
20 She has never been asked about any of the matters.
21 There are three matters, one is the obvious one and that
22 is the forces, sometimes called "dark forces" by
23 Burrell, conversationally, he described it in his update
24 book as that. There is that conversation.
25 Secondly is the Dianagate investigation and thirdly

176

1 is the conversation surrounding the invitation in July.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You mean the Squidgygate
3 investigation?
4 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I do, Squidgygate. Then finally,
5 the police approach vis a vis the invitation in July.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We really have had an enormous
7 investigation into the Squidgygate issue. You have had
8 Sir John Adye, you have had all sorts of documents
9 produced. You got a lot further than I was intending to
10 let you go at the beginning of the inquest.
11 MR MANSFIELD: But the answer at the end of the day is, if
12 I may say so, using one of your phrases, the audit trail
13 goes nowhere. In fact, there are not a lot of documents
14 in relation to this.
15 Just dealing with that for a moment, the more
16 we propose, we come to what I call a remarkable
17 situation this week with Mr Meynell.
18 I do not know what the document was that he was
19 referring to. I think we now have, I am not sure, but
20 the position is that two things arising out of this:
21 one, why was there no investigation in
22 August/September/October/November when it was perfectly
23 obvious there was potentially a crime being committed
24 here, at a serious level?
25 The relevance of this goes to Diana and -- I think

177

1 you probably know what it goes to. It goes to Diana's
2 perceptions of what was going on. It also goes to
3 the question of whether the public and of course this
4 tribunal are being told the truth about what authorities
5 get up when they need to. The perfectly obvious thing
6 was for there to have been an investigation at
7 Sandringham there and then.
8 We are now told for the first time this week
9 the officer thinks there was. If there was, there would
10 be a record or would have been a record. We are told
11 there are not any. But at the same time, for the first
12 time we are also told but not through that witness,
13 through another witness, namely a document that is
14 disclosed for the first time that in fact tampering does
15 appear to have taken place in relation to
16 the Prince of Wales.
17 The very latest follow-up on that appears to be,
18 although it is not in evidence yet, that actually
19 Lord Fellowes cannot help as to where he got all that
20 information from, at that time.
21 Well, if I may say so --
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It was a long time ago.
23 MR MANSFIELD: It is a long time ago, however given that
24 the Government were making all sorts of pronouncements
25 about this, it is somewhat remarkable that there is

178

1 absolutely nothing in relation to an investigation which
2 it is said Her Majesty requested and I do not doubt that
3 evidence.
4 Now, I appreciate she cannot command it, but she can
5 request it. The real question is, at the bottom of all
6 of this, is plainly this: were the Royal Family, for
7 whatever purpose at that time, being monitored by an
8 organisation other than the press? I leave the press
9 out of it for the moment.
10 If it happened at Sandringham, then we would submit
11 there is only really one candidate that could have done
12 that and it is remarkable that there is absolutely
13 nothing on this front and I know I asked the question.
14 It has not come back yet. You may have forgotten. When
15 Lord Condon was giving evidence, there was a break in
16 his evidence and I asked if he could kindly help with
17 inquiries on this front. He said he could and
18 the following morning, what he said was that
19 Commander Loughborough, who is currently in charge of
20 matters, was going to investigate whether there had been
21 an investigation by the police which we would submit is
22 the perfectly straightforward thing and if not, if it is
23 not an investigation, why not.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And you say have you not had an
25 answer to that.

179

1 MR MANSFIELD: We have not.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, Mr Smith is sitting in
3 the back of the court and will no doubt hear what have
4 you had to say. And Mr Horwell is turning round and
5 trying to get some information out of the Met.
6 MR MANSFIELD: So, we say that topic is a little distant in
7 time, in fact interestingly it is 1992, it is the very
8 year in fact I started with, that is when it surfaces
9 and that is when we say there is remarkable inaction
10 basically.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, dark forces, Squidgygate
12 and the arrangements for the summer holiday with
13 Al Fayed.
14 MR MANSFIELD: Yes and if I may briefly touch on the other
15 two, as far as the other conversation is concerned,
16 it is actually rather an important conversation. One,
17 because it has never been suggested by any quarter that
18 it did not take place. In fact, the Palace remarkably
19 again and unusually made a public statement after
20 the Burrell trial saying there was a conversation.
21 The difference was the length of time that it took.
22 I think Burrell is saying three hours and the Palace
23 were saying 90 minutes, so it is a difference in length.
24 What has happened recently of course is that,
25 putting it bluntly, Mr Burrell has been caught out on

180

1 a tape. What he is saying on the tape, which he now
2 wishes obviously to retract, is that he has not told
3 the truth and one of the things he has not told
4 the truth about is the conversation with Her Majesty.
5 Now, it is a perfectly simple matter. Either it did
6 take place or it did not and if it did and she used
7 those words, what did she mean? Because the context of
8 the conversation was very focused. It was
9 a conversation about the shredding of documents
10 belonging to Princess Diana.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not sure what the words mean
12 is going to advance this inquest at all, really.
13 MR MANSFIELD: It does, if I may just say this: if Her
14 Majesty is warning Burrell about dark forces; if she had
15 meant the media, she would have said: be careful of
16 the press, they get in everywhere. If there is
17 something, she has been, if I may say so, with due
18 deference to her, a monarch for a very long time, she is
19 very experienced. If she said that, she may have had
20 something in mind that is relevant. Because, of course,
21 that is what the jury may be considering: what forces
22 have arisen in this case that may have led to an
23 unlawful killing in a climate of hostility.
24 If she knows the answer to that, one, she can either
25 say: I have never said any such thing and Burrell is

181

1 lying about that or she may say, well, I did actually
2 warn him because I had in mind a particular matter that
3 had occurred to her, she may have information, I know
4 what it is.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Putting it at its highest, what
6 are you speculating?
7 MR MANSFIELD: I am putting it in the same way as others
8 have. What she said can only mean two things: it is
9 either security forces or somebody on behalf -- a State
10 within a State are monitoring and then, of course, after
11 this time, we now know, of course, that Buckingham
12 Palace is swept for devices. So it has to be either
13 authorities such as GCHQ or it has to be the media.
14 She did not specify the media so really, it must be
15 very difficult to see what other forces she was talking
16 about. We say this is important because of the context
17 that we are indicating of the perception of Diana and
18 her relationship, particularly with the Al Fayed family
19 in the summer.
20 So we are not basing it on absolutely nothing. This
21 is a conversation he has claimed he has had and it is
22 a conversation in this very important period. It is
23 just after the crash. It is December 19th 1997.
24 Sir, I think my learned friend wishes to interpose
25 something.

