Hearing transcripts

15 January 2008 - Morning session

1 Tuesday 15th January 2008
2 (10.00 am)
3 (Jury present)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, we are going
5 to proceed with other evidence this morning.
6 Mr Burrell, you remember from yesterday, has to obtain
7 some documents from Cheshire, and he will be returning,
8 we anticipate, this afternoon. So to save wasting time,
9 we are going to proceed with other evidence this
10 morning, but he is still in the witness box and will
11 come back later.
12 Mr Hilliard, who do we have first this morning?
13 MR HILLIARD: The first witness is Maggie Rae, please.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I will call Maggie Rae, then.
15 MS MAGGIE RAE (sworn)
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer to sit or stand,
17 Ms Rae? It's up to you entirely.
18 A. I will stand, thank you.
19 Questions from MR HILLIARD
20 MR HILLIARD: Is your name Maggie Rae?
21 A. It's the name by which I am known, yes.
22 Q. You are a solicitor and partner in the family department
23 of a law firm Clintons; is that right?
24 A. That's right, yes.
25 Q. Did you join Clintons from Mishcon de Reya, the firm you

1

1 worked for before?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where you were also a partner specialising in family law
4 work?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I want to ask you, please, principally about a meeting
7 that took place on 30th October 1995 at
8 Kensington Palace.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you present at that meeting?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Also present at it were, I think, Lord Mishcon.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was he the senior partner at Mishcon de Reya?
15 A. By that stage he was a consultant.
16 Q. Right. Yourself?
17 A. Mm.
18 Q. Somebody called Sandra Davis?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And she was?
21 A. She was a partner in the firm as well, and she was the
22 head of the family department at Mishcon de Reya.
23 Q. Diana, Princess of Wales?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And her private secretary, Commander Jephson; is that

2

1 right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What was the purpose of the meeting, as you understood
4 it?
5 A. By that stage Lord Mishcon was quite elderly. He had
6 been dealing with the Princess of Wales' affairs at the
7 firm and I think he had -- he was a realist, he had
8 intimations of his own mortality. Nothing was actually
9 happening with her divorce at the time and he wanted to
10 make sure that, in the event that something happened to
11 him, her case would be properly handled, and he chose
12 Sandra and I as his successors in a way. So it was to
13 introduce us to her.
14 Q. For the purposes of continuity in dealing with her
15 affairs?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now you know that after the meeting, the next day,
18 31st October 1995, Lord Mishcon I think made a note of
19 the meeting and that was subsequently typed out; is that
20 right?
21 A. I know now. I didn't know then.
22 Q. Right, but you know now. Have you got a copy of the
23 note there?
24 A. I do, yes.
25 Q. We might be able to get it on the screen. As we go

3

1 through it, it will be easier to follow [INQ0006335].
2 Ms Rae, you and I will go through it. You have a hard
3 copy and it is there on the screen.
4 A. I have.
5 Q. Does his note read as follows?
6 "I attended on HRH at Kensington Palace yesterday
7 30th October at approximately 4 pm. Sandra Davis and
8 Maggie Rae of my office were also present, as was
9 Commander Jephson. Because of the serious statements
10 made by HRH in the course of this meeting I decided
11 unusually to write this entry and to give instructions
12 that it should be securely held.
13 "HRH said that she had been informed by reliable
14 sources whom she did not wish to reveal (they would
15 speedily dry up if she broke her promise of
16 confidentiality) that (a) The Queen would be abdicating
17 in April and the Prince of Wales would then assume the
18 throne and (b) efforts would be made if not to get rid
19 of her (be it by some accident in her car such as
20 pre-prepared brake failure or whatever) between now and
21 then, then at least to see that she was so injured or
22 damaged as to be declared 'unbalanced'. She was
23 convinced that there was a conspiracy and that she and
24 Camilla were to be 'put aside'. She had also been told
25 that Miss Legge-Bourke had been operated on for

4

1 an abortion and that she (HRH) would shortly be in
2 receipt of a 'certificate'.
3 "I told HRH that if she really believed her life or
4 being was threatened, security measures including those
5 relating to her car must be increased. I frankly
6 however could not believe that what I was hearing was
7 credible as to this alleged conspiracy and sought and
8 obtained an opportunity of a private word with
9 Commander Jephson who surprisingly said that he himself
10 'half believed' in the accuracy of what HRH had said as
11 to the risks to her safety. Reporting to or taking the
12 police in to our confidence would be useless. I said
13 that if anything further should arise on these matters
14 I would make myself available -- day or night.
15 "HRH in answer to a question I put to her said that
16 in her view the happiest solution for the future of the
17 monarchy was for the Prince of Wales to abdicate in
18 favour of Prince William and that without any malice
19 whatsoever she wished to put that view forward in the
20 interests of the Royal Family and everyone. She was
21 disappointed that the Prime Minister had not been to see
22 her or got in touch with her for a very considerable
23 time. I offered to pass this on to the Lord Chancellor
24 on her behalf and did so later that afternoon in
25 a private meeting I had with him. I told him no more."

5

1 Then the initials at the bottom, "VM" for
2 Victor Mishcon?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, I think you have said that you are not able
5 precisely to recall what the Princess of Wales had said
6 on this occasion, but you have said that you have no
7 doubt that Lord Mishcon had recorded her concerns
8 accurately and you say that he was meticulous and you do
9 remember a conversation along these lines.
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Now I am looking at a statement that you made on
12 17th December of last year, in particular paragraph 9 on
13 the second page, if that helps. You say this: that you
14 met the Princess of Wales subsequently on several
15 occasions when she had also said similar things about
16 her belief that -- and you put this in inverted
17 commas -- "'they' wanted to put her aside and get rid of
18 her". You say it was a "pervasive believe in her
19 conversation and a sort of common theme". Did she ever
20 tell you who "they" were?
21 A. No. I don't think I asked, either.
22 Q. No. When she spoke of being put aside and getting rid
23 of her, what did you understand her to mean by that?
24 A. I was very clear in my own mind that she meant that she
25 thought she was going to be killed.

6

1 Q. You have said this: you don't remember if she told you
2 that she had been told this by reliable sources, but she
3 might well have done, and you say that she certainly
4 believed that she had information about this.
5 A. Yes, absolutely.
6 Q. You go on to say that she also told you on several
7 occasions that she was keen that the Prince of Wales
8 should not be king and that the Crown should skip
9 a generation.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now I am going to ask you in a moment about an occasion
12 when you last saw the Princess of Wales, which I think
13 was in January 1997. But the occasions on which you had
14 met her after -- apart from that one -- after
15 30th October 1995, were those also in connection with
16 her legal affairs?
17 A. Yes, by and large. Sandra and I and Anthony Julius met
18 her on several occasions in connection with the divorce.
19 Sandra and I also had lunch with her on one occasion and
20 Sandra, I and Anthony Julius also had lunch with her on
21 one occasion.
22 Q. The last time you saw her was in January of 1997?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was that about? How did that come about?
25 A. She knew that I knew Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie,

7

1 and she rang me and said she would like to meet them.
2 I raised it with Tony Blair, who was keen to meet her,
3 and that's how the dinner that's described in
4 Alistair Campbell's diaries and indeed mentioned in this
5 statement came about.
6 Q. Because in addition to Tony Blair and his wife, yourself
7 and the Princess of Wales, Alistair Campbell and his
8 partner were also present for the dinner at your home;
9 is that right?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. You say that Alistair Campbell gives an account of that
12 dinner in his published diaries.
13 A. Yes, and I think that's accurate.
14 Q. So far as his account of that is concerned, there was
15 discussion about landmines; is that right?
16 A. Yes, she was quite involved with landmines at that time.
17 Q. Can you remember what she was saying about them at that
18 dinner?
19 A. I ought to say that for a large part of the evening
20 I was in the kitchen and they were in another room,
21 so ... there are large gaps in the conversation. So
22 when I say Alistair Campbell's account was accurate --
23 Q. He was there for more of it?
24 A. He was there for more of it. So I didn't hear much of
25 the conversation about landmines.

8

1 Q. But certainly that was a topic that was discussed?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now so far as you were concerned, when she had expressed
4 her fears to you about her safety, what was your view of
5 them?
6 A. My view was pretty much the same as Lord Mishcon's and
7 I didn't really see that it was possible, but having
8 said that, I mean, it is only my view. I am not in any
9 better position to judge than anybody else.
10 Q. No. So far as you were concerned, were you aware of any
11 evidence to suggest that the Royal Family bore her, as
12 it were, a degree of ill-will to that extent?
13 A. No. In fact the evidence that I had consisted of the
14 letters that -- some letters that Prince Philip had
15 written to her, which she had given Lord Mishcon and he
16 gave to me for safe-keeping, and a letter that the Queen
17 had written to her, which she also gave to me. All of
18 those letters seemed to me to be more in sorrow than in
19 anger and really some of them quite poignant.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are tending to drop your
21 voice a little bit and there are quite a lot of people
22 here a good deal further away than me and obviously want
23 to hear every word.
24 A. I am so sorry.
25 MR HILLIARD: So far as those letters were concerned -- the

9

1 letter from the Queen, if we start with that, was there
2 an occasion in the early days, relatively early days, of
3 your knowing the Princess of Wales when you had gone to
4 see her on your own because both Lord Mishcon and
5 Sandra Davis were unavailable?
6 A. I think that's right.
7 Q. Had she just received a letter from the Queen in which
8 the Queen had said that there was now a need for her and
9 Prince Charles to get divorced?
10 A. That's right. That's what prompted her calling and
11 asking me to visit.
12 Q. Once you were there, did she show you the letter?
13 A. She showed me the letter and she asked me to take it
14 away.
15 Q. Did you do that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And bring it back in due course?
18 A. Yes. I think from recollection it went into our safe at
19 home and stayed there with the Prince Philip letters
20 until she asked for everything back.
21 Q. Right. You say this about the letter from the Queen,
22 that, "Despite dealing with the difficult topic of
23 divorce, I thought the letter was very nice. It was
24 certainly not hostile".
25 A. I did think that, yes.

10

1 Q. Then so far as letters from the Duke of Edinburgh are
2 concerned, is it right that a short time after that
3 letter from the Queen, Lord Mishcon gave you letters
4 which the Princess of Wales had received from the
5 Duke of Edinburgh?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you help us to date those letters at all? As you
8 recall it, what was the date of them?
9 A. They were, by that stage, quite a -- they had been
10 written quite a long time ago. I think they were
11 written in about 1992.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Were they originals or copies?
13 A. They were originals.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: As was the Queen's letter?
15 A. Yes. The Queen's letter, from recollection, had been
16 handwritten. The letters from the Prince had been typed
17 on mostly foolscap paper, which seemed to be something
18 the Royal Family still used, on one of those
19 old-fashioned typewriters, where the Es are all blocked
20 out because they have got ink in them.
21 MR HILLIARD: Those letters, Lord Mishcon, as you say, asked
22 you to look after them. I think you took them home and
23 kept them in your safe.
24 A. I did.
25 Q. How many of those were there, as you recall it?

11

1 A. I can't be sure, but there were certainly more than
2 one -- more than two, I think, but certainly, I think,
3 not more than about five.
4 Q. Now so far as the content of those were concerned,
5 having read them -- and I am looking at your statement
6 again -- you have described them as "quite poignant" and
7 showing a side of Prince Philip that you had never
8 really seen before, and you said that they showed him in
9 a very sympathetic light.
10 Now, you are aware, I think, that so far as these
11 proceedings are concerned, in respect of letters, we
12 have simply heard parts of letters and not the complete
13 document.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You are aware of that, aren't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You have seen, though, I think, the full copies of the
18 correspondence that we have heard part of; is that
19 right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Having seen the full copies of what we have heard part
22 of, how do those compare with what you had read of what
23 you think were 1992 letters?
24 A. I think they are the letters. Some of those letters are
25 the letters that I saw, yes.

12

1 Q. Right. But did it appear to you that we had got more
2 than you had seen?
3 A. Yes, I think you had.
4 Q. Right. Can you help us, please, with what happened to
5 the letters that you had got in your safe? What was the
6 story about those?
7 A. Long after the divorce had finished and not long before
8 she died, the Princess telephoned me and said she was
9 sorting out her papers and had I still got the letters.
10 I said that I had still got the letters and she asked if
11 I would make them available for collection, which I did,
12 and they were duly collected.
13 Q. You say in your statement that you thought that was
14 about six weeks or so before her death.
15 A. Doing the best I can, I think that's about right.
16 Q. Right. Then looking at paragraph 15, Ms Rae, of your
17 statement on the third page -- and again it's only your
18 view and you can only speak from what you saw and
19 heard -- but did you have any view as to what may have
20 led to the fears that the Princess of Wales was
21 expressing to you?
22 A. I thought she lived in a very odd environment.
23 I thought she was quite lonely. I remember one occasion
24 when she told me about her weekend and she had been
25 alone in those rather silent set of apartments. She had

13

1 heated her own food in microwave. I got the general
2 impression that she was a bit lonely and she -- and
3 I thought it was a very odd environment.
4 Q. Did she appear to you to have many close friends?
5 A. She had some close friends, but I am not sure how many
6 close friends she had.
7 Q. By contrast, you say, the Prince of Wales had a large
8 group of advisers. You say this, that "She felt like
9 she was up against a big machine".
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did she express that to you?
12 A. Yes, she did, and it's not just that she expressed it,
13 I think I always felt that we were up against a big
14 machine. The Prince of Wales did have a big staff; she
15 had a very small staff. And I think she did feel sort
16 of outgunned, if I can put it like that, in those terms.
17 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much indeed.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
19 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
20 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, good morning. My name is
21 Michael Mansfield. I represent Mohamed Al Fayed.
22 I have a few questions for you.
23 The question of your speculation about her fears
24 first of all. This inquest has heard from a large
25 number of people who all claim that they were in fact

14

1 her confidants, quite a large number. Did you know any
2 of them? I can name them if you wish.
3 A. That might help, yes.
4 Q. There is Rosa Monckton, Lucia de Flecha(sic),
5 Paul Burrell, who is in the witness box at the moment,
6 Ken Wharfe and so on. All of them claimed to have
7 a very close relationship.
8 A. The person of those names you have mentioned, the only
9 person I have ever met was Paul Burrell, and I met him
10 in the course of the work we were doing. He is not
11 a friend.
12 Q. No, I appreciate that. But you didn't know about any of
13 the others?
14 A. I knew about them, but I don't know them.
15 Q. But you didn't know how close or otherwise her
16 relationships were with the others?
17 A. I had always understood she had a very close
18 relationship with Rosa Monckton, but I did not know of
19 her relationships with any of the others.
20 Q. I mean, there is Rita Rogers.
21 A. No.
22 Q. No?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And Susie Kassim?
25 A. No.

