Hearing transcripts

16 January 2008 - Afternoon session

21 (2.00 pm)
22 (Jury present)
23 Discussion re: media coverage
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Mr Mansfield.
25 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings

116

1 at the moment. I wonder if I might raise with you
2 a matter of some concern. I have had a moment to
3 communicate what's happened over lunch to those of us,
4 certainly in the front row and some in the back as well.
5 The BBC contacted my Chambers -- I have not spoken to
6 them direct -- indicating that they wished me to
7 participate tonight in a televised debate, live on
8 Newsnight, essentially about the merits of an inquest
9 and this inquest in particular.
10 Obviously I make it very clear I refused that, and
11 would in any event, and professionally I am not allowed
12 to, so there is no question of that. But I am much more
13 concerned on a broader scale about the potential that
14 this programme has from anybody's point of view; in
15 other words, it would be impossible to conduct
16 a sensible and responsible debate in public in the
17 middle of an inquest about the merits of the inquest
18 without very strong comment being made on either side
19 about the evidence that's been given, the witnesses that
20 are in the witness box or have been in the witness box
21 and so forth.
22 It's very obvious how it will go, and you made, if
23 I may say so, perfectly proper remarks this morning
24 about the press and other media outlets being careful
25 about observing that rule of obviously fair and balanced

117

1 reporting without unfair comment. Of course, if it were
2 a programme devoted to the nature of an inquest and
3 inquests in general, that might just be possible.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: One doubts if it will be that.
5 MR MANSFIELD: Quite why they would want to launch it in the
6 middle of this one, one wouldn't want to know. It's
7 fairly obvious what the BBC have in mind at the moment.
8 If I am wrong, I am sure they will send someone to
9 correct it. At this juncture, I would ask, sir, that
10 very strong representations are made to the BBC now in
11 order to ask them to reconsider the wisdom of having
12 such a programme tonight.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett?
14 MR BURNETT: Sir, Mr Mansfield was good enough to indicate
15 to me just before we came in that this had happened over
16 lunch.
17 Sir, this morning, as Mr Mansfield has reminded us,
18 you had cause to refer to reports that had been
19 communicated to you of something that had happened
20 yesterday evening in a broadcast, and since then one or
21 two publications have been drawn to my attention --
22 I have not yet seen them all -- which give rise to
23 similar cause for concern.
24 So it's certainly not for me or for any of us here
25 at the Bar, as it were, to give public advice to

118

1 broadcasters and media organisations on the limits of
2 proper reporting that stay within the provisions of the
3 Contempt of Court Act.
4 Sir, I am bound to say that if the nature of the
5 programme contemplated for this evening is as
6 Mr Mansfield infers from the communication that he
7 received, it is something which would give rise
8 ordinarily to considerable concern.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, the very fact that the
10 organisers of the programme approached him suggests that
11 they may not have all relevant matters under
12 consideration.
13 MR BURNETT: Sir, one would imagine that that inference too
14 might be drawn because although my learned friend,
15 Mr Mansfield, with his broad practice and enormous
16 distinction, can contribute to a debate on many topics,
17 it is likely -- and I say no more than that -- that his
18 involvement in this inquest is the trigger for the
19 communication at lunch.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: Now, sir, of course we are operating in
22 an environment of incomplete information --
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
24 MR BURNETT: -- and that can always be both difficult and
25 a little dangerous. I wonder, sir, whether the best

119

1 course would be for you to invite your secretariat to
2 make contact with the editors or producers of Newsnight.
3 I am conscious that there are representatives or at
4 least one of the BBC in court, albeit engaged in
5 a different section of the BBC, and I am not aware of
6 the close communication that might be effected through
7 other representatives who are here. But, sir, it does,
8 with respect, seem to me sensible that the nature of
9 what is planned is explored and the dangers of what is
10 planned brought home to the broadcasters.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Of course, bearing in mind
12 the warning that's been given this morning and the
13 further warning now, if any broadcaster was ill-advised
14 enough to cross the line following the warning, that
15 would make any contempt of court that much more serious.
16 MR BURNETT: Yes. Sir, can I make one observation which
17 I emphasise is not to be taken as advice to anybody
18 because it's not my place: ordinarily, in jury
19 proceedings, one is concerned to ensure that the jury is
20 not improperly influenced by outside discussions of the
21 evidence, and I know -- and we will all recollect --
22 that at the outset of these inquests you gave a very
23 clear warning to the jury that they should try to keep
24 away from press reports and broadcast media reports
25 because inevitably they are selective in the evidence

120

1 that they report and inevitably they report what is
2 perhaps most interesting in a passing sense rather than
3 a context.
4 However, it is not only jurors who might be
5 influenced by broadcasting and media reporting that
6 crosses the line. There are many witnesses yet to give
7 evidence in these proceedings, and there is a danger --
8 I put it no more highly than that; again it's not for me
9 to give advice or make judgments about anything that has
10 happened or might happen -- but there are dangers that
11 witnesses might be influenced in what they would say or
12 influenced on the question of whether they might come.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well, I am very concerned about
14 one aspect, that potential witnesses may consider that
15 they would rather give their account to the media than
16 on oath in the witness box to the inquests.
17 MR BURNETT: Yes, that is an issue which is not fanciful, as
18 those who have been following the media will be well
19 aware.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
21 MR BURNETT: So that, on the hoof, as it were, because we
22 have not had time to discuss this or even to consider
23 it, would be our instinctive reaction to the course that
24 might be taken now.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well we can't advise any

121

1 programme what should or shouldn't be in it, but it
2 seems to me prudent that the secretariat should be in
3 touch with the BBC and warn them that they had better
4 look carefully into what they are doing and tread
5 carefully.
6 MR BURNETT: Yes. It goes without saying, given the warning
7 you gave this morning, that this is a matter which we
8 are sure you will be looking most carefully at, and
9 again the media and most of the lawyers here, at least,
10 will know the procedures and options that are open to
11 you.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Thank you very much. Does
13 anybody else want to say anything?
14 MR CROXFORD: No, thank you, sir.
15 MR KEEN: No, thank you, sir.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Horwell, we can continue then.
17 Questions from MR HORWELL (continued)
18 MR HORWELL: I was moving to the second document, the
19 Burrell note. This is what you have said about that
20 note in the statements that you have so far provided.
21 This paragraph, was read to you yesterday concerning the
22 date on which that note was written, and you stated that
23 although you believed it was October 1996, you conceded
24 in a statement dated 13th May 2004 that the note could
25 have been written a year earlier.

122

1 Mr Burrell, the reason why that note may well have
2 been written a year earlier is that October 1995 was
3 when the Princess spoke to Lord Mishcon, and we heard
4 yesterday what she had to say to him and there are
5 obviously similarities. You went on to say this about
6 the note:
7 "When I received this memorandum, I did not lay any
8 particular weight to it and I did not discuss the
9 Princess's fears with anybody else. There were no
10 instructions attached to it and the Princess did not
11 talk about it. I did not do anything about it because
12 I thought she was just unburdening her fears again.
13 There were no other notes outlining this particular fear
14 and I believe it has now been taken out of context and
15 too much emphasis placed on it. I have never seen or
16 heard any evidence that would substantiate the fear
17 expressed and I do not know what prompted her to write
18 it at the time. I am not aware of any evidence that her
19 vehicle was ever interfered with."
20 Can I just add this? This is what you had to say in
21 a statement dated February 2004:
22 "The letter represented the only document received
23 by or seen by me containing any reference to car
24 accidents, and it was, I believe, simply an indicator of
25 the way the Princess was thinking and feeling at that

123

1 point in time. Having received the letter from the
2 Princess, I did discuss it with her, but it was clear
3 that this was something that she felt when she wrote the
4 letter and which did not preoccupy her thereafter, so we
5 never discussed it again."
6 Whenever that note was written, would you agree that
7 it was at a particularly low point in her life?
8 A. Yes, I would.
9 Q. Those comments that you made in your statement, that
10 this fear did not preoccupy her thereafter, that is
11 correct, is it?
12 A. The fear of being killed?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. No, she wasn't.
15 Q. Fear of being killed in an accident that had been
16 organised?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You have said in various different ways that, in
19 relation to the issue of pregnancy, you say that would
20 have been impossible.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In relation to the issue of an engagement on the Monday
23 after her death, you say, as far as you were concerned,
24 that would have been impossible.
25 A. That's my feeling.

124

1 Q. This is how you expressed your views in your first book.
2 This is the preface (xiv):
3 "In the mythology that has been peddled since the
4 Princess's death, there have been two ludicrous claims,
5 that she and Dodi were going to get married and that she
6 was pregnant. The monstrous suggestion of pregnancy is
7 not true."
8 Is that your view today, Mr Burrell?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Just excuse me for one moment. (Pause). Now, you knew
11 the Princess better than most, obviously?
12 A. Well, I am not sure better than most, but I knew her
13 very well.
14 Q. And you have described yourself as the "hub"?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, you have been asked about the recording of
17 a telephone call that she made. Perhaps we ought to
18 bear in mind that Prince Charles had a telephone call
19 recorded --
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. -- during this period. So whoever was recording
22 telephone calls wasn't only concentrating on
23 Princess Diana; is that fair?
24 A. That's fair. I believe the telephone calls with
25 Prince Charles involved were more damaging.

