Hearing transcripts

14 February 2008 - Morning session

1 Thursday, 14th February 2008
2 (10.00 am)
3 (Jury present)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, you may
5 remember, when I opened this case to you last October,
6 that I mentioned that the conclusions of Paget inquiry
7 which had been very widely publicised and the French
8 investigation were neither here nor there and that
9 the facts are for you on the evidence that you hear in
10 these inquests.
11 It is important that I should re-emphasise this
12 point before Lord Stevens gives evidence. Inevitably
13 over the last four months you have heard what this or
14 that witness said to the French police or the juge or
15 the Paget officers, but they were not cross-examined at
16 the time by or on behalf of the interested persons as
17 witnesses have been before you. A witness's evidence is
18 what he or she says to you, and what he or she said on
19 some previous occasion is only relevant as throwing
20 light on the reliability or accuracy of what the witness
21 tells you.
22 When Lord Stevens gives evidence, it is not
23 therefore relevant to ask him questions to show that his
24 inquiry reached the right or the wrong conclusion. His
25 inquiry, unlike ours, was not a court process based on

1

1 evidence through the witness box heard by you.
2 I anticipate, therefore, that the issues on which he can
3 give relevant evidence are likely to be few.
4 I emphasise once again that this is not
5 a reinvestigation of Operation Paget or indeed
6 the French inquiry. The bottom line is you are
7 concerned with how Dodi and Diana died in the evidence
8 adduced before you.
9 I mention that before Lord Stevens gives his
10 evidence.
11 LORD JOHN STEVENS OF KIRKWHELPINGTON (sworn)
12 A. John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
13 from 2000 to 2005 and overall responsible for
14 Operation Paget.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Lord Stevens, please sit or
16 stand, as you would prefer. It is entirely for you to
17 decide.
18 A. Old habits, sir, about standing.
19 Questions from MR BURNETT
20 MR BURNETT: Lord Stevens, as you know, I shall be asking
21 you some questions first on behalf of the Coroner and
22 then there may be questions from other counsel
23 representing interested persons.
24 Now, you heard what the Coroner said to the jury
25 reminding them of things that he had said at the outset.

2

1 It may be that although I will not disappoint you, I may
2 disappoint others by not asking you to explain your
3 investigation and your conclusions and all the matters
4 of that sort because you understand that it is a matter
5 for the jury to make factual conclusions on relevant
6 issues.
7 A. I do understand that.
8 Q. So, Lord Stevens, there are three relatively short
9 topics on which I shall ask a few questions and I shall
10 simply flag them up now.
11 The first is in connection with the setting up of
12 your investigation which came to be known as
13 Operation Paget. The second concerns what has been
14 described to the jury as the "Mishcon note". The third
15 touches on the meeting that you had with the parents of
16 Henri Paul in Paris on 8th November 2006, about which
17 we have heard evidence.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, before going to those topics, you told us that you
20 were Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from which
21 year?
22 A. January 2000 to the end of January 2005. I was also
23 Deputy Commissioner for 18 months before taking up that
24 appointment.
25 Q. Since retiring, you have continued to have an

3

1 involvement with these inquests?
2 A. Until today, of course, and beyond I suspect.
3 Q. Can I ask you first about the circumstances in which
4 Operation Paget came to be set up? I trust that this
5 will not be controversial and so I shall do it fairly
6 swiftly.
7 Is it right that you received a letter from the then
8 Coroner, Michael Burgess, dated 21st August 2003,
9 inviting you, as Commissioner of Police for the
10 Metropolis, to investigate the allegations that had been
11 formulated at that stage by Mr Mohamed Al Fayed?
12 A. That is true.
13 Q. Did the Coroner enclose with his letter to you
14 correspondence that he had received from solicitors
15 acting for Mr Al Fayed and indeed Mr Al Fayed himself
16 which crystallised the allegations that were being made?
17 A. That is true.
18 Q. Did he also observe that whilst those letters fell short
19 of providing anything that might be called "evidence",
20 they were nonetheless allegations which, in the
21 Coroner's view, should be investigated?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Before 21st August 2003, when the letter was sent by the
24 Coroner, the Metropolitan Police had been providing
25 assistance to Mr Burgess and also to his predecessor as

4

1 Royal Coroner, Dr Burton. That is right, isn't it?
2 A. That is right.
3 Q. They were acting as coroners' officers and essentially
4 liaising with the French and making some independent
5 inquiries on behalf of the Coroners.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But before this letter came -- and we will look at
8 the follow-up in a moment -- there had not been any
9 independent investigation carried out by the Met into
10 what I will describe as "conspiracy allegations".
11 A. That is true.
12 Q. In that letter of 21st August 2003, did the Coroner also
13 indicate that it was his intention shortly thereafter to
14 open the inquests?
15 A. Yes, in January.
16 Q. Now, on 1st September 2003, was a reply to that letter
17 written on behalf of the Commissioner, that is you,
18 suggesting that the letters had been passed onto the
19 French authorities and that your current view was that
20 the matter should be pursued by the French authorities
21 rather than the Metropolitan Police?
22 A. At that stage, yes.
23 Q. So that was the initial reaction. But, in fact,
24 am I right in thinking that following further
25 correspondence, it was agreed between you and the

5

1 Coroner that the Metropolitan Police should investigate
2 all of the conspiracy theories and much else?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The Coroner opened the inquests on Tuesday
5 6th January 2004, did he not?
6 A. He did.
7 Q. As the jury may appreciate, at that stage the inquests
8 had not been coalesced, as it were, in front of a single
9 coroner. Mr Burgess had two jurisdictions, didn't he?
10 A. He did.
11 Q. So he opened the inquest into the death of Diana,
12 Princess of Wales, in London in Westminster.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Then he opened the inquest into the death of
15 Dodi Al Fayed in Surrey, two or three hours later.
16 A. True.
17 Q. In the course of the opening, he made a very detailed
18 statement setting out his position and trying to explain
19 the inquest process. In the course of that, he said
20 this, didn't he?
21 "I am aware that there is speculation that these
22 deaths were not the result of a sad but relatively
23 straightforward road traffic accident in Paris. I have
24 asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to make
25 inquiries. The results of these inquiries will help me

6

1 to decide whether such matters will fall within the
2 scope of the investigation carried out at the inquests."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So that was what had been agreed. Is it right also that
5 you and Mr Burgess agreed terms of reference for your
6 inquiry which you signed off on 15th January 2004?
7 A. That is true.
8 Q. And it included investigating matters which might
9 suggest that the crash was not an accident?
10 A. Very much so.
11 Q. At the same time you indicated a management structure
12 for your own purposes, but also to the Coroner, so that
13 he was aware of the type of resources and the command
14 structure that was being put in place?
15 A. Yes, and also to ensure that the Paget team themselves
16 understood what their objectives were and what their job
17 descriptions were.
18 Q. That became Operation Paget, and you pursued your
19 inquiries over the course of something approaching three
20 years before you reported?
21 A. We did indeed.
22 Q. Can I move then to the Mishcon note?
23 Now you will be aware, even though you have not been
24 here all the time, that Lord Mishcon's note has been put
25 before the jury and also there has been evidence about

7

1 the circumstances in which it was created and the
2 communications that Lord Mishcon had with your
3 predecessor, Lord Condon.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Additionally, you will be aware that Lord Condon
6 explains the circumstances in which he came into
7 possession of the note and then, also, how he passed it
8 onto you when you became Commissioner.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at the evidence that
11 Lord Condon gave about that?
12 A. I have.
13 Q. Until you came became Commissioner and were being
14 briefed by Lord Condon in advance of taking up your
15 appointment, were you aware of the Mishcon note?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Can I read to you an extract from Lord Condon's
18 evidence? Sir, for anyone's note, Lord Condon gave
19 evidence on 16th January 2008 and I am looking at
20 pages 183 and 184 of the transcript.
21 If you will bear with me as I read a series of
22 questions and answers and then ask you essentially
23 whether you agree with it and if not, to explain any
24 differences of recollection that you have.
25 "Question: Now just before you finished your period

8

1 of office as Commissioner, which, as we know, was the
2 end of January of 2000 -- I think on 19th January of
3 that year -- did you brief your successor, then
4 Sir John Stevens, about this matter?
5 "Answer: Yes I did. Although I was
6 Commissioner until the end of the month, that was, in
7 effect, my last working week. So the Friday of that
8 particular week, which included the 19th, was my last
9 working week as Commissioner, and it was important that
10 I did everything that needed to be done in terms of
11 handover. In many ways that was sort of the -- one of
12 the final pieces of the jigsaw of handing over to the
13 now Lord Stevens.
14 "I had a meeting with John, I took him through the
15 details of the meeting with Lord Mishcon, I took him
16 through what we had done, I unsealed the envelope from
17 my safe that contained this information. John read it,
18 we re-sealed it and I made it absolutely clear that
19 I kept no copies, no notes. I am not someone who ever
20 intended to write a book or keep diaries, so what was
21 left with the Met was -- it was very important that
22 Lord Stevens, as the in-coming Commissioner, knew of
23 this obligation to Lord Mishcon."
24 Now, that is what Lord Condon said of his
25 recollection as far as briefing you on the matter. As

9

1 far as your recollection, is that accurate?
2 A. That is totally accurate.
3 Q. Now we have the note from Lord Mishcon in the safe,
4 under your control, as it were, as Commissioner, rather
5 than Lord Condon's. Did you take any different view
6 about what should happen to it at that stage?
7 A. No. It was one of a number of issues that were in
8 the safe. It was something that he went through with
9 other things, and he very symbolically handed over
10 the keys to me and said, "There you go, it is yours
11 now". I was Commissioner from that day forward really,
12 although I was not paid, of course, until 1st February.
13 So one of the things I do remember that Paul Condon
14 said was the business of confidentiality with
15 Lord Mishcon, that nothing should happen unless we went
16 to Lord Mishcon for permission to actually disclose that
17 document.
18 Q. So you did nothing with that document until 2003. We
19 shall come to that in a moment.
20 A. That is right.
21 Q. Lord Condon went on and said this:
22 "... subsequently, when the Burrell material was
23 published in 2003, I in fact rang up John Stevens, who
24 was then Commissioner, just to make sure that this
25 documentation was still available and would be acted