15

1 Q. She didn't talk to you -- because one of the things
2 that -- would this be fair -- we have been told is that
3 she tended to compartmentalise the friends that she had,
4 so that one set of friends wouldn't necessarily even
5 know about another set.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, not set of friends;
7 individual friends.
8 MR MANSFIELD: I am sorry, individual, yes, although some of
9 them may ... Devorik is another name.
10 A. I don't know that name. I don't know whether that's
11 true or not. I was part of the legal team and that is
12 it. She didn't talk to us about her friends and
13 I wouldn't really be in a position to know whether she
14 compartmentalised them.
15 Q. The thing is you have been asked about your views about
16 the fears, and the obvious thing, since you seem to have
17 met her on a number of occasions --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- and she repeated the fears on a number of
20 occasions --
21 A. She did.
22 Q. -- there is no question but that she was serious about
23 the fears?
24 A. Oh yes, she was serious.
25 Q. We have been told by others that people did not regard

16

1 her as paranoic.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Forgive me, if somebody you are acting for tells you
4 repeatedly that they are afraid they might be killed,
5 that's quite important, isn't it?
6 A. It certainly stuck in my mind, yes, it did.
7 Q. Why would it be important, do you think? Sorry it's
8 such an obvious question, but why do you think it would
9 be important if she told you this?
10 A. When I say she told us a number of -- me a number of
11 times, it wasn't as if it dominated the conversation.
12 It was something that she put into the conversation as
13 indeed she would put into the conversation what she
14 thought about Miss Legge-Bourke, for example, and then
15 she would move on to talk about something else. So it
16 wasn't a dominating theme of her conversation, but it
17 was something she mentioned.
18 Q. I am not suggesting that the only thing she ever talked
19 about was, but she repeated this. Now why is that
20 important?
21 A. It was one of the things she thought was important.
22 Q. Yes. What I want to ask you is this: did you ever ask
23 her, "Well, who is it who you think is going to kill
24 you?"
25 A. No.

17

1 Q. Why not?
2 A. Because I think in meetings -- because the conversation
3 would move on and I think we just went past that.
4 Q. I appreciate that. I am sorry to persist in this
5 a little.
6 A. It's all right.
7 Q. It may be that underneath it all people were just not
8 listening and taking her seriously; do you follow? Is
9 that a possibility with you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. So you don't ask her who "they" are, that is
12 the people who might be wanting to put her aside, and
13 you don't ask her about the sources that she implied she
14 had for the information?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Can I just -- before we go back to the original meeting
17 that you had, the letters that you were given --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- it's commonplace in -- I appreciate you have moved
20 on, you are with another firm now -- but it's
21 commonplace in most firms that some form of record is
22 kept, sometimes in the form of attendance notes and so
23 on, when actions are taken with regard to a client; is
24 that right?
25 A. Yes.

18

1 Q. Yes. Did that happen at Mishcon de Reya?
2 A. In the normal course of events, in the normal case, of
3 course we would keep records, yes.
4 Q. But not this one?
5 A. Very little in the way of record-keeping was kept in
6 this case.
7 Q. You see what I wanted to ask you about is when it was
8 that you were given some letters. Can you help?
9 A. It was about the time the divorce proceedings commenced
10 because that was -- it was around the time that I went
11 to see her and she gave me the letter from the Queen,
12 and then Lord Mishcon gave me --
13 Q. We know from other materials that the letter from the
14 Queen came at the end of December 1995, so that 1996 was
15 really when the divorce proceedings --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that right?
18 A. Yes. I think I had those letters from around the time
19 of the beginning of the divorce.
20 Q. The beginning of 1996?
21 A. End of 1995/beginning of 1996. I can't be sure,
22 Mr Mansfield. I do not want to mislead.
23 Q. No, I appreciate. It's because of what others may say
24 they claim they saw or didn't see and where the letters
25 are now. Do you follow?

19

1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Nobody has the letters, these particular letters, and
3 there may be others. So would there have been a record
4 at Mishcon de Reya of when the letters were provided?
5 A. Not unless Lord Mishcon kept a record.
6 Q. Would not the head of the family division of the firm at
7 that time have kept a file and opened a file?
8 A. Perhaps I can explain how the case was conducted.
9 Initially it had been Lord Mishcon who dealt entirely
10 with the Princess of Wales' affairs. He then introduced
11 us, as I have said, to the Princess. But when the
12 course actually started, very rapidly it was
13 Anthony Julius who took the lead in the case and Sandra
14 and I really helped him. We weren't running the case.
15 Q. Yes, sorry --
16 A. So I had no files and I don't -- Sandra can answer for
17 herself.
18 Q. She is coming next, so perhaps I leave it for
19 somebody -- is she still there?
20 A. Yes, she is.
21 Q. I will leave these questions for her. But your
22 recollection is it's somewhere around the beginning of
23 1996, but then of course you have custody of them -- and
24 we will perhaps get the dates from someone else -- up
25 until about six weeks before. Once again you can't help

20

1 about the precise date, if there was an attendance note
2 kept for that, but you think six weeks before she died?
3 A. My recollection is it was not long before she died, yes.
4 Q. Right. If there were other letters not in the
5 sympathetic vein that you have described, you never saw
6 them?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Of course you appreciate that after 1992, after those
9 letters had not succeeded in cementing any form of
10 relationship that could be presented to the public,
11 there was almost an inevitable course after 1992 that
12 this was going to lead to not just separation but
13 divorce?
14 A. I would have thought so, yes.
15 Q. Because there were going to be negotiations between you
16 acting for her and others acting for Prince Charles,
17 this became a very delicate matter, didn't it?
18 A. Yes, it did.
19 Q. If she had vitriolic letters from the Duke of Edinburgh,
20 she might not have wanted to show you those letters
21 because it might show her in a light that she would not
22 wish to be portrayed in. Do you follow what I am
23 putting to you?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. That's a possibility, isn't it?

21

1 A. It's certainly a possibility, yes.
2 Q. One of the things -- I don't know whether you
3 remember -- historically speaking that had happened
4 post 1992, which in fact led to the letter from the
5 Queen in the sense that it just preceded it, in the
6 November of 1995, do you remember the famous Bashir
7 Panorama interview?
8 A. Yes, that's right, yes, I do.
9 Q. That certainly -- and I am putting it at it's lowest --
10 ruffled a large number of feathers.
11 A. I think it did, yes.
12 Q. Can you remember whether the letters that you were given
13 in the following year had been in the possession of
14 anyone else other than Diana?
15 A. Only Lord Mishcon.
16 Q. Only Lord Mishcon?
17 A. I am fairly certain of that because Lord Mishcon told me
18 that she had given the letters -- after she had given
19 the letters to him, he had had them. So what she had
20 done with them before I can't say, but she gave him the
21 letters, he gave the letters to me.
22 Q. Right. Now, the other event besides the original
23 meeting with her and what's become known as the "Mishcon
24 note", the occasion when she came to dinner at your
25 house. Don't worry, I am not asking about the meal or

22

1 the cooking. It's just -- and I appreciate perhaps you
2 will have lost contact with everybody during the meal,
3 as it were, because you are having to do the cooking.
4 The date in the diaries -- we have a copy of the diaries
5 and there are just one or two points -- no, that is not
6 them.
7 Can I just see? It's not a great deal of --
8 A. It's a while since I have read them.
9 Q. The date in the diaries for this dinner was Tuesday
10 January 21st.
11 A. 1997.
12 Q. I am so sorry, yes, 1997. So it's just after she had
13 come back from Angola.
14 A. Yes, it would have been, I think, yes. That's
15 presumably what precipitated the conversation about
16 landmines, yes.
17 Q. Right. Just before the meeting, the visit to Angola had
18 created quite a lot of hostility, hadn't it?
19 A. I really don't recall. I honestly don't recall.
20 Q. If you don't recall, I will not go through that with
21 you. It was shortly after, and maybe the reason -- the
22 trigger for this meeting -- and at that stage, of
23 course, Tony Blair was in opposition. It was the year
24 of the election, and he, to put it mildly, was somewhat
25 circumspect about being seen going to your address and

23

1 Diana appearing at the same address --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- and somewhat worried about how long he should stay,
4 and in fact left a little bit earlier than the rest.
5 A. Yes. He was very frightened that there would be armies
6 of photographers on the doorstep.
7 Q. Yes. Were you present when the diaries suggest that --
8 may I just read a section because it bears upon the
9 landmines issue? It's at page 151. This is the
10 context:
11 "Tony Blair couldn't work out whether to flirt with
12 her or treat her like he would a visiting dignitary. He
13 ended up doing a bit of both, but wasn't comfortable.
14 We started off upstairs in the sitting room [I don't
15 know whether you were there at that point] and she was
16 very much the centre of attention. He [that, I think,
17 means Tony Blair] said how well she had done in Angola
18 and how impressed he was at the way she had redefined
19 her role."
20 A. I don't think I was there for that bit of it, no.
21 Q. So you can't, as it were -- well, it may be that for
22 perhaps quite a lot of it you weren't -- I am not going
23 to ask you to confirm things when you really weren't
24 present.
25 A. No, no, sure.

24

1 Q. He, that is Alistair Campbell, says that he accompanied
2 "her", that is Diana, to the kitchen at one point. Were
3 you in the kitchen?
4 A. Yes. She made him a cup of tea.
5 Q. She made him a cup of tea, right.
6 A. And stacked the dishwasher.
7 Q. Well, it's looking good. It's in the context of that
8 that she appears to have said what you have already
9 indicated she -- in other words she is repeating
10 something she has already said to you, and I will read
11 what the diary says:
12 "She didn't quite say they [not specifying] should
13 go straight from the Queen to William, but it is what
14 she was getting at. She felt there had to be a cutting
15 down of the monarchy once the Queen Mum died."
16 Do you recollect something like that?
17 A. I don't particularly on that occasion, but it was again
18 a common theme. She said it often, yes.
19 Q. All right. Again I will not go through it all. Do you
20 remember that Alistair Campbell said to her words to
21 this effect, "You probably have the power to save or
22 destroy the monarchy"? Do you remember him making that
23 observation?
24 A. That rings a bell. It does ring a bell.
25 Q. Right. Again, it's an observation in the diary, just on

25

1 the same page, 152, if anybody needs to look it up.
2 "... but she also saw it as her work to make people
3 feel happier and better and to support causes which
4 didn't always get strong support."
5 Do you remember something like that?
6 A. Yes, she did say that.
7 Q. Then he says that:
8 "By now people were beginning to ask pretty direct
9 questions and she was giving pretty direct answers. Did
10 she have an agenda against them [unspecified]? Answer:
11 no. Did she like Philip? No. She felt they had to
12 change fundamentally, and she didn't think they were
13 capable."
14 Do you remember some words to that effect?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. "No matter how many times they relaunch, it won't work
17 without fundamental change."
18 A. Yes, she did say that.
19 Q. Right. Thank you. Now on the question of the original
20 meeting at Kensington Palace where you were introduced,
21 I don't expect, as you didn't keep a note, that you
22 would necessarily remember everything that was said, but
23 besides what is in the note -- and do you have it there?
24 A. Lord Mishcon's note?
25 Q. Yes, that's right -- she was also indicating, was she

26

1 not, that her telephones were being either bugged,
2 monitored or listened to or whatever?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. She did?
5 A. And she said that.
6 Q. Right.
7 A. She got a sort of -- she subsequently, at some stage,
8 got a sort of mobile phone that she thought couldn't be
9 bugged. I remember her telling me that.
10 Q. In that context also, did she -- do you remember? I am
11 sorry it's so long ago; it is probably difficult to
12 say -- also mention "reliable sources" -- you know,
13 that's where she had got it from?
14 A. On occasions I have heard -- I recall specifically she
15 mentioned "reliable sources". I don't recall whether
16 she did it on that occasion, but if she didn't do it on
17 that occasion, she did it on some other occasion, yes.
18 Q. All right.
19 I take it that since you had left the firm at the
20 time -- were you still at the firm in 1997?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You were, later on in the year?
23 A. Yes, I left the firm in 1999, I think.
24 Q. Right, then I do just want to ask you this: were you
25 aware that later on, that is after the crash in 1997, in

27

1 September, Lord Mishcon had gone to the police with this
2 note?
3 A. No, I wasn't aware of the note. I wasn't aware that he
4 had gone to the police with the note until many years
5 later when I think it was the Stevens Inquiry made
6 reference to it.
7 Q. So you didn't even know about the note?
8 A. I didn't even know about the note. He was a man of few
9 words, Lord Mishcon.
10 Q. Yes. So you didn't know about the note and the Stevens
11 Inquiry Report of course came out much more recently --
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. -- just prior to, in fact, these inquests beginning. So
14 it's November of 1996 in fact.
15 A. Yes. I was telephoned just before the Inquiry Report
16 came out by one of the senior partners at Mishcons to
17 alert me to the fact that this note was in existence and
18 had been shown to the Inquiry.
19 Q. So you didn't know about that visit to the police. Were
20 you aware that in fact other members of Diana's family
21 did know about the note, her sisters and her brother?
22 A. No.
23 MR MANSFIELD: So you had not been informed about that.
24 Thank you very much.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?

