Hearing transcripts

18 March 2008 - Afternoon session

2 (2.00 pm)
3 MR HILLIARD: Sir, I raised before we broke off the question
4 to be dealt with now and I inadvertently said that
5 Mr Tam wanted to raise something. He has corrected me
6 and he is right. But I know that he just wanted to be
7 here when the question of a further statement -- I think
8 you have seen a copy of it -- from Mr Mohamed Al Fayed
9 was raised.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 MR HILLIARD: So, it may be convenient to do that now.
12 I asked for the jury to remain out only for this
13 reason, that it seemed to me that as the question was
14 whether there should be any course taken and if so what,
15 it would really be premature for them to be here until
16 that had been decided. Obviously once a decision is
17 made, then they will be here.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Well, I had better hear
19 what Mr Mansfield has to say.
20 Submissions by MR MANSFIELD
21 MR MANSFIELD: I understand something else was going to be
22 said; it changes by the minute, like the sea.
23 However, you asked last night, in response to -- and
24 I will not define it for the moment -- an interjection
25 by Mr Phillips in relation to a statement to be read

82

1 and, sir, you are aware of the contents so I do not take
2 time.
3 You asked in front of the jury that I might, because
4 at that stage I did not have all the materials that
5 I now have.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
7 MR MANSFIELD: Mainly because, as you are aware, I was not
8 involved in fact in the other matter at all, although in
9 fact I would like obviously an opportunity to make clear
10 that when the statement of Martin Smith refers to his
11 legal representatives, that does not include myself or
12 my junior or my instructing solicitor.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Having read Mr Phillips'
14 interjection, it seemed to me that one of the matters
15 that was concerning him was that there had been no
16 correction from the Ritz Hotel or those representing
17 the Ritz of what was plainly wrong in the evidence
18 Mr Al Fayed.
19 Submissions by MR CROXFORD
20 MR CROXFORD: Can I deal with it?
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is one matter.
22 MR CROXFORD: First of all, I rise because I was that
23 counsel but not as counsel for the Ritz. Secondly,
24 the question of correction was dealt with with your
25 counsel immediately, or so soon afterwards as one could

83

1 respectably call immediately, I being conscious of
2 course of the prohibition upon disclosure of the content
3 of the draft judgment.
4 But you may have noticed Mr Burnett looking at me
5 quizzically, my looking back at him absolutely po-faced
6 during the course of the hearing. It was not a matter,
7 with the greatest of respect, for me to correct or for
8 my client to correct, whether for the benefit of
9 Mr Phillips, however strongly he may have felt about it,
10 or indeed with respect for the purposes of these
11 inquests. It is a matter for your counsel. It was made
12 clear to you --
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It has now been corrected.
14 MR CROXFORD: With respect, it was made clear immediately to
15 Mr Burnett. Not surprisingly, he and I had
16 a conversation at the Bar in which we exchanged views as
17 soon as one could after the court had risen.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Well now, Mr Mansfield,
19 the position is that I have been provided with
20 a statement. I do not know where it came from but it
21 did not come from your instructing solicitors through
22 the inquest office. But it certainly reached me.
23 MR MANSFIELD: I made it perfectly clear to Martin Smith
24 this morning. I do not know what the problem is at the
25 moment.

84

1 I came into court this morning. I provided
2 Mr Burnett with a copy which was intended for you and
3 the court as soon as I had it. I had it this morning.
4 So, there is no problem there.
5 The contents of the statement is clear on the face
6 of it, my intention in the presence of the jury is in
7 fact, of course if you ask that it be read, I will read
8 it but what I was intending to do is, because it may be
9 difficult for jurors to follow the points that are being
10 made on instructions and these are they, make clear
11 Mr Al Fayed's position.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: He has given evidence on oath and
13 I have re-read the passage in his evidence and it seems
14 to me that if he wishes to correct what he said on oath,
15 that ought to be done on oath in the witness box and he
16 can the jury about it.
17 MR MANSFIELD: I have no objection about that.
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And then there is absolutely no
19 doubt about where everybody is.
20 MR MANSFIELD: May I say one more thing? It is extremely
21 important in this case, if I may say so, and Mr Al Fayed
22 is here so he can give his own evidence.
23 I didn't say anything yesterday and I have not said
24 anything in front of the jury today but what happened
25 last night was totally improper. Mr Phillips knows

85

1 that. What he should have done, and what I have done on
2 every single occasion when there has been a need to
3 raise something that adversely affects someone else, not
4 just a mild inquiry, I have asked for the jury to
5 retire. What happened last night was highly prejudicial
6 and if I may say so, totally out of order.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am bound to say I was somewhat
8 surprised.
9 MR MANSFIELD: I would ask, if Mr Phillips is gracious
10 enough to do so, that an apology is made for the manner
11 of his interjection. But subject to that, I have no
12 other matter than perhaps that Mr Al Fayed gives
13 evidence on that matter.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, yes.
15 Well, Mr Tam, you are present, have you anything to
16 say?
17 MR TAM: Sir, obviously I was not present yesterday evening.
18 I have only myself just seen the statement which has
19 been very kindly handed to me. There is probably
20 nothing that I can usefully add now on the substance,
21 I am content to leave it in your hands to see whether or
22 not you and Mr Al Fayed might take the opportunity to do
23 what has been suggested.
24 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. Very well, we will have
25 the jury back then.

86

1 MR HILLIARD: Thinking amongst ourselves, it might be
2 convenient for us to do that now.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Absolutely, that is what I had in
4 mind. (Pause).
5 (Jury present)
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, I recall
7 Mr Mohamed Al Fayed.
8 MR MOHAMED AL FAYED (recalled)
9 Questions from MR HILLIARD
10 MR HILLIARD: You took an oath already, Mr Al Fayed, so you
11 are still bound by that.
12 A. That is right.
13 Q. Just this, to put it into context what I am going to ask
14 you about: do you remember that a statement was read
15 from Mr Martin Smith. I am just going to summarise it
16 in a moment, about another case, some other legal
17 proceedings that you had been involved in.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That was read and then, do you remember, Mr Phillips
20 yesterday made some observations about that. And as you
21 know, the Coroner has decided that you can go back into
22 the witness box so that we can explore the question.
23 All right.
24 Now, just so that everybody has the context of this,
25 the statement that Mr Smith made and that was read