10

1 upon."
2 Just taking that in stages, the Burrell material
3 that Lord Condon was referring to is what has been
4 called the "Burrell note" in these proceedings and
5 elsewhere. You are aware of that?
6 A. Yes, which appeared in the Daily Mirror, if I remember
7 rightly.
8 Q. Now, independently of any call from Lord Condon, had
9 you, on hearing about the Burrell note, considered that
10 anything needed to be done with the Mishcon note?
11 A. In all honesty, no, not at that stage.
12 Q. Do you remember Lord Condon telephoning you and
13 reminding you of the note?
14 A. I remember that, and I also remember subsequently --
15 I think I was away over a two-day period -- Lord Mishcon
16 trying to get in touch with me as well.
17 Q. Did Lord Mishcon in fact manage to make contact with
18 you?
19 A. He did.
20 Q. Following the contacts that you had had from both
21 Lord Condon and Lord Mishcon, what did you do with
22 the note?
23 A. Well, we had a meeting with our senior solicitors, took
24 legal advice, obviously opened the note and I handed
25 that note -- I got Mr Veness up and handed that note to

11

1 our solicitors' department for legal advice.
2 Q. Having taken advice -- and we need not go into any
3 advice that you were given -- what course was adopted?
4 A. The course that was adopted was that we again saw
5 Lord Mishcon and that we felt that this should be
6 disclosed to the Coroner. He more or less agreed, but
7 he still had reservations -- even until we took the
8 final statement for the Paget inquiry to close that
9 issue, he still had reservations about the
10 confidentiality that he had with his client, the
11 Princess of Wales. He was a very, very honourable man
12 and did not want to disclose things that he had taken in
13 confidence from her. So he still had a difficulty about
14 the whole note being disclosed.
15 Q. So he was concerned about confidentiality and privilege,
16 was he?
17 A. He was, yes, to the end. He was also concerned to the
18 very end about the hurt that the disclosure of that note
19 could give to the Princes and other people.
20 Q. In what circumstances, then, was it decided that the
21 note should go to the Coroner?
22 A. At the end of the day, my view and I think everyone's
23 view was that it should go to the Coroner. It should go
24 to the Coroner when the inquest was opened, which is in
25 fact what took place. There was never any decision not

12

1 to give that to the Coroner. That would always have
2 taken place. It was a matter of timing. That was
3 the issue.
4 Q. And that is what happened to it?
5 A. That is exactly what happened to it, yes.
6 Q. And then it and matters arising from it and the Burrell
7 note were included within the investigation that you
8 performed?
9 A. They were, yes.
10 Q. But the short question really is that in possession as
11 you were of a document containing quite clear
12 suggestions that individuals who were named might seek
13 to do harm to her, that was not earlier disclosed to
14 French investigators --
15 A. No.
16 Q. -- and the Coroner.
17 A. No.
18 Q. And why not?
19 A. Well, one, the confidentiality issue was a major issue,
20 and you have to look at the document as a whole.
21 I remember reading it before we resealed it and put it
22 back into the safe amongst other things -- it just was
23 not one issue, there were other issues and other things
24 that I was dealing with which, believe it or not, were
25 far more important than this, by far -- but I remember

13

1 reading it and looking and thinking, "Well, abdication,
2 car crashes", there were three or four issues or five
3 issues there that had never come to fruition.
4 The other issue, of course, was that Dave Veness was
5 the continuity with the French inquiry and he had
6 the job of what we refer to in the police as
7 "exceptional reporting", of reporting back to me if
8 there was an issue that we thought we had to deal with
9 that particular note, but I do not remember that there
10 was any issue.
11 Q. I will move on then to the next topic, which concerns
12 the question of your discussions with Mme and M Paul --
13 A. Indeed.
14 Q. -- in Paris on 8th November 2006.
15 Now, in connection with this narrow issue, it is
16 right, isn't it, that you made a short statement as --
17 in fact, long after the Paget Report was published, but
18 one that you made for the purposes of these coronial
19 proceedings on 17th August last year?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That followed, I think, an observation that had been
22 made in one of the pre-inquest hearings that there was
23 a gross discrepancy between what you had said to M and
24 Mme Paul in Paris and what subsequently appeared in
25 the Paget Report.

14

1 A. If I may take that further, there were scurrilous
2 allegations may about my conduct and the conduct of
3 the Paget team in relation to this particular issue,
4 which I would like to go through, if it is okay, in some
5 detail, and I am looking for an apology in relation to
6 this in due course.
7 Q. What were the allegations that concern you?
8 A. The allegations were three-fold: one, that we were
9 either negligent; two, that we had not done the job
10 properly; or three, which was the extraordinary
11 accusation that I had been got at in terms of what
12 the evidence was, in terms of how the report was going
13 to be put forward. Quite outrageous. I will take that
14 on my behalf, but I will not have it said about people
15 who worked for me for four years, who sometimes cannot
16 defend themselves on these issues. I have not said
17 anything about it until today, but I will be saying
18 a few things about it today, I hope.
19 Q. Well, Lord Condon --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think you are a bit out of
21 date.
22 MR BURNETT: Sir, that is not the first time that has been
23 said to me.
24 Lord Stevens, you will be asked questions by others
25 that may go more directly to that than the questions

15

1 that I am intending to ask.
2 A. I do hope so.
3 Q. Now, if you have that statement in front of you,
4 Lord Stevens --
5 A. I think I have. I can remember it anyway --
6 Q. Let me just take you through one or two parts of it.
7 You are aware, are you not, that shortly after
8 the crash there was at least one newspaper headline --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- which used an extremely offensive and derogatory
11 expression in relation to Henri Paul, namely that he was
12 "drunk as a pig"?
13 A. "Drunk as a pig", yes.
14 Q. Is it right -- I am looking at the penultimate paragraph
15 on this statement -- that in the report -- and you
16 identify the page number -- this was said:
17 "Although definitions of 'drunk' are naturally
18 subjective, it is fair to say that Henri Paul was not
19 'drunk as a pig', as allegedly reported in some
20 newspapers at the time. It was clear from the Ritz
21 Hotel CCTV footage that Henri Paul was able to move
22 easily around the hotel and that he gave no signs of
23 impaired movement."
24 So that is what was said in the report.
25 A. That is what was said in the report, and I will -- with

16

1 the agreement of the Coroner, there is a couple of
2 letters in terms of our exchange with Mr Al Fayed's team
3 which I would like to go through, which actually prove
4 that.
5 Let me just deal with the issue of drunkenness.
6 It is the only time when police officers can act as an
7 expert witness. Certainly having -- well, it is
8 45/46 years ago, but the definition of "drunkenness" for
9 a police officer is this: speech slurred, eyes glazed,
10 unsteady on his feet or her feet, he was drunk.
11 We never saw that -- and you will make your own
12 assumptions from what took place on the CCTV -- we never
13 saw that in relation to Henri Paul, and therefore for
14 me -- and we discussed it at length as to whether we
15 said he was drunk; we know he was under the influence of
16 alcohol. The evidence was there -- we would not say he
17 was drunk. It was a decision that was made together
18 with my colleagues.
19 Q. Now, the description of "drunk" that you have just given
20 to the jury from a police officer's point of view,
21 dredging my memory of appearances in magistrates' courts
22 many years ago, police officers would give that evidence
23 and finish with the words "He was drunk, your worships".
24 A. "He was drunk, your worships", and it was one of the
25 only occasions that you probably did not cross-examined,

17

1 if I remember rightly.
2 Q. You, as you say, saw nothing of that?
3 A. We did not, and looking at the CCTV, looking at
4 the witness statements, we knew that Henri Paul by
5 account had a high tolerance for drink and in all
6 honesty we could not say he was drunk, in our definition
7 of it.
8 Q. Now, if I can take you to the meeting itself. The jury
9 saw an extract from the record of the meeting that was
10 prepared by your officers and signed by DI Scotchbrook.
11 Perhaps I can read you the relevant section rather than
12 have it called up.
13 It is at the bottom of page 2 of the typed note in
14 English.
15 "Lord Stevens explained that Operation Paget would
16 not be saying that their son was drunk. Operation Paget
17 would be saying that he had consumed two alcoholic
18 drinks on the night of the incident. M Paul expressed
19 that Henri Paul had not done anything wrong by having
20 a drink. He had finished work for the day."
21 A. Do you want to finish the whole of that paragraph, if
22 you would be so kind?
23 Q. "Lord Stevens concurred, reaffirming that Henri Paul had
24 finished his working day at 7 pm. Lord Stevens
25 explained that Operation Paget was still having

18

1 difficulty in determining Henri Paul's whereabouts
2 between 7 and 10 pm on that night. Mme and M Paul
3 explained that they also were not aware of his
4 whereabouts between those times and that he could have
5 gone out for a drink, but that he had finished work."
6 A. But he could have gone out for a drink, they accepted
7 that.
8 Q. Two points arise on the note that I would like to ask
9 you. The first is "Lord Stevens explained that
10 Operation Paget would not be saying that their son was
11 drunk". You have given your explanation to the jury of
12 what you meant by that. Is there anything you can
13 usefully add?
14 A. This again had always been our opinion. Is it okay,
15 sir, if I actually refer to some letters or do I leave
16 that to some later stage?
17 MR BURNETT: I will certainly take you to one of the
18 letters, and if there is another one you have in mind,
19 we will go to it. Can I then ask you the next question
20 that arises? It is from this sentence:
21 "Operation Paget would be saying that he had
22 consumed two alcoholic drinks on the night of the
23 incident."
24 Now, reading that, one might infer that the message
25 that you were conveying was that Henri Paul had only

19

1 consumed two alcoholic drinks on the night of the
2 incident. If that were right, it would be inconsistent
3 with a suggestion that he had 170-odd milligrams per --
4 A. Three times the French limit, twice our limit, yes.
5 Q. You do understand that that could be an inference; that
6 might in fact be the natural reading of that sentence?
7 A. If you had been there, that would not have been the
8 natural reading. What I was talking about then -- again
9 we discussed this -- is what the evidence was against
10 Henri Paul that night before he took the decisions he
11 did about driving the car.
12 The evidence was that he had taken two Ricards,
13 drunk two Ricards, from people behind the bar, the
14 Bar Vendome, and also he had drunk those and we were
15 being fair to Henri Paul. All through this inquiry
16 we have tried to be fair to everybody involved. We have
17 never ever done anything which has not been in an
18 independent way and we were being fair to him.
19 Drunk? Two Ricards referred to the -- non-drunk;
20 two Ricards referred to the evidence we had.
21 Q. You do understand, Lord Stevens, how reading that
22 paragraph and certainly the first half of it, it does
23 appear to convey a different impression?
24 A. It does appear to do that, but that is not the fact, and
25 that is why I asked you to read the whole paragraph