28

1 MR KEEN: I have no questions, sir.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford?
3 MR CROXFORD: No, thank you, sir.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
5 Questions from MR HORWELL
6 MR HORWELL: My name is Richard Horwell. I appear on behalf
7 of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. I have just
8 a few questions to ask you.
9 At the meeting on 30th October 1995 at
10 Kensington Palace, that was a meeting to discuss the
11 position of the potential divorce proceedings? By then,
12 of course, they had long been separated.
13 A. Yes, but the divorce hadn't -- was imminent. It was
14 really, as I said before, I think, to make sure that
15 when the divorce happened, because it was seen that it
16 probably would happen, that there was continuity in the
17 legal team. Lord Mishcon wanted to ensure that that
18 took place.
19 Q. The only point I seek to investigate is this: that that
20 was the sole purpose for this meeting, as you understood
21 it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What Diana had to say at that meeting came as
24 a surprise?
25 A. Yes -- well, it was a surprise, yes. I hadn't

29

1 anticipated that she would say those things.
2 Q. You have told us that from your knowledge of Diana, she
3 was plainly lonely at this time in her life.
4 A. That was my view. I thought she was.
5 Q. And this was obviously a particularly low point in her
6 life?
7 A. As -- I mean, as Lord Mishcon's note makes clear, for
8 example, she hadn't been -- the Prime Minister hadn't
9 been to see her or been in touch, and those kinds of
10 things I think irked her. I think she felt a bit left
11 out, as it were, out of the loop. That was my view.
12 Q. And a particular low point in her life, would you agree?
13 A. I don't know whether it was a particular low point, but
14 it was a low point.
15 Q. It was a low point?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Of course, as a lawyer, you have to keep
18 an open mind in regard to what you are told by a client,
19 but it's only human to form views. You say in your
20 statement that following this meeting and indeed other
21 occasions on which you met Diana, you thought that the
22 fears expressed by her were far-fetched.
23 A. I thought she believed what she said --
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. -- but I thought it was unrealistic. But that was my --

30

1 as I said to Mr Mansfield, that's my personal view.
2 Q. Of course. We understand. Your penultimate
3 paragraph in your statement:
4 "When I first heard of the collision in which Diana
5 died, it did not even cross my mind that she might have
6 been murdered."
7 A. It didn't cross my mind then, when I first heard of it.
8 MR HORWELL: Thank you.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard?
10 Further questions from MR HILLIARD
11 MR HILLIARD: Can you just give us any final help on dating
12 the letters? We will ask Ms Davis in a moment. But you
13 say you think end of 1995/beginning of 1996, at about
14 the start of the divorce proceedings; is that right?
15 A. That's what I remember, yes.
16 Q. The Queen's letter I think we have heard was
17 December 1995, so that would --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you help us with this: the letter from the Queen and
20 the letters from the Duke of Edinburgh, did you get them
21 at the same time?
22 A. I had the letter from the Queen before the letters from
23 Prince Philip. I remember that quite clearly.
24 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much indeed.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much indeed,

31

1 Ms Rae. That's all we require and we are grateful to
2 you for coming.
3 (The witness withdrew)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I call Sandra Davis.
5 MS SANDRA DAVIS (sworn)
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you prefer to sit or stand?
7 A. I will sit to begin with.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
9 Questions from MR HILLIARD
10 MR HILLIARD: Are you Sandra Davis?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. You are a solicitor, I think, and the head of the family
13 law department at the firm Mishcon de Reya; is that
14 right?
15 A. I am.
16 Q. You went to the meeting that we have heard about. Have
17 you been in court and heard the evidence from
18 Maggie Rae?
19 A. I wasn't in court for the entirety of her evidence.
20 Q. All right. We have heard about a meeting at
21 Kensington Palace on 30th October 1995. Do you remember
22 the meeting?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Have you seen the typed copy of the note that
25 Lord Mishcon made the day after?

32

1 A. I was shown it, yes. I do not have it in front of me
2 now.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. It may be helpful, if you are going to refer to it, if
5 I have it. (Handed)
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do the jury have hard copies of
7 these?
8 MR HILLIARD: No, and there is no reason why they can't have
9 it. But not at the moment.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It's a fairly central document.
11 It might be useful for them to have it.
12 MR HILLIARD: Certainly. We will do that.
13 That's the copy of the note you have seen; is that
14 right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. In general terms, as you recall it, is the note
17 accurate?
18 A. In general terms. It is, of course, a very long time
19 ago and these meetings do tend to elide in one's mind.
20 Q. Yes. I am looking at the statement you made on
21 11th January of this year. Do you have a copy of that
22 there?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. At the bottom of the first page of it, you say this,
25 that you do vividly recall the Princess of Wales

33

1 mentioning the matters which Lord Mishcon has noted, and
2 you say that to the best of your recollection, you were
3 sitting quite close to each other at the end of a long
4 table and it was at the end of the meeting; yes?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. The meeting had been, is this right, to discuss possible
7 next steps in any divorce proceedings? That was why it
8 was called?
9 A. It was designed to introduce us to Princess Diana, who
10 Maggie Rae and I had not met before, and to ensure
11 continuity in the context of ongoing action in relation
12 to her separation.
13 Q. Right. So is this right, so we have the picture, that
14 after that discussion had happened with her, it's your
15 recollection that these matters that are in the note
16 took place at the end of that meeting?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I am again looking at your statement in which you say
19 that she said that she believed that Prince Charles
20 wouldn't inherit the throne, that she thought a jump in
21 the succession to the Crown was going to happen and that
22 Prince Andrew would be Regent until Prince William came
23 of age.
24 A. That was, of course, her opinion.
25 Q. Of course.

34

1 A. And that's not what Lord Mishcon noted in his note of
2 the meeting.
3 Q. No, but do you recall her saying that?
4 A. I do recall her saying that on a number of occasions.
5 Q. Right.
6 A. I believe that she said it at that meeting as well, to
7 the best of my recollection.
8 Q. You also say that you recall some comments about
9 Camilla Parker-Bowles being made, but not exactly what
10 they were.
11 A. I got the impression that Tiggy was centre stage as
12 opposed to Camilla at that point in time.
13 Q. Right. Then you say that the Princess of Wales also
14 said that her telephones were being bugged.
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. And that she had been told that efforts would be made to
17 get rid of her in a car accident.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. So far as where the information had come from, is this
20 right, she referred to "reliable sources" and was
21 concerned that if she said any more, she wouldn't be
22 told any more?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. She didn't say, is this right, who was planning to get
25 rid of her?

35

1 A. No, she didn't.
2 Q. Do you remember anybody asking her?
3 A. If anyone were to have asked her, it would have been
4 Lord Mishcon, who was leading the meeting. It certainly
5 would not have been Maggie Rae or I since this was the
6 first occasion on which we had met her. I think
7 equally, when she said that her sources would dry up if
8 she revealed them, he would have chosen not to press her
9 on that.
10 Q. Right. But so far as who "they" were who might be
11 planning to get rid of her, do you recollect her ever
12 being asked about who "they" might be?
13 A. I don't.
14 Q. No. On any occasion?
15 A. I don't.
16 Q. No. Now, looking at paragraph 12 of your statement in
17 which you say that Lord Mishcon had said that if her
18 life was really being threatened, that her security
19 should be increased, you deal with her response to that,
20 which was what?
21 A. She didn't want to. She said that there would be no
22 point.
23 Q. Thereafter you continued to work for her; is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And attended a number of meetings with her?

36

1 A. I did.
2 Q. You say that you recall her saying something again about
3 being got rid of during one of your meetings; is that
4 right?
5 A. That's right. It wasn't the only occasion on which she
6 had said it to myself or Maggie Rae.
7 Q. But you say it was never so clearly articulated as it
8 had been in this October 1995 meeting.
9 A. As far as I recall, yes.
10 Q. Then were you in court when we were discussing the
11 question of letters from the Duke of Edinburgh?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. Did you know anything about those?
14 A. I don't think I ever saw them. I don't think I read
15 them. I wasn't around at the point in time at which
16 they were given to Maggie.
17 Q. You say in your statement that you recall something once
18 being said by the Princess of Wales about correspondence
19 from him.
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And your recollection, is this right, is only that she
22 had told you that the letters from him were somewhat
23 terse?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Would there be -- or could you look for us -- at the

37

1 firm any record of when these letters might have been
2 received by Lord Mishcon? Could you look for us to see
3 if there is a record? There may very well not be.
4 A. I don't think there was a record. I think if there had
5 been a record, it would have already been submitted.
6 MR HILLIARD: All right. Thank you very much.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
8 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
9 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, good morning. My name is
10 Michael Mansfield. I represent Mohamed Al Fayed.
11 Just on that question, the habit would be normally,
12 would it not, to keep a record in files at a solicitor's
13 office of any property belonging to a client?
14 A. One would expect that, yes.
15 Q. Especially letters of this kind?
16 A. Yes, that's correct, although this was Lord Mishcon.
17 Q. I am not sure how I should --
18 A. With all due respect to Lord Mishcon, he did have
19 a particular way of handling cases that were under his
20 control, and if Lord Mishcon wanted a note taken,
21 Lord Mishcon had a note taken. If he didn't want a note
22 taken, he didn't.
23 Q. I understand all of that. Clearly the note that he did
24 of the meeting in fact doesn't embrace everything that
25 was said at the meeting, does it?

38

1 A. No, it doesn't. It doesn't.
2 Q. No, it's just that you still work for Mishcon de Reya.
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Is it possible for you just to check if there are any
5 files in relation to this and any attendance notes, or
6 however you would record it, when the letters came in,
7 and more particularly when they went back for
8 collection?
9 A. I am pretty confident that, had there been a written
10 record, it would have already been submitted.
11 Q. All right. Perhaps you would be kind enough just to do
12 a double-check because things suddenly arrive or
13 somebody has overlooked something, a file has risen to
14 the surface, if you would not mind and it's not too much
15 trouble.
16 Now, the only other thing I want to ask you is this:
17 in relation to Diana and the concern she expressed on
18 more than one occasion of her fears that she might be
19 killed, as far as you were concerned, you were clear
20 that she was in fact deadly serious about that?
21 A. I thought she was serious, yes.
22 Q. I have used those words because they are in your
23 original statement.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You got the impression that the reliable sources that

39

1 she was talking about wasn't just a journalistic
2 investigation by someone, but that she had somebody on
3 the inside?
4 A. That was the impression that I got from what she said at
5 that meeting.
6 Q. I think the overall position is this: that nobody at any
7 stage actually asked, for perhaps reasons that you have
8 expressed, either who the people were who she thought
9 might be planning to do her down, including the
10 grandfather of her children -- nobody ever pressed her
11 about that?
12 A. I seem to recall that her body language and what she
13 said at the time made it clear that she was not going to
14 be pressed on the identity of the person or persons who
15 were giving her the information.
16 Q. That's slightly different. I am dealing at the moment
17 with the source of the fears themselves; in other words
18 who it was she thought might have had ill-will towards
19 her sufficient to do her harm. That's one area.
20 A. No, she never said that.
21 Q. And nobody asked her?
22 A. No, no-one did ask her.
23 Q. Because even asking that wouldn't necessarily put
24 anybody's jobs on the line in terms of the mole or
25 whoever it was who was giving her the information; it

40

1 appears nobody chose to really try and get her to say --
2 to articulate these fears a little more.
3 A. No, that's true.
4 Q. I appreciate in the presence of Lord Mishcon you
5 wouldn't want to do that.
6 A. No.
7 Q. You never chose to do it when you weren't in the
8 presence of Lord Mishcon?
9 A. As I think I said in my statement, I don't recall a time
10 when she articulated it as forcefully, and on the other
11 occasions when we met, we were discussing matters
12 relating to her divorce. When we had lunch on the two
13 occasions, we were chatting, and we were chatting when
14 Maggie and I met her in a very girly way, and on the
15 other occasion, when Anthony was present, in a less
16 girly way.
17 Q. I hope Anthony is listening. But the point about that
18 original -- did you know that the note had been taken on
19 the day?
20 A. No, I didn't, but then I wouldn't have necessarily.
21 Q. When did you discover that there had been a note?
22 A. I am not sure that I knew much before Lord Mishcon went
23 off to deliver the note.
24 Q. And you knew he did that?
25 A. We knew after he did it.

41

1 Q. So who is the "we" here?
2 A. Some of the partners at Mishcons knew that Lord Mishcon
3 had made a foray to the police with a note that he had
4 kept in the safe; his safe.
5 Q. Now he is not alive to ask, but it's clear -- it's
6 an obvious inference -- that he must have thought that
7 there was some relevance in the note to the crash that
8 had just happened.
9 A. I can't speak for him, clearly, but he was concerned to
10 take the note, yes, because he thought that it was
11 important that the police knew that he had made it and
12 that she had said what she had said.
13 Q. I think that when you heard about the crash and the fact
14 that Diana had died, besides of course -- many shared
15 this view -- you couldn't believe it, you felt sick, "My
16 mind jumped to what she had said during our meeting on
17 30th October 1995".
18 A. Yes, that is true.
19 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you very much.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
21 MR KEEN: No questions, sir.
22 MR CROXFORD: Nor for me, sir.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell?
24 MR HORWELL: No, thank you.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much, Ms Davis.

42

1 That is all we require and we are very grateful to you
2 for coming.
3 I think we have Mr Veness.
4 MR HILLIARD: Sir David Veness, yes.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think we will continue for
6 a little while otherwise we will not have our break
7 mid-morning.
8 SIR DAVID VENESS (sworn)
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sir David, would you prefer to
10 sit or stand?
11 A. I will stand if I may, sir.
12 Questions from MR HILLIARD
13 MR HILLIARD: You are Sir David Veness?
14 A. That's correct, sir.
15 Q. You retired, is this right, from the Metropolitan Police
16 Service in February of 2005?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you carry on work but in a different capacity?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What are you doing now?
21 A. I am an Under-Secretary General of the United Nations.
22 My responsibilities are the safety and security of the
23 United Nations.
24 Q. Right. I just want to ask you a little bit about the
25 particular jobs you did in the last part of your service

43

1 with the Metropolitan Police. Have I got these dates
2 right, that from 1987 until 1990 you were Commander with
3 responsibility for the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection
4 Group?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And then from 1991 until 1994, were you Deputy Assistant
7 Commissioner Specialist Operations Crime?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Then from 1994 until your retirement, were you Assistant
10 Commissioner Specialist Operations?
11 A. Yes, I was.
12 Q. Can you help us a bit if we go back through the last
13 two. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Specialist
14 Operations Crime, I am sure it's pretty obvious from the
15 words, but can you give us an idea of what your
16 responsibilities entailed?
17 A. It was responsibility within the Metropolitan Police
18 area, effectively Greater London, for serious crimes,
19 murders, kidnapping and other offences of that ilk.
20 Q. Right. Then, thereafter, a promotion, Assistant
21 Commissioner Specialist Operations. Same job but
22 a higher level or slightly different?
23 A. At a slightly more senior level and a broadened
24 responsibility, which mainly encompassed security
25 protection and counter-terrorism.