87

1 summarises the position and he said this, if you listen
2 carefully: when you gave evidence to the inquests on
3 18th February of this year, Mr Burnett asked you about
4 adverse comments made by a judge about evidence that you
5 had given in another case. Those comments were made by
6 a judge called Mr Justice Mann and the judgment was in
7 the case of Fulham Leisure Holdings v
8 Nicholson Graham & Jones. And that judgment in that
9 case by Mr Justice Mann was handed down on
10 31st July 2006.
11 Mr Burnett asked you about the comments that
12 the judge made and you said this:
13 "But judgment has been cancelled, and in my appeal,
14 I won the case."
15 And then Mr Burnett asked you whether you accepted
16 the findings that the judge, Mr Justice Mann had made,
17 and you said:
18 "No, I am not accepting and I appealed this judgment
19 and I won."
20 Mr Burnett then pointed out that the appeal
21 concerned a technical point of law, and not the findings
22 that the judge had made about your evidence and again,
23 you said that you had won the appeal.
24 Mr Burnett pointed out that the result of the case
25 was not known to you by then. So, all that happened on

88

1 18th February.
2 Then, on 28th February, so ten days later the Court
3 of Appeal did hand the judgment down in that case, the
4 Fulham Leisure Holdings case. And in short, as
5 Mr Smith's statement says, your company lost the appeal.
6 And it was also apparent from the judgment that
7 the appeal was on a technical point of law, and that
8 what Mr Justice Mann had said about your evidence had
9 not been the subject of the appeal.
10 And so the question obviously arises, if you could
11 not have known, as I think you accept you did not, on
12 18th February, that the appeal had been won, why did you
13 say to the jury what you did? Do you want to explain?
14 A. What I mentioned that I won the appeal against judgment
15 to appeal his judgment. But I do not know the result
16 about the other court case. This is what I mean.
17 Q. So I have the benefit of a statement that you have made
18 about this. What you have said in that is this: after
19 Mr Justice Mann gave his judgment, your lawyers sought
20 permission from him to appeal his findings?
21 A. And he refused and then I took him to appeal court and
22 my court appeal have been won and this is what I mean.
23 Q. So, he having refused you permission to appeal his
24 judgment --
25 A. That is right.

89

1 Q. -- you then went to the Court of Appeal itself and asked
2 for permission to appeal it and you were given that?
3 A. That is right. And this is what I mean when Mr Burnett
4 was asking.
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: That is not the same thing as
6 winning the case then, is it?
7 A. But I did not mention winning the case. I meant winning
8 the appeal, this is what I mean.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: "I won the case", page 114,
10 line 15.
11 A. But I won the case, the appeal case, against
12 the judgment of Judge Mann. That is what I mean.
13 Mr Burnett confused me, right? And I was not really
14 informed that the other case I lost.
15 MR HILLIARD: What you had, the part that you had won, was
16 permission to even have an appeal, wasn't it?
17 A. That is right, and this is what I meant.
18 Q. But do you appreciate that that is very different --
19 A. Not to have somebody come and call me a liar, it is not
20 acceptable, right?
21 Q. Did you not appreciate that that was really very
22 different from winning the case itself.
23 A. Yes. But what I have said exactly that I won
24 the appeal. I did not mention anything about the other
25 case, right. And this is what I meant.

90

1 MR HILLIARD: All right, thank you.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Anybody want to ask any
3 questions?
4 MR CROXFORD: No thank you, sir.
5 A. I would like an apology. It is not acceptable to call
6 me a liar in front of the jury.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is for the jury to decide
8 whether you told the truth or not and they can make up
9 their own minds about your explanation.
10 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
11 MR MANSFIELD: If there are not any other questions flowing,
12 if I may clarify with you what you are saying.
13 First of all, when you gave evidence on 18th
14 February, the final judgment in the appeal in the
15 Fulham Leisure Holdings case had not been made known to
16 you, had it?
17 A. That is right.
18 Q. And in fact, you did not even know that it existed; in
19 other words, that one had been written or communicated
20 to anybody. You did not even know of its existence, did
21 you?
22 A. That is right.
23 Q. So you did not know the final result of the appeal and
24 when you were saying to this court that you won, is it
25 right that what you meant by "I won", was you had won

91

1 the right to appeal on that case, on part of the case?
2 A. That is right. And this is what I meant.
3 Q. That is what you meant?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In fact, going back to the trial, on the major issue of
6 liability, you brought the case, that one, you won it at
7 trial, the liability issue?
8 A. That is right.
9 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you. That is what I wanted to clarify.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Al Fayed, your difficulty is
11 that the answer you gave on 18th February, "But
12 the judgment has been cancelled and in my appeal, I won
13 the case". That simply was not correct, was it?
14 A. I won the appeal to appeal the case, of the judge.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Very well. Thank you.
16 MR MANSFIELD: Nothing further, sir.
17 Sir, that hopefully completes the matter bar one
18 other thing, which I raised a moment ago in the absence
19 of the jury, but I raise it again in the presence of the
20 jury and that is that the interjection yesterday by
21 Mr Phillips -- and I see no questions have been asked
22 today on anyone's behalf in relation to that -- and
23 I make no bones about it, was improper. And it should
24 never have been put in that way and Mr Phillips knows
25 perfectly well that observations of that kind, if they

92

1 are going to be made and I have taken great care during
2 these proceedings to ensure that if there are any
3 observations that are adverse to another party, or
4 interested person, to be precise, that they are made in
5 the initial stages in the absence of the jury so that
6 the matter can be properly dealt with.
7 In fact, if I were to have done the same in relation
8 to Mr Dearlove, whose evidence about a certain matter
9 was utterly contradicted and seemed to be wrong by later
10 witnesses, if I had done what Mr Phillips did yesterday,
11 I would have been rightly reprimanded for doing that and
12 I would ask now that Mr Phillips apologises.
13 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, as to the manner of my interjection,
14 I had mentioned on a number of occasions to counsel for
15 the tribunal that some explanation was required. It
16 seemed to me yesterday that the statement had been read
17 in a characteristic low key manner and was immediately
18 followed by another statement on a totally unrelated
19 matter.
20 It seemed to me that the jury had been very gravely
21 misled and there was a potential that they were still
22 misled and it seemed to me that it was vital that they
23 be unmisled as soon as possible. If I have trespassed
24 beyond what was proper in the procedure before
25 the inquest, I apologise to everybody before that.