20

1 because then we continue in to what took place earlier
2 in the evening.
3 Q. In your statement you mention a letter that you wrote on
4 10th November 2006. So that is two days after
5 the meeting with M and Mme Paul in Paris, is that right?
6 A. That is right, yes.
7 Q. And that was a letter that you wrote to whom?
8 A. Have you got a copy of it? There are so many letters
9 that I want to make sure I am referring to the right one
10 (Handed).
11 Q. 10th November.
12 A. This was not the letter I wrote. This was a letter that
13 Dave Douglas wrote, Deputy Chief Superintendent
14 Dave Douglas.
15 Q. Now, is this the letter that you had in mind which you
16 referred to in your statement?
17 A. I do indeed.
18 Q. Which part of the letter, in your view, is material to
19 the issue that we are discussing at the moment?
20 A. It is a letter which actually sets out what the
21 situation is with the blood and goes through that.
22 The issue in the letter, which is the important part of
23 it, is that Dave Douglas says, as is our agreement, that
24 we will not be saying that Henri Paul is drunk as a pig,
25 but we will be saying that he is under the influence of

21

1 alcohol when he was driving that car, which actually is
2 consistent with everything we have done in terms of
3 the interview with Mr and Mrs Paul, which remember was
4 an interview with two very frail people. That coincides
5 with the report, which I shall not refer to for obvious
6 reasons, and also the overview that I gave when
7 the report came out.
8 Q. Well now, just looking at the letter, if one looks at
9 the bottom of the first page, there is a second point
10 being discussed which concerns the crash. This is what
11 is said, isn't it?
12 "Henri Paul was under the influence of alcohol and
13 prescribed medication."
14 Is that the sentence in this letter that you have in
15 mind?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now I think you also, a moment ago, mentioned that there
18 may be another letter which touched on this issue. I do
19 not think there is another one referred to in your
20 statement, but do you have another letter there with
21 you?
22 A. Yes. There are again -- I will be careful here what
23 I say -- there is a letter of 9th March which is to
24 David Douglas, from Stuart Benson, who represents
25 Mr Al Fayed, and then there is a reply to that on the

22

1 14th to Mr Benson. In that letter, it is quite clear
2 where we are in relation to it.
3 Q. Would you care to read the section from it that you have
4 in mind, which may be on the last page?
5 A. It is on the last page. Here I quote from the letter:
6 "For completeness, I am happy to state at this point
7 in my view [and that was the view of us all, not just
8 his, obviously], based on all the evidence available to
9 us, is that Henri Paul was not drunk as a pig, as
10 referred to in some publications immediately after
11 the crash, but more correctly described as 'under
12 the influence of alcohol'. I am aware that these media
13 comments have caused offence to the family members of
14 M Paul and others."
15 Q. And indeed --
16 A. That was in the possession of Mr Benson and others and
17 his team.
18 Q. The language that you have just read from that paragraph
19 is pretty much the precise language that appeared in
20 the report.
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. Last from me, Lord Stevens, just a general question:
23 I am right in thinking, aren't I, that all of the
24 evidential material collected by your investigation has
25 been passed to the Coroner?

23

1 A. Every single bit of it.
2 MR BURNETT: Thank you. Those are my questions.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
4 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
5 MR MANSFIELD: Good morning, Lord Stevens. I represent
6 Mohamed Al Fayed. I think you know who I am, sir.
7 A. I certainly do.
8 Q. I am asking you questions within the very clear ambit of
9 the indications given by the learned Coroner this
10 morning.
11 So that it is very clear to you, the questions
12 I have relate to the very first two topics; that is, the
13 setting up the inquiry known as "Paget" and also
14 inter-related with that is the Mishcon note. For ease
15 of reference, it might be simpler if I begin at the end.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Do you agree that the Mishcon note was first of all
18 potentially relevant?
19 A. Potentially relevant.
20 Q. You may have read Mr Veness' evidence in which he
21 accepted that it was potentially relevant.
22 A. I have not seen his evidence.
23 Q. Well, I put the same question to him and he agreed that.
24 Do you also agree that bearing that in mind, there
25 is a -- it has been described as a "common law duty" to

24

1 disclose potentially relevant information to
2 the Coroner?
3 A. When the inquest starts, yes.
4 Q. Is that your understanding?
5 A. Indeed.
6 Q. Indeed. Well who told you that?
7 A. You are not going to disclose something to a coroner if
8 a coroner has not been appointed and the inquest has not
9 started.
10 Q. I am sorry, you are under a misapprehension and you may
11 be under other misapprehensions.
12 A. I doubt it.
13 Q. Please, Lord Stevens, I appreciate you had a lot of
14 responsibilities -- for all I know, you still have --
15 and you may have made certain assumptions.
16 I would like you to think very carefully about this
17 one: the obligation or duty to disclose to the Coroner
18 is not dependent about the Coroner having opened
19 the inquests, is it?
20 A. If the Coroner has not opened the inquest, no, it is
21 not, if it is relevant to that inquest, and there are
22 not other limitations on why you can disclose it, other
23 limitations.
24 Q. I will come to that.
25 As you have not read the examination here and

25

1 evidence of Mr Veness, then you will not have seen
2 a document that I put to him and I am going to have to
3 put it to you. Could we have [INQ0034968]?
4 This is a letter from the Coroner written in
5 October 2003, on the 28th. Have you seen this before?
6 It is to Mr Burrell.
7 A. No, I have not seen it before. Not in detail, I do not
8 remember it, no.
9 Q. We don't want the address, thank you. Others might,
10 I certainly don't.
11 A. I am sure that Mr Burrell wouldn't.
12 Q. I am sorry about that. It is a slight slip that
13 sometimes happens.
14 So that it is clear to you, this was a letter that
15 was written on 28th October within days of the Burrell
16 note or letter, as it has been known, and you will
17 appreciate what that means in this case --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- in other words, his possession of a letter or
20 memorandum or however it may be described, written by
21 Diana. Of course, you have seen that as part of your
22 inquiry, so you know what I am talking about.
23 A. I do.
24 Q. It was published -- and actually again, to save time,
25 I was going to put it on the screen -- but I think you

26

1 will agree it was published in the press on
2 20th October, amidst a great deal of fanfare, by the
3 Daily Mirror, wasn't it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I am going to hold it up so that it can be seen:
6 "I will suffer brake failure and serious head
7 injuries."
8 It is that document. That is only part of it. Then
9 it goes on to talk about Diana's prediction and then it
10 goes on to publish the letter with redactions and so
11 forth. In fact, what happened in the days that followed
12 20th October were further revelations taken mostly from
13 his book on 21st, 22nd, 23rd October. So most of that
14 week pre-occupies that particular tabloid with those
15 particular revelations.
16 Now, what the Coroner does -- we say quite
17 properly -- and you will recall by this stage that the
18 inquests have not been opened. Do you follow?
19 A. (Witness nods)
20 Q. He points out in the first paragraph -- can we keep
21 the letter up, please -- who he is and what he is doing.
22 "In the meantime, it has been drawn to my attention
23 that you may have a letter which contains information
24 which may be relevant and germane to the inquest and the
25 manner of the death of the late Diana,

27

1 Princess of Wales. As I am sure you are aware, there is
2 a common law duty to provide the Coroner all and any
3 information relevant to a death which you may have in
4 your possession or is within your knowledge, even
5 without the Coroner specifically seeking this from you.
6 "Ultimately, it is up to me, as the Coroner, to
7 determine whether a document or a matter is relevant to
8 the inquests. I wish to have sight of that letter,
9 please, together with any other documents or writings
10 which may have a similar relevance. I will also need to
11 know the basis upon which the latter was written or
12 documents were created and/or came into your possession
13 because that then may place them into some sort of
14 context. The letter and/or other documents may need to
15 be examined forensically.
16 "I therefore ask you that you make the letter and
17 any other documents available to me and also assist me
18 further by providing a statement setting out those
19 matters to which I have referred, as well as all and any
20 other information. I will ask a police officer, who has
21 been seconded to me for the purposes of assisting me
22 with my pre-inquest inquiries, to take such a statement
23 from you."
24 Then over the page -- perhaps we will just complete
25 it. It is [INQ0034969].

28

1 "In making this request of you, I do not, in any
2 way, seek to interfere with whatever right you or others
3 may have in the letter and/or documents. If they are
4 found to be relevant, then I may be required to retain
5 them under statutory provisions requiring the Coroner to
6 retain exhibits.
7 "I would be grateful if you would please confirm to
8 me in writing ...", and so on.
9 So I am going to suggest to you that it was
10 perfectly clear that the Coroner was making pre-inquest
11 inquiries. You knew that, didn't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You must have known that because the very first policy
14 document set up after the crash related to that, didn't
15 it?
16 A. Going back to the letter --
17 Q. Well, wait a minute.
18 A. No, no. You have asked the question. Let me answer it
19 my way, please. What happened when The Mirror article
20 came out was there was a phone call from Lord Condon,
21 phone calls from Lord Mishcon. We then took legal
22 advice as to what we should do, bearing in mind
23 the confidentiality that Lord Mishcon quite rightly was
24 holding onto, and you have to see that letter in that
25 context.

29

1 Q. I understand. You have said that already. I am dealing
2 with this in sequence, if I may, in relation to a duty
3 to disclose; do you follow? You were indicating that
4 there was no duty to disclose before the inquests were
5 open. That is the point I am dealing with.
6 A. I see where you are going now.
7 Q. Would you be prepared to accept that you were wrong?
8 A. I would not be prepared to accept that I am wrong
9 because we took legal advice. I must go back to the
10 sequence of events and what we did. Remembering
11 the main issue for Lord Condon, amongst others -- but
12 one of them was the confidentiality issue with
13 Lord Mishcon, we -- actually I think obviously at some
14 stage someone has told the Coroner that there is
15 a letter, which is interesting, but that is another
16 matter --
17 Q. He has read it in the press.
18 A. A letter from us?
19 Q. No, no, no. A letter from Burrell.
20 A. We had the meetings with Lord Mishcon, we had our legal
21 advice and that is how the process went and that is why
22 the process took some time.
23 Q. No. You see, Lord Stevens, I am going to make the
24 suggestion very clear. I am going to suggest that this
25 Mishcon note was going to stay in a safe and the only

30

1 way in which you were forced in the end to reveal it was
2 because Mr Burrell -- and he has said as much himself --
3 he revealed the one that he had -- he did not know
4 anything about yours -- he went to the press with his
5 and the ball started rolling by Lord Mishcon ringing you
6 up. That is how it started, isn't it?
7 A. You are making the allegation here that this was never
8 going to be disclosed to the Coroner. That is wrong.
9 Q. That is why I am examining it very closely.
10 So you stick by your opinion, do you, that the duty
11 to disclose to the Coroner only arises once he opens
12 the inquests? Is that what you are sticking to?
13 A. No, I am talking about when the reality would come, in
14 the opening of the inquest, when we would disclose
15 the letter anyway. But bearing in mind the issues in
16 the letter and specifically Lord Mishcon's permission
17 that we had to get before doing it, those were
18 the issues that were uppermost in our mind.
19 Q. No --
20 A. Hang on, please. The legal advice -- remembering these
21 were complex issues, the legal advice was absolutely
22 paramount in where we went with this letter. You don't
23 these decisions straight off the top of your head, you
24 get the proper legal advice, and that is exactly what
25 we did.