44

1 Q. We have heard about changes that came about to the
2 protection status of the Princess of Wales and that
3 those began towards the end of 1993 and then were
4 implemented from that date and through 1994. I think
5 you are aware of those changes; is that right?
6 A. That is correct, sir.
7 Q. Essentially it came to this, that at her request she
8 would not have protection unless she was engaged on
9 official duties or unless anybody who she was with
10 received protection in their own right; is that what it
11 came to?
12 A. That is correct. My colleagues at the time, I know,
13 advanced the view, with some force, that it would have
14 been wiser for Diana, Princess of Wales, to have
15 maintained protection.
16 Q. Right. Then, please, so far as 31st August 1997 is
17 concerned -- and I am going, if it helps you, to page 2
18 of your statement -- did you know before she did so that
19 the Princess of Wales was intending to travel to Paris?
20 A. I had no knowledge of her whereabouts that morning.
21 Q. Aside from what you knew yourself, as far as you were
22 aware, did you know anybody who was themselves aware of
23 her intentions?
24 A. No, I did not.
25 Q. When did you first hear that she was in Paris at all?

45

1 A. When the news coverage of the tragic events began to be
2 broadcast on that morning, and I was subsequently
3 advised by my own officers of this tragic news.
4 Q. You got a call, is this right, from the Royalty and
5 Diplomatic Protection Group and, as it were, received
6 official confirmation?
7 A. That is so.
8 Q. This is right, is it, that as she was on a private
9 holiday, there wouldn't have been police protection for
10 her in accordance with the guidelines that you and
11 I have just dealt with?
12 A. That's absolutely right.
13 Q. You say in your statement that after that call from the
14 Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group, that there then
15 followed, you say, many telephone calls during the
16 morning and throughout the day dealing with many issues,
17 including the repatriation of the body of the Princess,
18 also assisting with the repatriation of the body of
19 Mr Dodi Al Fayed, funeral arrangements and trying to
20 establish what had happened.
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. I think during that day, you called and chaired
23 a meeting in Buckingham Gate, at the base for the
24 Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Group, and that's just
25 across the road from Buckingham Palace; is that right?

46

1 A. That is so.
2 Q. I think police officers attended that meeting, which was
3 at midday, and you say that the main subject matter
4 under discussion was the repatriation of the bodies and
5 funeral arrangements; is that right?
6 A. That is so. The urgent issues we were dealing with were
7 the repatriation of both, sadly, of the deceaseds'
8 bodies, but clearly a major challenge awaited in the
9 imminent future of a major royal funeral for which
10 extensive security arrangements would be required.
11 Q. You then mention in your statement the question of
12 forensic issues. Can you just help us with what they
13 were and how they arose?
14 A. In the course of the day, I think, around the midday
15 period, it became apparent that both bodies would be
16 returning to the jurisdiction within the United Kingdom
17 and arrangements were being made to conduct
18 a post-mortem.
19 Q. When you say "forensic issues" in your witness
20 statement, what do you mean by those, just so we
21 understand?
22 A. That there should be appropriate arrangements made at
23 the post-mortem in order that all appropriate samples
24 and forensic exhibits should be properly collated and
25 recorded.

47

1 Q. Right. As a result of appreciating the need for that,
2 what did you do?
3 A. I asked my staff officer to contact an investigating
4 officer within the command in order to address the
5 forensic aspects and to attend the post-mortems. That
6 officer was Superintendent Jeffrey Rees.
7 Q. Is this right, that the senior detective officer -- we
8 heard from Mr Rees, I think -- was somebody called
9 Detective Chief Inspector Peter Heard; is that right?
10 A. He was the senior on call, yes.
11 Q. But there was a difficulty with him, is this right,
12 because he was due to fly to Canada on business the next
13 morning; is that right?
14 A. That was my understanding.
15 Q. So obviously he was going to be no good -- I say "no
16 good" -- not appropriate --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- a long way away. In those circumstances, you, is
19 this right, gave instructions that Mr Rees should deal
20 with it?
21 A. Yes. Mr Rees is an officer of enormous competence and
22 expertise, and I regarded him as an ideal choice,
23 particularly with his experience of handling forensic
24 matters.
25 Q. Right. Aside from those considerations, Sir David, was

48

1 there any other factor that played a part in the
2 selection of Mr Rees?
3 A. No, there was not.
4 Q. Now, terms of reference were agreed with Mr Rees; is
5 that right?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. He told us this: that his responsibilities were, first
8 of all, to liaise closely with the French authorities
9 and provide them with any appropriate assistance;
10 secondly, to facilitate any enquiries that they might
11 wish carried out in the United Kingdom; to keep you
12 informed of all significant developments; and to liaise
13 closely with the British Ambassador and his staff at the
14 Embassy in Paris and keep them informed of developments.
15 Does that accord with your recollection?
16 A. That's precisely the recollection. Two points arise.
17 I believe I discussed those terms of reference with him
18 on the following morning, the Monday morning. It was
19 also very clear in all of our minds that this was
20 a French investigation and the role of Scotland Yard at
21 this stage would be to act in liaison.
22 Q. Now we know that Mr Rees had expressed concerns about
23 his position because he was also in charge of
24 an investigation into allegations of theft from a safety
25 deposit box at Harrods; do you remember that?

49

1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. We know that he actually put his concerns, in due
3 course, into writing in January of the next year and
4 that those concerns sort of went up the chain and that
5 essentially the view was that it was quite right to
6 raise them and record them, but that it was not felt
7 that there was in fact a conflict of interest.
8 A. I understand that decision was made.
9 Q. Now were you aware of the concern that Mr Rees had
10 actually at the time?
11 A. I think it certainly -- the matters were discussed. May
12 I say candidly that I think --
13 Q. Can we just take it stage by stage? If we go right back
14 to on the ground and 1997/1998, as you recall it, were
15 you aware that he had got the concern?
16 A. Yes, indeed.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Before you appointed him?
18 A. I was -- no. The appointment was made effectively on
19 the --
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: On the day.
21 A. -- on the Sunday. I thought he was the right person for
22 the job. I was aware, sir, that there was an antecedent
23 matter which could cause the possibility of perception
24 that this was inappropriate. The subsequent expression
25 by Mr Rees, I was aware. I did not see the precise

50

1 papers on which the decision was made where he had
2 raised those issues.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: But when you made the decision on
4 the Sunday to appoint him, do I understand you to be
5 saying, "Yes, I was aware that he was in charge of the
6 safety deposit box inquiry, but even to the extent that
7 that impinged on my mind, there were other factors that
8 overrode it"?
9 A. Yes. I thought he was the right person and he was
10 available at that time. As I think -- I have a view
11 that with -- that events were followed, it would have
12 been fairer to Mr Rees to have changed that decision.
13 MR HILLIARD: That's just the two things I am trying to
14 separate.
15 As far as at the time was concerned, you were
16 satisfied that it was acceptable for him to carry out
17 both roles; is that right?
18 A. I was.
19 Q. But then you say that looking back on matters -- I want
20 to be clear -- what's your view now?
21 A. My view is very clear, that it was perhaps unfair to
22 Mr Rees to ask him to undertake both of those functions,
23 particularly as time developed, on the basis that
24 clearly there may well be a subsequent perception that
25 we were asking him to pursue overlapping matters which,

51

1 I now believe, would have been wiser to separate for the
2 purposes of perception.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Not only unfair to Mr Rees, but
4 perhaps unfair to Mr Fayed as well.
5 A. Absolutely, sir. That is what I am agreeing with.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
7 MR HILLIARD: Yes.
8 Indeed you refer to that, not only to Mr Rees, but
9 also to the perception that other people might have had.
10 You say in your statement that for those reasons it
11 would be better now in fact if it had been separated.
12 A. Yes, and I agreed with the point that the Coroner makes,
13 that this is not only a perception issue; it is the
14 reality of fairness.
15 Q. All right. Now on the day of the crash, were you aware
16 of any suggestions from either police officers or from
17 any other source that the deaths were in any way
18 suspicious?
19 A. There was no suggestion at all of suspicious
20 circumstances.
21 Q. I am going to come back to the deaths and suspicion in
22 a moment or two. Mr Rees carried on in his role until
23 he retired from the Metropolitan Police, as we heard
24 from him; correct?
25 A. That is correct.

52

1 Q. Did you continue to retain the overview responsibility
2 for the Metropolitan Police's response to the crash?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Notwithstanding your -- I think there was a time when
5 your command was separated, is this right, in November
6 of 2002?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And the reason for you keeping the overview was what?
9 A. That there had been a passage of time and
10 an accumulation of knowledge of the circumstances, and
11 it seemed to all of us concerned that it was more
12 appropriate to continue with that role.
13 Q. In August of 2003, did you chair a meeting in relation
14 to something called "Operation Paget"?
15 A. Yes. At that stage I believe it's strictly accurate
16 that it wasn't yet Operation Paget. These were the
17 inquiries that were being conducted on behalf of the
18 previous coroner and liaison with the French
19 authorities. The purpose of this meeting was
20 a stocktake to ensure that everything that should be
21 done was being done, and in particular that the
22 allegations that had been conveyed by
23 Mr Mohamed Al Fayed's solicitors were in the hands of
24 the French authorities and they had the opportunity to
25 consider their own actions on the basis of those

53

1 allegations.
2 Q. Then, as you go on to say in your statement, the
3 Inquests were opened on 6th January 2004 and the Coroner
4 then, Mr Burgess, is this right, asked for inquiries to
5 be made by the Metropolitan Police?
6 A. Yes. This is the translation from effectively inquiries
7 on behalf of the Coroner, in the classic coroners'
8 officers' role, as opposed to the opening of a formal
9 criminal investigation, which I believe is aligned with
10 the inception of Operation Paget and effectively begins
11 under the leadership of the Commissioner of the time,
12 Lord Stevens, in January of 2004.
13 Q. So that is -- you were right to correct me earlier --
14 when Operation Paget really begins; is that right?
15 A. That is my understanding.
16 Q. That was investigating -- is this right, amongst other
17 things -- the allegations being made by
18 Mr Mohamed Al Fayed?
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. I think you have been in court this morning, is this
21 right, and heard the evidence that's been given about
22 the note made by Lord Mishcon of the meeting in 1995?
23 A. Yes, indeed.
24 Q. Did that note come to your attention?
25 A. It did.

54

1 Q. When was that?
2 A. That was on 18th September 1997.
3 Q. I think you made a note of the meeting that there was at
4 which the note was brought to your attention; is that
5 right?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. I will come to the note and ask you to take us through
8 it in a moment, but can you just tell us, without
9 reference to the note, what was going on?
10 A. Yes. Lord Mishcon asked to see the Commissioner, the
11 Commissioner asked that I be present. The Commissioner
12 at the time was Lord Condon, and Lord Mishcon explained
13 that he wished a note that he had created some almost
14 two years before to be lodged for safe-keeping and kept
15 under review at Scotland Yard.
16 Q. Right. You say in your statement that he wanted to
17 bring the note to your attention and wanted the document
18 to be kept safe in case it became relevant; yes?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. You say in your statement that it was agreed that if it
21 was deemed that the note became relevant, then
22 Lord Mishcon or his firm must be consulted before any
23 disclosure took place.
24 A. He asked us to do that. As you will see in my note,
25 there is reference to the name of Mr Julius. That was

55

1 the name he asked us to contact should he himself not be
2 available.
3 Q. Yes, and did Lord Mishcon -- was he content with those
4 conclusions as to what should happen to the note?
5 A. I think from his perspective as the solicitor in his
6 professional role, he was keen that confidence and
7 confidentiality should be maintained. He was very
8 concerned that the contents of the note might cause pain
9 and harm and thus was anxious that there should be
10 consultation should those factors develop that would
11 require its disclosure.
12 MR HILLIARD: We will have a look at the note.
13 Sir, if you don't have a copy, there is one we can
14 give you. (Handed)
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
16 MR HILLIARD: So this is in your handwriting, is that right?
17 A. Yes, I think maybe shortly after the meeting I was asked
18 by the Commissioner to create a note of the conversation
19 that had taken place and the agreements that each one of
20 us had concurred with, and then to ask those present at
21 the meeting to sign their endorsement of the note that
22 I had generated.
23 Q. Right. Does it read as follows?
24 "A meeting took place at New Scotland Yard at
25 11.30 am, Thursday 18th September 1997. Present:

56

1 Lord Mishcon, the Commissioner ...", who as you say was
2 then Sir Paul Condon; is that right?
3 A. Indeed.
4 Q. "... ACSO ...", so that is Assistant Commissioner
5 Special Operations, so that's you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then although -- it's just the three of you?
8 A. We were the only persons present to the very best of my
9 recollection.
10 Q. Does it read as follows:
11 "A note of a meeting of 30/10/1995 between LM
12 [Lord Mishcon] and D/HRH ..."
13 So that's "Diana, Her Royal Highness"; is that
14 right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. "... was read out by Lord M, who emphasised that he was
17 doing so in his personal capacity and not on behalf of
18 his firm or the family. The Commissioner stated that he
19 appreciated being informed of what had transpired at
20 that meeting and regarded it as highly proper that
21 Lord M should have brought this matter to his prompt
22 attention. It was the Commissioner's view on the facts
23 of the accidents as so far ascertained that this
24 occurrence was purely the result of a tragic set of
25 circumstances, but if ever it appeared that there were

57

1 some suspicious factors, his possession of this
2 memorandum would at once be referred to with contact at
3 a confidential level being made with Lord M and/or his
4 firm (Mr Julius)."
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. "It was agreed that meanwhile this matter should be
7 treated in the utmost confidence since any leakage could
8 do immeasurable harm and cause needless pain. The
9 Commissioner authorised Lord M, when reporting to
10 members of the family, to tell them that if any of them
11 wished to see him on this matter or on anything related
12 to it, he would be pleased to see them.
13 "The Commissioner said that the copy memorandum with
14 which he had been supplied would be held with the utmost
15 security in his office. It was agreed that knowledge of
16 the memorandum or its contents should, if possible, be
17 limited to those who were already apprised of them,
18 including members of the immediate family (i.e. DPOW's
19 sisters and brother)."
20 Then the note is, I think, signed on each page by
21 the three of you; is that right?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Now it follows, presumably, from the fact that all three
24 of you signed the note that each of you was content with
25 that being the appropriate way forward at that time?