93

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: These matters are normally raised
2 first in the absence of the jury, because sometimes
3 there are misunderstandings; it is not appreciated what
4 discussions there had been, for example between
5 Mr Croxford and Mr Burnett and so forth and very often
6 these matters can be ironed out.
7 But plainly there was a matter on the evidence that
8 had to be rectified. It was rectified by the evidence
9 that was read yesterday and I think the position is now
10 clear and we can move on.
11 MR HILLIARD: The next thing we are going to do is to call
12 Mr Foley to prove two statements which are going to be
13 read as hearsay. They are statements of Mr Griffiths
14 and Dorothy Umphofr (?)
15 Mr Foley, you are obviously still on oath?
16 A. I understand.
17 MR THOMAS FOLEY (recalled)
18 Questions from MR HILLIARD
19 MR HILLIARD: Do you have a statement of Dorothy Umphofr?
20 My copy does not have a date, but it is recent.
21 A. And bears a signature as well.
22 Q. We will find out the date of that in due course.
23 As they are on the same topic, I will read them both
24 and then we will see if there are any questions.
25

94

1 Statement of STEVEN GRIFFITHS (read)
2 MR HILLIARD: Members of the jury, the first statement being
3 read as hearsay is the statement of Steven Griffiths. He
4 says:
5 "I, Steven Griffiths, of 60 Park Lane, London, am
6 employed by Harrods Ltd as a member of the close
7 protection team responsible for the protection and
8 safety of Mr Al Fayed and members of his immediate
9 family. I commenced employment in October 1996.
10 "In that capacity in July 1996, I was a member of
11 the team at Mr Al Fayed's property in St Tropez when
12 Princess Diana and her two sons stayed on holiday with
13 Mr Al Fayed and his family. Dodi Al Fayed was one of
14 the party.
15 "Subsequently, and to the best of my recollection,
16 either towards the end of July or early August 1997,
17 Paul Handley-Greaves spoke to me about a change of role.
18 Paul was head of the close protection team. He asked me
19 whether I liked the idea of going out to California to
20 be based at Dodi Al Fayed's property in Malibu. Until
21 speaking with Stuart Benson in the last week, I had not
22 previously been asked about the Malibu property or my
23 role there.
24 "Equally, although in general terms I have been
25 following the inquests through media reports, I had not,

95

1 prior to last week, appreciated that the Malibu property
2 was of any particular relevance to the issues being
3 dealt with in the inquests.
4 "Shortly before the conversation with Paul
5 Handley-Greaves [described above] I had recently
6 separated, pending divorce, and therefore said without
7 hesitation that I was happy to do that. Paul did not
8 give me any clear idea of the precise role or for how
9 long it would be but my impression from him was that
10 this was a long-term role rather than just a few weeks.
11 "following that conversation, and probably very soon
12 after it had taken place, I went out to California.
13 I went out with a lady called Dorothy who was,
14 I believe, Mr Al Fayed's executive housekeeper with
15 overall responsibility, if I understood correctly, for
16 the furnishing and smooth running of the various
17 family-owned properties.
18 "We flew out together. My understanding was that
19 she was coming out to make sure that the house was in
20 excellent condition and suitably decorated and furnished
21 as a luxury home. Whilst at the Malibu property,
22 I lived in the poolhouse. Part of my responsibility in
23 conjunction with Dorothy was to arrange for the removal
24 to Malibu of most of Dodi's possessions, including
25 clothes through to his wine collection.

96

1 "By the time Dodi arrived, as referred to in my next
2 paragraph, we had already unpacked all, or at least
3 most, of his possessions that had been sent out from
4 Europe.
5 "To the best of my recollection, not long after
6 I got out there, Dodi Al Fayed came to the property.
7 From my direct discussions with him, it was clear that
8 there were a number of improvements and developments to
9 be made at the property, including enhancing security
10 and protection.
11 "As far as I recall, after this length of time,
12 there was no specific discussion about how long I would
13 be out there or my exact role but my overall and
14 distinct impression was that this would be long-term or
15 permanent. In essence, it seemed that Malibu was to
16 become my permanent or main base, even if not the place
17 where I would be living 365 days a year.
18 "In one of those discussions which would have been
19 in August before Dodi returned to Europe for his holiday
20 with Princess Diana on the Jonikal, he said to me,
21 'The next time you see me, next month', meaning
22 September 'I will be with my special friend'. He said,
23 'Do you know who that is?' and I said, 'I am going to
24 speculate, it is Diana' and Dodi smiled and said 'Yes'.
25 "I can't say that Dodi said anything specific about

97

1 how long she would be there or the basis of the
2 relationship. My impression from what he said was that
3 Malibu was certainly to be his main home. My personal
4 impression from what he said and the way he said it was
5 that Princess Diana was not coming out in September
6 merely for a holiday but I cannot point to any specific
7 words from Dodi that said anything more than that
8 Princess Diana would be arriving in September.
9 "He gave no specific impression as to how long he or
10 the two of them would be there."
11 As I said, that is dated 18th February of this year.
12 Statement of DOROTHY UMPHOFR (read)
13 Then, the second statement is that of
14 Dorothy Umphofr. She says:
15 "I was employed by Mohamed Al Fayed as his executive
16 housekeeper from January 1990. I retired from full-time
17 work in 2006 but continue to help out occasionally if
18 any particular issue or problem arises.
19 "In my role as executive housekeeper, my
20 responsibilities included ensuring that all the various
21 family homes were efficiently run, properly furnished,
22 well maintained and appropriately staffed.
23 "In or about June 1997, Mr Al Fayed told me that
24 a property was being acquired for Dodi in Malibu,
25 California. The purchase was about to be finalised and

98

1 he asked me if I would go out there to check
2 the inventory on acquisition, the condition of
3 the property and to start to establish what furnishing
4 was required. I therefore went out in June 1997 to
5 undertake this task but I think on that occasion
6 I stayed for only a few days.
7 "A few weeks later he asked me to go out there again
8 to supervise the removal to there and the unpacking of
9 all of Dodi's possessions and to organise it as a home
10 for Dodi. I therefore travelled out on 6th August 1997
11 in company with Steve Griffiths a member of the close
12 protection team who I understood was going to work with
13 me, particularly with the security needs of the property
14 and, I understood, was going to remain out there.
15 "Immediately following arrival, we supervised
16 the unpacking of Dodi's possessions, ranging from his
17 clothes to his wine collection. We also started to
18 review improvements and works required at the property,
19 particularly those concerned with privacy and security.
20 "As far as I recall, it was about this time that
21 there was rapidly-growing media attention on the close
22 and growing relationship between Dodi and Princess Diana
23 and I believe that the press were speculating about
24 whether this was going to be a permanent long-term
25 relationship. This included speculation about

99

1 the possible engagement.
2 "Mr Al Fayed had made no mention to me when asking
3 me to go out there about Princess Diana and whether she
4 would be coming to or living at the property. But
5 whilst we were there, there was growing and quite
6 intrusive media activity, including reporters at
7 the gates of the property and elsewhere around
8 the perimeter and also press helicopters flying above.
9 "It was clear that this interest resulted from
10 a belief or speculation that Dodi would be coming with
11 Diana, or that Diana would be arriving to join Dodi.
12 "It was obvious to Steve Griffiths and me that
13 substantial work needed to be undertaken to the property
14 to ensure privacy. Although, as I say, we had not at
15 the outset been told that Diana would be coming out
16 there, I certainly assumed that she was going to come in
17 due course, although whether on a long-term or
18 short-term basis, I could not say.
19 "We therefore took steps to improve security and
20 privacy, for example awnings were placed over the main
21 entrance and planting was to be undertaken in certain
22 critical points of the gardens so as to give greater
23 privacy, including preventing the pool area from being
24 overlooked.
25 "Dodi arrived whilst I was out there. From memory,