125

1 Q. You have been asked about the issue of landmines, and
2 plainly this campaign was an important one in the
3 Princess's life.
4 A. She was passionate about it.
5 Q. She wanted to establish the facts, and that is what she
6 did, didn't she?
7 A. Yes, she did.
8 Q. She wanted to know where landmines were, who was
9 manufacturing them, and those are the facts that she
10 compiled?
11 A. Yes, and she was well advised by the Red Cross and
12 similar organisations.
13 Q. Do you remember now the announcement in Parliament by
14 Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, on 21st May 1997, when
15 he made it plain that it would be the Government's
16 intention to make law banning landmines?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Now an announcement in Parliament is not the creation of
19 law, obviously, but that was no doubt an important day
20 for the Princess.
21 A. She was delighted.
22 Q. So she had the Government behind her from 21st May
23 onwards?
24 A. Yes. She considered Tony Blair to be a good friend.
25 Q. Anyone who was monitoring her telephone calls to you,

126

1 Mr Burrell, would have known that there was no prospect
2 of a marriage; is that fair?
3 A. That's fair, yes.
4 Q. Because anyone monitoring telephone calls from her to
5 you would have known that she regarded the topic of
6 marriage to Dodi as being like "a bad rash"?
7 A. That's right, sir.
8 Q. And they would also have discovered the conversation
9 between you about the ring and placing it on the fourth
10 finger?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You were asked a lot of questions this morning by
13 Mr Mansfield about what effect this relationship may
14 have had on others, and you understand, I am sure,
15 Mr Burrell, the leap that is then made. This is the
16 suggestion: that because the Duke of Edinburgh
17 disapproved of this relationship, he arranged the murder
18 of Diana. That's where all this is leading to,
19 Mr Burrell. What do you say about that?
20 A. That's fantasy.
21 Q. It also seems to be suggested that you have taken part
22 in a cover-up to prevent these details being known.
23 A. That's not true.
24 MR HORWELL: Thank you, Mr Burrell.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett?

127

1 Further questions from MR BURNETT
2 MR BURNETT: A few more questions, if I may, sir.
3 Mr Burrell, I will try and deal with this very
4 quickly.
5 A. That would be very good of you.
6 Q. You have been in the witness box for a long time.
7 Mr Mansfield showed you, I think yesterday, the
8 account that is contained within your book, "A Royal
9 Duty", about your acquiring the note, the "Burrell
10 note", as we call it. You remember it was a very
11 elaborate account, sitting on the arms of sofas and so
12 forth?
13 A. Which I often did.
14 Q. Which was very different from the account that you gave
15 to us.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Of course there is a critical difference, isn't there,
18 between an account given in a book or in a newspaper
19 interview or over lunch with friends and in a witness
20 box?
21 A. Yes, because books are heavily edited and I agree there
22 are a couple of mistakes in my book.
23 Q. But also the critical difference is, Mr Burrell, when
24 you come to a court to give evidence, you give evidence
25 on oath --

128

1 A. Yes, I know.
2 Q. -- whereas when penning articles or contributing to
3 articles, chatting to people informally or even writing
4 books --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- you are not on oath.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Please don't take this as too much of a criticism, but
9 it is right, isn't it, that in writing books and in
10 penning articles in newspapers, one wants them to be
11 reasonably colourful so that people will read them?
12 A. Yes, they have to be somewhat entertaining.
13 Q. Is that perhaps the reason why the account of that
14 incident in the book is not in fact the correct account?
15 The correct account of getting the note was a rather
16 more humdrum one, that you just found it in your pantry
17 one morning.
18 A. I think that's fair, and it's very difficult to remember
19 exactly how everything happened in a whirlwind of the
20 Princess's life. I was there 24/7, doing whatever
21 I could for her in many different areas, and to remember
22 exactly how things were handed to you and given to you,
23 it's very, very difficult.
24 Q. Mr Burrell, you won't be the only person, if it is in
25 fact the case, who has added colour, gilded the lily,

129

1 slightly exaggerated, to provide interest in writing
2 a memoire.
3 A. So as long as the truth remains central to the point of
4 the book.
5 Q. Do you ever read political memoires, Mr Burrell?
6 A. I don't.
7 Q. Could I return -- and I hope relatively briefly -- to
8 the letter that has now been read on a number of
9 occasions that appears at the end of the hardback
10 edition of your book?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's a very melodramatic ending, isn't it?
13 A. It is, and a fitting ending to such a book.
14 Q. You have described this letter as the last written
15 communication that you in fact had from the Princess.
16 A. That's what I believed when I wrote the book.
17 Q. You also, I think, told us this morning that you have
18 re-read it on many occasions.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It's a very precious thing for you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. There can be no doubt, then, that you are sure you have
23 it?
24 A. I feel sure I have it. I am only hesitant because of so
25 many mistakes I have made in the past, and I have to be

130

1 accurate in saying I can't see it so I don't know that
2 it's there, but I feel sure it is.
3 Q. If you have it and if it's dated, then it may provide
4 insight into quite a lot of the questions that you have
5 been asked and also the answers that you have given.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now can I ask you one question about a sentence in it
8 which I don't think anyone has asked you, and if they
9 have, I apologise. It starts like this:
10 "Clearly from your third eye, this coming weekend is
11 an important one."
12 What did the Princess mean by that, do you think?
13 A. Well, that's troubled me, the weekend element of that
14 letter, and --
15 Q. I was thinking more about the "third eye".
16 A. Oh, the "third eye". Well, she called me many things.
17 Q. Let me read it again. Do you have it in front of you
18 because it will probably help you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It's the last page, as you know:
21 "Clearly from your third eye, this coming weekend is
22 an important one."
23 Now ordinarily when someone refers to a third eye --
24 A. It's always knowing what's going to happen next.
25 Q. Somehow you know already --

131

1 A. Yes, I knew the Princess that well. I could predict
2 what her next move would be. I would know what she
3 would do next, and she would say, "It's so strange how
4 you always know what's going to happen". I was that
5 close to her, I could predict that.
6 Q. So she was merely reflecting that, do you think, in the
7 note, saying "You know this already"?
8 A. She was saying "You know this and you know exactly
9 what's going to happen because you always do".
10 Q. Is it not more likely to be a sentence written which
11 suggests that you and she had already discussed it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now you have been asked many questions about exactly
14 when this letter was left for you. I just hope that
15 people will bear with me and be patient if I try to
16 highlight one or two of the fixtures, as it were.
17 Now, Mr Burrell, you have told us on a number of
18 occasions that you are not necessarily very good on
19 dates.
20 A. No, I am sorry.
21 Q. But you locate this letter to August?
22 A. That's what I feel.
23 Q. In your book -- we don't need to go back to it, the jury
24 have seen it -- you locate it towards the end of August.
25 A. Yes.

132

1 Q. Now you have told us that you were away on holiday with
2 your family in Ireland for the last two weeks of August.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That is to say coinciding with the Princess's trip with
5 Rosa Monckton --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- and right through until the end of the month, your
8 having returned to Kensington Palace to be there when
9 the Princess was due to return.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How confident are you that you didn't see the Princess
12 again after 15th August, when she went away on holiday
13 with Rosa Monckton?
14 A. I am confident that I didn't.
15 Q. You have also told us that this letter, whenever you got
16 it, was provided to you before you went on holiday to
17 Ireland.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That's right, is it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In other words, you didn't come back from Ireland, go
22 into the butler's pantry and find it sitting on your
23 desk?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Is that something you are confident about?

133

1 A. I am sure.
2 Q. Now there is a reference, as we see, to a "coming
3 weekend"; okay?
4 A. Mm.
5 Q. Now the weekend in which the crash took place was the
6 weekend of 29th/30th/31st August.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But if that account that you have given, in other words
9 that it wasn't sitting there when you came back --
10 A. No.
11 Q. -- from Ireland, is correct, then it couldn't be
12 a reference to that weekend.
13 A. No.
14 Q. In fact Diana had been away, hadn't she, from the
15 22nd --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- which was a Friday.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So I suppose it might theoretically have been left for
20 you by her on the 21st or 22nd, but you say it wasn't.
21 A. I don't think it was, no.
22 Q. But in any event, so far as you are aware and from your
23 discussions with the Princess after that time, did
24 anything momentous happen over the weekend of
25 22nd August?

134

1 A. Not that I am aware of, no.
2 Q. Working back, the weekend before that was the beginning
3 of the holiday with Rosa Monckton.
4 A. Yes, so that wasn't the weekend.
5 Q. And the weekend before that you were in Bosnia with the
6 Princess.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could it have been something left for you shortly before
9 your going to Bosnia and it being a reference to
10 something that was likely to happen in Bosnia?
11 Landmines? Something like that?
12 A. I doubt it very much.
13 Q. Now, the weekend before that, the Princess was on her
14 first trip on the Jonikal, 2nd August.
15 A. But it wasn't --
16 Q. The Saturday was the 2nd and she went on the 31st.
17 A. But it wasn't just for a weekend. It was a longer stay.
18 Q. No, I appreciate. What I am trying to explore with
19 you --
20 A. Is which weekend.
21 Q. -- is which weekend it might have been if it was August.
22 I think you can see where I am going.
23 A. Yes, I can, and the -- we are running out of weekends.
24 Q. I think we have run out of weekends. The weekend before
25 that, the last weekend of July, included the trip by

135

1 Diana and Dodi to Paris.
2 A. To Paris.
3 Q. Yes?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could it have been that?
6 A. Well, not until Mr Mansfield said did I realise that
7 that was a weekend.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you have given an account, a detailed
9 account, in your second book of looking at the plans of
10 the Malibu house and the photos and so forth.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As I think Mr Croxford put to you before lunch, there is
13 an allusion to looking at American brochures in your
14 first book, in the preface.
15 A. The Princess was fascinated by America.
16 Q. On both occasions you locate that in August.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. August 1997.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How confident are you that it was August 1997? I remind
21 you, you put it between the two holidays or slotted in
22 between what were in fact three holidays for the
23 Princess, as it turned out.
24 A. Well, I vividly remember that A4-sized brown envelope
25 sitting on her window seat, and the windows were open,