58

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So far as you were concerned, did that continue to be
3 the appropriate way forward for some considerable period
4 of time?
5 A. Yes, until October of 2003.
6 Q. Right. Help us, please, Sir David. What happened in
7 October of 2003?
8 A. The contents of an article that reported the possession
9 by Mr Paul Burrell of a note which appeared to be
10 analogous in some form to the issues that were dealt
11 with within, if I can describe it, the "Mishcon note"
12 that was worthy of consideration and review. The
13 Commissioner and I met in order to discuss that.
14 Indeed, the following day, Lord Mishcon himself
15 raised the issue and we had a further meeting with
16 Lord Mishcon. The Commissioner and I had agreed the day
17 before that the moment was right that this should be
18 relayed to the then Coroner, and this was precisely the
19 view that Lord Mishcon expressed when he met with us the
20 following day, and that is what happened, after some
21 consideration of some technicalities.
22 Q. So the Daily Mirror, on 20th October or thereabouts --
23 I think it was the 20th -- 2003, had published a story
24 which dealt with what we have been calling the "Burrell
25 note".

59

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So the note written by the Princess of Wales about her
3 husband planning her demise; you know the one?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So they had published that. As a result of that, as you
6 say, yourself and -- is this right -- the Commissioner,
7 who had changed by that time, now Sir John Stevens as he
8 then was --
9 A. It was then Sir John Stevens.
10 Q. Right. Now Lord Stevens. So the two of you discussed
11 it, you took the view that the Coroner now needed to be
12 made aware of the note that was in the safe --
13 A. Absolutely.
14 Q. -- and the next day, you having come to that view,
15 Lord Mishcon was in touch saying that really he had come
16 to the same view?
17 A. Yes. He asked for a meeting and we met the following
18 day, and we were all at one that this was now the
19 entirely appropriate moment to share this note with the
20 Coroner.
21 Q. Again, not this Coroner, but was it still Mr Burgess?
22 A. I apologise, Mr Burgess.
23 Q. One other piece of information, please. Help us about
24 this: the death of Barry Mannakee; yes?
25 A. Indeed.

60

1 Q. In 2001, did you speak to Detective Chief Superintendent
2 Perry, who made you aware of the existence of a number
3 of videotapes in which the Princess of Wales had been
4 talking to somebody called Peter Settelen; do you
5 remember that?
6 A. Yes, Chief Superintendent Perry briefed me on
7 a development that had followed on from the criminal
8 investigation relating to Mr Paul Burrell and in
9 particular some tapes that had been recovered, one of
10 which he wanted particularly to draw to my attention.
11 Q. So we are in 2001. The tapes had been seized, is this
12 right, during a search of Paul Burrell's home after his
13 arrest?
14 A. That was my understanding.
15 Q. Right. Were you told that, in one of those tapes, there
16 had been a brief comment made by the Princess of Wales,
17 is this right -- I don't know if you can remember
18 precisely -- but I think saying this, that
19 Barry Mannakee had been bumped off?
20 A. Yes. I don't recall the words, but clearly the
21 inference was --
22 Q. That he had been killed deliberately; is that right?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. Now did you ask Mr Perry to make inquiries into the
25 death of Mr Mannakee, which had obviously happened some

61

1 years before?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. What was the reason for that?
4 A. In order to check what had taken place at the time and
5 to form a view as to whether there was any relevance in
6 relation to his death and the conclusion that had been
7 drawn allegedly by the Princess of Wales.
8 Q. Just so we understand, had you got the Mishcon note in
9 mind at all in making that inquiry? Do you see what
10 I mean? Might that have been a factor? We will hear
11 what the answer was, but suppose the answer had come
12 back, "Yes, there is something suspicious about
13 Mr Mannakee's death", is that the kind of matter that
14 might have caused you to have another think about
15 whether or not anything should happen to the Mishcon
16 note?
17 A. It is. To be completely candid, I cannot recall whether
18 I went through that mental process at the time. I hope
19 I would if the Mannakee investigation had indicated that
20 there was suspicion.
21 Q. Right. After you had instructed Mr Perry to look into
22 the matter, did he do so and get back to you?
23 A. Yes, he did.
24 Q. What was his conclusion as a result of his
25 investigations?

62

1 A. It was a fairly clear conclusion, that this appeared to
2 be a regrettable road accident, and as I understood it,
3 the surrounding circumstances seemed to unequivocally
4 support that conclusion.
5 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sir David, on 18th September
7 1997, when the Mishcon note came to your attention and
8 there was this meeting, was any consideration given to
9 alternative possibilities as to what might be done with
10 the note? For example, that the French were conducting
11 an inquiry and perhaps that they ought to have it or be
12 told about it?
13 A. Yes. The way that that was addressed, sir, was that the
14 Commissioner asked me to monitor the developments in the
15 French investigation with a view to -- should any
16 suspicious factors emerge, my duty was clear. I was to
17 advise the Commissioner and Lord Mishcon in order that
18 the matter could be reviewed. So we all envisaged that
19 this was a process of continuing review whilst the note
20 was in safe-keeping, and effectively the activating
21 factor that would trigger any review would be any
22 suggestion from the French Inquiry that there were
23 matters which made this relevant.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You didn't have the Burrell note
25 on 18th September 1997, when you had the Mishcon note at

63

1 that meeting; that came later?
2 A. Yes, if the Burrell note is the 2003 --
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If you had had the Burrell note
4 at the time of the meeting with regard to the Mishcon
5 note on 18th September, is that likely to have made any
6 difference to your approach?
7 A. I think we would have acted in 1997 as we acted in 2003
8 because what the relevance seemed to be was of another
9 document that certainly appeared to cover the same
10 subject matter and therefore this was something that
11 needed to be looked at in greater detail.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
13 Now we normally break off for a short while in the
14 middle of the morning to give the poor shorthand writers
15 a break, and we will do that at this stage and resume
16 again in quarter of an hour.
17 (11.35 am)
18 (A short break)
19
20 (11.50 am)
21 (Jury present)
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Mr Mansfield.
23 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
24 MR MANSFIELD: Good morning. My name is Michael Mansfield.
25 I represent Mohamed Al Fayed, and I will endeavour to

64

1 ask you questions in a chronological order because it's
2 a long time ago and difficult to remember as they go.
3 A. Thank you.
4 Q. If you have any difficulty, please say.
5 I want to ask you, if I may, a general question
6 first of all. If a member of the Royal Family --
7 although it could be an ordinary citizen, but I will
8 concentrate on the Royal Family -- if a member of the
9 Royal Family were to indicate that they were concerned
10 that there was a possibility of a crime being committed,
11 you would investigate it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, there are several grades. One could be that
14 a crime is in prospect; you would investigate?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Or was being committed; you would investigate?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Or had been committed; you would investigate?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That's all pretty fair stuff?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And run-of-the-mill police work really?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Of course, leaving aside a member of the Royal Family,
25 if material came into your possession or knowledge which

65

1 suggested that any of those three possibilities might be
2 committed, were being committed or had been committed,
3 again you might feel the necessity to investigate, at
4 the very least?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, bearing those criteria in mind, I want to go
7 through a series of events. So it's clear why I am
8 asking you the questions, I want to suggest that you
9 quite improperly sat on information that should have
10 been handed over because you were aware something
11 improper had happened in Paris. Do you follow?
12 A. I do. I unequivocally reject that.
13 Q. I thought you would. Therefore what I want to do, in
14 fairness to you, is to go through and find out what
15 explanations may be forthcoming for inaction.
16 I will start, if I may -- I will give you the
17 dates -- in 1989, when, in that period, you were
18 Commander of the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection
19 Group.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. In 1989, on New Year's Eve, a private call being made
22 between Princess Diana and another person called
23 James Gilby, was monitored, recorded and then put out
24 again such that radio hams could pick it up. Do you
25 remember this call?

66

1 A. I remember the general incidence, yes.
2 Q. And it's been publicly known as the "Squidgy tapes".
3 A. As I understand, yes.
4 Q. When did you first become aware that something like this
5 had happened?
6 A. I assume at the time. I can't recall when I knew.
7 Q. Well, it's quite important that -- we know when the
8 public got to know, but I want to know when you got to
9 know about this occurrence.
10 A. I am not aware, although my memory may be at fault, that
11 there was any prior knowledge on my part or my
12 colleagues' before this was in the public domain.
13 Q. Well, it was published -- that is the tape -- in full in
14 August 1992, by which time you were Deputy Assistant
15 Commissioner Specialist Operations.
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. What did you do about it then, once it became public?
18 A. I cannot recall any precise action.
19 Q. Can't you? Did you, after 1992, become aware of the
20 points that I have just put to you, that somebody -- and
21 I will suggest who it was -- somebody had monitored the
22 call originally, recorded it, and then transmitted that
23 recording on more than one occasion so that radio hams
24 could pick it up? Were you aware of that?
25 A. I was aware. I cannot recall what action, if any, was

67

1 taken.
2 Q. Well, this is -- as she then was -- a member of the
3 Royal Family, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. My understanding is that the suggestion was that
5 some form of interception had occurred.
6 Q. Yes. For the purposes of these questions, it actually
7 doesn't really matter who did it; the fact is somebody
8 has done this to a member of the Royal Family. Never
9 mind all the embarrassment in the press, all of that.
10 Did it not concern anyone at your echelon or certainly
11 at your seniority in specialist operations that, "Really
12 we ought to have a look at this if a member of the
13 Royal Family ..." Supposing it was a member of the IRA
14 who had done it, that wouldn't look too good, would it?
15 A. I think I would require further information, not only
16 within my own command of dealing with crime, but from
17 a security perspective as whether my colleagues in
18 Royalty Protection, what their actions were at the time.
19 To be candid, I cannot recall that at this distance.
20 Q. No, I appreciate the distance of time. You had pretty
21 close connections with the security services, didn't
22 you, during the whole of your career?
23 A. Particularly in relation to my duties in connection with
24 terrorism, that was an implicit part of my duties.
25 Q. Yes, but beyond that, whilst you were at the fraud

68

1 squad?
2 A. In general terms, my career has included hostage
3 negotiation activities and counter-terrorism, which
4 inevitably involves a range of Government services.
5 Q. I mean, Mr Macnamara -- that name, he worked as head of
6 security for Harrods -- you know him, don't you?
7 A. Yes, we were colleagues.
8 Q. On the fraud squad?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Yes. Even, as I have put it to you, in those days, you
11 had close connections with the security services, didn't
12 you?
13 A. Yes. I am not in any way denying that. My specific
14 role at that time, which I am sure Mr Macnamara would
15 have been aware of, was that I was the director of the
16 hostage negotiation training programme, which involved
17 connection with a range of different Government entities
18 because it included terrorism and like matters.
19 Q. You see, I am really trying to find out -- and I will
20 put the point quickly to you -- did anybody do anything
21 about this or did you all realise that in fact the
22 security services were monitoring her calls and that's
23 why nobody bothered?
24 A. No, I don't think that is the case.
25 Q. Well then I would like you to help us and, with your

69

1 help, others: who did anything about it?
2 A. I would -- as I explained, I would need to check. I am
3 not aware that there was specific criminal
4 investigation, but there would have been security
5 aspects. I am not aware precisely, because that was not
6 my precise command, whether those matters were pursued
7 by my colleagues dealing with protection and security.
8 Q. Who would know?
9 A. My colleagues at the time.
10 Q. Who were?
11 A. I think, at the time, Mr Meynell was the Deputy
12 Assistant Commissioner in charge of Royalty Protection.
13 In 1989 it may indeed have been Mr John Cracknell before
14 him.
15 Q. I am going to concentrate, as you point out, that it may
16 not have been known at that particular point or at least
17 nobody was alerted until 1992 when it was public
18 knowledge.
19 So as far as that incident is concerned -- and
20 I finish on this -- were you aware that Princess Diana
21 told Inspector Wharfe -- do you remember
22 Inspector Wharfe?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. He has given evidence here and his evidence was that he
25 had been told by Diana that the Queen herself had asked

70

1 for an investigation to be carried out by the security
2 services, but you don't know that?
3 A. I am not aware of that.
4 Q. And you are not aware of any result?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No. Right. Well, I put that in parentheses for the
7 moment.
8 The following year was 1992 to 1993, obviously, and
9 in 1993 there was -- and again, so that it is clear, you
10 are still Deputy Commissioner Specialist Operations.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, in 1993, was it ever drawn to your attention that
13 Princess Diana had in fact, apparently, asked a company
14 from Brighton to come in and sweep Kensington Palace for
15 listening devices? Are you aware of that?
16 A. No, and it would have been unusual if I had because my
17 role, as I hope I made clear at the time, was dealing
18 with criminal matters. I had no direct responsibility
19 at the date you mention for royalty protection and
20 security issues.
21 Q. Any of the details of what happened there, the four
22 people who came in on the pretext of fitting carpets,
23 you don't know anything about that?
24 A. I have no recollection of that.
25 Q. That was 1993. I want to turn to 1994. It's in 1994

71

1 that you, as it were, shift, in the April.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And you become ACSO, Assistant Commissioner Specialist
4 Operations. Does that include the royalty at all?
5 A. It does.
6 Q. It does. I am going to ask for these purposes that you
7 look at a document that you may have seen before. Could
8 it be put on screen so the jury can follow it? They
9 have seen it once before. It is [INQ0058847 ].
10 This is, so that it's clear, a letter or document
11 dated 18th October 1994 and it documents and records
12 a meeting with Her Royal Highness, the Princess of
13 Wales, at 10.45. It's written by the officer you have
14 just mentioned, Mr Meynell.
15 Could we highlight, please, the paragraph at the
16 bottom? I am going to -- the jury have heard it once
17 before -- read it with you because I want your help
18 about this. First of all, have you read this before?
19 A. I have seen it as part of the documents that I have
20 examined before these hearings, yes.
21 Q. So it's not coming to you completely fresh. By this
22 time you are responsible overall for royalty. This is
23 what she is saying, and I will take it slowly because
24 there are questions on some of the sentences:
25 "During the course of the conversation Her Royal