31

1 Q. Well, we will come straight to that.
2 When did you first take legal advice about the duty
3 of disclosure to the Coroner of the -- not the Burrell
4 letter, because that is a separate issue, of the Mishcon
5 note?
6 A. The first time we did that was when we -- Dave Veness
7 came up and I called in David Hamilton, who was
8 the senior solicitor of the Metropolitan Police, and
9 said, "This is the context of this letter, David.
10 We want proper legal advice from yourself or others on
11 it".
12 Q. Sorry, what was the question?
13 A. I have given you the answer to the question.
14 Q. No, what was the question.
15 A. I have given you the answer to the question.
16 Look, Mr Mansfield, you are not going to get me to
17 say answers to questions --
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think he was asking you about
19 the date.
20 A. Oh, the date, okay, but you tend to go on a bit.
21 MR MANSFIELD: You do understand?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Don't, please, get too confrontational about this.
24 A. No, certainly not.
25 Q. I asked a simple question. Now, please listen.

32

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When did you first seek advice, legal advice?
3 A. 23rd October 2003.
4 Q. Exactly. After the Burrell note has been published.
5 A. Which is on 20th October 2003.
6 Q. Yes, quite. The question I have is -- let's go back to
7 the beginning. It is in 2000, January, that the safe is
8 opened. Please understand, you have a lot of other
9 things.
10 A. Very much so.
11 Q. Commissioner designate. I am not suggesting to you that
12 at that stage --
13 A. No, at that stage -- are we talking about when we put
14 the letter into the safe or are we talking about
15 the Burrell letter in October 2003 when I was already
16 the Commissioner?
17 Q. Please understand, I am dealing with the Mishcon note in
18 2000. Right?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. I will go slowly.
21 A. Good.
22 Q. Now, the Mishcon note in the year 2000, you did not know
23 anything about it until it was revealed in the safe by
24 Lord Condon in the handover?
25 A. That is right.

33

1 Q. Now, what I am accepting is that at that stage you have
2 a lot on your plate in a new job --
3 A. Very much so, yes.
4 Q. -- and the significance perhaps of everything does not
5 immediately occur to you.
6 A. That is right.
7 Q. Is that fair?
8 A. That is right. I did have a look at the note.
9 Q. So --
10 A. But I did read the note, obviously.
11 Q. At that stage, with that caveat -- and I have been
12 prepared to accept for you that you would be busy and so
13 forth -- but when you read the note, did you ask
14 Lord Condon, "Why has this not been disclosed to the
15 Coroner under our duty of disclosure?"
16 A. No. I accepted Lord Condon's judgment on why he had not
17 done it and that was it.
18 Q. So you did not ask him why it had not been?
19 A. No. No.
20 Q. So between 2000, as matters, as it were, ticked on, were
21 there regular reviews being carried out in relation to
22 this issue by somebody; in other words, the disclosure,
23 the duty of disclosure of this note? Was somebody
24 reviewing it regularly?
25 A. Dave Veness had the overall responsibility of liaising,

34

1 so I suppose, at the end of the day, in the back of his
2 mind, he would have been reviewing it as to when it
3 should be disclosed.
4 Q. I do not want you to suppose anything. Was he or was he
5 not?
6 A. I think he must be, yes, he would have been.
7 Q. I want to ask you about -- we don't have any records of
8 any review meetings between 2000 and the first time you
9 seek legal advice. We don't have any records of review
10 meetings. Are there any?
11 A. Not that I know of, no.
12 Q. Why is that?
13 A. Because at that stage, in terms of reviews, those
14 reviews were being conducted, if they were being
15 conducted at all, by Sir David Veness, as he is now.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It would have been a case, would
17 it, of -- well, something would have to have happened
18 that would have triggered Sir David Veness' mind, "Oh
19 well, that note, we had better have another look at
20 that".
21 A. That is absolutely right. Mr Mansfield has been very
22 generous to acknowledge that there were an awful lot of
23 matters going on, let alone running an organisation of
24 45,000. It was exceptional reporting and that never did
25 take place. So that question must be asked of

35

1 David Veness. I presume you have asked him.
2 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I have. So far we have no documentation
3 that relates to any occasion on which any consideration
4 was given to whether this information sitting in
5 the safe -- may I just clarify? In the safe, it was not
6 just the note itself, ie Lord Mishcon's original record
7 of the meeting, there was also, was there, a memorandum
8 relating to his meeting with the Metropolitan Police?
9 A. I think that is right, yes.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, until the Burrell note
11 surfaced, are you aware of anything that should have
12 triggered Sir David Veness to have caused a review to
13 take place of the note?
14 A. Absolutely not, sir, and that is the point I am making.
15 There was not.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Wasn't there?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Can we have [INQ0006342 - read out in court]? This is statement that
19 Sir David Veness made for the purposes of this inquest.
20 The number I am reading off -- [INQ0006341 - read out in court] is the first
21 page.
22 When was Operation Paget established?
23 A. It was originally called "Operation Paris" for liaison
24 purposes. Then, as is the system, that name was
25 changed, and as far as I can remember, Operation Paget

36

1 started in August, taking inquiries from -- that was
2 Jeff Rees.
3 Q. August of?
4 A. August of 2000. Then there were letters -- well, I do
5 not want to go into what took place between --
6 Q. Yes. Operation Paget began in 2000?
7 A. But not the Operation Paget that I took over control of
8 at the beginning of 2004.
9 Q. Because it appears --
10 A. There was toing and froing, assisting the French,
11 liaising, and I think you have had Jeff Rees in here as
12 well, haven't you?
13 Q. Yes. The reason I put to you a few minutes ago, were
14 you aware that the very first policy decision that was
15 taken after the crash on 1st September 1997 was a policy
16 decision to establish a police support group, call it
17 whatever you wish, at that stage, for the Coroner and
18 his inquiries? You knew that?
19 A. I think that is so, yes.
20 Q. So right from the beginning there has been a police
21 group there to assist the Coroner, and from 2000 onwards
22 there is a group of officers called "Paget". Who set
23 that up?
24 A. That was done in 1997. I do not know exactly who set
25 that up. That was when Jeff Rees commenced his liaison

37

1 role for Metropolitan Police Service. Some assistance
2 was again given by a man called Gargan.
3 Q. Yes. You see, I do not want to take a lot of time.
4 There is very little or no documentation that we have
5 been given. Inquiries were going on all the time by
6 the Coroner.
7 A. Not inquiries. It was a liaison. The decision was
8 made -- and I think this has to be reinforced because
9 it is -- the inquiries that we were doing were liaison
10 inquiries and the decision that was taken was that no
11 inquiries of import would be taken in the United Kingdom
12 until the French had finished their inquiries into the
13 incident in the tunnel. That is what the decision was
14 and that continued onwards until the Coroner re-opened
15 the inquest in January of 2004.
16 Q. It was not just --
17 A. So -- I am sorry to butt in -- it was not an inquiry,
18 it was liaison that took place between the two;
19 assistance of that nature.
20 Q. Wrong again, Lord Condon --
21 A. Lord stevens.
22 Q. I am making the same mistake. I do apologise.
23 Wrong again, if I may say so. Were you aware that
24 British police officers were going to France on behalf
25 of the Coroner and making inquiries on behalf of

38

1 the Coroner, in France, doing video trips -- we have
2 seen one of them here -- doing a video trip round Paris
3 in order to work out the route and all the rest of it?
4 Did you know that?
5 A. I have seen the video, but it was a matter of liaison.
6 It was not an investigation or inquiry in the policing
7 sense.
8 Q. Well, you did it on behalf the Coroner.
9 A. I did not do anything at that stage on behalf of
10 the Coroner.
11 Q. Sorry, the group did it on behalf of the Coroner. That
12 is what they claimed to the French they were doing,
13 didn't they?
14 A. They were liaising and acting as coroner's officers,
15 I suspect.
16 Q. Yes, as coroner's officers, doing investigations for
17 the Coroner.
18 A. Assisting the Coroner.
19 Q. All I am suggesting here is that right from
20 the beginning there were police officers assisting
21 the Coroner with his inquiries before he opened the
22 inquest, and nobody thought, at any stage prior to the
23 Burrell note coming into the public domain, to disclose
24 under the duty to disclose, did they?
25 A. They had not and we go back to the original reason

39

1 why -- I do not want to keep repeating myself --
2 the confidentiality, Lord Mishcon and all the rest of
3 it.
4 Q. May I deal with that?
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. You are aware, are you -- I mean -- sorry can I put it
7 the other way round: you are familiar with inquests?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I have to ask that because some police officers may not
10 be. But you are familiar with how they work?
11 A. More or less, yes.
12 Q. You are familiar with the fact that the Coroner has
13 considerable powers in relation to -- for example, as
14 Mr Burgess points out in his letter to Mr Burrell,
15 clearly questions of confidentiality can be entrusted to
16 the Coroner as this learned Coroner has been. If
17 documents are not to be disclosed, they are not
18 disclosed. If they are to be redacted, they are
19 redacted.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You recognise all of that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did anyone explain to Lord Mishcon at any stage, "Look,
24 we can overcome the confidentiality because there is
25 a duty to disclose because we can ask the Coroner to

40

1 redact the parts of the Mishcon note that may not have
2 direct relevance or that may cause pain"? Do you follow
3 what I am putting?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. That was all utterly possible, wasn't it?
6 A. No one did it. It was not done at that stage.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think what Mr Mansfield is
8 ultimately getting at is that but for the Burrell note
9 surfacing, the Mishcon note might never have seen
10 the light of day at all. I would like to have your
11 comments on that.
12 A. Sir, it would have done. I keep saying that it would
13 have been disclosed, it was disclosed. We got over
14 the legal kind of problems that we had at some stage or
15 another with Lord Mishcon having his reservations and it
16 goes back. I think you did say this, Mr Mansfield, and
17 if I might just answer this: was there a deliberate
18 attempt -- this is what you are getting at this -- to
19 keep this away from the public? Of course there was
20 not.
21 MR MANSFIELD: I'm sorry, I won't take up much more time on
22 this, but I just want to refresh your memory because of
23 observations you have made today about the sequence of
24 events. After the Burrell note was published in
25 The Mirror, who took the first step to deal with