136

1 it was a beautiful sunny day, she was excited and
2 rushing around the house and asked me to come up to look
3 at something. So I am sure it was August. It was
4 certainly late July/early August. It was in that
5 timeframe.
6 Q. Now the difference -- let us just see if we can identify
7 that with each other -- if it was late July, it followed
8 the trip to St Tropez, and then, if you remember, the
9 Princess went to stay with her sister, Lady Sarah --
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. -- and also went to Paris for a night on the 27th,
12 I think -- forgive me if I haven't got the dates quite
13 right --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- but was away again on 31st July to the Jonikal.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So if it was July, it was after St Tropez and before the
18 first Jonikal trip.
19 A. Yes, but it is so difficult to remember exactly when
20 I saw the brochure.
21 Q. If it is August and your recollection that you went to
22 Ireland is correct, then it must have been after the
23 Princess came back from her trip on the Jonikal, the
24 first one, and before she went off with Rosa Monckton.
25 That, then, is between the 6th and the 15th, but

137

1 remember you were in Bosnia between the 8th and the
2 10th.
3 A. I know.
4 Q. So it's a very narrow window of opportunity.
5 A. It is a very short corridor.
6 Q. With that in mind, can I take you back to what you said
7 in "Leading men, leading ladies"?
8 "In the final days of August 1997, she knelt on the
9 sitting room floor and spread out a colour brochure and
10 floor plan of a cliff-top property in Malibu,
11 California."
12 Okay?
13 A. She certainly did that.
14 Q. Just two questions there: if you are confident that you
15 were in Ireland, then it couldn't have been in the final
16 days of August 1997, could it?
17 A. No, it couldn't, but "the final days" could be
18 a figurative way of speaking for the purpose of the
19 book.
20 Q. Again the second part of that sentence that I read out
21 creates a very evocative image of you and the Princess
22 on your hands and knees in the sitting room with
23 brochures and plans and so forth in front of you.
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. That is what happened, is it? It is not another one of

138

1 the --
2 A. No, no, it's exactly what happened.
3 Q. "The magnificent six-bedroom property had already been
4 laid on a plate for the Princess. It was hers if she
5 wanted it."
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What did you mean by "... [it] had already been laid on
8 a plate for the Princess"?
9 A. As she had always dreamed of having a property in
10 America, she suddenly was realising that dream and she
11 said, "This is it, this is our dream, this is what's
12 happening and this is where we are going to live, and
13 this is your room, this is where you will be with your
14 wife, and Alex and Nicholas will spend some time here
15 too, and this is where William and Harry will live and
16 isn't it wonderful?"
17 Q. I am just wondering about the words "... already been
18 laid on a plate for the Princess".
19 A. I assumed that it was a given, that it was already in
20 the pipeline.
21 Q. Because you use a phrase a little further on -- I shan't
22 laboriously read it all out -- that it was a sneak
23 preview of a done deal.
24 A. That's how I felt and that's the impression she was
25 giving me.

139

1 Q. Then a little further on in the same section of the
2 book, you say this:
3 "It was why, in her final letter to me, she had
4 written 'Now, the tide is changing and we can all now
5 have peace of mind and look forward to happier times and
6 different homes'."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In other words, in this book -- and this was only in
9 2006, Mr Burrell -- you very firmly link the content of
10 the letter with the Malibu house. Are you with me?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. In the note that you sent the Coroner yesterday -- and
13 I think Mr Keen has already shown you the relevant
14 passages -- you suggest that the secret referred to in
15 that letter might have been the inquiries she had made
16 regarding a property in South Africa where, of course,
17 her brother lived --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- that would enable her and Hasnat Khan to set up home.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That's a speculation that has been referred to
22 elsewhere.
23 A. Has it?
24 Q. Indeed it has.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It's in Simone Simmons' book at

140

1 page 122 and other places.
2 MR BURNETT: And it's in his own book, yes, the page that
3 Mr Keen put to you. That surely happened much earlier.
4 A. It certainly did. It happened a year earlier. The
5 Princess had gone to South Africa to see
6 Professor Barnard, the eminent heart surgeon, and visit
7 her brother on their estate in South Africa on the
8 pretext of finding a job for Hasnat, to find him
9 a decent job in South Africa, and a property where they
10 could spend time.
11 Q. So it becomes all the more important that we have the
12 date of this letter.
13 A. The date is even more important, yes.
14 Q. Before leaving this topic, the question has been asked
15 of a number of people and it has been asked of you,
16 whether you know what the Princess was talking about
17 when, on 14th July, so very shortly after she arrived at
18 St Tropez, she made the remark to the press that, "What
19 I am doing next is going to surprise you".
20 A. No, that was typical of the Princess.
21 Q. If she had got close to deciding to relocate abroad,
22 even if it's not for every week of the year, that would
23 be quite a surprising thing, would it?
24 A. Absolutely, and it could have been her saying "I am
25 going to leave Britain for good", and that certainly

141

1 would shock the nation.
2 Q. But you just don't know?
3 A. I don't know. She didn't tell me.
4 Q. You spoke to here on a number of occasions after that,
5 face-to-face, sitting next to her, on the phone, and you
6 didn't ever discuss that, that you remember?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now you have been asked a few questions this morning
9 about the conversation that you had with Her Majesty the
10 Queen at the end of December 1997. We understand your
11 reluctance to talk about that.
12 It's right, isn't it, that it was Her Majesty's
13 recollection of having spoken to you which she
14 communicated to the prosecuting authorities that led to
15 your trial collapsing and a not guilty verdict?
16 A. Yes, she did.
17 Q. That was because she recollected that you had told her
18 that you had, in safe-keeping, various things that
19 belonged to the Princess which you thought the Princes
20 should, in due course, have.
21 A. Yes, I had.
22 Q. Your trial collapsed very swiftly once that was
23 communicated by Her Majesty through the proper channels,
24 but it's something you had never communicated to your
25 own lawyers.

142

1 A. That's true, because --
2 Q. Something that rather amazed them, no doubt.
3 A. Yes, it did, because I took that conversation I had with
4 the Queen -- a very lengthy one and in-depth -- very
5 seriously, and I always said it was between Her Majesty
6 and myself, and I still do say that the majority of that
7 conversation is between the Queen and myself. I am
8 a very lucky man to have that privilege.
9 Q. You were asked a question this morning by my learned
10 friend, Mr Croxford, touching on other aspects of the
11 conversation with Her Majesty. I wish to ask you about
12 one other aspect which comes to us through a statement
13 from someone called Roberto Devorik, who we hope to hear
14 from fairly shortly.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know who Roberto Devorik is?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Could you tell us?
19 A. He is a friend of the Princess's, an interior designer,
20 and a very dear friend of Lady Elsa Bowker, who is now
21 deceased, also a friend of the Princess's, and he
22 visited on a regular basis.
23 Q. Do you remember having lunch with Mr Devorik and also
24 Lady Bowker not very long after the Princess's death?
25 A. Yes, I do.

143

1 Q. I am not sure exactly when, but sometime after your
2 conversation with the Queen?
3 A. Yes, I believe it was at Lady Elsa Bowker's apartment.
4 Q. Now, we have an account of that conversation from
5 Mr Devorik. In fairness I must ask you about it so you
6 can explain to the jury whether his recollection is
7 correct or whether there is anything you wish to add.
8 He says this. I will do it bit by bit and ask you
9 to confirm or tell us it's wrong and, if so, why:
10 "Following her death [that's to say the death of
11 Princess Diana], Lady Bowker and I, knowing how much the
12 Princess respected him, invited Paul Burrell for lunch."
13 A. Yes, that's true.
14 Q. "Amongst other things, we wanted to make sure he was
15 financially sound as Diana had mentioned in the past how
16 poorly paid he was."
17 A. That is true.
18 Q. And they were concerned about that. So would it be
19 right to infer that this was before the Princess's will
20 had been varied to provide you with a legacy which would
21 assist in purchasing a house?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. "Paul Burrell told me that he was concerned that the
24 French had not found the white car ..."
25 A. Yes.

144

1 Q. You remember that, do you?
2 A. We have to go back to the time and place this letter and
3 this conversation, this lunch, in context with what was
4 happening at the time. And yes, that was the
5 speculation. Everyone was making the speculation.
6 Q. The jury have heard a fair amount of evidence about the
7 white car already. Then we go on:
8 "... that he had been told [that's to say that you
9 had been told] that the cameras on the tunnel were
10 always working, but hadn't done so at the time of the
11 crash."
12 A. I was told that, but I can't remember who told me that.
13 Q. No, I am just trying to identify whether Mr Devorik's
14 recollection of the general nature of the conversation
15 is correct.
16 A. I was told that, yes.
17 Q. Again the jury have heard about that, and, in fact,
18 there has been largely agreed evidence about cameras and
19 their absence.
20 "He was also concerned at the length of time it took
21 for the ambulance to reach hospital."
22 A. Yes, I was.
23 Q. That's another topic we have explored at great length.
24 Then it's the next bit in particular that touches on the
25 conversation that you had with the Queen.