72

1 Highness bluntly asked me [that's Mr Meynell] if her car
2 had been bugged."
3 I pause. Were you ever aware that she was making
4 that suggestion?
5 A. I have no doubt that Mr Meynell would have reported this
6 conversation to me.
7 Q. Yes. And I have no doubt, would this be fair, that you
8 would be concerned about some allegation like that,
9 wouldn't you?
10 A. As I understand it, Mr Meynell was of the view that it
11 was being suggested that the official sources had
12 conducted the bugging.
13 Q. Yes, so even more concerning.
14 A. Yes, but that was unequivocally not the case.
15 Q. We will find out about that, shall we? You know that,
16 do you?
17 A. Well, I would have been aware if, through --
18 particularly through any police sources, there had been
19 any --
20 Q. Oh yes, but of course the security services might have
21 a different view, mightn't they?
22 A. Yes, I would not be aware.
23 Q. But you could ask?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Not difficult in your case, is it, to ask? I have only

73

1 got to the first sentence. Did you ask in this year,
2 1994, having had this relayed to you, "Well, we had
3 better do a check with security services just to make
4 sure"? Did you?
5 A. I am not aware that we did, no.
6 Q. "I told her [this is Mr Meynell, if you just turn round
7 to follow this] I would have it examined to establish
8 that fact."
9 Well, did he?
10 A. I am not aware of what specific action was taken as
11 a result of that.
12 Q. Or none at all?
13 A. I am not aware.
14 Q. "She then said to me, 'Even when no-one knows where I'm
15 going in my car, there are people waiting for me at the
16 other end'. She again asked me if I had any knowledge
17 of whether her vehicle was bugged. I informed her that
18 we, the police, had certainly not placed any form of
19 device on her vehicle. She then told me that she knew
20 her telephones were being tapped and that she was
21 certain the same applied to her vehicle."
22 So now it's the move to telephones. So this would
23 have been relayed to you, wouldn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All the same questions apply. Did you ask the security

74

1 services, "Well, are we tapping her phones? I mean,
2 there was that Squidgy tape only a couple of years ago"?
3 Did you?
4 A. I am not aware of personally having initiated that
5 inquiry.
6 Q. No, or are you aware that anybody did?
7 A. I am not, but it would be necessary to enquire because
8 Mr Meynell may have knowledge that I do not have.
9 Q. We have been asking, you see, and I can only ask the
10 people who come into the witness box who are prepared to
11 answer the questions.
12 So just moving on as what she is telling Mr Meynell:
13 "She stated that she had proof that her phones were
14 being tapped because she had 'set traps on four
15 occasions and she had got the necessary evidence'."
16 So this is getting slightly more serious, isn't it?
17 This is somebody who has apparently made an effort to
18 prove that the phones are being tapped by, no doubt,
19 either the form of conversation that was used and it was
20 fed back to her or listening. This would have concerned
21 you, wouldn't it, a member of the Royal Family?
22 A. Yes, and I am sure it concerned my colleagues in
23 Royalty Protection.
24 Q. Yes, if it was the Queen saying "Look, my phone is
25 tapped", you would be out there doing something

75

1 immediately, but when it comes to Diana, silence?
2 A. I don't know that that is the case. All I can recall is
3 my own action.
4 Q. Yes.
5 "I told her that I should be allowed to deal with
6 this matter. She stated that she was using her
7 knowledge to her advantage. While she felt a great loss
8 in not being able to use her telephones, she had the use
9 of other devices and the fact that she was not using her
10 telephones would squeeze those people into different
11 action.
12 "I explained to Her Royal Highness that I had
13 available a team of experts who were responsible for
14 ensuring the integrity of Parliament. These were
15 ordinary uniform officers and I could get them to do the
16 necessary sweep of both vehicle and premises."
17 Pause there. Your help, please: what was the team
18 of experts that Mr Meynell had available at that time?
19 A. I believe he may have been referring to the fact that we
20 do have officers who have the technical capability to
21 seek to conduct search operations for any hidden
22 devices, commonly known as "sweeping".
23 Q. Yes. Do the officers have a team or group name?
24 A. They were within -- my recollection of this time -- the
25 Criminal Intelligence Department.

76

1 Q. You mean "CID", do you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that was their specific role?
4 A. It was a capacity within the technical support unit of
5 the Criminal Intelligence section.
6 Q. So the simple question here is -- never mind the
7 security services from this point of view -- was there
8 a sweep done by this specialist team in the CID of her
9 vehicle and premises?
10 A. I am not aware.
11 Q. Because obviously if something like this had been done
12 because there was a genuine need to investigate, there
13 would be a record of this, wouldn't there?
14 A. I assume so, yes.
15 Q. I mean -- I am just asking for your help -- at New
16 Scotland Yard at the time, and up to now, are records
17 routinely stored or are they shredded or what's the
18 position?
19 A. I have been departed for some years --
20 Q. But in your time?
21 A. In my time, it was routine that activities of this
22 nature would be the subject of a record.
23 Q. And kept?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Right.

77

1 "Her response was to state that whilst she had a lot
2 of enemies, she also had a lot of friends, some in
3 places of knowledge. She couldn't name them because
4 they could lose their jobs, but she had been told that
5 without any doubt five people from an organisation had
6 been assigned full-time to oversee her activities,
7 including listening to her private phone conversations,
8 and that from the same source she knew that two people
9 from the same organisation performed a similar function
10 in respect of Parliament."
11 Unless it's total fantasy, of course, she seems to
12 have some very specific information, doesn't she?
13 A. Yes, indeed.
14 Q. You would not want to write it off as fantasy until at
15 least you make some fairly minimal inquiries?
16 A. Yes, and it may well be that those were conducted and
17 I am unaware of them.
18 Q. Oh yes. You see, we have been provided with a lot of
19 documents, but we haven't been provided, so far, with
20 a single document that suggests any of this was ever
21 done. You see?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you are the one -- well, you are not a police
24 officer any longer, but the police are represented here.
25 You know that, don't you?

78

1 A. Yes, indeed.
2 Q. These documents, for which I am grateful, come from the
3 police themselves in the first place, through the
4 Coroner to us.
5 This is Mr Meynell at the bottom of the page, before
6 we turn over. There is not much more of this.
7 "I told her this was a very serious matter in that
8 it indicated that my team ..."
9 He does call it his "team", doesn't he?
10 Can we have the next page on the screen? It is just
11 over the page, [INQ0058848, INQ0058849]. So it started with:
12 " ... a very serious matter in that it indicated
13 that my team working in Parliament ..."
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Right. When he says "my team", was the CID part of his
17 team?
18 A. No, I think he -- I would have to check or it would have
19 to be checked, but I assume that he is referring to the
20 activities of police officers working within the
21 precincts of the Palace of Westminster and Parliament.
22 Q. It's just the term "my team", because of course, within
23 the police, there may be more than one team doing this
24 kind of work.
25 A. I think he may have been referring to his team of

79

1 officers performing conventional duties in Parliament,
2 and that an inference -- or one inference of what he is
3 saying is that if this was the case, they were not
4 stopping intrusive activity within the precincts of
5 Parliament.
6 Q. Well, certainly if it's happening there.
7 "She replied by stating that it was not a question
8 of them not doing their job properly, it was a question
9 that they were against the experts in this field."
10 So I make it plain to you, I am suggesting that what
11 she was telling the police without naming the
12 organisation was in fact the security services or GCHQ
13 or a mixture of the two; you can't help?
14 A. No, I can't help with that.
15 Q. "I told her that I could get no comfort from the
16 situation and again stated that the matter should be
17 investigated. She stated that whilst she was certain of
18 her ground, she could not assist further without
19 jeopardising the identities of her friends. This she
20 was not prepared to do."
21 Just on that, were you ever aware at any stage that
22 she was meeting somebody under a pseudonym of Dr Jarman?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, that's that, a meeting in October 1994, and the sum
25 total is you don't know whether there was

80

1 an investigation or anything really in relation to that.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Right, well, then I want to move on to something
4 slightly closer to the events themselves in 1997. Were
5 you aware in July 1997, or even before that, that
6 Mohamed Al Fayed had extended an invitation to
7 Princess Diana to go and stay with his family in
8 St Tropez?
9 A. I think I was only aware after the event, and I think
10 the reason for that is that I was either performing
11 duties elsewhere or I was on leave at the material time.
12 Q. Do you know a Chief Superintendent Davies?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. In July, you knew, didn't you, that Mohamed Al Fayed was
15 under investigation, wasn't he?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And the jury have heard that in fact he was arrested the
18 following year in 1998, but the case did not result in
19 a trial or a conviction.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. But that's the context. You knew quite a bit about that
22 allegation, didn't you?
23 A. I knew more about it when it moved to the subsequent
24 phase than I did at the beginning.
25 Q. Well, you knew certainly the basis of the allegation in

81

1 July 1997.
2 A. In broad terms.
3 Q. In broad terms, and you knew in July 1997 that Mr Rees
4 was involved?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. So you knew that before we ever get to September and his
7 appointment?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Right. Mr Rees -- I pause, there might be a recording
10 problem.
11 On this topic, Mr Al Fayed had been not only under
12 suspicion in relation to that, but of course I think
13 it's very well known that he had been wanting
14 a passport, hadn't he, for some time?
15 A. I was aware of that general issue.
16 Q. You were aware particularly that there were people in
17 high places who didn't want him to have one?
18 A. My knowledge of that would have been absolutely minimal
19 and probably no better than a member of the public
20 because the issue of passports has nothing to do with my
21 responsibilities.
22 Q. I appreciate that, and I may have to come back to that.
23 But in July, Mr Davies originally said this:
24 "Through intelligence [he has qualified it later,
25 but this is how he put it first time] I became aware of

82

1 Princess Diana's intention to take up Mr Fayed's
2 invitation to take the two Princes on holiday to the
3 South of France. Having validated that intelligence,
4 I informed DAC Fry."
5 Do you know DAC Fry?
6 A. Yes, he was my deputy, and I assume he was acting in my
7 stead when I was engaged elsewhere.
8 Q. Did you ever get to know about this series of events?
9 A. I assume that, as would have been routine, Mr Fry would
10 have briefed me upon it on our return when we handed
11 over the command.
12 Q. I would like your help as to how this comes about. Why
13 would he, that is Chief Superintendent Davies, go to
14 DAC Fry, Acting Assistant Commissioner, about a visit to
15 the Al Fayeds?
16 A. As I understand it -- and my knowledge is restricted to
17 the statement that you have in front of you -- that
18 Mr Davies had formed a view that there was some
19 undesirable aspects of --
20 Q. Well, yes. You see, it had nothing at all to do with
21 whether there was enough time to fix it all up; it had
22 everything to do with the fact that it was Mr Al Fayed,
23 didn't it?
24 A. I have no knowledge. I am surmising on the reasons that
25 Mr Davies --

83

1 Q. You have no knowledge of this?
2 A. No, no, I am not saying that I have no knowledge of
3 this. I had no knowledge of it until I was advised by
4 Mr Fry on my return to duty.
5 Q. All right. Could you give us a clue as to when you
6 returned to duty, appreciating distance of time and
7 dates and so on?
8 A. I cannot assist, but it would not have been a long
9 period of absence.
10 Q. So probably, since the invitation goes out at the end of
11 May, and it would appear -- it's either at the end of
12 June or July, probably beginning of July, a bit
13 difficult to pin it down, but I will broaden it -- so
14 end of June, beginning of July that this is going on,
15 would you have come back some time in July to --
16 A. I assume that was the case.
17 Q. You assume that. The Commissioner himself was informed,
18 as you have no doubt read in the statement.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Sir Paul Condon. So it's going to the very highest
21 level, isn't it?
22 A. As I understand, that was the action that was taken,
23 yes.
24 Q. The concern was not to allow Diana to have contact with
25 this family, wasn't it?

84

1 A. I think that would be potentially reading too much into
2 the actions.
3 Q. Well, we will see what Mr Davies says, but that was --
4 when you were informed and you came back, did you
5 disagree with any of the actions that had happened under
6 your command, as it were?
7 A. If my recollection is correct on when Mr Fry brought me
8 up to date with these developments, they did not seem to
9 have the significance that I think you are implying.
10 Q. How often do you go to the Queen, because that's where
11 it ends up -- never mind Mr Condon -- and say "We don't
12 think that Princess Diana should be doing this"?
13 A. That is not an action that I took. The position is that
14 Diana, the Princess of Wales, at that stage, was
15 entirely free to engage in personal visits, holidays and
16 association, and protection did not arise in connection
17 with those matters.
18 Q. No, that's precisely the point. So you were taking or
19 somebody was taking -- and Mr Davies is part of your
20 responsibility at that time as well?
21 A. Yes, indeed.
22 Q. So officers under your responsibility are taking
23 a considerable interest in this holiday, are they not,
24 even though she is not their responsibility?
25 A. That would appear to be the position, yes.