41

1 the note in the safe?
2 A. Lord Condon rang up and then Lord Mishcon rang up. They
3 started the ball rolling, if I remember rightly.
4 Q. I do not have any documentation relating to Lord Condon
5 so I leave that to one side.
6 What appears to be clear, do you agree -- and
7 I think you have the documents available. I am not
8 going asking for them to go up. It is just dates --
9 that in fact Lord Mishcon is really very concerned about
10 this note/letter or his note of the meeting being
11 disclosed? He rings on 27th October.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You are not available. He rings on the 29th, you are
14 not available. He then sees you on the 30th, and there
15 have been various versions of the meeting, notes of
16 the meeting, but what was clear was that you were
17 explaining in the note of the meeting on the 30th that
18 it was potentially relevant -- that is the Mishcon note,
19 all right?
20 A. Yes, that is what it said.
21 Q. -- and that in your view there was a duty to disclose
22 the note.
23 A. Providing Lord Mishcon's confidentiality issue -- I have
24 always said that there was a duty to disclose, but
25 we had the problem with Lord Mishcon, which I think

42

1 Lord Condon has explained to the inquest and the jury.
2 Q. Again, without taking time on it, Lord Mishcon, provided
3 that the parts that would cause pain to others were
4 either redacted or left out, he was quite happy for
5 this -- he, I suggest, has brought it up and he has
6 forced the pace.
7 A. He has brought it up, but he has not forced the pace.
8 Going back to the real issue, would this have been kept
9 away from the Coroner? It would not have been.
10 Q. Then I pass to the latter stage.
11 When was this note given to the Coroner?
12 A. I cannot remember. I do not remember.
13 Q. Well, I suggest that is perhaps the most important thing
14 since you have said it was always going to be.
15 You see, we have been given no indication of when
16 it was. I am wondering -- I hope this is a fair point
17 to you -- whether it ever was given to the Coroner.
18 A. I would have to look at that. I do not know. I am sure
19 he has seen the note. He must have seen the note.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Well, a date --
21 MR HORWELL: If I can help, Mr Mansfield. Mr Hodges took
22 the Mishcon note to the Coroner on 22nd December 2003.
23 MR MANSFIELD: Did you know that?
24 A. I did not know the date, but I would have been
25 absolutely astonished if that note had not been given to

43

1 Michael Burgess, the Coroner, at that time.
2 Q. Is it right that before that date, two days before, you
3 went to see Mr Jephson?
4 A. I did not see Mr Jephson.
5 Q. Sorry, I do not mean you. When I say "you", I mean --
6 A. Officers.
7 Q. Yes, officers went to see ...
8 A. I think that is right, yes.
9 Q. Why was it thought necessary to see Mr Jephson before
10 handing the note over on the 22nd?
11 A. I think it was because within the note we have Jephson
12 saying -- I am looking at the note and reminding myself:
13 "... surprisingly, he said he half-believed in its
14 accuracy".
15 So the advice was, which we agreed with: note, see
16 Jephson to make sure we have a full picture of what took
17 place.
18 Q. That is the only reason?
19 A. That I can remember, yes.
20 Q. A final question on this sequence is this: why did you
21 not take legal advice about this note before the Burrell
22 note -- the Burrell note -- was published in the papers?
23 A. Because I did not think there was any need to up to that
24 stage.
25 Q. In other words, it goes back to the fact that you did

44

1 not think you had to disclose it until the inquests
2 opened?
3 A. I did not think it would need to be disclosed until
4 the need came to disclose it. But the bottom line of
5 all this is this: it was always going to be disclosed.
6 There was no way that it was not.
7 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
9 Questions from MR KEEN
10 MR KEEN: Good morning, Lord Stevens. My name is
11 Richard Keen. I appear on behalf of the parents of
12 the late Henri Paul, as I think you are aware.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. I understand that you have been in court from time to
15 time during the course of these proceedings.
16 A. I have. It is still part of my responsibility to Paget,
17 yes.
18 Q. You have therefore been able to follow much of
19 the proceedings?
20 A. Much of them. Not all of them.
21 Q. I appreciate.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You have been away, have you not,
23 for some of the time on holiday?
24 A. I have indeed. Yes, first holiday in three years.
25 I must get my life back again, I think.

45

1 MR KEEN: Now, reference has been made to a meeting which
2 you had with the parents of the late Henri Paul in Paris
3 in November 2006.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. We heard evidence from M and Mme Paul. Were you present
6 when that evidence was given?
7 A. No, I was not. I was not here then, no.
8 Q. During the course of the evidence, Mme Paul told us
9 about the content of that meeting, as she herself had
10 noted it.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In addition, of course, we now know that DI Scotchbrook
13 had also kept a note of the meeting as well.
14 A. That is right.
15 Q. Now, during the course of her evidence, Mme Paul
16 referred to a note which she had prepared shortly after
17 the meeting itself and sent to her French lawyer. She
18 was asked about that note and I wonder if we can just
19 look at the English translation for a moment.
20 A. Please, yes.
21 Q. It will come up on the screen. I will come back to a
22 number of aspects of it, but there is one particular
23 point I want to raise with you, Lord Stevens. You will
24 see in the second paragraph it begins by saying:
25 "Lord Stevens gave us a brief summary of the

46

1 procedure he was conducting in England."
2 A. Mm.
3 Q. Then various matters are referred to about drunkenness
4 and driving and speed and then about the ability to
5 investigate the tunnel. Then she continued in the note
6 which she told us was, as she recollected, an accurate
7 record.
8 "He [meaning Lord Stevens] told us that if this were
9 an assassination, the repercussions in England would be
10 great and incalculable."
11 Then:
12 "Mr Stevens [as she termed you there] left
13 the meeting and Mr Easton asked us questions concerning
14 Henri, drafted in advance, given that they were
15 handwritten."
16 Did you, as Mme Paul noted there, tell her that if
17 there was an assassination, the repercussions in England
18 would be great and incalculable?
19 A. No, I did not. I do remember this was raised by
20 Mrs Paul. They were a very fragile couple --
21 Q. Before we go to their fragility, Lord Stevens --
22 A. I --
23 Q. If I could just -- you said no, that you didn't say
24 that.
25 A. I didn't.

47

1 Q. You see, Mr Horwell is here on behalf of the
2 Metropolitan Police, isn't he?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you do have some communication with Mr Horwell and
5 his legal team over the evidence that is coming out in
6 this inquiry.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The evidence from Mme Paul was not the subject of
9 challenge. It was not suggested that she was wrong in
10 attributing that statement to you, as I understand it.
11 I wonder if you can now help us as to why it is that
12 this statement, which at the time she attributed to you
13 and which in her evidence she attributed to you, is no
14 longer being attributed to you, but somehow, I think, to
15 a Mr Easton or Detective Sergeant Easton; is that right?
16 A. That is right. I do not know. The truth of it, and
17 talking it through it in detail with Mr Easton,
18 Sergeant Easton, is this: we had the meeting with Mr and
19 Mrs Paul, left that meeting, I went away. They were
20 left with Sergeant Easton and Jane Scotchbrook and they
21 carried on that relationship.
22 However, I said I certainly do not remember saying
23 this. Sergeant Easton can and will, and if necessary
24 can give evidence, that he actually said to Henri Paul's
25 best friend that if, in fact, repercussions were found

48

1 in relation to this inquiry, John Stevens was the man
2 who would take it through to the nth degree, he was not
3 an individual who would be pushed around, and his
4 experiences in Northern Ireland on Stevens 1, 2 and 3
5 actually gave credence to what he was saying. That is
6 what Phil Easton told me that he said. So I can only
7 say what he has told me.
8 Q. A couple of points there, Lord Stevens. First of all
9 Claude Garrec was Henri Paul's friend, but he was not
10 present at this meeting, was he?
11 A. No, he was not.
12 Q. So this could not have occurred at this meeting, and yet
13 Mme Paul records it as having occurred at that meeting,
14 at which Claude Garrec was not present.
15 A. I can only think that she has got that part of it wrong.
16 These things do happens. People will get it wrong.
17 Q. It is rather odd for her to invent something which
18 apparently you now say did occur on a different occasion
19 involving different people.
20 A. Well, I do not -- you know, Mrs Paul and Mr Paul, I have
21 great sympathy for them. They are a frail couple.
22 Maybe she just got it wrong in this aspect. I am not
23 saying that she is ...
24 Q. How would she know what had passed between
25 Sergeant Easton and Claude Garrec on a different

49

1 occasion and then record it in this near contemporaneous
2 note of her meeting with you, Lord Stevens?
3 A. I don't know the answer to that. I think you will have
4 to ask them, and if you want, ask Phil Easton,
5 Sergeant Easton, if that is necessary.
6 Q. How recently have you discussed this with Detective
7 Sergeant Easton, Lord Stevens?
8 A. About four weeks ago and then I discussed it with him
9 about five days ago, to reinforce that we get this
10 right, because obviously it is something that is not
11 quite right and it conflicts with Mrs Paul's evidence.
12 Q. Did you not think that as a senior police officer, that
13 in order to try and get things right, it would be better
14 that the jury should hear your unvarnished evidence on
15 oath, rather than what is the product of a discussion
16 between you and other police officers in advance of
17 giving your evidence on oath, Lord Stevens?
18 A. I can only give the evidence and tell the jury what has
19 taken place.
20 Q. Why were you having discussions four days ago with
21 Sergeant Easton with regard to your evidence?
22 A. Because I said that I would be giving this evidence and,
23 if necessary, I would expect him to come to court if
24 that is what you want to happen. That is a matter for
25 the Coroner.