145

1 "He also told us about an audience he had had with
2 the Queen."
3 Do you remember discussing the audience with
4 Her Majesty --
5 A. Not at great length. I had told them that I had been to
6 see the Queen. They were trusted, dear friends and
7 I didn't see any harm in that.
8 Q. All right. I will read you the next two sentences in
9 one go:
10 "Lady Bowker asked him if he had asked the Queen if
11 they killed her. He said that the Queen had replied to
12 him something like 'We shouldn't awake forces we don't
13 know'."
14 A. No, that's not true. I wouldn't ask a question such as
15 that to Her Majesty.
16 Q. Let's just take it in stages, then. This is Mr Devorik
17 not purporting to quote you precisely. He is giving
18 what he recollects of the substance of a conversation
19 that happened many, many years before. Did you discuss
20 this subject at all with Mr Devorik and Lady Bowker,
21 this part of -- or aspect of the audience?
22 A. No, I would have remembered telling them that I had been
23 lucky enough to meet Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace,
24 but certainly I do not recognise that conversation.
25 That did not happen.

146

1 Q. Now, I appreciate, Mr Burrell, that you worked very
2 closely for Her Majesty for a number of years before you
3 went into the service of the Prince and Princess of
4 Wales. Is it conceivable that in your position you
5 could ask a question of Her Majesty of that nature?
6 A. No. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.
7 Q. Did you ask her a question of that nature?
8 A. I did not.
9 Q. Now the reply that's recorded, "We shouldn't awake
10 forces we don't know", first of all your evidence is
11 that you didn't ask a question and you didn't get
12 a reply.
13 A. No.
14 Q. It's in this context, perhaps, Mr Burrell, that it's
15 very important to understand the distinction between
16 chatting to people over lunch --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- where every last detail -- it's a matter between you
19 and them as to its accuracy -- but on oath in a witness
20 box it matters; you understand?
21 A. I agree. I would not ask Her Majesty the Queen such
22 a personal, intimate question of her daughter-in-law.
23 Q. But if Mr Devorik is right at all about the discussion
24 concerning the audience with Her Majesty, it would
25 follow, wouldn't it, that you mentioned something of

147

1 that part of the conversation that touched on "forces"?
2 A. There is a similarity, but remember, Mr Devorik has read
3 my book since he made the statement.
4 Q. He might have done. I simply don't know.
5 A. I presume he has.
6 Q. Right. So far as Mr Harding is concerned, how confident
7 are you that the Princess told you that he, Mr Harding,
8 was MI6?
9 A. Well, I am, because I just wouldn't let anyone roam
10 around the rooms of Kensington Palace. It had to be
11 someone of some authority and that's what the Princess
12 said. She put -- placed great trust and faith in him
13 and felt that he was the authority on that subject and
14 they were his credentials.
15 Q. If I could just remind everyone of the evidence we have
16 on that. Although Mr Harding wasn't asked in his
17 evidence whether he had ever worked for MI6, he was
18 asked whether he had ever worked for any of the
19 intelligence services, and he said "No", and that matter
20 wasn't taken up by any of those who followed those
21 questions being asked.
22 Mr Harding, if we have understood it correctly,
23 Mr Burrell, was a man that the late Princess trusted.
24 A. Absolutely.
25 Q. He provided her with all her mobile phones.

148

1 A. He received all her telephone bills, including all the
2 numbers that she regularly rang, so that's great trust.
3 Q. He paid them for her and then she reimbursed him; in
4 other words she used him to insulate her communications
5 from any outsider at all.
6 A. That's exactly why she did it.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sounds as if the bills were quite
8 hefty as well.
9 A. They were very expensive, my Lord, and I remember on one
10 occasion the Princess disputed the bill it was so
11 expensive.
12 MR BURNETT: He told us that he had come in to sweep
13 Kensington Palace and so on.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So you are confident, are you, that the Princess at
16 least believed he was ex-MI6 or something?
17 A. Yes, I do. I believed -- that's what she told me.
18 I think that was her belief and she placed great trust
19 in him because of it.
20 Q. If she believed that the intelligence world was in some
21 way monitoring her, it seems pretty extraordinary --
22 A. But the world he came from.
23 Q. -- to rely and trust somebody who she believed was
24 recently a part of that world.
25 A. But now working for her.

149

1 Q. Now the Princess was relatively or really very
2 suspicious of people throughout the last certainly five
3 years of her life that we have been looking at.
4 A. That's true.
5 Q. Now we heard from Simone Simmons, who you know and have
6 commented on, that there was a time in 1994 when the
7 Princess believed that there might be an Arab conspiracy
8 to do her harm. Do you remember anything of that?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. That was because of Prince Charles' closeness to the
11 Arab world.
12 A. She did believe that Prince Charles may be attacked one
13 day. She did believe that he might face an
14 assassination attempt.
15 Q. I see. So Prince Charles was vulnerable as well?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then we have the Mishcon note which was October 1995,
18 which was a very specific belief that there was going to
19 be an accident between then and April 1996 which would
20 injure or damage her so that she could be declared
21 unbalanced.
22 A. Well, I didn't know about it.
23 Q. You didn't know about that, but it echos very much what
24 was in your note, doesn't it?
25 A. Yes, it does.

150

1 Q. In fact the substance is the same.
2 A. Very similar.
3 Q. That was all because of a conspiracy to put her aside
4 and Camilla aside and enable the Prince of Wales to --
5 A. Marry someone else.
6 Q. -- marry Tiggy Legge-Bourke and then the Queen to
7 abdicate and so on.
8 A. Which is a very strange string of events.
9 Q. She also generally believed, I think you have told us,
10 that her vehicle had been interfered with.
11 A. Yes, she did.
12 Q. Do you know where she got that last thought from?
13 A. The vehicle thought?
14 Q. That her brakes had been interfered with.
15 A. I don't know who told her, no.
16 Q. Because we have a statement from Rita Rogers, the
17 psychic astrologer -- and we will be hearing from her --
18 and she suggests that she told the Princess that her
19 brakes had been interfered with.
20 A. I am sure she would know.
21 Q. You are sure Rita would know?
22 A. No, I am joking.
23 Q. I am not, Mr Burrell.
24 A. I am sorry. I do apologise. How could she possibly
25 know? She is a psychic lady.

151

1 Q. That may be a very fair comment, but I must make my
2 question clearer.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. There is an indication -- and it may be confirmed in
5 evidence; we will just have to wait and see -- that it
6 was a psychic who told the Princess that her car brakes
7 had been interfered with. Is that something that
8 surprises you?
9 A. No. She took a lot of advice from some very strange
10 quarters.
11 Q. Including Ms Rogers?
12 A. Including Ms Rogers.
13 Q. And Simone Simmons?
14 A. And Simone Simmons.
15 Q. Now the events that I have been just summarising -- or
16 not events, but the predictions, I suppose better
17 called, that I have been summarising -- are the
18 mid-1990s, 1994, 1995; you think your note was 1996 --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- although for reasons that many have asked you, it may
21 well be 1995.
22 Now, in your books, Mr Burrell, you make no mention
23 at all of the Princess, at any time during this period
24 or indeed ever, taking steps to increase her security.
25 A. Well, quite the reverse, in fact. She dispensed of it.

152

1 Q. That is a very puzzling thing to do if you really
2 believe that anyone is out there to kill you or cause
3 you serious damage.
4 A. Well, that's true, but she always felt she was safe
5 within the walls of Kensington Palace, where she spent
6 most of her life. The only vulnerable time was when she
7 was out in the street, and then she truly believed that
8 people loved her so much that no-one would possibly want
9 to hurt her.
10 Q. But she continued driving herself?
11 A. Yes, she did. Sometimes by herself, sometimes with me.
12 Q. And she continued going to public places without any
13 protection?
14 A. Yes, she did.
15 Q. And she continued to go shopping on foot in
16 Kensington High Street?
17 A. Yes, she did.
18 Q. That situation continued, did it? That's to say she
19 didn't put in place any security measures of her own?
20 A. Well, other than me, and I wasn't a police officer,
21 an armed police officer.
22 Q. You have many qualities, I don't doubt, but bodyguard
23 and security expert are not amongst them?
24 A. No, they are not. But very often when she went out into
25 the public, she felt it safer to be stood beside me so

153

1 that she wouldn't be so vulnerable.
2 Q. That was the position even after August 1996, when the
3 Princess became independently very wealthy indeed
4 following her divorce settlement?
5 A. Yes, she did, for a very short time.
6 Q. You have told us she was a strongwilled lady --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- and that she would not have hesitated to do anything
9 she thought was necessary.
10 A. No, she wouldn't.
11 Q. She did occasionally take steps, actually quite public
12 steps, to protect herself from harassment, didn't she?
13 Do you remember her seeking a court order and obtaining
14 an injunction --
15 A. Against a paparazzi photographer.
16 Q. -- to stop a photographer from going near her who was --
17 A. On a motorbike.
18 Q. -- causing her difficulty?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I think you have answered a question from my learned
21 friend, Mr Horwell, already to the effect that you
22 didn't really take the note that you found very
23 seriously.
24 A. No, I didn't, because it was a regular conversation.
25 Q. Presumably, if you had felt that there was anything in

154

1 her concerns, you would have been urging her to take
2 steps to protect herself?
3 A. Yes, in context now, looking at the letter, apart from
4 everything else, it looks very sinister, looks -- it
5 looks -- it's a prophecy of the way she died. But there
6 and then, on a daily basis, we generally talked about
7 death, generally talked about accidents happening to
8 people. She was preoccupied often at times with death.
9 Q. You used a vivid expression this morning when answering
10 questions from Mr Keen, I think. You said you lived in
11 a world where you hardly trusted anyone around you.
12 A. That's true.
13 Q. Would that have been true of the Princess as well?
14 A. Absolutely, and I didn't realise how difficult it would
15 be, with that blanket of security taken away when she
16 died, to find myself in that unenvious position.
17 MR BURNETT: Thank you. Those are my questions.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Burrell.
19 That will be all.
20 Two things. First of all the documents that you
21 provided yesterday that I concluded had no relevance to
22 the inquest, they are either in the safe or in the hands
23 of Mr Smith. I think in fact he has them there. You
24 can obviously take them away with you back to America.
25 The other matter is that you have promised to send