182

1 MR KEEN: Sir I apologise, for personal reasons I have to
2 withdraw. Can I indicate that my learned friend
3 Mr Croxford has a short submission which he makes.
4 I know of it and I adopt it. I know it is odd to adopt
5 something in advance of it being submitted but I am
6 putting my trust in Mr Croxford.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Either that or missing your
8 train.
9 MR KEEN: I apologise for my untimely withdrawal.
10 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I think again the point that I am making
11 about the Burrell conversation is clear, particularly in
12 the light of what he is now saying.
13 The Davis conversation, I would submit, although
14 I hear what my learned friend says in relation to Della,
15 I do not go over that ground again. We would say again
16 this is extremely important and the importance of it is
17 recognised by the witnesses who deny it and it is very
18 interesting that there are two witnesses who are not
19 saying they don't remember it, they are saying it did
20 not happen. Now, if this conversation happened and
21 it is a correct record of what was said, then it would
22 appear that Her Majesty was well informed, not only
23 about the invitation, not only about the arrangements
24 but about Mohamed Al Fayed. We come back to that point.
25 We are saying again it is a question that the jury

183

1 will want to ask: was Mohamed Al Fayed and his family,
2 as it were, regarded with such disapproval at that time
3 that the police themselves thought that there should not
4 even be a visit. It cannot get stronger than that.
5 A Princess with a withdrawn title from the year
6 before, a set of personal relationships that have been
7 exposed, a politicisation of the Princess --
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: When all is said and done, these
9 inquests have been incredibly wide-ranging on the basis
10 of confirming or allaying suspicion. But you cannot
11 really build on that and pick on every tiny piece of
12 evidence and try to erect it into a further inquiry --
13 MR MANSFIELD: No, no --
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: -- I know that really your third
15 point is all based really on Mr Davies' evidence which
16 of course is evidence but it does conflict with other
17 people's evidence.
18 MR MANSFIELD: That is something, if I may say so, we have
19 had even today. The jury have a task here of deciding
20 obviously what is relevant in a sense, what is credible,
21 relevant and can be relied on in relation to -- and I am
22 only dealing with and focusing on as have you indicated
23 the aspect of unlawful killing and whether there is
24 material.
25 Certainly in our submissions to you, there is no

184

1 intention of selecting one -- I have said it is a
2 cumulative picture that one has here of items that have
3 to be put to --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have quite a lot of evidence
5 about the attitude of Buckingham Palace to the holiday,
6 haven't we?
7 MR MANSFIELD: The short answer is no, we don't have a lot
8 of evidence about it. We know that it happened, but it
9 was happening against a background, as we would submit,
10 of opposition. That is very clear. Not only we would
11 say from that conversation but also from the way it was
12 received in public.
13 Now, again, press reception is one thing. Actual
14 reception is another. But this is a case that is going
15 to be slightly dependent on perceptions, starting with
16 Diana through to Mohamed and others who may be in
17 a position of authority who perceive that they are
18 facing a situation of a kind that they have not faced
19 before.
20 The monarchy has been throughout those years under
21 very serious question. It is in the Bashir interview.
22 It is one of the questions that is posed to Diana: do
23 you see yourself as the cause of the, as it were,
24 diminution of respect for the Royal Family?
25 So, it was a question that was very much on

185

1 everybody's lips at this period of time. So, there is
2 no intention of relying on one snippet here or one
3 snippet there but in fact constructing what is in
4 reality a whole matrix of events which in daily life
5 contribute to one event in the end. And we say they
6 have not just been looked at as irrelevant matters.
7 They have been looked at because they bear upon a course
8 or chain of events, and it will be for the jury to
9 decide whether the chain is broken or not. So, sir,
10 that is how I put it.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
12 Yes, Mr Croxford.
13 Submissions by MR CROXFORD
14 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I will not be very long but may I begin
15 by reminding you that in our direction 8 document,
16 we made it clear, as I think Henri Paul's parents did
17 also, that we do not advance any case of conspiracy but
18 we made it abundantly plain that we were interested in
19 hearing how Mr Al Fayed's case was to be advanced and
20 we reserved the right, if and when evidence emerged to
21 change our position.
22 Therefore, we have always had an interest in the way
23 in which the evidence has fallen and emerged in this
24 case.
25 May I then turn to the question of whether or not

186

1 the Queen should be asked certain simple and fundamental
2 questions?
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
4 MR CROXFORD: With the greatest of respect, sir, in
5 a question you put to Mr Mansfield a moment ago, you
6 fell into the logical error that is so easy for all of
7 us to do and I know very well that during the course of
8 these inquest, I have made similar errors of course.
9 You asked him to put it at its highest what was it that
10 he was speculating the Queen may be able to say. With
11 the greatest of respect, that is a logical error because
12 that is no part of the function of any interested
13 person, nor at this stage is it any part of your
14 function.
15 Your function, sir, is, as you and your counsel has
16 told us on a number of occasions, is to follow
17 the evidence wherever it may go in order fearlessly to
18 inquire.
19 I think that is the Jameson test, I paraphrase, but
20 there it is.
21 The position is this, sir: no objection is taken as
22 a matter of principle to approaching the Head of State
23 to ask questions of that person at this stage and that
24 is all, at this stage, we suggest should be done.
25 I therefore leave aside the question of that

187

1 principle and I am going to put it in much more
2 parochial terms for good forensic reasons.
3 The former mother-in-law of one of the deceased,
4 shortly after the death, told a close confidant of one
5 of those deceased persons something about his need to be
6 careful in the context of a lengthy conversation
7 concerning the death of that person.
8 It is, with the greatest of respect, inconceivable
9 that a police force, including the metropolitan police
10 force, would not, in respect of a former mother-in-law,
11 have asked that person: did you say this? If you did
12 say it, what was the reason for you deciding that you
13 should warn the confidant that he needed to be careful
14 and what did you mean by it.
15 Those are three simple questions.
16 The Metropolitan Police in this case of course, and
17 it is one of the curiosities of the letter that we saw
18 yesterday or this morning, have never bothered or been
19 able to put such a question. They never even tried to
20 put any of those questions to this particular person and
21 the result of that is that we have the evidence
22 unchallenged from Mr Burrell that he was told these
23 things by Her Majesty. He was told to be careful in
24 the context of a conversation about the death of the
25 Princess. And I respectfully submit that in those