85

1 Q. Because what he says he did, besides going to the
2 Commissioner, is -- and he later can't remember who
3 asked him to do this -- he goes to see the head of the
4 then known Organised Crime Group. Right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So was that part of your responsibility?
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. It was. So it all comes within your responsibility.
9 They give him a briefing about the allegations against
10 Mr Fayed. Did you know that they had done that?
11 A. No, because I was not informed until after it had
12 clearly occurred.
13 Q. Yes, and after you discovered that it had occurred, did
14 you agree with that course of action, that there should
15 have been a briefing with another group within your
16 purview, as it were?
17 A. It had already taken place so there was --
18 Q. I mean, did you say, "Oh, I think that's a little out of
19 order. I mean she can do pretty well what she wants and
20 really what does it have to do with us, that she is
21 going to somebody who is innocent until proven guilty"?
22 A. Yes, I would not have regarded it as wholly inexplicable
23 that an officer with direct responsibility for Royal
24 Protection should seek briefing about what he may have
25 regarded as a relevant factor. That doesn't seem to me

86

1 a wholly unreasonable course of action.
2 Q. No, precisely, but the question is why was it relevant,
3 unless, in fact, of course, there really was a desire to
4 keep Diana away from the Al Fayeds, and when she refused
5 to take the advice, things got really hot.
6 A. It was no part of the police service to advise Diana,
7 the Princess of Wales, as to who she would be
8 associating with or private visits.
9 Q. In fact she is the one person that doesn't seem to have
10 been included in all this, namely what's going on in
11 relation to it, because he was directed by
12 Sir Paul Condon to inform the Queen.
13 There then follows -- I don't go through it all --
14 a telephone conversation with her private secretary,
15 Sir Robert Fellowes, who is fairly short with Mr Davies
16 but indicates clearly that the Queen already knew.
17 That's the import of all of this.
18 In fact, in the midst of it all, this is how he puts
19 it:
20 "I should clarify that the collective wisdom of the
21 Commissioner [Sir Paul Condon] and myself that the
22 advice that should be given to the Queen that it was
23 unwise for the intended holiday to take place at all."
24 Did you know that advice was being given?
25 A. No, as I have already described.

87

1 Q. No, but once you got back, you knew it had been given,
2 did you?
3 A. I must admit I was not aware of it in those terms. That
4 was not something I can recall.
5 Q. Well, that's the ultimate, isn't it, actually advising
6 the Queen that this holiday shouldn't take place at all?
7 So if the most senior police officer in the United
8 Kingdom and another are saying to the Queen, "It
9 shouldn't happen", that's quite a serious matter, isn't
10 it?
11 A. Yes. I do not know for a fact whether that was the
12 collective wisdom.
13 Q. Well, that's what Mr Davies says it was.
14 A. Yes. I am not doubting what he says. My own view is
15 that that may be a -- because certainly when I returned
16 and was briefed by Mr Fry, the matters that you have
17 referred to were not depicted in the terms that you are
18 describing to me.
19 Q. Well, once again I have to ask you in relation to this,
20 there is likely to be documentation, isn't there?
21 A. I presume so, yes.
22 Q. Kept at Scotland Yard?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. We have not seen any of that either. We have seen
25 documents about Royal Protection going to Versace's

88

1 funeral and the St Tropez visit itself, in fact, and how
2 it was fixed up. We have seen all that, but we have
3 seen nothing in relation to this until Mr Davies gave
4 this statement on 31st October 2007. Do you follow?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But you agree that there ought to be documentation in
7 relation to these various stages through which this
8 advice was being given?
9 A. It would appear that that would be a strong possibility.
10 Q. A strong possibility?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That's another one I put into parentheses for the moment
13 because I can't take that part of it any further
14 forward.
15 We then move on throughout August and you are back
16 from wherever you have been.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you are on duty in this period?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. There comes a point, towards the end of August, when the
21 publicity surrounding Diana and Dodi was daily, wasn't
22 it? Towards the end of August, particularly after the
23 second trip on the Jonikal.
24 A. Yes, I must admit I don't recall that specifically, but
25 I am sure that's right.

89

1 Q. Then comes the crash itself. I want to ask you about
2 what happened in relation to your decisions then.
3 We have heard from Jeffrey Rees. You have mentioned
4 him already and obviously he is well known. We don't
5 need to do the background of him for the moment with
6 you.
7 On 31st August -- have you read his statement as
8 well?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. Well, then, would you mind if I just remind you of what
11 he is saying about the 31st? I don't ask for it on the
12 screen. It's [INQ0008669 - read out in court]. I will read the context of
13 it so it's fair to you. You can hear what he says:
14 "Soon after hearing the news, I made a professional
15 assessment that it would be necessary to consider
16 whether there would be a role for the OCG."
17 The "OCG" being?
18 A. It is the Organised Crime Group.
19 Q. Did the Organised Crime Group at that time have a role
20 in royalty protection of any kind?
21 A. No, but if there was any specific investigation to be
22 pursued at the top tier, it necessarily encompassed the
23 skills of some of the more experienced detectives who
24 could be applied for a variety of roles.
25 Q. Investigation into what?

90

1 A. A range of activities.
2 Q. We will just come to this because this -- just going on
3 with his statement. So he is considering whether that
4 group with those parameters could have a role.
5 "This arose from the fact that the OCG formed part
6 of the specialist operations department which covers
7 Royal Family security. Therefore I telephoned the head
8 of the OCG, Commander Mulvehill ..."
9 Do you remember him?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. "... to discuss the implications. During the course of
12 the call, we assessed that short-term implications for
13 the OCG were unlikely."
14 That seems fair, doesn't it?
15 A. Yes, indeed.
16 Q. If this is a car accident, you don't really need the OCG
17 involved, do you?
18 A. There was -- I think he was forming a view about what
19 might have been necessary in the very near future, in
20 the imminent hours and days ahead. They could not see
21 a role at that stage.
22 Q. No.
23 "I should point out that I was neither on duty nor
24 on call."
25 Who was the on-call officer?

91

1 A. As I understand it, it was Chief Inspector Heard.
2 Q. Geoffrey Hunt, do you know him?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. He was on duty.
5 A. Yes, I am not sure, but I would have to confirm that he
6 was actually part of the Organised Crime Group, as it
7 were, reserve of senior detectives.
8 Q. At New Scotland Yard?
9 A. I am not sure he was within that group of detectives.
10 Q. Well, that can be no doubt checked. So he is saying --
11 that is Rees -- because you appoint him, you see.
12 That's why I am coming to that:
13 " ... not on call at the time. I called Commander
14 Mulvehill, but as I was Acting Detective Chief
15 Superintendent at the time -- DCS Dixon was either on
16 leave or on overseas inquiry at the time and the on-call
17 SIO was Detective Chief Inspector Peter Heard, who was
18 due to fly to Canada the next day -- I assessed that my
19 involvement was warranted."
20 That's how he leaves that at that stage. He had
21 a long-standing lunch appointment and then he got
22 a pager message, essentially from you.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You felt it was so imperative that he be involved, the
25 very man who knew a great deal about Mohamed Al Fayed

92

1 and the allegations, you sent a helicopter to get him,
2 didn't you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I want to suggest to you from the outset that if it was
5 a perfectly legitimate situation, the one thing you
6 wouldn't(sic) do in fairness, not just to Mr Rees but to
7 Mr Al Fayed as well, was to keep Rees well out of it; do
8 you follow?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I mean, it's not a difficult decision, is it? You don't
11 require hindsight to work that one out, do you?
12 A. No, I candidly expressed my view that we certainly
13 should have revisited the employment of Mr Rees. On
14 that Sunday, as events were moving forward with some
15 rapidity in that the post-mortems had been arranged at
16 relatively short notice, which for certain reasons that
17 appeared to be a highly desirable state of affairs, and
18 that the bodies were returning to the United Kingdom,
19 there was a need to move with expedition in order to
20 have an able officer in order to conduct --
21 Q. Conduct what?
22 A. In order to conduct -- assist to conduct the
23 post-mortems.
24 Q. How?
25 A. There is a need for a very experienced officer in order

93

1 to marshall the various exhibits, to arrange for the
2 attendance of the key technical specialists, including
3 exhibit officers, to ensure that the optimum forensic
4 samples are recovered subject to the directions of the
5 pathologist.
6 Q. This was a car accident, albeit involving some very well
7 known people. You had on hand a very experienced
8 pathologist, Dr Chapman; you had a very experienced
9 exhibits officer who had done this many times before,
10 Mr Stoneham. You knew that?
11 A. Yes, indeed.
12 Q. You had, in fact, the makings of a team that could swing
13 into action without sending a helicopter for Mr Rees,
14 didn't you?
15 A. No. My judgment was that we needed to initiate what
16 potentially would be very significant post mortems with
17 the assistance of the best officer that I could find
18 available in the notice to hand.
19 Q. Therefore, at that stage on the Sunday the 31st, as far
20 as you were concerned and he was concerned, were his
21 terms of reference with respect to a British
22 investigation into the deaths?
23 A. No. I don't think we did settle terms of reference on
24 that Sunday. It certainly was not in my mind that there
25 would be a British investigation because it was all --

94

1 it was clear to all concerned that the French would lead
2 in terms of an investigation.
3 Q. Was that being said to explain why Rees was going? Can
4 I just read you something? That's the preface to the
5 question so you know the object of it.
6 "When Mr Rees was seen by Paget officers, they had
7 access to various internal documents."
8 So it's clear where this is, it's [INQ0008683 - read out in court].
9 I don't know whether you have seen it. If you have seen
10 Mr Rees' material, I suspect you have seen all this.
11 A. I cannot recall this.
12 Q. Can I remind you? It was a report dated
13 28th September 1997 from Jeffrey Rees, Detective
14 Superintendent, to Commander Specialist Operations, OCG.
15 In this report -- I will just read you the relevant
16 passage -- Superintendent Rees begins by outlining the
17 events in Paris on 31st August. He goes on to state --
18 and this is what is being stated in his report:
19 "On Sunday, 31st August 1997, whilst I was the
20 Acting OCG Commander, I was directed by Assistant
21 Commissioner Specialist Operations ..."
22 That's you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. "... to act as senior investigating officer in respect
25 of the British investigations into the deaths."

95

1 Is that right?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Well, how does he come to write that a few days later?
4 A. Because I think he is using the term "senior
5 investigating officer" to describe a generic role that
6 would be understood within the police service. That was
7 effectively the job that he did most of the time, day to
8 day. Specifically his role in this case was to act as
9 liaison.
10 Q. All right. It goes on to say -- it itemises four
11 responsibilities:
12 "To liaise closely with the French authorities and
13 provide them with any appropriate assistance; to
14 facilitate any inquiries they may wish carried out in
15 the United Kingdom; to appraise [you, that is] of all
16 significant developments; and liaise closely with the
17 British Ambassador."
18 Then there is a bit that follows that:
19 "In addition, I have been directed by the two
20 coroners to carry out investigations into the deaths on
21 their behalf and report my findings at the two
22 inquests."
23 So there are various levels here, aren't there?
24 There is assisting the French?
25 A. Yes.

96

1 Q. And assisting the British?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The coroners?
4 A. Yes, but again I think I need to make it unequivocally
5 clear, it certainly was not in my mind -- I don't think
6 it was in Mr Rees' mind -- that he was conducting
7 a criminal investigation within the United Kingdom. He
8 was acting in liaison. We anticipated that our French
9 colleagues would wish to conduct inquiries with our
10 assistance within the jurisdiction of the
11 United Kingdom, so we anticipated that requirement.
12 We also anticipated that the coroners concerned in
13 two jurisdictions would require assistance in the
14 classic format of a coroner's officer assisting
15 a coroner with any form of preparatory activity before
16 an inquest. That was his role.
17 Q. And providing the coroners with information?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Information; it doesn't have to be evidence, it may be
20 information that may be relevant?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You accept that?
23 A. Yes, indeed.
24 Q. In relation to a coroner, so again the jury may
25 understand the history of it, at the time in

97

1 September 1997, there were two coroners. Mr Burgess was
2 acting as the Coroner for Surrey, where Dodi Al Fayed's
3 body had been eventually buried --
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. -- and then there was, at that time, a Royal Coroner,
6 since deceased, a Mr Burton.
7 A. That is my understanding, yes.
8 Q. So there are two coroners. Unlike a criminal
9 investigation, a coroner's investigation, as the jury
10 are now perhaps witnessing here, has a slightly
11 different remit, doesn't it?
12 A. It does.
13 Q. Because both these two coroners were obliged to hold
14 inquests because the death was unnatural and abroad,
15 putting it shortly?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You knew that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So with regard to an unnatural death abroad, even if
20 it's a car accident, plainly they will want as much
21 information -- whether they translate the information
22 into evidence and whether it could ever be put before
23 a jury would be a matter for the coroners, wouldn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Just to complete the picture on this front, the terms of

98

1 reference were finally written out rather more
2 specifically, at least so far as one can tell, the
3 following day, 1st September, because we have seen
4 a policy file. Have you seen that?
5 A. I can't recall.
6 Q. Well may I just read you what the first decision in the
7 policy file for 1st September -- how it reads. It's one
8 sentence. It's called "Operation Paris" and the
9 decision at 9 am is:
10 "OCG role [that's the group role in this case] to be
11 that of gathering evidence and facts on behalf of the
12 coroners."
13 Right?
14 A. (Witness nods)
15 Q. So that's the first matter. In fact it's the first in
16 the list that he reported on 28th September. Do you
17 follow?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Plainly access to the coroners is relatively
20 straightforward from your point of view because you have
21 got an officer who goes down to the post mortem -- in
22 fact more than one, three go; a minimum of three are
23 there -- and if you wanted to contact the coroner at any
24 time since you are setting up really at the behest of
25 the coroner, it's not a problem, is it?

99

1 A. No. This was a straightforward support to the coroner.
2 Q. Right. There are other decisions that follow, mostly to
3 do with the French, but not entirely, on 1st September.
4 As you had also established, or someone had, no doubt
5 with your authority, besides Mr Rees, you had a liaison
6 officer in Paris, didn't you?
7 A. Yes, but he was not part of this structure. His role
8 was to perform other duties and, as such, he was
9 assigned to the British Embassy in Paris.
10 Q. You wanted to keep a very close eye on the French
11 through Mr Gargan, didn't you?
12 A. I made no such specific -- my instructions were to
13 Mr Rees, and it would seem to me a matter of wisdom that
14 he utilised an officer who was attached to the British
15 Embassy who had excellent contacts by dint of his duties
16 with the French authorities.
17 Q. Mr Rees went over very regularly?
18 A. That was my understanding.
19 Q. Well, he would have to report back to you.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So you knew he was going over?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. He was repeatedly asking the question: "anything
24 suspicious yet"?
25 A. We were certainly very keen to explore whether this was,

100

1 as it appeared on all of the known facts, to be a tragic
2 accident or whether there were other factors involved.
3 Q. Right, now, other factors. What would make a car
4 accident -- on the face of it an accident -- suspicious?
5 A. If there was any suggestion that it had been brought
6 about for a malevolent purpose.
7 Q. Yes. What sort of evidence would you want in relation
8 to that, if those who were malevolent had disappeared?
9 A. Well, it could take a variety of forms. The most
10 persuasive would be some form of physical evidence that
11 indicated that some form of act other than an accident
12 had occurred.
13 Q. Give us a clue.
14 A. For example, if there had been any interference with any
15 vital machinery of the car.
16 Q. Right, or any interference with, as it were, the passage
17 of the car?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yes. Right. Were you made aware from the beginning
20 that the passage of this car had in fact been
21 obstructed, according to at least two eyewitnesses in
22 the tunnel on the night, who reported that to the French
23 police?
24 A. I was not aware that these had been substantiated.
25 Q. I see. When we get to the note, it is substantiated.