100

1 this would have been a relatively few days, probably no
2 more than a week after I got there on 6th August.
3 I cannot now remember whether it was during a one-to-one
4 conversation with Dodi, or whether one other people were
5 present, such as Steve Griffiths or Melissa Henning, but
6 Dodi certainly said that the next time he was going back
7 to Malibu it would be with his special friend,
8 Princess Diana.
9 "I cannot say from what Dodi told me whether
10 the Princess was only going to be there for a short time
11 or a long time. I certainly don't think it can ever
12 have been intended as their full-time permanent home;
13 apart from anything else, I do not think it was large
14 enough for that. However, it seemed clear to me that
15 Dodi was certainly intending to be there on a reasonably
16 regular basis in view of the fact that we had arranged
17 for so many of his possessions to be taken out there."
18 And we will find out, Mr Foley, if we can, to
19 the date of that. Just wait there to see if there are
20 any questions.
21 MR MANSFIELD: No, thank you.
22 MR CROXFORD: If only, sir.
23 MR HILLIARD: And next, it is Detective Sergeant Easton to
24 be recalled to deal with one topic, please?
25

101

1 DETECTIVE SERGEANT MARK EASTON (recalled)
2 Questions from MR HILLIARD
3 MR HILLIARD: Mr Easton, you also have previously taken an
4 oath and you are still bound by that.
5 A. Yes, thank you.
6 Q. As we know, you are an officer who was attached to
7 Operation Paget; is that right?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And the topic you are going to deal with now is
10 enquiries which have been made regarding somebody called
11 Le Van Thanh; is that right?
12 A. Yes, that is right.
13 Q. Who was the owner in August 1997 of a white Fiat Uno.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. And if we can just start with a bit of the history. As
16 we have heard in evidence, I think from Mr Gigou,
17 the French Brigade Criminelle undertook a large
18 investigation, is this right, in an attempt to identify
19 a Fiat Uno car that had been involved in the collision
20 with the Mercedes?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. And did that involve checking around 4,600 Fiat Unos in
23 two departmental areas?
24 A. Yes that is the right number.
25 Q. And those departments were?

102

1 A. 78 and 92. They are defined by the registration numbers
2 of vehicles.
3 Q. And the reason they were looking for Fiat Unos in those
4 departments was?
5 A. I think predominantly because of evidence given to them
6 by Mr and Mrs Dauzonne who we have heard from as well.
7 Q. Although they had given, as it were, different
8 departmental numbers, those are the numbers they had
9 given?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you I think have looked at a French police report
12 which indicates that on 13th November of 1997, four
13 French police officers went to the address of
14 Mr Le Van Thanh?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And he had shown up, is this right, as the owner of
17 a Fiat Uno, registration 957BAN, and then the important
18 part for these purposes, 92?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that address of his was about 4 of 5 kilometres
21 outside of Paris?
22 A. From the centre of Paris, yes.
23 Q. And police officers went to where his Fiat Uno was
24 parked with him; is that right?
25 A. Yes.

103

1 Q. And what was the position about the colour of the car,
2 please?
3 A. They noticed the car had been repainted red.
4 Q. And what had it been?
5 A. Well, it had been white before, and the repainting in
6 red was only on the outside of the vehicle.
7 Q. And I think the car was taken away for examination and
8 analysis; is that right?
9 A. That is correct. Taken to the IRGCN.
10 Q. And did police officers take a witness statement from
11 Mr Le Van Thanh?
12 A. They did.
13 Q. We obviously have the entirety of your statement, but
14 you have included some passages from it; is that right?
15 A. That is correct. Yes.
16 Q. Can you read those for us and not too quickly because of
17 notes being made.
18 A. Certainly:
19 "On Friday and Saturday evenings, I work for
20 a security firm called SIS."
21 Q. I know it hardly needs stating but it is nothing to
22 do --
23 A. Nothing to do with the British SIS. I can confirm that,
24 sir.
25 Q. Good, yes.

104

1 A. "I have been doing that for three and a half years.
2 I am a dog handler. I do my security work with my
3 Rottweiler dog. My employer gives me a list of places
4 I will be working at every month. I go to work with my
5 Fiat Uno with my dog, Max. I have a Fiat Uno 60SL car
6 which used to be white but was repainted red two or
7 three months ago. The registration number is 957BAN92.
8 "I have three dogs, Max is a black and tan
9 Rottweiler, Mel is a Rottweiler bitch the same colour
10 and I also have a sandy coloured pitbull bitch, Tina.
11 She is with a friend who is looking after her because
12 I can't have three dogs at home.
13 "On the day of the accidents, I was working for
14 the SIS security company. I was with my car at the CAT
15 at Renault at Porte de Gennevilliers. It is a place
16 where Renault cars are stored. There are thousands of
17 cars outside.
18 "There was a colleague from SIS with me, but I do
19 not know his name. My duty started at 7 on the Saturday
20 evening and went on until 7 on the Sunday morning. In
21 answer to your question, the car is a 1987 model.
22 It was in a bad condition. The paint was worn.
23 I replaced both bumpers. All the engine joints were
24 replaced. The bodywork was done up and it was repainted
25 red.

105

1 "The work was done by my brother two or three months
2 ago.
3 "In answer to your question: his name is
4 Le Van Tien."
5 Q. Pausing there, because it might be confusing, the person
6 talking is Le Van Thanh but his brother he has just said
7 is Le Van Tien.
8 A. That is correct.
9 "He is a coachbuilder at Citroen Paris St Lazare.
10 He is foreman.
11 "In answer to your question, I chose red because it
12 does not show the dirt as much as white. I bought the
13 paint at BHV in Villeneuve La Garenne for cash. I went
14 with my brother Thien to a friend of his in Pontoise.
15 He is called Philippe. I do not know his surname. He
16 is a craftsman. I sanded down the car and we repainted
17 it at this friend's place. Philippe put the heating on
18 to dry the paint. We put on three coats of paint but
19 the car took about four hours to dry.
20 "I sometimes lend the car to my brother Le Van Dung
21 who lives in Rue Fanny in Clichy. He is a courier with
22 CRI in Paris and I never lend him my car at
23 the weekend."
24 Q. So, that is what he had to say and then, as you told us,
25 the car itself had been taken away for examination,

106

1 hadn't it?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And experts had been appointed by the French judicial
4 authorities to examine and produce a report; is that
5 right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. They did that and it was dated 10th December 1997?
8 A. That is right, yes, sir.
9 Q. And we have heard long extracts of that read and we are
10 not going to do that again. In two sentences, did they
11 conclude that the rear left of the car had not been
12 damaged in an accident. That is what they concluded at
13 that time?
14 A. That is what they concluded, yes.
15 Q. And on the basis of that report, did the police rule
16 this particular Fiat Uno out of their inquiries at that
17 stage?
18 A. They did, sir, yes.
19 Q. If we go on in the story, on 25th January of 1998, did
20 The Sunday Times public an article which included an
21 interview with Le Van Thanh?
22 A. Yes, they did.
23 Q. And I just want you to deal with only three parts of
24 that that you have dealt with in your statement. But
25 they purport to be quotations from Le Van Thanh?