188

1 circumstances, if these inquests are to follow where
2 the evidence goes, the first and logical and appropriate
3 questions are to ask Her Majesty: did you say it, what
4 did you mean by it, upon what basis, if any, did you say
5 it?
6 Because it is only as a result of the answers to
7 those questions that you can decide, if I may say so,
8 sir, properly then decide, that Her Majesty may be in
9 possession of either evidence which is itself relevant
10 to these inquests or, by such explanation as she gives,
11 that either there is nothing that should be inquired
12 into further, or she puts you on the chain of inquiry
13 such that you can identify relevant evidence which
14 should be put before the jury in order to assist them in
15 resolving the various questions which you are going to
16 put to them in due time.
17 So, unless and until she has been asked
18 the questions, it is impossible to decide what
19 the relevance of the answers may be. One can speculate,
20 but it is also, with respect, impossible to say that
21 following the evidence duty to wherever it may lead has
22 been discharged.
23 This is a matter, sir, you will remember I raised
24 with you -- I think with you, I am sure with you -- at
25 one of the pre-inquest hearings, directions hearing.

189

1 Your response to me then -- and I paraphrase and I make
2 no complaint about it -- was that you would keep
3 the matter under review but let's see where the evidence
4 comes from. Let's see how the evidence falls out.
5 We have heard now how the evidence falls out.
6 Whatever views one may have professionally or privately
7 about Mr Burrell, he gave this evidence. He was not
8 challenged in any respect on it. It stands there. You
9 are going, with respect, to have to deal with it with
10 the jury in due time. They are going to have to grapple
11 with Mr Burrell and what Her Majesty said to him and
12 yet, with respect, absolutely no effort has been made to
13 date to ask Her Majesty to explain the remark. We do
14 know the context of it. We do not know upon what it was
15 based or the detail of what was intended to be conveyed
16 and in those circumstances, I respectfully say not to
17 take the matter further would be a failure to discharge
18 the Jameson duty.
19 May I pass on?
20 Duke of Edinburgh: a rather different approach
21 applies here but it is equally simple: the question of
22 whether or not there was correspondence between the late
23 Princess and the content of such correspondence is,
24 without any shadow of a doubt, already a relevant issue
25 before this jury. Its relevance can be simply

190

1 illustrated by the fact that through your counsel you
2 have adduced a considerable amount of evidence intended
3 to address it. See Mr Devorik, see the unfortunate
4 Brigadier Hunt-Davis and I will make good my epithet in
5 a moment.
6 There is evidence before the jury and, with
7 the greatest of respect, sir, this is not a time --
8 I say nothing about whether Miss Simmons was flaky or
9 not, but there is evidence before the jury that
10 the chain of correspondence is incomplete.
11 I described the Brigadier as unfortunate and I do
12 not resile from that for one moment because
13 the Brigadier played no part in the manufacture of the
14 correspondence when it was first typed. He played no
15 part in its dispatch. He played no part in the receipt
16 of the responses. He played no part in the filing of
17 either the copies kept by the Duke or the responses
18 received from the Princess and the evidence of this
19 jury, of course, was that in fact, he told him his
20 employer had told him a few days before he came here, he
21 did not know anything at all about the evidence.
22 In those circumstances, he was unable to assist as
23 to other or further correspondence. And the position
24 then, sir, as a matter of logic, it is inexorable and
25 it is unfortunate but that the jury have now been seized

191

1 of a matter which has been determined to be relevant,
2 rightly, see the evidence of, for example, Devorik but
3 they have only, by definition, an incomplete picture and
4 that incomplete picture is one that it is not necessary,
5 neither it is expedient to be allowed to remain.
6 In those circumstances, sir, we support
7 the application that is made in order that a complete
8 picture may be put forward.
9 May I thirdly say something about what I anticipate
10 Mr Horwell is going to be saying to you in a few moments
11 and I do so because I was favoured with a copy earlier
12 on today of a letter dated today in which certain
13 observations are made about these applications.
14 Three points: firstly: it has always been
15 conspicuous that the Metropolitan Police made little in
16 the case of the Duke of Edinburgh, or no attempt, in
17 the case of the Queen, to investigate either
18 the correspondence or the statement which was well
19 publicised through the efforts of Mr Burrell which has
20 been attributed to Her Majesty.
21 The curiosity of that, sir, is in particular in
22 respect of the Duke of Edinburgh. Lord Stevens' inquiry
23 recognised the relevance of asking the Duke about his
24 correspondence. And you will remember that a single
25 letter was sent by Lord Stevens, a somewhat brusque

192

1 response was received, I think orally, from Brigadier
2 Hunt-Davis and there the matter lay.
3 So, even the Metropolitan Police's recognition that
4 this was a relevant matter to be followed up was quickly
5 dealt with and dispatched but not in a satisfactory way.
6 Secondly, sir, this: the Metropolitan Police from
7 this letter of 7th March are, it appears, going to
8 address you in respect of something which it is said
9 here to be the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Now
10 is not the time to look at overwhelming weights of
11 evidence. It is completely inappropriate. If there is
12 a Jameson issue of following the evidence wherever it
13 leads to get to the bottom, questions of weight do not
14 arise.
15 The problem that emerges from this letter is that in
16 substance, the submission that it is anticipated will be
17 made is one that you should withdraw from the jury
18 the whole issue of conspiracy because of what is said
19 about overwhelming weight.
20 That may be an argument which we will have next
21 week. It is nothing to the point of the argument that
22 we are having this afternoon.
23 Thirdly, if I am wrong about that, and with
24 the greatest respect to Mr Horwell, I ain't wrong about
25 it, what he is failing to do or will be failing to do,

193

1 is to address the relevant question.
2 The relevant question is not one of weight.
3 The relevant question is: have we got to the bottom of
4 the inquiry? It is perfectly obvious that we have not
5 got to the bottom of the inquiry because
6 the Metropolitan Police made the inquiry of the Duke of
7 Edinburgh, just about got to the starting blocks and
8 then gave up when Brigadier Hunt-Davis said that
9 the Duke was not minded to assist and they did not get
10 to the blocks in respect of Her Majesty.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am bound to say there have been
12 some times when I thought I heard the plaintiff's sound
13 of the scraping of the bottom of the barrel.
14 MR CROXFORD: I have heard it pretty often in the last few
15 days, but I hope not from this side of the court.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There are issues that have been
17 explored at enormous length and I am not laying any
18 criticism of that.
19 MR CROXFORD: There are, not by me, happily, on these
20 occasions and these issues.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not talking about
22 individuals but many issues have been explored in the
23 greatest of detail, but that does not mean that we go on
24 forever exploring everything, whatever minute benefit
25 there might be from it.