101

1 What do you mean, two individuals sitting in a car
2 saying -- I think you know what I mean, don't you, about
3 this particular thing -- they claim they saw the car,
4 the Mercedes, blocked in front by a dark car that drives
5 away and behind by a motorcycle which also drives away,
6 not the paparazzi; not the white Fiat. Do you follow?
7 A. I am not aware that those can be regarded as established
8 facts or confirmed facts.
9 Q. What is an "established fact", then, in your view?
10 A. One that is supported by proof.
11 Q. So an eye witness isn't good enough; is that what you
12 are saying?
13 A. I am not querying what the eye witness is reporting. We
14 are being advised by our French colleagues. I was not
15 aware that our French colleagues were indicating that
16 there was any other conclusion being drawn.
17 Q. Never mind what the French are saying. You have
18 an independent role to play here, don't you? Not just
19 depending -- "If the French say it's an accident, we
20 tick that box"; you are not doing that, are you?
21 A. At this stage we are primarily relying, as is
22 inevitable, upon the French investigation.
23 Q. Did the French tell you -- you seem to be saying that it
24 was not, as it were, substantiated -- about this
25 particular scenario so that you were aware? "Oh, this

102

1 looks possibly -- it doesn't prove it, not
2 substantiated -- possibly this isn't perhaps just a mere
3 accident"?
4 A. I was not aware, either then or now, of any suggestion
5 from the French authorities, who inevitably we were
6 engaged in liaison, that there was any other cause apart
7 from a tragic accident.
8 Q. That's what they may have been telling you, but were you
9 aware of these two -- I have only started with this
10 because they reported this on the night and gave their
11 statements on the night. Were you aware of these two
12 witnesses, whatever interpretation is put on them by
13 anybody else?
14 A. I think only in the most general terms.
15 Q. You do see the significance of this, don't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. But I would repeat the distinction that I am seeking to
19 draw between conclusions or proof which is being relayed
20 to us --
21 Q. When you are doing an investigation, you don't get the
22 proof before you have investigated. You investigate all
23 possible lines of inquiry to see where they lead, don't
24 you?
25 A. This was a French investigation.

103

1 Q. But the British, according to your liaison, obviously
2 have an interest from the coroner's point of view, don't
3 they?
4 A. Yes, and we had a clear duty to ensure that the coroner
5 had access to and was being informed of the process and
6 progress of the French investigation.
7 Q. If you don't know the details, you really weren't in
8 a position to start forming views yourself that this
9 was, on the face of it, just an accident. You should
10 have had an open mind, "We don't know yet whether it is
11 or it isn't". That's the fair approach, isn't it?
12 A. Yes, but --
13 Q. Do you agree "yes"?
14 A. Yes, but it --
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. But I would add that there is no practical alternative
17 with an investigation within a foreign jurisdiction of
18 placing reliance on the information that we are
19 receiving, in this case from the French.
20 Q. Yes. I am not talking about what they consider to be
21 information worth passing on. It's if you have access
22 to and knowledge of two eye witnesses who give that
23 account, but there is more than that. Were you made
24 aware by the French that there was a witness indicating
25 that this car was, in a sense, obstructed or distracted

104

1 by a flash in the tunnel?
2 A. Again, only in the most general terms.
3 Q. Well, it's unlikely to be, in the way it was described,
4 just a flash camera because the paparazzi, according to
5 them, had not even caught up. So you did think this
6 through, did you, all of this?
7 A. Our reliance was on the account of events that we were
8 receiving from the French authorities.
9 Q. Yes, well, when you heard in the broadest terms that
10 that was a possibility, just a possibility, you must
11 have thought that combined with the other eye witnesses,
12 that perhaps something isn't quite right here?
13 A. We had no reason not to be confident in the breadth and
14 determination of the French inquiries.
15 Q. I am not dealing with that. I am dealing with raw
16 materials. What witnesses claim is quite important,
17 isn't it?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. It's not just what police officers, French or English,
20 might think of the witnesses. That might be for
21 somebody else. But actually if somebody says "I saw
22 a murder", you are not immediately going to dismiss them
23 and wait for substantiation, are you?
24 A. No, but we should not put ourselves as alongside or in
25 lieu of the French authorities who were conducting

105

1 an investigation.
2 Q. No, but you have an obligation, as you have said, to the
3 English coroners, both of them --
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. -- because they are going to need, at some stage, some
6 of this material.
7 A. Yes, and one of the ways in which it was envisaged that
8 that duty would be discharged was that the French would
9 keep the coroners informed and in due course would
10 present them with a full account of the results of the
11 investigation.
12 Q. The third other factor was, of course, as you now know,
13 there was a car involved, the driver and owner of which
14 has not been satisfactorily ever traced. Do you know
15 that, the white Fiat?
16 A. I am aware again of the general suggestion.
17 Q. There could be all sorts of reasons for this, but one of
18 them might be sinister, one of them.
19 A. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, I must emphasise
20 that our primary reliance has to be upon those who are
21 conducting what we regard to be a competent
22 investigation in France.
23 Q. Just dealing with that, then. If you are really
24 deferring to the French all down the line, "If they tell
25 us it is an accident, I am sure they are right" sort of

106

1 approach, you would want to make sure that they had,
2 before they came to any final conclusion, every piece of
3 relevant information, wouldn't you?
4 A. Indeed.
5 Q. I think you know what I am coming to.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It's very, very obvious.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It doesn't need Sherlock Holmes
9 for that.
10 MR MANSFIELD: Well, in this case maybe it did. I will come
11 straight to the point. You knew -- as the learned
12 Coroner quite rightly points out, it does not need
13 Sherlock Holmes; you don't have to be experienced in the
14 job -- that once Lord Mishcon walks through the door on
15 18th September, you knew then that this was relevant,
16 didn't you?
17 A. No, we formed a view that the various factors which had
18 been described to us by Lord Mishcon could be addressed
19 in the way that we mutually agreed was that we would
20 continue to monitor the French investigation and that,
21 if any suspicious factors arose, we would then bring
22 that to the notice of the French authorities.
23 Q. I am sorry to ask you, I sometimes have to ask
24 witnesses: what was the question?
25 A. You will have to, if you could, remind me.

107

1 Q. Yes. I am sorry. Please listen to the question. It
2 was a very short, simple question. When Lord Mishcon
3 walked through the door on 18th September, presented you
4 with his note, you knew straightaway that it was
5 relevant?
6 A. Potentially relevant.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, just going, if you wouldn't mind, since
8 you have I think the note there -- potentially relevant
9 and in relation to the meeting, the note that has been
10 signed.
11 Sir, can I ask, I am not sure whether the jury were
12 being provided with this as well as the note. Perhaps
13 not. I will carry on for the moment.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There is no reason why they
15 shouldn't be.
16 MR MANSFIELD: I don't think there is any reason. Just to
17 save time, since you have been through the note, it's
18 a handwritten note of the meeting on 18th September.
19 The question I have here is: when Lord Mishcon
20 brought the note, did he say why he had brought it?
21 A. For safe-keeping.
22 Q. No, no, because otherwise he might bring his jewellery.
23 It's not just for safe-keeping, is it? I am sorry to
24 be -- you do understand?
25 A. Yes, I do.

108

1 Q. He is putting it for safe-keeping, of course, but why
2 does he want it to be kept safely by you?
3 A. I think he wanted us to be aware that this material was
4 in existence should it become pertinent at any stage in
5 relation to the continuing French, primarily,
6 investigation, and it's not entirely irrelevant. He
7 wished it to be lodged in a location where it could be
8 relied upon.
9 He was a man of advancing years. I think he felt it
10 would be appropriate that it should be lodged and
11 immediately available should review indicate that it was
12 not only potentially relevant, but it was required to be
13 disclosed.
14 Q. Well, requirement to disclosure and all the rules
15 surrounding disclosure is a slightly later stage --
16 A. I am not using that in a technical sense.
17 Q. But potentially relevant, as you have accepted, was
18 clear to him and clear to you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You are not obviously involved in the French at this
21 stage, 18th September; very early days, isn't it?
22 A. The course of action that we --
23 Q. Never mind the course of action. It's very early days.
24 A. Absolutely.
25 Q. If something is necessary to be part of an investigation

109

1 because it gives rise to the possibility of a crime,
2 confidentiality can in fact be accommodated, can't it?
3 A. Yes, and the way that we chose to accommodate this was
4 by the route that I have suggested.
5 Q. When it came to it, years later, it's exactly what you
6 did. You just went to Mishcon -- or he rang up,
7 actually.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. According to you -- and this is another stage, if I just
10 ask for it before lunch -- the telephone call that he
11 makes later in 2003, the day after the publication of
12 Paul Burrell's note, so therefore the publication is
13 the 20th and there is a meeting on the 21st -- is that
14 your recollection of October?
15 A. I would have to be reminded, but the dates are --
16 Q. Yes. There ought to be notes or attendance notes in
17 relation to this, oughtn't there?
18 A. As I understand that, yes.
19 Q. I will obviously reach that, but certainly we have not
20 got those for the moment. I will come to it. They
21 could be provided. I am dealing with September of 1997.
22 So the potential relevance at that stage and the
23 accommodation of confidentiality could easily be done.
24 So the only other matter that was, as it were,
25 supposedly preventing you from giving this note straight

110

1 to the French was that you didn't think there was
2 anything suspicious that had arisen in the French
3 Inquiry?
4 A. Yes, and that judgment change at a subsequent stage.
5 Q. Changed because you got another note of the same kind?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Yes. I will put it bluntly to you: this note would
8 never have seen the light of day, would it, unless(sic)
9 Paul Burrell had published his and you suddenly all
10 realised you had got a problem?
11 A. No, I don't think that is the position.
12 Q. Is that not fair?
13 A. No, I don't think it is fair, and I think as one moved
14 towards the potential further hearings, that there would
15 have been review regardless of the Burrell note.
16 Q. Because the days and the months ticked by, and by
17 October 2003 you still haven't disclosed it before the
18 Burrell note went into the press, have you?
19 A. No --
20 Q. When were you going to disclose it?
21 A. I think it would have been pertinent, although the
22 circumstances were overtaken by events, to consider --
23 subject to any decisions of the learned coroners as to
24 how they wished to proceed, that certainly would have
25 been another opportunity for review.

111

1 Q. Yes. I appreciate opportunities. Were you just sitting
2 on this note because you knew full well -- is this
3 possible -- that the security services or agents of the
4 British State, maverick or otherwise, had been involved
5 and you didn't want this investigated?
6 A. I reject completely any suggestion that there was any
7 involvement of any agency of British Government known to
8 me or suspected by me in these events at all.
9 Q. Well, what investigation have you done? How do you know
10 the security services weren't involved?
11 A. That inference or suggestion has never been made to me,
12 and I have never seen any information or material which
13 would confirm that thesis.
14 Q. As it turns out, of course, the Burrell note and the
15 Mishcon note, the implication there is that certainly
16 some agents of the State are going to be putting her
17 aside. That's the implication, isn't it?
18 A. I think it would be reading perhaps too much into the
19 note that Lord Mishcon provided to us generated in 1995
20 that agents of the State were involved.
21 Q. We have heard the evidence this morning from those who
22 were present. All it required, if anybody were taking
23 this seriously, certainly from a police point of view --
24 were you in court this morning when Sandra Davis --
25 A. Yes, I was.

112

1 Q. Does it surprise you that she certainly got the
2 impression, as far as monitoring was concerned, that
3 Princess Diana had a mole, and of course the police knew
4 in 1994, which is why I went through it all, because she
5 had said she knew in 1994, in that meeting, that there
6 were people monitoring her vehicle and her premises;
7 right?
8 A. Yes, I heard -- what I am seeking to put in answer to
9 your question is that on the specific note that
10 Lord Mishcon provided us, there is nothing specific
11 within that note or reasonable inference that indicates
12 that those who may have had malevolent intent were in
13 any way agents of the State.
14 Q. Let us put it on a general basis before lunch: that it
15 was somebody else; you would want to investigate that,
16 wouldn't you?
17 A. Yes, indeed.
18 Q. Did you?
19 A. No, because the investigation was being conducted, in
20 our view, in a confident and professional way by the
21 French authorities.
22 Q. This is within the British jurisdiction, the French
23 don't know anything about this. Did you decide in the
24 September, with Lord Mishcon's acceptance, "I think we
25 ought to do some preliminary investigations in relation

113

1 to this. She is dead now, so the reliable sources --
2 maybe somebody knows who she is talking about. Maybe we
3 should ask various people who worked for her, like
4 Mr Burrell"?
5 A. That is precisely what happened.
6 Q. No, no, no; in September?
7 A. You are right, there was a period of -- before
8 Operation Paget was instigated.
9 Q. Three years?
10 A. No, we are talking about a period between September and
11 the instigation of Paget, which was January.
12 Q. Of?
13 A. We are talking about, now, of 2003.
14 Q. Well, Paget, as an investigation -- and I have to come
15 to that, you see. I am sorry, if I may just complete
16 it. The letter that Paul Burrell publishes is in
17 October, you rapidly have meetings and, lo and behold,
18 the Inquest is opened in January 2004, isn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the investigation is not into Diana's claims but
21 into Mohamed Al Fayed's claims, isn't it?
22 A. Yes, but the events were inevitably linked as part of
23 that investigation.
24 MR MANSFIELD: All right.
25 Sir, would that be an appropriate moment?

114

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, we will resume at five past
2 2, members of the jury.
3 (1.02 pm)
4 (The short adjournment)
5
115

<< Back