107

1 A. Yes, that's right, sir.
2 Q. What are those?
3 A. Regarding the respraying of the vehicle, to place
4 the quotation:
5 "My brother works in a Citroen garage, he did it for
6 free. Diana died on Saturday night. I had the car
7 resprayed on the Sunday."
8 With regards to his alibi for the evening,
9 the quotation given is:
10 "I was working for a security firm called SIS which
11 specialises in guarding vehicle pounds. That night I
12 was in Renault's pound in Gennevilliers just north of
13 Clichy. I have to start at 7 pm and you cannot leave in
14 between. You clock in and you clock out."
15 The article also reports Mr Le Van Thanh as saying
16 that six people from the firm SIS were working with him
17 and that he never left. It also includes a photograph
18 of Mr Le Van Thanh.
19 Q. Go on, to 20th March 1998. Did French lawyers who acted
20 for Mr Al Fayed write to the examining magistrate,
21 Judge Stephan who we have heard about?
22 A. They did, sir, yes.
23 Q. And did they point out concerns with the evidence
24 regarding Le Van Thanh and ask that further
25 investigations were undertaken and that further expert

108

1 reports be commissioned?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Thereafter, on 30th April 1998, I think Le Van Thanh
4 gave a statement before Judge Stephan; is that right?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And I think he confirmed his previous statement, the one
7 that you have dealt with parts of; is that right?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. But then includes a passage that I am going to ask you
10 to deal with now, please?
11 A. Yes. In his statement, it states:
12 "My car is a Fiat Uno, I bought it from a private
13 individual in Paris. The logbook was issued on
14 9/4/1997. I paid 5,000 francs for the car. My brother,
15 who works in a car body repair and respraying, suggested
16 respraying the car to me as my boss in SIS had said to
17 me that he could not send me to work on the goods sites
18 because my car was dirty and had dull and flat
19 paintwork.
20 "What is more, since respraying my car, I have been
21 working at more interesting locations and my patrol only
22 takes me ten minutes, instead of the 40 at other
23 locations.
24 "This is how the decision to respray the car came
25 about. My brother produced a sketch of the car on

109

1 computer. I then coloured it in different colours and
2 that is how we chose red. I bought the paint myself
3 from BHV. My brother was to do the work at a friend of
4 his called Philippe, who has a store in which my brother
5 keeps his equipment and paint. As far as the dates are
6 concerned, I can give you the exact details as I have
7 remembered how it took place.
8 "I left my car at my brother's on Friday 29th August
9 and he filled it in the car park opposite our home.
10 The front wings were smashed in and there were dents all
11 over the car. The bodywork on Fiats is very flimsy.
12 "I got home from work on the Friday at about 4 pm.
13 A friend had driven me to and from work. In the evening
14 I went to work for the guarding company and in between
15 patrols, I rubbed the car down with materials my brother
16 had given me. In the morning after work, I returned
17 home. At around 8 or 9, my brother came and collected
18 me and we immediately went to Philippe's garage. My
19 brother sprayed the three coats on. A friend of mine
20 called Dean Papic who works with me, was there too. We
21 finished the car at about 4pm. The car dried quickly
22 and we had to refit the screen, handles et cetera.
23 "that same evening I went to work in it. I came
24 back from work around 7 am, so at the time the accident
25 took place I was at work. I had the car which had been

110

1 resprayed red with me.
2 "In reply to your question, I spoke to my boss who
3 had been called by journalists and he told me not to
4 worry as he knew I was working that night. He actually
5 organised all the employees' duties. I did not lend my
6 car out at all and it was not allowed to let it go out
7 whilst on duty. What is more, I confirm it had already
8 been resprayed.
9 "As regards the work I did to the car, I did not
10 tell the police that I had change the two bumpers, as
11 this is not the case. What I changed is the radiator
12 grille, which I bought in a breakers, the break servo
13 and the brake pads and the two front tyres.
14 "Reply to question: the car was not damaged at
15 the back previously but I would point out that since
16 the gendarmes saw it, I have had an accident to the rear
17 but it is just a little dent in the boot.
18 "reply to question: as far as the dogs are
19 concerned, I confirm what I said to the police: the dogs
20 have muzzled that are in my possession. My dogs do not
21 have headbands."
22 Q. Two things to point out: certainly as far as the Friday
23 night was concerned, is this right, when he said that in
24 the evening he had gone to work for the guarding
25 company, it is plain, is this right, that he was able to

111

1 do work on his car in between patrols?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And the second thing to say, whereas if the report in
4 The Sunday Times is right, he was saying that the car
5 had been resprayed the day after the crash in
6 the tunnel, here he was saying that it had been
7 resprayed before.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Then, on 15th May, 1999, did the examining magistrate
10 Judge Stephan take a statement from the person that he
11 had named, Dean Papic; yes?
12 A. That is correct, yes.
13 Q. And what did Mr Papic have to say?
14 A. He states:
15 "I am a colleague of Le Van Thanh. I have worked
16 with him in plumbing for some time. I was present when
17 he repainted the white Fiat Uno which he had. I helped
18 him a little but no more than that. I stayed
19 a few hours with him for that purpose. The car was
20 repainted in red. I am sure of one thing, that it was
21 done on a Saturday afternoon.
22 "We had in fact planned to do it one weekend.
23 I think the Alma accident happened the previous night.
24 You inform me that according to the dates, if the car
25 was repainted the accident took place the following