194

1 MR CROXFORD: I am sorry to be difficult but that is my job.
2 The assessment of minute benefit is, with the greatest
3 respect, not one that you can make at this stage.
4 Since you don't know what the outcome of these
5 simple inquiries would be, if it turned out that
6 Miss Simmons and her description was correct and
7 the description which Mr Devorik gave of the antipathy
8 which the Princess understood existed were justified --
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If I take that to its logical
10 conclusion, anybody can make any assertion and I have to
11 explore it to infinity.
12 MR CROXFORD: No, with the greatest respect, that is wrong.
13 Have you already made relevant and expended a great deal
14 of time and effort in following the question of the
15 Duke's correspondence --
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not making relevant
17 anything.
18 MR CROXFORD: Well, you did, sir, you opened the --
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is a misconception.
20 MR CROXFORD: I will try to use a different word. You,
21 through your counsel, have adduced a great deal of
22 evidence which has been concerned with the fact of and
23 the content of and the meaning which is to be derived
24 from the content of and possible effect of such meaning
25 upon the Princess --

195

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: A lot of things have been
2 explored to confirm or allay suspicion and the point is
3 reached when that exercise is complete.
4 MR CROXFORD: I quite understand that, sir, but with
5 the greatest of respect, it cannot be said at this stage
6 that confirming or allaying suspicion has been dealt
7 with, if you leave open the nature or the incomplete
8 nature on one of the evidence which the jury have of
9 the correspondence and do not touch at all the inquiry
10 of Her Majesty as to what she said, meant by and on what
11 basis. Those are matters which will simply be left
12 hanging uninvestigated. And in Jameson terms,
13 the evidence will not have been followed through to its
14 logical and appropriate conclusion.
15 In respect of the Queen, no inquiry has been made.
16 In at least in respect of the Duke, we have a partial
17 picture although for the reasons I have indicated, it is
18 unsatisfactory.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There are a lot of areas,
20 the paparazzi, for example, it would be much nicer if
21 we had been able to get them to give evidence, but we
22 have to do the best we can. That is a different point.
23 MR CROXFORD: That is what you are doing, sir. I will put
24 it bluntly, because it is Friday afternoon and that is
25 my nature.

196

1 What you are being asked to do by others is to do
2 nothing about the Queen and to give up on the Duke.
3 That is not a satisfactory way, I would respectfully
4 suggest, for these inquests to go, there having been no
5 inquiries so far of the Queen; it is not too late to put
6 it right. It is a simple matter to complete
7 the investigation in respect of the Duke.
8 May I just say sir, lastly, 29th December 1170,
9 death of Thomas a Becket, I think it was 12th century.
10 MR HORWELL: Mr Croxford is right on that, sir.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
12 Submissions by MR HORWELL
13 MR HORWELL: We have, in our submission, travelled too far
14 from the Alma Tunnel. It is central to these inquests
15 and should always at least be in sight.
16 For you to call the Duke of Edinburgh in these
17 inquests there must be an evidential basis or
18 requirement for so doing. You have at all times made it
19 clear that you would keep the position of the Duke of
20 Edinburgh under review and make a decision as to whether
21 or not he should be called when all the relevant
22 evidence has been adduced. We are but six or seven days
23 from the end of the evidential stage and none of the
24 evidence to come can affect this issue.
25 Now plainly is the time for this decision to be

197

1 made. We suggest that after five months of testimony,
2 during which Mr Al Fayed has been given every
3 opportunity to adduce a case of murder, we submit that
4 there has not been one word of evidence to suggest that
5 the Duke of Edinburgh ordered the assassination of
6 the Princess of Wales or indeed to meet those variants
7 of that allegation.
8 There has been not one word of evidence to suggest
9 that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered the Princess to be
10 harmed or ordered her to be intimidated.
11 There is a vast chasm between possible frustration
12 or irritation at certain of her actions and an intention
13 to execute her. We submit that the proposition on the
14 grounds advanced a preposterous, and remains so, after
15 five months of the evidence being tested.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The high watermark of all
17 the evidence with regard to the letters went as far as
18 nasty but did not trespass beyond that into threat.
19 MR HORWELL: To suggest that the evidence that has been
20 adduced could in any sense lay the foundation for an
21 intention to assassinate the Princess of Wales is, in
22 our submission, absurd. We submit that there is
23 therefore nothing of any materiality that the Duke of
24 Edinburgh can contribute to these inquests and
25 accordingly, there is no purpose in his being asked to

198

1 give evidence and to keep to the coronial requirements.
2 There is in short no evidential foundation to make it
3 either expedient or necessary for the Duke of Edinburgh
4 to be called as a witness or indeed for the Queen to be
5 questioned in the manner that has been summarised.
6 If the Duke of Edinburgh were to be called as
7 a witness, nothing would be achieved save for an
8 unseemly spectacle, in our submission, of which
9 the media would be the only beneficiaries. All of that
10 would be the consequence of calling the Queen's consort
11 in circumstances in which there was not a jot of
12 evidence that he was in any way, shape or form involved
13 in these tragic deaths.
14 We submit that your preliminary decision not to call
15 him is correct. The protection which this court must
16 offer to persons such as the Duke of Edinburgh is to
17 ensure that their attendance is not sought for
18 mischievous purposes. We all saw at first hand
19 the animosity which Mr Al Fayed has for the Duke of
20 Edinburgh; calling him as well as a murderer, a Nazi,
21 when there was no evidential foundation.
22 That is why the requirement of expediency and
23 necessity must not be diluted in our submission and that
24 is why his attendance must not be sought in these
25 unparalleled circumstances. Those are our submissions.