155

1 us any other documents that are there in the
2 United States, including the letter to which reference
3 has been made as the "last letter".
4 A. I will, my Lord.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And do it as quickly as possible
6 please.
7 A. As soon as I return.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
9 A. Thank you, sir.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The next witness is Lord Condon.
11 LORD CONDON (sworn)
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you prefer to sit or stand,
13 Lord Condon?
14 A. I will stand, if I may, sir. I am more used to
15 standing.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sorry we have kept you waiting
17 a bit, but you appreciate that we can't always run
18 precisely to time.
19 A. Of course.
20 Questions from MR HILLIARD
21 MR HILLIARD: Lord Condon, you were Commissioner of the
22 Metropolitan Police Service; is that right?
23 A. Yes, I was.
24 Q. Can you give us the dates, please?
25 A. Yes, from 1st February 1993 through to the end of

156

1 January 2000.
2 Q. At the end of January 2000, when you retired, you handed
3 over to Sir John Stevens, as he then was; Lord Stevens,
4 as he is now. Is that right?
5 A. Yes, he had been my Deputy Commissioner for about
6 18 months and he succeeded me.
7 Q. Who did you take over from?
8 A. From Lord Peter Imbert.
9 Q. Can you help us, not all the details, but immediately
10 preceding taking over as Commissioner of the
11 Metropolitan Police, what job had you held before that?
12 A. From mid-1989 through to the time I became Commissioner,
13 I was Chief Constable of Kent.
14 Q. If we just keep in mind through what I am just about to
15 ask you, the first area, that you didn't take over as
16 commissioner until 1st February of 1993. We have heard
17 evidence about publication of a transcript of
18 a tape-recording of a telephone in August of 1992,
19 something that was known as the "Squidgy tape", between
20 James Gilbey on the one hand and the Princess of Wales
21 on the other.
22 The call had happened years before, but publication
23 of it was in August of 1992. So if you just bear that
24 in mind. We have also heard evidence from Mr Wharfe,
25 a protection officer for the Princess of Wales, that the

157

1 Princess of Wales had said that the Queen had ordered
2 an investigation by the security services. All right?
3 So that's some of the evidence that we have heard so
4 far.
5 As I say, mindful of the fact that you don't take
6 over until 1st February 1993, I just want to know this:
7 were you aware, when you took over, of any investigation
8 by the security services into that tape-recording, the
9 results of any investigation or whether the
10 Metropolitan Police had had anything to do with it?
11 A. No, I wasn't. If I could perhaps elaborate slightly.
12 Q. Please do.
13 A. I think it was probably about October of 1992 I was
14 selected to be the Commissioner Designate, so there was
15 a sort of handover period where I think I went to
16 Scotland Yard two or three times to speak to
17 Peter Imbert, the then Commissioner. The matters you
18 have just discussed were never raised at any point as
19 part of the handover process.
20 When I became Commissioner, I didn't learn of any
21 investigation or any inquiries which touch upon the
22 tapes you describe. So I would have had a knowledge as
23 a member of the public and as a serving police officer
24 of what appeared to be in the public domain, and then,
25 as Commissioner, or shortly before, I am aware of,

158

1 I think, a couple of statements by the then
2 Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, and I think the
3 Interception Commissioner, Lord Bingham, may have said
4 something about --
5 Q. To the effect, as you recall it ...?
6 A. I do not have strong memories, but broadly speaking
7 I think the Home Secretary -- I think Kenneth Clarke at
8 the time -- had said something to the effect that this
9 didn't involve the security services. I may be wrong,
10 but I think the Prime Minister may have made
11 a statement.
12 Q. We have heard about a statement he made, yes.
13 A. Then I have at the back of my mind -- and I can't recall
14 reading it in detail -- I have a feeling that
15 Lord Bingham, who was then what was described as the
16 "Interception Commissioner", had said something in one
17 of his reports -- perhaps it was his annual report --
18 that this was not something that involved the security
19 services. But that's only a sort of vague recollection.
20 But I was not involved in any way in discussing those
21 issues.
22 Q. Right. Now if we move on to something that undoubtedly
23 occurred in the time that you were Commissioner. We
24 have heard about a meeting that Mr Meynell had with the
25 Princess of Wales in October of 1994. Perhaps I can

159

1 hand you --
2 A. I do have a copy.
3 Q. We can get it up on the screen. It's [INQ0058847].
4 Lord Condon, you can see -- you have a hard copy?
5 A. Yes, I am checking it is exactly the same document.
6 Q. You can see that it's dated the same day as a meeting
7 that Mr Meynell had with the Princess of Wales,
8 18th October 1994. It runs to just into a third page.
9 Can you see?
10 A. Yes, I can.
11 Q. If you look at the bottom of the first page -- I am
12 going to come back to it, but I will ask you to note it
13 for the moment -- can you see in handwriting there,
14 "Home Secretary briefed, 21/10/94"?
15 A. Yes. That is my handwriting and that indicates that on
16 that date I briefed the Home Secretary about the
17 contents that were in this letter.
18 Q. We will come on to the circumstances of that. So that's
19 your writing.
20 We have been through this note before, but in the
21 first page of it and into the second, there is
22 discussion of the nature of the security she had and the
23 wisdom or otherwise of it. Yes?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If we then go into the second page, we have heard it

160

1 before, but I think it would be as well if we just
2 remind ourselves of it. Can you see there is a large
3 paragraph that begins just below halfway down? It says
4 this:
5 "During the course of the conversation HRH bluntly
6 asked me if her car had been bugged. I told her I would
7 have it examined to establish that fact. She then said
8 to me, 'Even when no-one knows where I am going in my
9 car, there are people waiting for me at the other end'.
10 She again asked me if I had any knowledge of whether her
11 vehicle was bugged. I informed her that we (the police)
12 had certainly not placed any form of device on her
13 vehicle. She then told me that she knew her telephones
14 were being tapped and that she was certain the same
15 applied to her vehicle. She stated that she had proof
16 that her phones were being tapped because she had 'set
17 traps on four occasions and she had got the necessary
18 evidence'. I told her that I should be allowed to deal
19 with this matter. She stated that she was using her
20 knowledge to her advantage -- whilst she felt a great
21 loss in not being able to use her telephones, she had
22 use of other devices and the fact she was not using her
23 telephones would squeeze those people into different
24 action.
25 "I explained to HRH that I had available a team of

161

1 experts who were responsible for ensuring the integrity
2 of Parliament. These were ordinary uniform officers and
3 I could get them to do the necessary sweep of both
4 vehicle and premises. Her response was to state that
5 whilst she had a lot of enemies, she had a lot of
6 friends, some in places of knowledge. She could not
7 name them because they could lose their jobs, but she
8 had been told that without any doubt five people from
9 an organisation had been assigned full-time to 'oversee'
10 her activities, including listening to her private phone
11 conversation, and that from the same source she knew
12 that two people from the same organisation performed
13 a similar function in respect of Parliament. I told her
14 this was a very serious matter in that it indicated that
15 my team working in Parliament were not doing their job
16 properly. She replied by stating that it was not
17 a question of them not doing their job properly, it was
18 a question that they were against the experts in this
19 field. I told her that I could get no comfort from the
20 situation and again stated that the matter should be
21 investigated. She stated that whilst she was certain of
22 her ground, she could not assist further without
23 jeopardising the identities of her friends. This she
24 was not prepared to do.
25 "My view is that today's meeting was basically to

162

1 ask me whether I had placed some form of device on her
2 vehicle."
3 So that passage we have seen before at the end of
4 Mr Meynell's note, and we have seen, towards the end of
5 the note, Mr Meynell has recorded that he was telling
6 the Princess of Wales more than once that in his view
7 the matter should be investigated -- that's plain from
8 the note, isn't it -- but that she had said that she
9 couldn't assist further for fear, she said, of
10 jeopardising the identities of her friends and she
11 wasn't prepared to do that.
12 Now, what I really would like your help with,
13 please, is what you know about this and what action was
14 taken about it because that's been a question that's
15 been raised more than once in these proceedings.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. One bit of it is going to be obvious, namely that you
18 got in touch with the Home Secretary, but can you help
19 us please in your own way with this?
20 A. If I start -- David Meynell was, until his retirement,
21 a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, which is a unique rank
22 in the Metropolitan Police, but in essence it means
23 a Deputy Chief Constable, so a very, very senior
24 colleague. He was the day-to-day senior contact with
25 the Royal Family around these issues. So David was and

163

1 is a very conscientious and a very honourable man, and
2 he quite properly recorded details of this conversation
3 to the best of his recollection and to the best of my
4 recollection. He then asked to come and see me and we
5 discussed it either on the same day or the following
6 day, I would think, and we talked through the nature of
7 the conversation and the nature of his advice and so on.
8 It was not uncommon for David to do that. As
9 Commissioner, an important part of my role was the
10 security of the Royal Family in the round.
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. So David discussed this issue with me. He fleshed out
13 the sort of tone and nature of the meeting, and in
14 essence he felt it was a sort of -- partly a tease by
15 the Princess, that the whole purpose of the meeting was
16 to establish were we, the police, in some way bugging
17 her car or her telephones or whatever. David is a very
18 honourable man. He would not lie about a matter of that
19 nature. He told her the truth. He came to report it to
20 me. We had a discussion. I was absolutely aware that
21 I had not authorised or sought authorisation for any
22 such intrusion into her life.
23 I think, to the best of my memory, either the same
24 day or subsequently I had a conversation with
25 David Veness, who was David Meynell's sort of day-to-day