50

1 Q. Is it usual, in your experience, Lord Stevens, for
2 police officers to discuss in advance what evidence they
3 are going to give on oath in a court?
4 A. There are no secrets to what has been said in this
5 court. We have been sitting in the court and we have
6 been listening to what is going on. This is not
7 a criminal trial. You have mixed it up. If it was
8 a criminal trial, you would not do that, although on
9 occasions you will go back, refresh your memory on what
10 has taken place and make sure the evidence is as
11 accurate as you can give. This process is about getting
12 to the truth of what has taken place and that is all we
13 were trying to do. It is an issue which does need
14 answering, I think.
15 Q. I am aware of what these proceedings are, Lord Stevens.
16 Can you help me? What you actually said was that you
17 had these discussions to reinforce that we get this
18 right. To get what right, Lord Stevens?
19 A. You are making an issue of this. It is to get to
20 the truth of the matter and what took place; to get the
21 events right, Mr Keen. That is what it is about. There
22 is no conspiracy here.
23 Q. You mentioned conspiracy, not I, Lord Stevens.
24 A. No, you were inferring it, Mr Keen.
25 Q. According to this note, it was not I, but you, who

51

1 talked about the incalculable repercussions of
2 assassination.
3 A. I just did not say that in the meeting and there is no
4 record of that taking place.
5 Q. There is actually Mme Paul's record, which she spoke to
6 in evidence and was not challenged by your own counsel.
7 A. That is a matter for counsel.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen, you keep saying "not
9 challenged" and you keep misunderstanding, if I may
10 respectfully say so, the difference between an inquiry
11 and criminal proceedings.
12 MR KEEN: With respect, sir, I do not, because in my
13 respectful submission, if a witness gives evidence to
14 a jury, the jury are entitled to treat that evidence as
15 credible and reliable unless one of the many counsel
16 instructed here stands up and suggests that that
17 evidence is not credible or reliable, for some reason,
18 directed to the nature of the evidence itself or
19 the credibility or reliability of the witness who gave
20 the evidence.
21 All I am saying is that in this instance there was
22 no suggestion either that Mme Paul should not be
23 regarded as credible and reliable or that this part of
24 her evidence was inherently unreliable or incredible;
25 nor, in fairness to Mme Paul, sir, was it suggested to

52

1 her that this might have been said not by Lord Stevens
2 at all but by Detective Sergeant Easton on a different
3 occasion to Claude Garrec, who might then have passed it
4 on to her. Out of fairness to that witness, she was
5 entitled to know that that was the allegation that was
6 now being advanced on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: In the grand scheme of things,
8 where does it really take us at the end of it all?
9 MR KEEN: It does raise questions of reliability, sir. That
10 is why I wish to raise it.
11 Now, Lord Stevens, clearly you had a responsibility
12 to oversee all aspects of and to ensure
13 the implementation of the terms of reference of
14 the inquiry that became known as the Paget inquiry.
15 A. That is true.
16 Q. I do not seek to go into the detailed conclusions of
17 that inquiry for their terms, nor do I seek to suggest
18 that you as an individual carried out every aspect of
19 that inquiry.
20 A. Well, that would have been -- you are absolutely right.
21 Q. Of course.
22 A. It would have been impossible for me to do it.
23 Q. But you had to take a view as to how you expressed your
24 opinion about that conclusion of that inquiry and you
25 made certain public pronouncements regarding

53

1 the conclusions of that inquiry.
2 A. It was decided that that report should be published.
3 Q. Indeed, so. You also -- there was organised a press
4 statement at which you spoke to the world's media
5 regarding the conclusions of that report.
6 A. I took them through the overview of the report, that is
7 right.
8 Q. Of course. Now one of the claims which had to be
9 addressed -- and you record it in the Paget Report --
10 concerned alcohol consumption by the late Henri Paul.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what you record is a claim in these terms:
13 "Attempts have been made to attribute the crash to
14 the fact that Henri Paul had consumed grossly excessive
15 quantities of control and was consequently incapable of
16 driving. Attempts to verify this indicate that these
17 tests were carried out in highly unusual circumstances."
18 A. The tests, sir -- you are talking about the French
19 tests?
20 Q. I believe that is a reference to the toxicology and
21 pathology performed by the French.
22 A. That is right.
23 Q. With regard to that matter, I think you are aware that
24 Professor Forrest, who was the expert pathologist who
25 was instructed in the Paget inquiry, has already

54

1 expressed the opinion that the French Public Prosecutor
2 in Paris did not have any reliable basis for the
3 statement made on 1st September 1997, to the effect that
4 Henri Paul was three times or thereby over the French
5 legal limit for driving.
6 A. I think Professor Forrest has said that he is -- on his
7 account of the evidence, tell me if I am wrong --
8 Q. Well, can you listen to my question, Lord Stevens? Do
9 you recall Professor Forrest giving that evidence? If
10 you don't, just say so.
11 A. I was not here when he gave evidence.
12 Q. You were not here. Very well.
13 A. But I can tell you what he said, if you want, in terms
14 of the reports, but again we are in difficult areas,
15 here.
16 Q. With respect, we are not in difficult areas because we
17 are only concerned with matters of contrast and
18 comparison.
19 A. With respect, we could get into difficult areas, bearing
20 in mind the warnings the Coroner has already given.
21 Q. No doubt the Coroner will be well equipped to determine,
22 rather than have you determine it for me. So let's
23 allow the Coroner some leeway in the matter.
24 A. Of course we will and I am sure you will too.
25 Q. I am most obliged.

55

1 Professor Forrest has given his evidence with regard
2 to that statement made on 1st September 1997.
3 Professor Forrest also went to spend some considerable
4 time examining the work done by a Professor Lecomte and
5 a Dr Pepin. Do you recall that?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Do you recall that in fact the Metropolitan Police paid
8 quite substantial sums to Dr Pepin in order to persuade
9 him to cooperate with Professor Forrest and to have
10 meetings with him and to produce material?
11 A. They did not pay sums for him to cooperate. They paid
12 for his kind of expertise, which you get doing your job.
13 You phrase it in a strange way.
14 Q. Not at all. All I want to make clear is that Dr Pepin
15 was actually paid in order to make a contribution from
16 the point of view of his expertise to the panel inquiry.
17 A. Of course, and there is nothing untoward about that.
18 Q. Except that perhaps he decided not to come and give
19 evidence after all.
20 A. That is a matter for him and for the Coroner and others.
21 Q. Of course it is.
22 Now, you are aware, presumably, that
23 Professor Forrest did express some misgivings about the
24 pathology and toxicology work that he examined?
25 A. Yes, and I concur with those reservations.

56

1 Q. But nevertheless, on the basis of your inquiries, what
2 you have published and made public as the conclusions of
3 your own inquiry was that Henri Paul's blood/alcohol
4 level was in excess of three times the French legal
5 limit and over twice the British limit for drink
6 driving.
7 A. Yes, and I think that is what Professor Forrest says.
8 Q. That is what you say in your report --
9 A. Well --
10 Q. -- Lord Stevens.
11 A. Based on what he says, and I think he -- I don't know --
12 I think he has given evidence to that effect here and
13 the jury has heard it.
14 Q. That is what you reported. You also recorded that if
15 Henri Paul did have such a high blood/alcohol level,
16 then on the advice given to you by Professor Robert
17 Forrest, he cannot have simply have drunk two Ricards,
18 but must have drunk, in addition, at least a further
19 four to six Ricards of a 5-centilitre double measure;
20 that is 8 to 12 single measures of Ricard.
21 A. It would appear so, yes.
22 Q. So the conclusion that you actually published,
23 the conclusion that you reported to the world's media,
24 was that the late Henri Paul must have had at least six
25 to eight alcoholic drinks in the form of double measures

57

1 of Ricard on the evening of the crash in the
2 Alma Tunnel.
3 A. No, it did not have to be Ricard, did it?
4 Q. It had to be an alcoholic drink, Lord Stevens.
5 A. It certainly had to be an alcoholic drink. It had to be
6 an alcoholic drink, and then you have evidence, of
7 course, that he appeared to have an alcohol problem. He
8 obviously had a very high tolerance to alcohol, as
9 I said earlier.
10 Q. That is based on your overview, is it, of the evidence?
11 A. Based on the overview and based on evidence of experts.
12 Professor Forrest --
13 Q. It is Professor Forrest I am quoting from Lord Stevens
14 because it is Professor Forrest who you record as having
15 told you that that if he was, as you reported to the
16 media, in excess of three times the French lower limit
17 for drink driving, then he must have had six to eight
18 double measures of an alcoholic drink with a strength of
19 about 40 to 45 degrees of alcohol.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What is your point here? Is your
21 point that Paget got it wrong? It is all very unfair to
22 Mr Paul? Is that the thrust of it?
23 MR KEEN: That is the first point, sir.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If that is the point that is
25 being made, then the next thing that happens is

58

1 Mr Horwell goes into Paget and says that they got it
2 right for all the following reasons, and we are back
3 into Paget. What the jury have to decide is the case on
4 the evidence that they have heard.
5 MR KEEN: Of course, sir, and they have already heard the
6 evidence, for example, of both Professor Forrest and
7 Professor Atholl Johnston that two Ricards would not
8 take you over the French legal limit for driving, let
9 alone the British legal limit. They have had that
10 evidence.
11 We have to come on to a matter that Lord Stevens
12 himself was prompted to raise before he was even asked
13 a question in the witness box, which concerns what he
14 actually said to M and Mme Paul.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, that is a different matter.
16 MR KEEN: With respect, it is not, sir. It is directly
17 related because the foundation of examining what was
18 said lies in the fact that, according to the
19 Paget Report and the public statement made on the basis
20 of it, Henri Paul, if he was as drunk as it was alleged,
21 must have had six to eight alcoholic drinks of a double
22 measure.
23 That was what the Paget Report recorded and
24 reported. There was no question of him simply having
25 two. So that is why it is relevant to look at the

59

1 Paget Report in this context. But I do move on to look
2 at what then happened, Lord Stevens, when you met with
3 M and Mme Paul.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. M and Mme Paul were invited to come from Lorient in
6 Brittany to Paris to meet with you.
7 A. Yes, they were.
8 Q. At that meeting, there was present not only yourself and
9 Detective Sergeant Easton that we have just heard about,
10 but also Detective Inspector Scotchbrook.
11 A. Yes, and another individual called Mr Fedorcio, who is
12 our press individual.
13 Q. When you gave a statement, a signed statement to
14 the Coroner, with regard to the record of that meeting,
15 you mentioned that that meeting, as recorded, accurately
16 stated the facts as they were understood by you.
17 A. Yes, remembering --
18 Q. Those are the words that you use in your signed
19 statement, Lord Stevens.
20 A. Yes, remembering, of course, that Sergeant Easton was
21 translating what I said and remembering, of course, that
22 this was a family liaison meeting. This was all
23 about -- as I have held with Mr Al Fayed and others,
24 it was all about informing them what we were doing, did
25 they want to come over to London to see us. We had had

60

1 difficulty getting hold of the Henri Pauls because of
2 their solicitors' difficulties, whatever they had been.
3 The bottom line of it was that it was a family liaison
4 meeting.
5 Q. You did not attend this meeting, Lord Stevens, in order
6 to mislead the parents of the late Henri Paul or lie to
7 them, did you?
8 A. I certainly did not. We had had dealings with
9 Henri Paul's parents over a long period of time.
10 Q. So that could not have been your intent, could it?
11 A. Absolutely not.
12 Q. We are clear about that then. And DI Scotchbrook
13 prepared the meeting note, which she then signed and she
14 has given evidence, as you know. She has told us that
15 this is an accurate note insofar as she has been taken
16 to particular passages. One of the passages that she
17 was taken to -- sir, this is at [INQ0007001] -- concerns
18 the alcohol consumption of the late Henri Paul.
19 Now, before we come to the detail of what you are
20 recorded as saying, because I was a little uncertain
21 about your evidence-in-chief, do you recall at any stage
22 anyone making reference to the suggestion of
23 the newspaper reports that the late Henri Paul had been
24 drunk as a pig?
25 A. No.