199

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
2 Mr Burnett?
3 Submissions by MR BURNETT.
4 MR BURNETT: Sir, if I may, a few observations to follow up
5 on those that have been made by others.
6 Sir, it is our submission that it should not be
7 forgotten that these proceedings are not an inquiry into
8 the life of Diana Princess of Wales, still less are
9 these proceedings an inquiry into the relationship
10 between the late Princess and other members of the Royal
11 Family including the Duke of Edinburgh.
12 This is an inquest into her death and that of
13 Dodi Al Fayed and despite the breadth of inquiry upon
14 which we have all been engaged during the last five
15 months, it should not be forgotten that the jury is here
16 to answer the four statutory questions: namely who
17 the deceased were, where, when, and how they came by
18 their deaths. I hope I might be forgiven for boring
19 everybody by reminding you respectfully of the statutory
20 provisions that govern the evidence at inquests and also
21 the calling of evidence before it.
22 The material part of rule 36 of the Coroner's Rules
23 provides that:
24 "The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be
25 directed solely to those statutory questions."

200

1 Now, of course it is well recognised and it is
2 a point that you, sir, have made on innumerable
3 occasions that one function of an inquest is to confirm
4 or allay rumour or suspicion. And evidence dealing with
5 that is permitted by rule 36, because it is directed
6 towards how the deceased came by his or her death.
7 The calling of witnesses is governed by section 11.2
8 the Coroner's Act and you have not been referred to it
9 thus far.
10 This is what it says:
11 "The Coroner shall examine on oath concerning
12 the death all persons who tender evidence as to
13 the facts of the death and all persons having knowledge
14 of those facts whom he considers it expedient to
15 examine."
16 That statutory provision thus is directed also to
17 the statutory questions and has three parts, all of
18 course directed to the same end.
19 We are here taking evidence concerning the death.
20 That is the first part. The second is that that
21 evidence must come from people who give evidence as to
22 the facts of the death or have knowledge of those facts.
23 And the third is that even then, it is only if
24 the Coroner considers it expedient to call a witness
25 that he need be called.

201

1 Whether it is expedient to call any particular
2 witness, particularly when a coroner is considering
3 the matter after having heard a great deal of evidence
4 already, is necessarily to be judged in the light of
5 what has gone before. Ordinarily, coroners make such
6 decisions when they might have heard evidence with or
7 without a jury over days or perhaps a handful of weeks.
8 You, sir, have listened -- as has the jury -- to
9 five months of evidence and the question of expediency
10 is thus one that is inevitably going to be informed at
11 least in part by the view that you have formed about
12 the evidence that has been given so far.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There is a bit of an element of
14 the further you have gone here, the further you ought to
15 go argument.
16 MR BURNETT: That is the logical consequence, especially of
17 the submissions that were made by my learned friend
18 Mr Croxford. But, sir, it is often said that
19 inquests -- and these ones in particular are a good
20 example -- are in a sense organic. You look at areas to
21 see if there is anything in them. Sometimes there is,
22 sometimes there is not. But those areas are examined,
23 especially those arising out of rumour or suspicion,
24 sufficiently to enable the jury to decide whether there
25 is anything in it.

202

1 It is necessary for a coroner to call sufficient
2 evidence but that that does not entail necessarily
3 calling every last bit of evidence that might be
4 available.
5 When one turns to the Duke of Edinburgh, there is
6 rumour at least concerning the Duke of Edinburgh and
7 there is what Mr Al Fayed himself described as a firm
8 belief, in extremely colourful terms, that the Duke of
9 Edinburgh organised the murder of his daughter-in-law,
10 the mother of his grandchildren.
11 Now, sir, there is as we see it, no evidence
12 whatsoever of his involvement in any plot at all.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No evidence of SIS's involvement
14 in any plot at all.
15 MR BURNETT: Indeed.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Where it is said that he did it.
17 MR BURNETT: The chain has become very loose, to put it
18 mildly, but one should not overlook the fact that
19 the reason why you have allowed an exploration of
20 the content of his letters to the Princess and on
21 another count, his supposed animosity towards
22 Mohamed Al Fayed and Dodi Al Fayed was because those
23 issues or factors were said to provide the motivation
24 for the Duke's alleged actions.
25 They arose in any event only at the periphery. Now

203

1 it is being said that there was a serious climate of
2 hostility to which the Duke was contributing and in his
3 submissions, my learned friend Mr Mansfield brought all
4 that together by saying that the Duke "may have fed into
5 the thinking of the day".
6 Well whose thinking? Is it suggested that the Duke
7 may have fed into the thinking of someone who may
8 independently have then decided to take some action?
9 And if that is what is said, one begins to wonder what
10 evidence the Duke could possibly give on that count.
11 There are newspaper articles to which my learned
12 friend has referred. Not only one that we have seen
13 referred to today, but others, where there are
14 commentators, quite well-known commentators were
15 suggesting that it was inappropriate for the late
16 Princess to be involved with the Al Fayed family. Sir,
17 were they contributing to the thinking of the day?
18 Should we have all of them along as well?
19 The answer to that would self-evidently be no. But
20 one does need to look a little bit at the evidence that
21 we have heard. It is right to say in respect of the
22 letters that Simone Simmons suggested that she had seen
23 nasty letters.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Not threatening letters.
25 MR BURNETT: Nasty letters, that is her evidence,

204

1 10th January, page 65 to 66, but she herself maintains
2 that there were no threats in the letters and that
3 the Royal Family in her view would do nothing to harm
4 the Princess of Wales.
5 That is page 99.
6 Now, whether or not anyone takes the view that
7 Miss Simmons' evidence is flaky or not, there is one
8 aspect of it which is before you and the jury and which
9 can be tested fairly straightforwardly; she said in her
10 evidence that the Duke had also written nasty letters to
11 the Duchess of York.
12 That was at page 89, but that was something refuted
13 by the Duchess herself in a statement read to the jury
14 under Rule 37, that is to say unlikely to be disputed
15 and no one sought to dispute it, on 13th December at
16 page 106.
17 I leave aside, if I may, the inconsistencies about
18 A5 paper, colour and all the rest of it. And we should
19 not overlook the fact that she suggests that copies of
20 these letters were given to Martin Bashir and I think we
21 are yet to hear from him. I am not sure where
22 the position is.
23 But nonetheless, you explored the question of
24 letters through a number of people. Now, Brigadier
25 Hunt-Davis produced the copies that the Duke had kept of