112

1 night. It seemed to me that the accident had happened
2 the night before the day we had painted the car.
3 "What is certain in any case is that the car was
4 repainted on a Saturday. And that it was around
5 the time of the Alma accident took place and when
6 the car was repainted, it had no trace of any impacts.
7 "As regards the car, I personally helped to take off
8 the existing paint with sandpaper.
9 With his brother, he put some Saintofer on some
10 places where bits of damage, but there were really very
11 slight marks. In any case, there was no trace of impact
12 on the rear left and no repair to that place. The car
13 was repainted at the home of one of our friends whose
14 first name is Philippe and that is in Pontoise."
15 Then I think another report was prepared by experts.
16 This one dated 29th June 1998 and again, we have had
17 long extracts from that read but did it come to this:
18 that report concluded that his Fiat Uno had not been
19 damaged in a collision to the rear left?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. But on this occasion, using the same something called an
22 Autoscan technique as had been used in the previous
23 examination, was there a small area of mastic or welding
24 on the left rear wing?
25 A. Yes. Found near the wheel housing by the lateral

113

1 strips.
2 Q. And that had not been found on the previous examination,
3 is that right?
4 A. No. That is correct.
5 Q. The experts concluded that they thought that was due to
6 deterioration in the bodywork and that it probably was
7 not the result of a rear impact; is that right?
8 A. Yes, that is right.
9 Q. And then, coming to something you did, in June of 2006,
10 as part of the Paget investigation, did you speak to
11 Le Van Thanh yourself?
12 A. Yes, by telephone.
13 Q. And did he tell you that he was not prepared to come to
14 the United Kingdom for questioning?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Did he maintain that he had not been in the Alma
17 Underpass on the night of the crash?
18 A. He did. He maintained that he had been at work.
19 Q. At the Renault depot?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Did you ask him whether his Fiat Uno had been resprayed
22 on the day after the crash?
23 A. I did and he said that this was the case but purely
24 a matter of coincidence.
25 Q. So he was now saying to you -- and I am not going to

114

1 summarise all the versions -- in June of 2006 that his
2 car had been resprayed on the day after the crash?
3 A. That is right, yes.
4 Q. But as you say, he was saying that was a coincidence.
5 And did he say to you that it was his first car, it was
6 secondhand and it had bumps and scratches and that is
7 why he had undertaken the work?
8 A. That is what he said, yes.
9 Q. Then, as we know, because it happened in front of us,
10 that the Dauzonnes, when they gave evidence, Mr and Mrs
11 Dauzonne, they identified a resemblance between
12 the photograph of Le Van Thanh -- it was the one that
13 went up on the screen that had been in the Sunday Times
14 article; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- and the man that they had seen in the Fiat Uno on the
17 night?
18 A. That is right.
19 Q. Then, was that preceded -- there was an article on
20 24th December 2006 in the Mail on Sunday; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- which quoted Le Van Thanh's father, Francois
23 Le Van Thanh; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what was he supposed to have said, if that article

115

1 was right?
2 A. There are a number of quotes which in the article they
3 say come from Mr Le Van Thanh senior. They are:
4 "I do not want to believe that Le Van was in
5 the tunnel that night. But I know as a father that he
6 has said things which just do not add up. He behaved
7 very strangely at the time and has behaved strangely
8 since.
9 "Dung --"
10 Q. Just pausing, Dung, that is one of the brothers?
11 A. Yes, another one of the brothers:
12 "Dung helped with the respray of the car, but he
13 will not talk to me about it. What I do know is that
14 the Fiat was resprayed very soon after the crash that
15 killed your Princess, only a few hours later."
16 Q. Further inquiries were made and is this right, on
17 13th February 2008, interviews of Le Van Thanh,
18 the father and two of the brothers --
19 A. Well, in fact Francois Le Van Thanh, the father, and
20 the three brothers, Le Van Tien, Le Van Dung and
21 Le Van Thanh, the owner of the Fiat Uno.
22 Q. I am going to have to take this from your statement
23 I think.
24 First of all, as far as Francois Le Van Thanh was
25 concerned, was that interview by the French police, but

116

1 in your presence?
2 A. It was in my presence and in the presence of DC Jones.
3 Q. Can you help us, please, with what he said?
4 A. This is Le Van Thanh, senior, the father, he stated that
5 he had never seen any press articles and that he had
6 only once been approached by British citizens about this
7 matter. He denied speaking to anyone in 1998, as had
8 been suggested and stated that in 2006, he was
9 approached by two men claiming to be British police
10 officers. Direct quotes from him from this statement:
11 "They did not give me their names. They only gave
12 me a business card on which the word 'police' appeared."
13 He then explained that they were looking for his son
14 Thanh and came to see him on two occasions.
15 "The first one lasted an hour, the second about
16 twenty minutes. I will say that they gave me 150 euros
17 the first time, to learn where Thanh was. I accompanied
18 them to the gymnasium where he did sports in Clichy.
19 "The second time, they gave me 100 euros to have
20 a photo taken."
21 He denied saying that his son had repainted the car,
22 the white Fiat Uno in the few hours after the Princess's
23 accident. He denied saying that his son had come home
24 one morning looking frightened and bothered. He denied
25 saying that than had a conversation in a low voice with

117

1 his brother, a mechanic by occupation and that following
2 that, the two brothers left the house in a hurry in
3 the middle of the night in order to radically alter
4 the appearance of the car.
5 He also denied saying, "Dung helped to repaint the
6 car but he does not want to talk to me about it. What I
7 do know is that the Fiat was repainted very shortly
8 after the accident which cost your Princess her life.
9 In fact, only a few hours afterwards."
10 So to make it clear, he was denying that?
11 A. He was denying all the things it was saying in
12 the papers.
13 In response to another quote in the papers, that
14 says:
15 "I do not want to believe that Thanh was in
16 the tunnel that night in 1997, but I know as a father
17 that he has said things which do not stand up, he acted
18 strangely at the time and afterwards."
19 Mr Van Thanh Senior says that this is a complete
20 fabrication.
21 He explained to us some of the family dynamics and
22 that he had not been in contact with his children for
23 many years.
24 Q. That is as much as we need.
25 Also, 13th February, 2008, was Thien Le Van

118

1 interviewed?
2 A. He was.
3 Q. And what did he say?
4 A. He explained that he was a qualified mechanic and
5 coachbuilder from Citroen and he also confirmed that:
6 "It was me that painted the car. My brother is not
7 in the trade."
8 He could not recall when this had taken place and he
9 could not say whether this was before or after
10 the crash. He contradicted previous statements by
11 saying that Le Van Thanh had not purchased the paint
12 from BHV but that he in fact himself had obtained
13 the paint from Citroen and it was a Citroen Lucifer red.
14 Q. Le Van Thanh said that he had bought the paint from
15 BHV --
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. -- and the brother was saying no, he, the brother had
18 bought it.
19 A. He also confirmed that the process of repainting the
20 vehicle would have required sanding, filling, priming.
21 He says:
22 "The paint was tarnished. The bodywork showed small
23 impact traces. I cannot identify precisely
24 the locations of the small impact traces. But I do not
25 remember noticing any big impacts on that car. My