164

1 boss, and again David reassured me that he had no
2 knowledge of such an event.
3 Such an intrusion into her life could only have been
4 approved by someone of my level or David Veness. We
5 were the only two people who could authorise that sort
6 of intrusion into her life, and I am on oath and I am
7 telling you categorically we had not done so. So I was
8 confident that, you know, we were not doing anything
9 that either we shouldn't be doing or that we were
10 authorised to do, but we were not.
11 Nevertheless, this is an important thing for
12 a Royal Princess to say, and so David and I discussed,
13 and he was adamant that on this, as with her personal
14 protection, she was not prepared to assist us in any
15 way. In fact, he suggested that she almost jokingly
16 suggested it suited her because if she believed that
17 people were bugging some parts of her life, to use her
18 language, then she can actually use mobile phones and
19 other things to do what she wanted to do. So it was --
20 it sounds slightly bizarre, but it was almost -- part of
21 the conversation was light-hearted and almost teasing.
22 But David had made it absolutely clear to her that the
23 police were not doing anything in relation to that.
24 I discussed it with David, and we realised that
25 without her support -- and he had asked her several

165

1 times -- we had and we have -- we had experts who could
2 have tested for any devices, but she was not prepared to
3 assist us to do that.
4 Q. Right. Then how does the Home Secretary come into it
5 because there is an indication that you briefed him. We
6 have the date. That's not long after. It's
7 21st October 1994.
8 A. At that stage, the Home Secretary of the day was, as
9 an individual, the Police Authority for the
10 Metropolitan Police. So when I was Chief Constable of
11 Kent, I had an authority committee of local politicians
12 and magistrates, and so I would regularly report to my
13 Police Authority and my Police Committee. In London, at
14 that time, although it's since changed, the
15 Home Secretary of the day was, as an individual, the
16 Police Authority and responsible for the
17 Metropolitan Police.
18 I felt that if she had made this suggestion to
19 David Meynell, that the police were bugging her, that
20 was something which my Police Authority ought to be made
21 aware of and ought to be assured that I had made the
22 necessary inquiries and could give a categoric assurance
23 that we were not.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard, when you reach
25 a convenient moment, we need to have a break for the

166

1 shorthand writers.
2 MR HILLIARD: Yes. Can we just finish this topic and then
3 we will deal with the other ones after the break?
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
5 MR HILLIARD: Yes.
6 A. I felt it was something -- I had regular meetings,
7 monthly meetings, with the Home Secretary, as my Police
8 Authority. Again I do not have a complete memory of
9 this, but I am assuming that perhaps that was
10 a scheduled meeting on the 21st and I took the
11 opportunity, along with a whole range of issues that
12 would have affected me as Commissioner, to bring the
13 Home Secretary up to date.
14 Q. Did you have any hesitation in making the Home Secretary
15 aware of what it was she was saying?
16 A. No. This was a very difficult time for me in relation
17 to these issues because the Princess and Prince Charles
18 were going through what I guess has probably been one of
19 the most publicised marriage break-ups in modern times.
20 I was actually very determined, as Commissioner,
21 that we would do what was right and proper and lawful in
22 relation to that marriage break-up. We would not take
23 sides, we would not, if you like, make efforts to
24 support one or get drawn into the difficulties of any
25 marriage when it breaks up. So it was a tightrope we

167

1 were walking, to do what we had to do but to make sure
2 that we showed no partiality, and that was a very strong
3 steer to my colleagues.
4 So our relationships with the Princess at times were
5 tense and difficult, because she was at a very difficult
6 point in her life. She wasn't certain who to trust.
7 But this seemed to me an important enough issue that
8 it's something I ought to mention, along with other
9 issues, when I saw the Police Authority.
10 Q. And it was your choice to do that?
11 A. Oh yes.
12 MR HILLIARD: All right.
13 Sir, if that would be a convenient moment.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Hilliard, would counsel like
15 to discuss, during the break, how long is likely to be
16 required to conclude Lord Condon's evidence and I will
17 make inquiries of the jury.
18 Lord Condon, I take it you would like, if you can,
19 to finish this afternoon?
20 A. I would if possible, sir, but I have cleared tomorrow
21 morning in anticipation.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. That's a very
23 dangerous thing to say to counsel.
24 (3.20 pm)
25 (A short break)

168

1 (3.35 pm)
2 (Jury present)
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Madam Foreman, do you have
4 any information on sitting time?
5 JURY FOREMAN: We can only sit until 4.30 tonight, my Lord.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you. Well that seems to me
7 to be perfectly reasonable bearing in mind it was
8 5 o'clock yesterday and you are collected at 7 o'clock
9 in the morning.
10 MR HILLIARD: Lord Condon, the next topic I wanted to ask
11 for your help about is this: we are going to hear
12 evidence from a Mr David Davies, who I think, when he
13 retired from the Metropolitan Police, was a chief
14 superintendent and had worked with the Royalty
15 Protection Group. Do you know the gentleman concerned?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. We have heard about a passage in a witness statement
18 that he made that said this. He said that through
19 intelligence -- and in a subsequent statement he made it
20 plain that that was information he had received from
21 another Royalty Protection Group officer -- so with
22 information of that kind in 1997, he had become aware of
23 the Princess of Wales' intention to take up
24 Mr Al Fayed's intention to take the two Princes on
25 holiday to the South of France.

169

1 I will just read this to you. He says:
2 "Having validated that intelligence, I informed DAC
3 [Deputy Assistant Commissioner] Fry, who was then Acting
4 Assistant Commissioner, who informed the Commissioner,
5 Sir Paul Condon. I went to see the head of the then
6 known Organised Crime Group, who gave me a briefing as
7 to the nature of the inquiry in respect of Mr Fayed for
8 allegations I believe appertaining to the Tiny Rowlands
9 affair.
10 "Following that, I was directed by the Commissioner
11 to inform Her Majesty the Queen via her private
12 secretary, Sir Robert Fellowes, who I remember
13 telephoning the next day. I was informed by him that
14 Her Majesty was aware. I repeated the advice as I was
15 not sure that he had fully understood me, but his reply
16 was the same. I should clarify that the collective
17 wisdom of the Commissioner and myself of the advice that
18 should be given to the Queen, that it was unwise for the
19 intended holiday to take place at all."
20 So that's what is in Mr Davies' statement. As
21 I say, that's been trailed in the last few days. Can
22 you help us with anything about that?
23 A. I am in some real difficulty, sir, in the sense that
24 I don't remember the events in that way at all. I am
25 not suggesting that Mr Davies is in any way misleading,

170

1 but that's not how I remember it. There are two issues
2 that make me feel that maybe Mr Davies' recollection is
3 not wholly accurate, although it's for him to explain
4 that.
5 Those two things are these: probably the most
6 important is that if I was going to give some advice to
7 Her Majesty the Queen on something as sensitive as that,
8 that's something I would do personally, probably.
9 I think I would have done that personally or would have
10 asked David Veness or someone at a very senior level.
11 I had a professional working relationship with
12 Sir Robert Fellowes, the Queen's private secretary, and
13 had had many meetings with him about a range of issues
14 over the previous years, and it doesn't ring right to
15 me, doesn't ring true, that that is -- because I have no
16 memory of it. It just doesn't feel right. That's
17 something I would have done, although --
18 Q. What the idea that you would get, as it were, him --
19 A. No disrespect to a chief superintendent, but in the sort
20 of pecking order of how these things are done and the
21 status and all of that, to have -- to suggest some
22 advice to Her Majesty through her private secretary
23 would have been something that I would have thought
24 would have been done at a senior level and I have no
25 memory of having done that or certainly of having asked

171

1 Mr Davies to do that.
2 I think the second thing that troubles me about that
3 sort of account is that, again to the best of my
4 memory -- and these are events of ten years ago -- if we
5 are talking about July 1997, I think we are talking --
6 Q. There or thereabouts, yes.
7 A. To the honest, best of my memory, I don't think I really
8 became much aware of the dispute between Mr Al Fayed and
9 Tiny Rowland until about February 1998. If you want me
10 to, I can explain why that was the sort of significant
11 date.
12 Certainly to the best of my memory, round about
13 July 1997, that as an issue would have been barely on my
14 radar, so to speak, as Commissioner. It was a dispute
15 between two fairly extrovert businessmen around the
16 theft of some property, remembering back to it.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. That's not an issue that I would have sort of gone out
19 of my way or asked anyone to go out of their way to talk
20 to the Palace about. If Mr Davies has different
21 recollections, then clearly you and others will explore
22 it with him. But it just doesn't ring -- certainly
23 I have no memory of that, and it just doesn't ring true
24 with how things would be done.
25 Q. Right. Next, please, your involvement with something

172

1 that's been called the "Mishcon note".
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. There are two notes that we are going to need to look at
4 for this. Sir, I am told that the documents should be
5 in the jury's divider 15. So we have the note itself,
6 [INQ0006335]. That's a note, I am sure you remember, of
7 a meeting on 30th October 1995.
8 A. Yes, I have a copy of that.
9 Q. You have a copy. We will get that on the screen perhaps
10 first and just look at that. Then, after that, there is
11 the note of a meeting on 18th September of 1997 which we
12 will look at as well.
13 Now, is this right, that on 18th September of 1997
14 at 11.30 or so, according to the note, in the morning,
15 you had a meeting at New Scotland Yard in your office
16 with Lord Mishcon and David Veness, then the Assistant
17 Commissioner Special Operations. He was present as
18 well; is that right?
19 A. Yes, he was.
20 Q. He took a note of the meeting, we have heard -- there is
21 no dispute about this -- that was signed by the three of
22 you who were present at it.
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. In the course of the meeting, did Lord Mishcon discuss
25 the meeting that he had had with the Princess of Wales