205

1 his correspondence with the Princess and the originals
2 of her replies to him. And he indicated that his
3 principal had suggested that that was the lot.
4 It may be that my learned friend Mr Mansfield thinks
5 it inconceivable that a father-in-law would not have an
6 extended correspondence with his daughter during
7 a marriage but --
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Daughter-in-law.
9 MR BURNETT: Daughter-in-law, during a marriage -- but
10 speaking at least from my own relationships, I do not
11 think I have ever had a letter from my father-in-law of
12 that or any nature.
13 But, Miss Rosa Monckton also gave evidence about it.
14 So did Lucia Flecha. So did Patrick Jephson. So too
15 did Sarah McCorquodale and one shouldn't overlook the
16 fact that the Princess's solicitor, Maggie Rae, who came
17 and gave evidence on Day 52, I have not noted the actual
18 date, explained that in 1995 she was given
19 the correspondence. She read it. You will remember her
20 descriptions of it. And there was certainly nothing of
21 the sort suggested.
22 There is, we would submit, really no evidence to
23 suggest that the Duke was involved in any plot to kill
24 the Princess. The theory of an MI6 plot directed by him
25 seems to have evaporated. It was expressly disavowed by

206

1 my learned friend Mr Mansfield with Sir Richard
2 Dearlove. And a variety of other witnesses who were
3 called, especially one should not overlook the head of
4 the Paris station and all those in the station who were
5 in Paris at the time were not tested with a suggestion
6 that they had been involved.
7 The question of the animus alleged between the Duke
8 and the Al Fayed family, well, we would respectfully
9 submit that there is no real evidence of that. An
10 article in The Sunday Mirror is really not enough. And
11 in any event, the question really does arise so what?
12 The next point that was made in the written
13 submissions which my learned friend does not seek to
14 repeat was the removal of the title of Her Royal
15 Highness, the Princess of Wales, a year before
16 the accident. Well, the Duchess of York was in exactly
17 the same position. Her "Royal Highness" title was
18 similarly removed on her divorce.
19 Then the question of the Royal warrants was raised.
20 We know, not because it is in evidence, I should say but
21 because it is very easily available on the internet
22 through Mr Al Fayed's mouth, that the Royal warrant for
23 the Duke of Edinburgh was withdrawn in 2000, some years
24 later. And Mr Al Fayed himself took down the Royal
25 warrant badges for the other members of the Royal

207

1 Family, even though they were extant. But again, so
2 what. Where does that take the jury in answering
3 the questions it has to answer?
4 Squidgygate is something that has been explored
5 perhaps beyond the bounds of what might have been
6 necessary. Squidgygate: we have heard from the Queen's
7 Private Secretary who has given his evidence of the
8 involvement of the Palace in any follow-up. We have
9 heard from the then Director of GCHQ describing exactly
10 what was done by GCHQ. He has also produced documentary
11 evidence which shows discussions at the highest level,
12 that is to say the Cabinet Secretary and the Home
13 Secretary dealing with the same matter and these are
14 simply not matters with which the Duke of Edinburgh can
15 sensibly help.
16 There seems to be a suggestion that simply because
17 you called Sir Miles Hunt-Davis and Rosa Monckton to
18 talk about the letters, the issue is relevant and you
19 have a need to pursue it to the nth degree.
20 That, we would respectfully submit, is a misnomer.
21 The evidence has been explored and you are entitled,
22 we would submit, to take the view that all these matters
23 have been adequately investigated with the conclusion
24 being that it is neither expedient to call the Duke and
25 indeed, there must be a question mark at the very least

208

1 over whether he has any evidence as to the facts of the
2 death which brings him within section 11.2 at all.
3 But for the purposes of our submissions, we would
4 simply say that you, on the material before you, can
5 conclude, if you wish, that it is inexpedient to call
6 him.
7 As far as the Queen is concerned, our submission is
8 that largely the same considerations should apply as to
9 whether she should be troubled with questions of an
10 investigative nature. We repeat that the Squidgygate
11 business has been frankly done to death through Sir
12 John Adye and Lord Fellowes and the documents that have
13 been produced. So what is left?
14 Mr Burrell alleges that the Queen said something to
15 him in the course of a very long interview dealing with
16 matters following the Princess's death but one is
17 entitled to ask: so what? There is no evidence of
18 the involvement of the British intelligence agencies,
19 official or unofficial, in the crash there is just not
20 any at the moment and indeed, as we have indicated at an
21 evidential level, Mr Mansfield has disavowed any
22 official involvement, and quite properly drawn
23 the distinction between what may be a firmly held belief
24 in the mind of his client and matters that he properly,
25 given the professional obligations he owes, can put to

209

1 witnesses.
2 Sir, we have seen that through Lord Fellowes not
3 being taxed with the allegations that Mr Al Fayed makes,
4 Lord Jay not being taxed with them and many others not
5 being taxed with them.
6 We would submit that in any event, a guarded warning
7 to Burrell to look out for himself because of his
8 closeness to the Royal Family, which is what Burrell
9 described it as, if that were true, can say nothing
10 about the facts of the crash in Paris.
11 Similarly, the Queen's knowledge of the journey to
12 St Tropez. Lord Fellowes in fact told us that the Queen
13 did know about the holiday in St Tropez, and,
14 I recollect, explained something about
15 the constitutional convention that she is consulted
16 before her grandchildren go abroad. Now, sir,
17 the question of whether a potential witness, which is
18 how Her Majesty would be termed at this stage, should be
19 seen with a view to obtaining information is governed by
20 the general proposition that any inquest must
21 sufficiently inquire into the facts of the death.
22 Our submission, sir, is that the sufficiency of
23 these inquests, that is to say the sufficiency of
24 the inquiries over which you are presiding is not
25 affected one way or the other by whether Her Majesty is

210

1 asked the questions suggested by those who represent
2 Mr Al Fayed.
3 Sir, those are our submissions.
4 Sir, it is very late now, might I be forgiven for
5 returning to the question that we started with, namely
6 reasons and so forth?
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, what I was minded to do was
8 to give my decision in a couple of sentences. And
9 unless anybody persuades me that there is subsequently
10 a good reason for doing so, I was not going to give
11 expanded reasons either now or at any stage in
12 the future. I think the time is better spent in
13 preparing to sum this case up for the jury.
14 MR BURNETT: Sir, it will for others to suggest if they want
15 further reasons in the future but just today, your
16 decision plainly would be all that is available.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield, I am not sure that
18 you have any right of reply but plainly if there is an
19 issue of law, you would have.
20 MR MANSFIELD: It is mixed fact and law.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Go on then.
22 Reply submissions by MR MANSFIELD
23 MR MANSFIELD: I see the time. I will try to be short,
24 I have tried to be short so far.
25 In a sense, this is the mixed fact/law point that is