61

1 Q. No?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So that was not, in fact, raised at this meeting with
4 the Pauls, was it?
5 A. Not in that specific meeting, no.
6 Q. What you are recorded as saying, if you go to the foot
7 of the page --
8 A. Yes, sir, I have it.
9 Q. "Lord Stevens explained that Operation Paget would not
10 be saying that their son was drunk."
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You have given us your police description of what that
13 term means.
14 "Operation Paget would be saying that he had
15 consumed two alcohol drinks on the night of the
16 incident."
17 Now, DI Scotchbrook has come and given unchallenged
18 evidence that that is an accurate record of what you
19 told the Pauls.
20 Now, Lord Stevens, if indeed you were going to
21 assert that the late Henri Paul was three times over
22 the French drink drive limit, if indeed you were going
23 to assert on the basis of your own experts' evidence
24 that to be three times over the limit, he would have to
25 have drunk six to eight double measures of alcoholic

62

1 drinks, why would you say in these terms to the Pauls
2 that you would be saying that he had consumed two
3 alcoholic drinks on the night of the incident?
4 A. On the night of the incident, then take --
5 Q. On the night of the incident is what you are recorded as
6 saying, Lord Stevens.
7 A. Go over to the other page, if you would be so kind,
8 which you have itemised there --
9 Q. Because you went on --
10 A. And we talk about his --
11 Q. Lord Stevens, no, no. No. What we believe --
12 A. Do you want me to answer it or not?
13 Q. Lord Stevens, listen to the question.
14 A. I am always listening to your questions, Mr Keen.
15 Q. Then let me repeat it for you --
16 A. Please do.
17 Q. -- so that you are not under any misunderstanding.
18 It is up there in front of you; you are recorded as
19 saying:
20 "Operation Paget will be saying that he [the late
21 Henri Paul] had consumed two alcoholic drinks on the
22 night of the incident".
23 Now, did you say that or did you not say that,
24 Lord Stevens?
25 A. I said "drink on the night of the incident" referring to

63

1 the evidence that we had of what he did in the bar in
2 the Ritz.
3 Q. That is not the context at all, Lord Stevens. You can
4 see that for yourself.
5 A. Please, I was there. You were not.
6 Q. DI Scotchbrook was there, was she not?
7 A. Hang on --
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Let the witness answer the
9 question.
10 A. Please --
11 MR KEEN: Was DI Scotchbrook there?
12 A. Of course she was there. Now, look, you are going to
13 have to accept my evidence-in-chief. You can go on all
14 day and all night. You will have to accept --
15 Q. I am not --
16 A. No, listen. You will have to accept --
17 Q. You are going on, Lord Stevens, but do continue.
18 A. Do let me carry on with the question and answer it,
19 Mr Keen. What are you going on about?
20 Q. I think that is a little unnecessary, Lord Stevens.
21 A. So are some of the --
22 Q. Do proceed as you see fit.
23 A. Don't start to bully me. I won't be bullied.
24 Q. I am not seeking to bully you, Lord Stevens.
25 A. Please let me answer.

64

1 The bottom line of all of this is I was there,
2 I know what the was said, I know the implication of what
3 was said, so does Phil Easton, so does Jane Scotchbrook
4 and so does Mr Fedorcio. The bottom line of it all is
5 that it was referring to the two drinks that were taken
6 in the bar where we had specific evidence. We had
7 receipts, we had witnesses saying it. The period of
8 time before, when he was called back, in my view
9 wrongly, called back -- I have to be careful what I say
10 there -- called back off duty when he did not expect it
11 was a major issue for Mr and Mrs Paul. They knew that
12 he had been away -- we know that he had had a drinking
13 problem --
14 Q. You say we know, Lord Stevens. Why is it necessary for
15 you to seek to pre-empt the jury's view of the evidence
16 that they have actually heard?
17 A. Because you are cross-examining me, I am answering your
18 questions to the best of my ability. That is what I am
19 trying to do.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think we will have a break now.
21 It is half past 11. We have a mid-morning break and
22 I think it is a good time to have it. We will resume in
23 quarter of an hour.
24 (11.32 am)
25 (A short break)

65

1 (11.45 am)
2 (Jury present)
3 MR KEEN: Thank you, sir.
4 Lord Stevens, just so that we can all recall,
5 the question was, under reference to what is recorded at
6 [INQ0007001], did you say -- that is all -- what is
7 recorded by DI Scotchbrook at the foot of the page,
8 namely and I quote, "Operation Paget would be saying
9 that he [the late Henri Paul] had consumed two alcoholic
10 drinks on the night of the incident"? I simply want to
11 know whether you said that.
12 A. Yes, I said that in relation to what took place at
13 the hotel.
14 Q. You say not in relation to the hotel, but the words are,
15 "on the night of the incident", are they not?
16 A. But what was said was in relation to what took place at
17 the hotel. To say anything else would have contradicted
18 the expert evidence that we had in terms of the alcohol
19 levels. Sorry, if you want to go on --
20 Q. Well, that is really my point.
21 What you are recorded as saying here by
22 DI Scotchbrook refers to two alcoholic drinks, but what
23 the Paget Report recorded was that the late Henri Paul
24 must have consumed at least six to eight alcoholic
25 drinks if the toxicology was to be believed and relied

66

1 upon.
2 A. And that is what the evidence of -- Professor Forrest's
3 evidence was, yes.
4 Q. And you knew that by the time of this meeting in
5 November 2006?
6 A. Yes?
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What are you suggesting, Mr Keen,
8 that Lord Stevens deliberately underplayed it here or
9 that he has been got at later and persuaded to say
10 something else or what?
11 MR KEEN: I do not know what the foundation for the
12 discrepancy is.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What is the point of this? Where
14 does it take us? If he has been unduly kind to
15 the Pauls in what he said, I do not know where that
16 takes us. We have to look at this on the evidence
17 we have heard.
18 MR KEEN: There is not an issue of kindness arising, as
19 I understand it, sir. The whole object of Lord Stevens
20 going to Paris and of the Pauls going to Paris was to be
21 informed of what the factual conclusions being arrived
22 at were. And what is recorded in the note by
23 DI Scotchbrook, which DI Scotchbrook says is an accurate
24 note, is clearly different to what is said elsewhere.
25 The difference lies in the reliability or otherwise of

67

1 the French toxicology, which has been an issue in this
2 inquest, I would submit.
3 Now, perhaps I can shortcut it, Lord Stevens.
4 You are aware, are you not, from Professor Robert
5 Forrest, amongst others, that very real question marks
6 have arisen with regard to the reports made concerning
7 the French pathology and toxicology concerning
8 Henri Paul?
9 A. I am on public record as saying that those issues were
10 right to be raised by Mr Al Fayed.
11 MR KEEN: No further questions.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
13 Mr Croxford?
14 MR CROXFORD: I am mindful of your direction and I have
15 noted what Lord Stevens said about passing all evidence
16 to you. I ask no questions.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. Mr Horwell?
18 Questions from MR HORWELL
19 MR HORWELL: Lord Stevens, very little, in fact, to ask you.
20 Do you have the Mishcon note in front of you?
21 A. I do, yes.
22 Q. You took over from Lord Condon in January 2000?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As you have been at pains to point out this morning, of
25 course, this was one of the items in the safe. There

68

1 were others.
2 A. There were others, yes.
3 Q. When you saw this document for the first time, in
4 January 2000, did you believe you had any need there and
5 then to disclose it to the Coroner?
6 A. No, I did not.
7 Q. Now, the allegation against Lord Condon was that he was
8 part of a criminal conspiracy to suppress this note, to
9 avoid others discovering that this was in fact a murder
10 and not an accident. Now, that allegation has not
11 specifically been put to you, Lord Stevens, but you took
12 over from Lord Condon and you formed exactly the same
13 view as he had done. Let's just consider the allegation
14 at its most extreme. Did you deliberately sit on this
15 note to avoid others discovering that this was a murder?
16 A. I certainly did not.
17 Q. When you read this note, did you believe that it shed
18 any light on the events of that night?
19 A. I did not. The business of abdication and the tampering
20 of the brakes, which was not true, the business in
21 relation to Camilla, all of that, when I read it, it
22 just did not actually have an impact, and the reason for
23 that was that it had not taken place.
24 Q. Were you concerned, as Lord Condon told us that he was,
25 about the potential impact of this note on Diana's

69

1 memory and her family?
2 A. Yes, absolutely. I think during the course of Paget,
3 one has been aware of the difficulties in terms of
4 people's reputations and the effects all of this has
5 had. And I have seen all of these people who are
6 related and loved ones of the victims and linked into
7 the allegations, absolutely.
8 Q. No doubt it could be debated for weeks, Lord Stevens, as
9 to whether you made the right judgment. You say that
10 you did, but it is not a point of judgment that is in
11 issue here. Deliberate suppression of this note. Is
12 there any truth in that at all?
13 A. There is absolutely no truth in that whatsoever.
14 Q. Can I move then to the other topic about which you were
15 cross-examined extensively? That is the meeting with
16 the Pauls on 8th November 2006.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now the purpose of that meeting, why did you and other
19 officers go to the British Embassy in Paris to meet
20 Mr and Mrs Paul?
21 A. It was to meet them, to inform them of what had taken
22 place on the inquiry so far, to allow them to put
23 questions to me, to have a proper relationship for
24 the future, to invite them back over to our headquarters
25 in London so that they could find out what was going on

70

1 and to give them -- this was a family liaison meeting.
2 There are ways and means of giving people news.
3 Both of them are a frail couple. Mr Paul is half blind.
4 Of course there are ways and means of giving the
5 information we had. And as I have had with my dealings
6 with all of the people who are interested parties -- and
7 I have had numerous meetings with Mr Al Fayed and
8 others -- you do it in a sympathetic fashion. They lost
9 their son, as he has.
10 Q. You have been asked about the note of Jane Scotchbrook,
11 a detective inspector then. The note indicates that
12 the meeting lasted for two hours, 2.30 to 4.30, that
13 afternoon. The note does not in any sense set out to be
14 a verbatim record of what was said.
15 A. No. Not at all, that is right.
16 Q. It is a summary of what was said. Perhaps the best way
17 of indicating that is that a two-hour meeting has been
18 summarised into just under four pages --
19 A. That is right.
20 Q. -- of typescript.
21 By the time of this meeting, which was very near to
22 the publication of the Paget Report, were you by then of
23 the view that Henri Paul had consumed sufficient alcohol
24 to place him three times above the French limit and two
25 times above the UK?