173

1 on 30th October 1995 --
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. -- in which she had expressed concerns for her safety
4 and certain views that she held at the time; is that
5 right?
6 A. Yes, yes, it is.
7 Q. Did Lord Mishcon produce a copy of the note? I don't
8 know if it was a copy of the handwritten or the typed,
9 but is it a copy of this note that we have?
10 A. Yes, he did.
11 Q. Had you ever seen that before?
12 A. No, I hadn't.
13 Q. Did he give you an opportunity to read that?
14 A. Yes, he read it, and then, from memory, I think
15 I then -- I am a fairly quick reader -- I think I read
16 it then myself as well, yes.
17 Q. Did it follow from the note, his note, that the fears
18 she had been expressing then had been expressed, as it
19 turned out, something like almost two years before her
20 death; is that right?
21 A. Yes. We went through and discussed the nature of the
22 meeting and the fears that she had articulated at that
23 meeting.
24 Q. So it followed that the fears that she expressed if, as
25 it were, there was good cause behind those, that had not

174

1 been acted on for -- she had not died, as it were -- do
2 you follow -- for a period of something like two years?
3 A. As it was conveyed to me by Lord Mishcon, this was
4 a very specific time-limited fear linked to events
5 between October 1995 and April 1996, and none of those
6 events had occurred.
7 Q. Right. In particular -- just forgive me for spelling
8 this out; it is obvious -- you would obviously have
9 appreciated that the Queen had not abdicated in April of
10 1996, nor had the Prince of Wales assumed the throne;
11 yes?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Just help us. For our purposes -- again forgive me for
14 spelling out the obvious -- but anything that was behind
15 the fears she was expressing at that time, it must
16 follow, mustn't it, that they couldn't have been
17 anything to do with Mr Dodi Al Fayed because there was
18 no question of a relationship between the two of them in
19 1995, as you understand it?
20 A. As we discussed, the nature of the meeting, the note and
21 what should be done about it, it was apparent that these
22 were very specific fears linked to events at that time,
23 at a very low point in her life and her marriage, and
24 the meeting was actually about -- I guess it was in the
25 foothills of sort of discussing divorce. So the meeting

175

1 was about divorce. These were asides that the late
2 Diana had made and, quite properly, Lord Mishcon had
3 felt he wanted to make a note of them.
4 Q. Anyway, after the meeting started, you are aware of the
5 information in the note, and then, Lord Condon -- again
6 we have looked at this before, but it is important and
7 I want to look at the detail with you -- the note that
8 Mr Veness, as he then was, took -- do you have a copy of
9 that?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. It explains -- it's a note of a meeting between those we
12 have said on that date -- that Lord Mishcon's note of
13 30th October 1995 was read out by him, who emphasised
14 that he was doing so in his personal capacity and not on
15 behalf of his firm or the family. You said you
16 appreciated being informed of what had transpired and
17 regarded it as highly proper that he should have brought
18 this matter to your prompt attention.
19 It then records this:
20 "It was [your] the Commissioner's view on the
21 facts of the accident as so far ascertained that this
22 occurrence was purely the result of a tragic set of
23 circumstances, but if ever it appeared that there were
24 some suspicious factors, his possession of the
25 memorandum would at once be referred to with contact at

176

1 a confidential level being made with Lord Mishcon and/or
2 his firm (Mr Julius)", who we know worked there as well.
3 Then the second page:
4 "It was agreed that meanwhile this matter should be
5 treated in the utmost confidence since any leakage could
6 do immeasurable harm and cause needless pain. The
7 Commissioner authorised Lord Mishcon, when reporting to
8 members of the family, to tell them that if any one of
9 them wished to see him on this matter or anything
10 related to it, he would be pleased to see them.
11 "The Commissioner said that the copy memorandum with
12 which he had been supplied would be held with the utmost
13 security in his office. It was agreed that knowledge of
14 the memorandum or its contents should, if possible, be
15 limited to those who were already apprised of them,
16 including members of the immediate family, ie the
17 Princess of Wales' sisters and brother."
18 As you recall it, is that an accurate note of the
19 meeting?
20 A. Yes, I mean it doesn't convey every nuance of the
21 meeting or --
22 Q. No.
23 A. But it's -- in essence --
24 Q. The heads of agreement?
25 A. In essence it records accurately and honestly the nature

177

1 of the meeting.
2 Q. Yes. It follows from that, does it, that Lord Mishcon,
3 in addition to Mr Veness, was also happy with the course
4 of action that was proposed?
5 A. Yes. I think it's important to put it in context in the
6 sense that Lord Mishcon -- when we discussed this, he
7 had thought about this for 18 days, since the death
8 of -- tragic deaths of the three people in the car, and
9 I think he rang me either on the day or the day before
10 and said could he come and see me and have a discussion
11 and I agreed.
12 The context of the meeting was he asked me: did I,
13 did the police here, believe that the accident or the
14 events in France were an accident as portrayed in the
15 public domain? I confirmed that, based on everything we
16 knew at that stage, that was the case.
17 He then went on to discuss the nature of his meeting
18 with Diana and he expressed the view that at the time he
19 didn't attach credence to her concerns, but felt it was
20 important to record them, and he was anxious -- he
21 was -- in our discussions he had concerns about what
22 might happen to the information, and I think he had --
23 he articulated two particular concerns. One, I think
24 the pain that would be caused to the young Princes, who
25 I think at the time were 15 and 12, who had just lost

178

1 their mother, as others have lost people in this car
2 crash, and I think he was very concerned that, should
3 this be placed in the public domain at that time, they
4 would realise that their mother had had these thoughts
5 at some time, that their mother had expressed views
6 about their father not acceding to the throne and that
7 this would be very painful, unnecessarily painful, to
8 the young Princes.
9 I think the other fear that he articulated was that
10 by making this public at that point, it would play into
11 the hands of critics of Diana who wanted to suggest she
12 was unbalanced at times and so on, and so those were
13 his -- those were the concerns that were articulated to
14 me and I could understand them. We then -- that's what
15 led to the discussion about what best to do with the
16 information at that point.
17 Q. Right.
18 A. That led to the note, that led to the agreement that
19 I would keep that note, and that, if at any point we had
20 or anyone had concerns about the circumstances in
21 France, we would revisit this with Lord Mishcon
22 initially and then take whatever action seemed
23 appropriate.
24 Q. Then again I think it follows from this note, but just
25 to spell it out -- is this right, that you were given to

179

1 understand that some family members of the Princess of
2 Wales were, in any event, aware of the note? Is that
3 right?
4 A. Yes. I think Lord Mishcon, bearing in mind it was
5 18 days or so after the incident -- clearly in
6 preparation for coming to see me -- had discussed it
7 with her immediate family.
8 Q. It records at the bottom, I think, that her sisters and
9 brother were aware of the contents.
10 A. That I cannot guarantee, but that was my belief at the
11 time.
12 Q. That's certainly what the note records, isn't it.
13 A. Yes, that is what Lord Mishcon was suggesting and that
14 is what we recorded.
15 Q. So, as it were, in addition to the three of you who knew
16 about it, the information that you were given was that
17 members of her family were also aware of the contents of
18 that note?
19 A. Yes.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you have any recollection of
21 Lord Mishcon giving any indication as to what their
22 views might be as to what ought to be done with the
23 note?
24 A. No, not detailed recollection, sir, but the impression
25 I had was that there were fears by Lord Mishcon and

180

1 perhaps by the family, but I do not have detailed
2 memories, that if this was made public unnecessarily, it
3 would damage the reputation of the late Diana.
4 MR HILLIARD: Certainly, Lord Condon, at the top of the
5 page, it was apparently agreed that it would be treated
6 in the utmost confidence because of the possible
7 consequences that are set out there. Certainly nothing
8 in the note to indicate, for example, that the members
9 of the family were saying that they were bursting for it
10 to be made public, is there?
11 A. No, I had -- as part of our discussion, I made it very,
12 very clear that I was happy to discuss this with any
13 members of the family at any time.
14 Q. Yes. Right. Indeed you didn't just make that clear.
15 You authorised him to tell the family that.
16 A. Yes. I mean, in a sense -- Lord Mishcon was a man of
17 his generation and his time, very correct, very proper,
18 very formal, and in a sense he wanted an absolute
19 clarity around what we had decided and what was going to
20 be done and who was going to do what. So in a sense it
21 was -- there was a formality to recording what
22 everyone's understanding of what was going to happen
23 next was.
24 Q. It records, on the first page, what your view at the
25 time was of the crash, but that if it appeared to you

181

1 that there were some suspicious factors, then, as it
2 were, the matter would be revisited. That's the effect
3 of what the note says, isn't it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So far as the circumstances of the accident were
6 concerned, the French were obviously carrying out
7 an investigation. Did you ask Mr Veness to monitor the
8 situation on your behalf?
9 A. Yes, I did. I was aware that we were working very
10 closely to support the French in France and, if
11 necessary, in the UK, and that when David Veness and
12 I discussed, after Lord Mishcon had left, what would
13 happen next, I made it absolutely clear that David
14 would, on my behalf, monitor the French Inquiry, and if
15 there was anything at all which required us to revisit
16 this issue, then we would do so.
17 Q. In the time that you were Commissioner of the
18 Metropolitan Police, as it were, was anything brought to
19 your attention that would have caused you to revisit and
20 change the decision you had made in the period that you
21 were Commissioner?
22 A. No. At the time we made the note and recorded the note
23 and agreed on the action, we had no sense of timescales
24 as to what would happen next, but my expectation was
25 that over a matter of months the inquiry would be