211

1 being made. We have tried to make a distinction, I have
2 not had the time to develop all the areas but if
3 the point is recently being made, well, you cannot chase
4 every rabbit. We have not asked for that. It may not
5 have appeared like that at times.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You just want the rabbits chased
7 that you have in your headlights.
8 MR MANSFIELD: No. In fact, Mr Burnett put his finger on
9 the fact that certainly on behalf of Mr Al Fayed we have
10 been very careful which avenues responsibly should be
11 pursued and not every avenue -- and I make it clear now
12 that in our final submissions, we will continue with
13 that responsible approach and therefore, there will be
14 avenues which others may feel do not need to be
15 developed in front of this jury, for the reasons that
16 have already been mentioned. So, it is not a case of us
17 saying every single avenue that has been opened has to
18 be pursued to the end, bitter or otherwise, and so that
19 is an unfair gloss to be putting on -- it is the sort of
20 floodgates of anarchy approach to argument to say that
21 is the approach that has been taken.
22 In fact, it has been highly selective in which
23 issues need to be pursued as a matter of query and
24 the main areas in relation to both the Duke and Her
25 Majesty the Queen are areas which in fact we would

212

1 submit are directly relevant to issues that have arisen
2 within the ambit of the inquest and issues that unless
3 at this stage -- and I appreciate the letter from
4 the Metropolitan Police was virtually saying it, unless
5 the question of unlawful killing was going to be
6 withdrawn and they are not going to be allowed to
7 consider unlawful killing, then plainly these issues --
8 I have not gone back to the rules, but I am assuming
9 obviously we all know what the four basic questions are,
10 but one of the four basic questions undoubtedly gives
11 rise to: was this an unlawful killing of one of the
12 various ... and there is a whole range of possibilities
13 in that.
14 If that is going to remain, then these questions
15 that are unanswered at the moment, in other words, in
16 relation to the existence of letters which we say cannot
17 be restricted to a very short period. Of course, my
18 friend may not get letters from his children --
19 MR BURNETT: My father-in-law.
20 MR MANSFIELD: -- but this was an unusual relationship which
21 was being conducted -- or other relatives, in this was
22 -- in a very peculiar vacuum at that time, if I may say.
23 Therefore, it goes directly to what we are
24 submitting and have submitted is the question of an
25 approach by this central figure to the other central

213

1 figure in this instance. And my learned friend began by
2 saying that this is not an inquiry into the life of
3 the Princess of Wales.
4 Well, actually he is wrong. It is an inquiry into
5 the life of the Princess of Wales if in fact there is
6 a question here about unlawful killing because the first
7 question, taking it at the highest level is: why would
8 she be deprived in any way, or at least be shocked or
9 frightened or anybody want to take any adverse action
10 towards her? That is a question that plainly the Paget
11 inquiry asked, the French inquiry did not ask it. But
12 you obviously and this inquiry does ask it.
13 It is an obvious question, unless it is going to be
14 said that the jury cannot ask that question. If they
15 can ask that question about the life of the
16 Princess of Wales, then the Duke of Edinburgh is in
17 a prime position to deal with at least what his approach
18 was both to the Princess and to Dodi.
19 And so therefore, that approach is of prime
20 importance. The Burrell conversation, well, if it is
21 merely an inquiry to find out whether there is
22 relevance, it is at this stage very premature to say we
23 are never going to ask her what she meant or even if she
24 said it.
25 As Mr Croxford has already pointed out, in any other

214

1 case if somebody like that had said months afterwards:
2 "be careful" in the context of a death, what on earth
3 she meant by it, it may be dealt with immediately, even
4 if it is going only going to be dealt with --
5 I appreciate the difference between allaying rumours
6 which may not go effectively in the end to the questions
7 that the jury ask. We are not going to introduce into
8 our submissions that concept at every stage that
9 the jury have to, as it were, allay suspicion at every
10 stage because some of that has already been dealt with
11 and we will focus on the bits that have.
12 But that conversation with the Queen at that time,
13 if it happened, is highly pertinent, so the very many --
14 the multitude of questions that really tend to get
15 condensed to, well, is there any evidence of the Duke
16 ordering; is there any evidence of the security services
17 doing X and Y; is perhaps not the only question that
18 the jury will want to ask.
19 One of the questions that the jury will want to
20 ask -- and may I finish on this -- is whether in fact
21 they have had from the authorities a full picture?
22 We have just been handed, if I may say so, an
23 extremely important document. I do not know whether you
24 have had it or had sight of it before, dated 3rd March.
25 It is a review. I would submit -- do you have this?

215

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I do not think I have had this.
2 I do not know what it is or where it has come from.
3 MR MANSFIELD: It is a note completed by Mr Hodges. I have
4 forgotten his rank but in any event --
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: He is retired Detective
6 Inspector. Chief Inspector.
7 MR MANSFIELD: Chief Inspector I think.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sorry.
9 MR MANSFIELD: What is significant, and you only have to run
10 your eye down this, is to see in fact at long last
11 we have an answer to the series of questions and we say
12 the answer being quite different to some of the evidence
13 that you have had, even the most recent evidence about
14 Norfolk that came from Mr Meynell, no doubt based on an
15 improbable, if I may put it this way, recollection by
16 Lord Fellowes that actually nothing happened. No record
17 of anything happening after this.
18 Now, the jury may want to ask themselves why on
19 earth nothing was done on a matter of this significance
20 and every witness has agreed it is significant. Why is
21 it relevant, we say, to what happened in the tunnel?
22 It is relevant, we say, to the attitude of the
23 authorities in relation to in particular Princess Diana
24 and I put it to several witnesses that she was not taken
25 seriously, she was marginalised even at that stage and