71

1 A. We were, yes.
2 Q. The note about which you have been asked so many
3 questions, "Operation Paget would be saying that he had
4 consumed two alcoholic drinks on the night of
5 the incident", were you attempting in any way to suggest
6 to the Pauls that that was all their son had had to
7 drink?
8 A. No. That is why I make reference to the second part of
9 that, over the page, where they -- even they accepted --
10 and it is very difficult for them to do that -- that he
11 probably would have had drinks when he had left duty and
12 when he had been called back by whoever's instructions.
13 No, I mean that just was not the case.
14 Q. In addition to the scientific evidence, by this stage,
15 of course, you had the evidence of Mr Roulet, who said
16 that he had seen Henri Paul in a bar --
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. -- between those missing hours, between 7 and 10 that
19 night.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. There must have been a purpose to this extensive
22 cross-examination of you on this point, Lord Stevens.
23 The purpose can only be twofold: either that you decided
24 deliberately to mislead the Pauls as to how much their
25 son had to drink that night. What do you say about

72

1 that?
2 A. That is outrageous and I am looking for an apology in
3 relation to that.
4 Q. Quite what the purpose there would have been in
5 misleading the Pauls is another matter --
6 A. Exactly. Why?
7 Q. -- which we will put to one side, Lord Stevens. But
8 that is one potential purpose to the cross-examination
9 of you.
10 The other is that in between the meeting with
11 the Pauls on 8th November and the publication of the
12 Paget Report later that year, you had been got at by the
13 establishment to change your view from two drinks to
14 more than two drinks. What do you say about that?
15 A. Not the case. The reason Mr Mohamed Al Fayed wanted me
16 to do this investigation, supported by Mr Mansfield and
17 others, is because of the investigations in Northern
18 Ireland where my integrity has been everything to me, as
19 it has been for my 45 years in policing. To think that
20 I would even contemplate that and take a team of 14 or
21 15 officers, the whole French investigation along with
22 that, is absolutely absurd and crazy. Allegations trip
23 off people's tongues. It is just not right.
24 Q. It must follow from what you have said that not only
25 would you have had to have been got, but the other

73

1 officers in the Paget team.
2 A. The whole team. That is what I find more hurtful, the
3 integrity of the whole team, that I could manipulate
4 them into saying things and go down a criminal course of
5 action. It is absolutely absurd and we want an apology.
6 MR HORWELL: Thank you, Lord Stevens.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that it?
8 MR BURNETT: Yes, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much,
10 Lord Stevens. We are grateful to you and that is all
11 that we require from you.
12 The next witness is scheduled to give evidence at
13 2 o'clock. That is Mr Macnamara. I think he is in
14 court. Is there any reason why we should not press on
15 now?
16 MR BURNETT: None that I can think of.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
18 MR MANSFIELD: I am quite content.
19 MR JOHN MACNAMARA (sworn)
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you prefer to sit or stand?
21 A. Sit, if I may. I am a bit older than Lord Stevens.
22 Questions from MR BURNETT
23 MR BURNETT: Now, is your full name John Leslie Macnamara?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Mr Macnamara, did you retire from the Metropolitan

74

1 Police in January 1987, in the rank of detective chief
2 superintendent?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were you thereafter employed as director of security for
5 the House of Fraser group of department stores, which
6 included Harrods?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At that time, when you joined the House of Fraser group,
9 could you just remind us whether Mr Al Fayed and his
10 family interests had acquired it or whether it was still
11 in its previous ownership?
12 A. It was owned by Mr Al Fayed. In fact, the House of
13 Fraser group of stores was run by his brother, Ali, and
14 Mr Al Fayed really concentrated on Harrods.
15 Q. In one guise or another, you then continued in the
16 employment of Mr Al Fayed and his group as director of
17 security for Harrods Holdings and Harrods Ltd; is that
18 right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you had full responsibility for all security aspects
21 of Mr Al Fayed's companies?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Additionally, you were responsible for all
24 the security-related aspects of his personal affairs?
25 A. That is right.

75

1 Q. So overall responsibility for the personal security
2 teams, about which we have heard, their establishment
3 and management and so forth?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You retired from full-time work for Harrods and
6 Mr Al Fayed when?
7 A. In June 2002.
8 Q. So you were very much in post in the summer of 1997 when
9 the tragedy with which we are concerned occurred?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Even though retiring in 2002, it is right, isn't it,
12 that you have continued to work for Mr Al Fayed on and
13 off in connection with matters that arise from that
14 crash?
15 A. Well, yes. I retired -- I came off pay in 2002. I did
16 not take a consultancy or anything like that, but I did
17 tell Mr Al Fayed at the time of the death of his son
18 that I would do everything I could to assist him in
19 the investigation.
20 Q. It is fair to say then since the very day of the crash,
21 you took responsibility for conducting and overseeing
22 the investigation that Mr Al Fayed has made into its
23 circumstances?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Miss Macdonald passes me a message that some at the back

76

1 cannot hear you.
2 A. I will speak up.
3 Q. So we were just establishing from the outset that you
4 were responsible for Mr Al Fayed's investigation.
5 Would it be right to assume that from your point of
6 view and from his, the investigation has been an
7 extremely thorough one?
8 A. I think it has been as thorough as it possibly could be.
9 Q. And no expense has been spared in pursuing all avenues?
10 A. None at all.
11 Q. I shall not ask about what that expense might have been,
12 but it is important that the jury knows the position
13 generally about the investigation.
14 Has anything that you or Mr Al Fayed or others
15 consider relevant for the purposes of these inquests
16 been passed on to the Coroner?
17 A. Everything that we had we passed over to Operation Paget
18 in 2004 and we worked very closely with the Paget team
19 since 2004 to deliver to them the results of our
20 investigations.
21 Q. I shall ask you in a few minutes a little bit about one
22 or two aspects of that. Before I come to that, you made
23 a statement, didn't you, which is dated 3rd July 2006,
24 which is 15 pages long which you provided to
25 Operation Paget. Is that right?

77

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That is a statement which I think you wrote yourself?
3 A. In fact I made that statement, if you like, in stages.
4 To assist the Paget team, they wanted to deal with
5 the statement in stages, if you like, in various aspects
6 of the inquiry, so I passed draft statements to the
7 Paget team for comment before I actually finalised that
8 statement, but yes, I wrote it.
9 Q. All I was trying to do was establish -- often, as you
10 know, as a policeman, the questions all come from the
11 police officer to a witness, it is all written out by
12 the policeman and then read through and signed, but as
13 we have seen with one or two other witnesses in these
14 inquests, essentially these are actually your words.
15 A. Yes, I wrote them.
16 Q. There is one particular aspect that I would wish to
17 start with which you deal with on page 2 of your
18 statement. It concerns events in the very --
19 A. Is this 3rd July 2006?
20 Q. Yes, it is. It concerns events in the immediate hours
21 following the news of the crash and the deaths at a time
22 when I guess everything was very fast-moving. Would
23 that be right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When did you first learn of the death of Dodi Al Fayed

78

1 and in what circumstances?
2 A. It was soon after midnight on 31st August, on
3 the Sunday. I was telephoned at home by
4 Paul Handley-Greaves. He told me that there had been
5 a tragic car crash in Paris, that Dodi was dead,
6 that Princess Diana was very seriously injured, and he
7 made some comment about there had been some kind of
8 crazy decoy plan -- sorry, he said the Princess was very
9 seriously injured, but of course we did not know at that
10 time that she was to die. My wife turned the television
11 on and I saw the dreadful pictures.
12 Q. Did you then immediately become involved in the no doubt
13 very difficult and distressing practical arrangements
14 that had to be made in the hours that followed?
15 A. Yes. I went to Harrods very early in the morning and
16 began the arrangements, firstly for the repatriation of
17 Dodi's body and the reception of Dodi's body and also to
18 secure a burial site at Brookwood Cemetery.
19 Q. From the outset, no doubt you became aware of the desire
20 held by Mr Al Fayed and his family that, if at all
21 possible, Dodi's body should be brought back to England
22 that day so that appropriate religious rights could be
23 performed and the burial take place that evening?
24 A. If at all possible, we wanted to be able to bury Dodi
25 before sunset, in accordance with the Islamic religion.

79

1 Q. At some stage, did you become aware that there was at
2 least the likelihood -- which in due course it became
3 obvious was the need -- for a post-mortem examination in
4 England?
5 A. Well, yes. I knew that once the body came back to
6 England, there would have to be a post mortem.
7 Q. So, at that stage, as far as you were aware, was
8 everybody concerned at both ends, that is in France and
9 in England, trying to ensure that all that could happen
10 in accordance with the wishes of the Al Fayed family and
11 out of the respect for their religious sensibilities?
12 A. Yes, very much so, and in England especially.
13 Q. In that connection, did you have contact with the Surrey
14 coroner into whose jurisdiction the plan was that Dodi's
15 body would in due course come because that is where he
16 was to be buried?
17 A. Yes, I had several conversations with Mr Burgess, yes.
18 Q. I will come in a little while to events at the
19 Fulham Mortuary. We have heard about those, as you
20 know, Mr Macnamara, from others who were there. That
21 was in the early evening. You had contact with
22 Mr Burgess before that, I think.
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Did you meet him during the course of the day or was all
25 the contact by telephone?

80

1 A. It was all by telephone. I did not meet Mr Burgess
2 until I went to the mortuary late that afternoon.
3 Q. Are you able now to recollect the number of calls you
4 had with him?
5 A. I do not know. It was probably three or four telephone
6 calls, I would have thought.
7 Q. Now in the course of that morning, were you kept aware
8 of news as it was coming from Paris? You have told us
9 you turned the television on, a very natural reaction,
10 but as the torrent of information -- not all of it, of
11 course, accurate -- about the circumstances of the crash
12 was beamed around the world, were you keeping tabs on
13 that broadly?
14 A. Very, very loosely because I was really concerned with
15 the burial arrangements. We had a lot of difficulty
16 with those and repatriation of the body, so what was
17 actually happening in Paris, I knew loosely, but not in
18 any detail.
19 Q. Were you aware from the outset that there was
20 a suggestion of involvement -- I use the word
21 carefully -- of the paparazzi in the crash?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Of course the photographs of the seven paparazzi being
24 arrested and in custody and in the van were part of
25 the broadcast footage that went all through that night.

81

1 A. Yes, I saw that.
2 Q. You saw all of that.
3 Now, you were aware, were you, that there would have
4 to be inquests in England into these deaths, were you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Forgive me, I do not know the detail of all of the posts
7 you held in Scotland Yard, but had you had contact
8 professionally during your time there with overseas
9 deaths?
10 A. I do not think overseas deaths, although I conducted
11 a