119

1 brother had not mentioned any particular impact to me."
2 He agreed that he would have to have removed
3 the door handles to do the repainting, but does not
4 think that he took the windscreen off the car, as had
5 been stated. He could not recall the friend Dean Papic
6 being there and assisting. He could not recall
7 undertaking any mechanical repairs to the vehicle.
8 "He initially spoke to us about having rented
9 a specialised painting booth to respray the car and that
10 these were not available for rent on a Sunday but as
11 the interview progressed, he agreed that he may have
12 done the work at a friend, Philippe's workshop as
13 the Fiat was not worth spending much money on.
14 He had himself a set of keys for this workshop and
15 could have undertaken the work either on a Saturday or
16 a Sunday.
17 In respect of the press reports, he said:
18 "My father, frankly, you give him some money and ask
19 him to say anything and he will say it. He is talking
20 nonsense. I am sure that he did not even know who Diana
21 was. He always says yes and if he saw some journalists,
22 he could have said anything. My father threw me out
23 when I was 22 years old. Since then, I have never
24 returned. As far as I am concerned, he is only talking
25 rubbish. He is not credible. All his life he has only

120

1 done stupid things."
2 Q. The next day, Dung Le Van interviewed by French police
3 in your presence; is that right?
4 A. Yes. Dung was the brother that the father had allegedly
5 mention in the press article.
6 Q. You have a summary of that in your statement which reads
7 in this way. What he said was:
8 "When my brother Thanh bought the car, Thien went
9 over it to estimate the work to be carried out. He
10 started with the essentials, the repairs to
11 the mechanics, then he did the painting but I know from
12 the start it was envisaged that that painting work would
13 be carried out. The idea was that Thanh should not go
14 to work in a dustbin.
15 "I cannot put a date to that painting work. I must
16 tell you one thing. If Thanh had had the slightest bump
17 with one of his vehicles, he would have immediately
18 reported it. By way of example, his car was recently
19 hit by a police car. The police officer didn't want to
20 report it, my brother took his registration number and
21 as a result of his insistence, the police officer agreed
22 to file a report. A report would certainly have seemed
23 difficult in the case of the Princess but in any case,
24 my brother would not have fled the scene after an
25 incident."

121

1 And he said as far as the Mail on Sunday article was
2 concerned:
3 "I did not read that article. I was not aware of
4 it. Thanh mentioned it to me, telling me that our
5 father allegedly said that we had a strange attitude at
6 a time close to the accident. That made me laugh
7 because nothing stands up. I cannot stand the sight of
8 my father. Why would we have gone to see him to talk
9 about that? I think that if some journalist went to see
10 him, especially with some money, he would have been
11 capable of saying anything, just to say something. Not
12 necessarily so as to harm us."
13 Then on 14th February 2008, Thanh Le Van interviewed
14 again French officers, again in your presence; is that
15 right?
16 A. That is correct, yes.
17 Q. To summarise that as have you done in your statement,
18 did he say:
19 "What I am certain about is that the car was
20 resprayed on a Sunday. That day corresponds with
21 the weekend when Princess Diana was involved in a road
22 accident. I do remember two French speaking journalists
23 coming to my home and offering me money for saying that
24 I was the driver of the Fiat Uno seen at the time of the
25 accident involving Princess Diana in the Alma Tunnel in

122

1 Paris. At that time I had a pretty poor knowledge of
2 Paris apart from the tourist spots. I did not know
3 where that famous tunnel was. I got angry at them and
4 asked them to leave immediately. They even suggested
5 transferring a sum into my account and negotiating an
6 contract subsequently. I turned all that down.
7 "I was not driving in Paris that night. I bought
8 the car secondhand for a modest sum. Obviously, its
9 condition was far from perfect but it was adequate for
10 my purposes, as I used it to go to work and put my dogs
11 in the back.
12 "For your information, I folded down the rear seat
13 so that the animals had some room. I just wanted
14 the car to be cleaner, especially as my boss had
15 suggested doing it. Indeed, after the respray I was
16 able to work on other sites.
17 "The paint was supplied by my brother, Tien.
18 Because of his job, he is able to get it at
19 a preferential rate. You point out that in my statement
20 on 13th November 1997, I said that I bought that paint
21 in a shop. I talked rubbish because I was fed up with
22 being in custody for this matter. I realised today that
23 I made a mistake and that I took the matter rather
24 lightly.
25 "That, by the way, is why I paid for the purchase in

123

1 cash. I repeat that it was Tien who supplied the paint.
2 He must have used some that was left over. I do not
3 know if he was allowed to take these products from his
4 company. I do not know if he paid cash for it.
5 "As far as the parts were concerned, they were
6 bought in part from a brokers and in part from a Fiat
7 dealer. In fact, it did not end up being very
8 expensive. I no longer recall the exact amount. For my
9 own safety, it was necessary to carry out some repairs,
10 such as replacing the brakes.
11 "I shall point out the following: as soon as
12 I bought the Fiat car my brother Tien who was
13 a coachbuilder by profession, told me that he could
14 respray it, given its general condition. It all had to
15 wait until he got some extra paint and above all,
16 the time to do it. In fact, the date wasn't really
17 planned in advance, it was just a question of
18 circumstances. By that, I mean so that my brother could
19 help me at the time. Actually, only the paint was done
20 on the same day, the parts were replaced on another day.
21 It is impossible to do all that in the same day."
22 So far as his work on the night of the crash was
23 concerned, he said this:
24 "My duties involve patrolling within the site
25 itself. I didn't leave the commune of Gennevilliers."

124

1 And by commune, he means?
2 A. The compound. That was my understanding.
3 Q. In fact, what does a commune mean in France?
4 A. A small area, a small area within a village.
5 Q. "These patrols were carried out on foot with my dog or
6 dogs at regular intervals, every hour or two hours.
7 Patrols were recorded in a register which I think was
8 kept at the site. Within the site there was a key
9 system in operation. During the patrol, we had to
10 insert them into a box that we carried in order to show
11 that we had been by. At the end of the shift,
12 the supervisor checked that we had actually done our
13 patrols."
14 In respect of the press comments said to have come
15 from his father, did he say repeatedly: "He is talking
16 nonsense" and that it was incredible?
17 A. Yes, he did.
18 Q. And then, nearly at the end, were enquiries made by
19 the French judicial authorities to try to identify
20 Philippe whose workshop was said to have been used?
21 A. Yes and they identified Philippe.
22 Q. As being?
23 A. Philippe Landry.
24 Q. What is the position about him?
25 A. We were not able to take a statement from him as