216

1 over something as important as this, if Her Majesty said
2 as quite rightly she almost certainly would have said,
3 I want this investigated, then the question that still
4 remains is why wasn't it.
5 At this stage, there was no question of the
6 Home Office saying -- I appreciate that is on the facts,
7 I did not have this document before, but we would submit
8 it is important material in relation to -- it is not
9 every rabbit, it is not every hare, it is dealing with
10 an attitude in mind by the authorities to these
11 important matters, and if in fact there has been
12 obfuscation over this, but in fact there hasn't even
13 been an investigation in relation to it, the big
14 question is: why not?
15 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I do not have a right of reply.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
17 Reply submissions by MR CROXFORD
18 MR CROXFORD: I think I would have a right to respond to
19 the advice that Mr Burnett has given you. I do not seek
20 to exercise any such right, I rely on what Mr Mansfield
21 has said. May I say three things about reasons?
22 We would respectfully invite you to give reasons and
23 say that you should for the following underlying
24 reasons: firstly, in the post Human Rights Convention
25 world, it is the norm and the expectation of these

217

1 courts.
2 Secondly, and I say this not in terrorem but in
3 order that we may consider the legality of whatever
4 decision you make and whether or not it should be a
5 matter which we would seek to review elsewhere, I am
6 bound to ask you for these reasons and now is
7 the convenient time.
8 And thirdly, as I laboured to explain and
9 Mr Mansfield has also just laboured to explain, it seems
10 to me at least that on one side of the outcome, if you
11 are against Mr Mansfield's application, then the outcome
12 will affect what verdicts may properly be left to
13 the jury and it will be necessary both to be able to
14 that issue next week in the most sensible fashion and
15 also to do so in a logical and legally appropriate
16 fashion. We cannot do that without reasons.
17 As I have said myself, the Metropolitan Police
18 approach results, we would say, in you having to
19 withdraw certain verdicts. We would say that you tell
20 us now your reasons for whatever decision you are about
21 to make.
22 Sir, I hope I did not take more than a minute or so.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, do you have any
24 observations about reason?
25 MR BURNETT: Sir, as far as the need to give reasons is

218

1 concerned, it would, as you are aware, be normal for any
2 decision-maker to give reasons, albeit fairly short,
3 reasons for a decision.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
5 MR BURNETT: Sir, as far as this evening is concerned --
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: They are not coming now.
7 MR BURNETT: They are not coming now. Totally
8 impracticable, not least because the shorthandwriters
9 will keel over if we don't stop before long but, sir,
10 reasons will have to be given if the parties ask for
11 them.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. It is certainly not
13 intended that my decision should in any way fetter
14 the arguments about issues that should be left to
15 the jury.
16 MR BURNETT: Sir, speaking entirely for myself, it is not
17 a matter I have been able to canvas with either of my
18 learned friends, but it does not seem to me that
19 the argument that has just been advanced, that your
20 decision now might in some way inhibit the scope of
21 verdicts/issues that you leave to the jury is right at
22 all.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
24 MR BURNETT: And sir, I should say that that is a personal
25 submission I make. I am not giving you advice publicly.

219

1 Mr Croxford is straying back to an argument I thought he
2 had given up on last July.
3 Sir, the last thing is this: insofar as reasons are
4 given, you again will be entirely familiar -- and this
5 is rather an impertinent submission -- that it is not
6 necessary in such reasons to traverse every last point
7 that has been raised in the course of argument, oral or
8 written, that the reasons need do no more than give all
9 of those concerned an indication of the principal
10 findings that you make, if you make any, and the reasons
11 that support the conclusions that you reach.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
13 Decision
14 In my judgment it is not expedient to call the Duke
15 of Edinburgh to give evidence, nor do I think the Queen
16 should be asked to answer the questions posed by
17 Mr Mansfield. Neither step will in my judgment further
18 the inquest process.
19 MR BURNETT: Thank you, sir. Two administrative matters
20 arise and I am sorry, they just have to be dealt with.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
22 MR BURNETT: The first is that when the transcript is added
23 to the jurors' bundle, as it will be, all of the
24 exchanges since they left court must be deleted.
25 The second is this: my learned friend, Mr Horwell

220

1 raised a concern that the discussion here might be
2 picked up in foreign media or on the internet and thus
3 somehow filter back.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think I raised it at some
5 point.
6 MR BURNETT: I wonder, sir, whether the way to deal with
7 that would be for the transcript of the discussions we
8 have been having since the jury left court to be kept in
9 a separate document and not immediately put onto
10 the website as usually happens.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What can be put onto the website
12 is the decision I have just given and the two-sentence
13 description of it.
14 MR BURNETT: Indeed, sir.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you all very much. I am
16 sorry we have been so late this evening.
17 (5.30 pm)
18 (The hearing was adjourned until
19 Monday 10th March 2008 at 9.30 am)
20
21
22
23
24
25

221

1 INDEX
2
3 MR GOKSIN SIPAHIOGLU (sworn) ..................... 1
4
5 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 1
6
7 Questions from MR MANSFIELD ............... 16
8
9 Questions from MR CROXFORD ................ 24
10
11 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 25
12
13 MRS NATACHA FOUCQUET (affirmed) .................. 27
14
15 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 27
16
17 Questions from MR MANSFIELD ............... 39
18
19 Further questions from MR HOUGH ........... 43
20
21 MR FRANZ KLEIN (recalled) ........................ 45
22
23 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 45
24
25 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 50

222

1
2 Questions from MR CROXFORD ................ 63
3
4 MR MICHAEL COLE (recalled) ....................... 65
5
6 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 65
7
8 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 74
9
10 Questions from MR HOUGH ................... 82
11
12 Questions from MR KEEN .................... 88
13
14 Questions from MR HORWELL ................. 91
15
16 Statement of MR MARTIN SMITH (read) .............. 92
17
18 Statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY (read) .............. 96
19
20 Statement of DIDIER GAMBLIN (read) ............... 97
21
22 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY ............. 107
23 (read)
24
25 Further statement of MR THOMAS FOLEY ............. 108

223

1 (read)
2
3 Discussion re further evidence ................... 128
4
5 Submissions by MR MANSFIELD ...................... 152
6
7 Submissions by MR CROXFORD ....................... 186
8
9 Submissions by MR HORWELL ........................ 197
10
11 Submissions by MR BURNETT. ....................... 200
12
13 Reply submissions by MR MANSFIELD ................ 211
14
15 Reply submissions by MR CROXFORD ............... 217
16
17 Decision ......................................... 220
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

224



 

<< Back