182

1 completed and, within a year or so, inquests would take
2 place in the United Kingdom.
3 So as it happens, it's many years beyond that. So,
4 if you like, I had an expectation that over a matter of
5 months and maybe a year or so, these matters would be
6 concluded. It took far longer. But during my time as
7 Commissioner, my remaining two and a bit years, I was
8 never made aware of anything whatsoever to suggest that
9 this was anything other than a tragic collision, the
10 details of which were broadly in the public domain.
11 Q. Now just before you finished your period of office as
12 Commissioner, which, as we know, was the end of January
13 of 2000 -- I think on 19th January of that year -- did
14 you brief your successor, then Sir John Stevens, about
15 this matter?
16 A. Yes I did. Although I was Commissioner until the end of
17 the month, that was, in effect, my last working week.
18 So the Friday of that particular week, which included
19 the 19th, was my last working week as Commissioner, and
20 it was important that I did everything that needed to be
21 done in terms of handover. In many ways that was sort
22 of the -- one of the final pieces of the jigsaw of
23 handing over to the now Lord Stevens.
24 I had a meeting with John, I took him through the
25 details of the meeting with Lord Mishcon, I took him

183

1 through what we had done, I unsealed the envelope from
2 my safe that contained this information. John read it,
3 we re-sealed it and I made it absolutely clear that
4 I kept no copies, no notes. I am not someone who ever
5 intended to write a book or keep diaries, so what was
6 left with the Met was -- it was very important that
7 Lord Stevens, as the in-coming Commissioner, knew of
8 this obligation to Lord Mishcon.
9 Then subsequently, and it's something that was not
10 in my statement -- but subsequently, when the Burrell
11 material was published in 2003, I in fact rang up
12 John Stevens, who was then Commissioner, just to make
13 sure that this documentation was still available and
14 would be acted upon.
15 Q. Right. Then, as we know, end of January of 2000, you
16 leave the job.
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. I just want to ask you this, please, in conclusion: it
19 was suggested to Sir David Veness yesterday that he knew
20 that something improper had happened in Paris -- you
21 will understand, Lord Condon, that by "improper" is
22 meant the murder of two wholly innocent people -- and
23 that knowing something improper had happened in Paris,
24 he covered it up. That was the suggestion that was made
25 to him. It may be, for all I know, because you were

184

1 present at this meeting with him and you had sight of
2 the Mishcon note, that the same suggestion will be made
3 to you.
4 What I want to know is this: is there any truth
5 whatsoever in the suggestion that you, as Commissioner
6 of the Metropolitan Police, took part in a cover-up of
7 murder?
8 A. That is absolutely wrong. It would be an absolute
9 betrayal of everything I stand for, who I am, what
10 David Veness stands for, who he is, how we have spent
11 our lives as police officers. I can understand why it's
12 being put forward by the legal representatives of
13 Mr Al Fayed and I respect their right to do so, but it
14 is -- it would be contrary to absolutely everything
15 I have ever stood for in my life.
16 Whilst I have enormous respect and admiration for
17 the Royal Family and I have served them loyally as
18 Commissioner, my first responsibility always was to the
19 law and to my role as Commissioner. I would never, ever
20 betray that responsibility in the manner that has been
21 suggested. I am absolutely confident that David Veness
22 would not either.
23 Q. Just so we are clear, because -- you say you are
24 confident that nor would Sir David Veness, but you have
25 explained that just towards the end of your period as

185

1 Commissioner, you briefed your successor about the
2 matter, he had access to the note and it wasn't for some
3 years until 2003 that anything happened to it.
4 So discussed between yourself and Sir David Veness,
5 but in addition was there any question of there being
6 any agreement with Lord Stevens to cover up murder in
7 Paris?
8 A. Absolutely not. Again, that would be a betrayal of
9 everything John Stevens has stood for in his career.
10 Q. You may have been in court when the suggestion was
11 raised that had Mr Burrell been involved in a cover-up
12 of any kind. Were you aware at any time of
13 a wide-ranging cover-up involving no doubt others, but
14 including Mr Burrell and officers in the
15 Metropolitan Police? Were you aware of anything like
16 that at all?
17 A. No. Clearly the coroner and the jury will -- it's their
18 role to decide at the end of this process, but if you
19 are asking me now my honest belief, then, since then,
20 during everything I have heard or read during this
21 inquest, I believe that what happened on that night was
22 the result of what is known to have happened on that
23 night. It doesn't in any way involve a conspiracy
24 involving members of the Royal Family or the security
25 services or anyone else at all. I think this was

186

1 a tragic incident, the facts of which have been broadly
2 known for many years, and I am not aware -- I am on
3 oath -- of anything at all that would take us away from
4 that finding.
5 MR HILLIARD: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you very
6 much, Lord Condon.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
8 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
9 MR MANSFIELD: My name is Michael Mansfield. I represent
10 Mohamed Al Fayed.
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. I want to make it clear to you that I will not, I am
13 afraid, be able to finish by 4.30 today.
14 A. That's quite all right.
15 Q. Furthermore, I am going to request your help and I am
16 going to make it clear why I am asking. Do you follow?
17 I appreciate that you have retired, but there are others
18 in the room who are not retired, and no doubt, with the
19 influence you have had in the past, you would be able to
20 make inquiries overnight to see if documentation can be
21 produced in relation to points I want to put to you. Do
22 you follow that?
23 A. Yes, I do, sir.
24 Q. Are you prepared to help in that way?
25 A. I will help this inquest in any way I can, sir.

187

1 Q. Thank you. The reason I want your help at various
2 stages for documents is that there is, if I may put it
3 to you boldly at the start, an extraordinary pattern of
4 inaction in relation to complaints and activities
5 surrounding Princess Diana -- do you follow what I am
6 putting to you -- by the police.
7 A. I don't agree with it, but I understand what you are
8 saying.
9 Q. I am going to suggest, even on the topics that you have
10 been asked about today, which starts with --
11 I appreciate, just before you took over -- the Squidgy
12 tapes, and then moving forward to October 1994 and then
13 moving forward, of course, to the Mishcon note itself.
14 So you appreciate, I am going to suggest in each
15 case there is this extraordinary inaction and there can
16 only be one or two explanations at the most. If I may,
17 we will come to the possibilities.
18 May I go through in stages first of all? I would
19 like to identify what documentation ought to exist, if
20 we are wrong in our suggestions, to show that we are
21 wrong. Do you follow?
22 A. I follow what you are saying, sir, yes.
23 Q. Let us start at the beginning. It happened in 1989, but
24 it was broadcast in 1992, in fact on 25th August 1992,
25 very shortly before effectively you were, as it were, in

188

1 the induction period, before you became Commissioner; is
2 that right?
3 A. I think it was probably late October that I became
4 Commissioner Designate.
5 Q. First of all, did the police conduct, to your knowledge,
6 any investigation of what had happened in relation to
7 this incident? That's the recording of a call on
8 a landline from Sandringham to a mobile phone.
9 A. Not that I am aware of, sir, no.
10 Q. So there will be no documentation, as far as you are
11 concerned, on that?
12 A. I have certainly not seen any.
13 Q. I will have to come back to the topic later, but there
14 is no documentation that you are aware of in relation to
15 that because you are saying there was no investigation?
16 A. No, I am not saying that. You are saying that, sir.
17 I am saying that I am not aware of -- I have not seen --
18 I am not aware of any investigation.
19 Q. I am sorry. I am not a police officer, I am not inside
20 New Scotland Yard. You are or were the Commissioner.
21 If there was an investigation that you know nothing
22 about -- then I start with that -- would you very kindly
23 overnight, finally, before it's too late, discover, so
24 that you can come back either tomorrow or some other
25 day, and say one way or another whether there was

189

1 a police investigation? Could you help with that?
2 A. I will certainly do my very best, sir.
3 Q. Thank you. That's question number one. Question number
4 two: if you were to ask in relation to the security
5 services -- and we have already had an inquiry, we don't
6 know how far its got, of the security services -- and
7 may I give you the background to this? Inspector Wharfe
8 says he was told by Princess Diana that the Queen was
9 angry about what had happened in this instance and had
10 asked for an investigation by the security services.
11 Firstly, did you know that?
12 A. No, I didn't, and I have no -- the fact you are saying
13 it doesn't make it true.
14 Q. No. You have got an open mind, haven't you?
15 A. Absolutely.
16 Q. I am not suggesting it is. I am asking for an inquiry.
17 You don't jump to conclusions, do you?
18 A. No. I hope you don't either, sir.
19 Q. No, I am not. I certainly haven't. Please don't be too
20 defensive. I am asking questions purely to discover
21 whether the truth is firstly that the Queen did ask, and
22 secondly, that the security services did what she asked.
23 Do you follow?
24 A. I am and I will answer very truthfully, sir. I am not
25 aware that the Queen asked. I would be surprised if she

190

1 had.
2 Q. Yes. You might be.
3 A. But I am not aware that she asked or that an inquiry was
4 carried out.
5 Q. Please don't be surprised by anything in this --
6 A. Well, I am giving you my honest response based on my
7 knowledge, albeit limited as Commissioner, of the sort
8 of things Her Majesty might get drawn into or not.
9 Q. Of course if people are getting into her personal
10 residences to record, one way or another, a telephone
11 which she herself might use, are you saying she is not
12 justified in asking and mi