125

1 unfortunately he had an accident on the public highway
2 back in 2001 which resulted in a long coma,
3 hospitalisation and he now still suffers from those
4 physically and mentally and is not fit to be
5 interviewed.
6 Q. Just two final matters. In the course of the Paget
7 investigation, was an expert, Mrs Pamela Hamer
8 instructed?
9 A. She was, yes.
10 Q. And just it bring it back to mind again. Do you
11 remember the conclusion, that she was part of this,
12 we heard when all that evidence was summarised, was this
13 particular vehicle, as it were, from what had been seen
14 could be neither ruled in or ruled out?
15 A. That is right. The work undertaken by the IRCGN who
16 examined the vehicles on both occasions, it was
17 inclusive.
18 Q. So it could have been the Fiat Uno that was involved in
19 the crash and equally could not have been?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. Both were possible.
22 Lastly, do you know, were attempts made to see what
23 evidence if any could be obtained from the employers?
24 A. I do not know that that was done. Certainly when
25 Mr Le Van Thanh was first interviewed by

126

1 the Brigade Criminelle and his vehicle examined on the
2 first occasion by IRCGN.
3 Q. What is IRCGN?
4 A. Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie
5 Nationale.
6 They are experts in various fields but in respect of
7 this particular matter, they were experts in examining
8 the vehicle. So, once these experts had examined
9 the vehicle and had determined they were satisfied it
10 could not have been vehicle that was involved in a road
11 traffic collision with the Mercedes, they stopped any
12 further inquiries.
13 Q. Although subsequently as we know a different expert view
14 was come to?
15 A. That is correct.
16 MR HILLIARD: All right, thank you very much.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Easton, I wonder if I could
18 summarise my understanding of the position with regard
19 to Fiat Unos?
20 The police starting point was that they were looking
21 for a vehicle in the period 1983 to 1989, is that right,
22 because that was the relevant time that the particular
23 white paint was used that was found on the Mercedes?
24 A. That is my understanding, sir, yes.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So they had that information.

127

1 They also had information from Mr and Mrs Dauzonne that
2 it was not a 95 registration, but they thought it would
3 be a 78 or a 92, possibly. Both of which are to
4 the west of Paris, the direction that everybody was
5 going?
6 A. That is correct, that is the direction that the vehicle
7 was going at at that time in the evening.
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The French then checked out
9 something like 4,000 vehicles?
10 A. 4,600 approximately.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And in the end, the microscope
12 focused for differing reasons on Mr Andanson's Fiat Uno
13 and Van Thanh's Fiat Uno?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: And the reality of the position
16 is that ten and a half years after the collision, we are
17 no nearer being able to prove whose Fiat Uno collided
18 with the Mercedes than we were then?
19 A. That is correct, sir, unfortunately.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
21 MR KEEN: No, sir.
22 MR CROXFORD: I will, sir, but I will follow, I hope, fairly
23 briefly. I will try to beat Mr MacLeod by five minutes.
24 Questions from MR CROXFORD
25 MR CROXFORD: Just really on that, the inconclusive evidence

128

1 which Mr Hilliard asked you about was inconclusive in
2 respect of paint samples, wasn't it?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And I will ask you about it in a moment or two.
5 Mrs Hamer, the Metropolitan Police expert here in
6 the UK, she recognised that there was no damage to
7 Van Thanh's vehicle that was consistent with the sort of
8 collision that had apparently taken place?
9 A. I have not had a chance to go through that report, but
10 that is my recollection.
11 Q. Let me take you in a moment or two. The next thing is
12 this: the evidence which you have given today, and I do
13 not criticise you for this, is essentially a summary or
14 selection from the various statements made by
15 Mr Van Thanh, his brothers and father?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. On that question of collision, this jury was told on
18 12th November last year by Dr Searle that it was only
19 reasonable to assume that the Fiat sustained bodywork
20 damage as well as damage to the light cluster and
21 the extent of the overlap between the vehicles was
22 enough to guarantee that. I do not know if you were in
23 court on that day?
24 A. I do not remember.
25 Q. But you do understand what he was discussing.

129

1 The overlap, the road traffic experts had agreed there
2 was something like a 17 centimetre overlap between
3 the Mercedes and the Fiat; do you remember that?
4 A. I am not sure whether I was in court or doing something
5 else at the office. Sorry.
6 Q. Will you for the moment accept from me that the experts
7 agree that there was something in the order of
8 a 17-centimetre overlap between the Mercedes and
9 the Fiat and of course, the much heavier Mercedes came
10 into contact with the much lighter Fiat; you understand
11 that as well?
12 A. I understand that both vehicles came into contact.
13 Q. The French expert, as the jury were told on 3rd March of
14 this year, in the report of 29th June 1998, had
15 concluded that in view of the extent of the traces, that
16 is of paint found:
17 "... the deformation of the bodywork and its
18 position, the contact between the two vehicles appears
19 to have been fairly considerable and would most probably
20 have caused significant damage to the Fiat".
21 Do you remember that?
22 A. I believe that was their conclusion.
23 Q. I am reading from the transcript from that day,
24 Sergeant.
25 Then, of course, Mrs Hamer, instructed by

130

1 the Metropolitan Police, looked at the evidence which
2 had been found on the second inspection using
3 the electronic machine to try to find evidence of filler
4 or repair and she concluded this, didn't she, that there
5 was a photograph of the area and do you recall,
6 the damaged area shown in the image in the photograph
7 appears to be too low to have been caused by an impact
8 with the Mercedes?
9 A. Again, sir, if you are reading it from the transcript,
10 I do not recall.
11 Q. And you have given some evidence today about
12 Mr Van Thanh describing the state of the front wings of
13 his car. Do you remember that Mrs Hamer also
14 considered, as the jury have been told with the other
15 expert, Mr Jennings, the question of whether the front
16 wings could have been smashed in the collision with
17 the Mercedes and eventually concluded that that could
18 have been excluded as a possibility. If you don't
19 remember, say so.
20 A. Again, sir, I have to trust you.
21 Q. It comes to this, doesn't it: I am not trying to
22 criticise you for this, sergeant: when you went to ask
23 questions of the members of the Van Thanh family, you
24 were essentially going there to ask them questions about
25 something that had appeared in a Sunday tabloid

131

1 newspaper in this country?
2 A. Based on what had appeared in the paper, the alleged
3 quotes from Mr Van Thanh Senior and also what had
4 happened during the course of these inquests, it was
5 felt pertinent to go and investigate the matter further
6 and that is why we went and spoke to them.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If it is of any interest to you,
8 Mr Croxford, at a fairly early stage it seemed to me
9 that the French inquiries with regard to Mr Van Thanh
10 had been less rigorous than I had thought that they
11 might have been, so I caused inquiries to be made to see
12 if the position could be clarified and we have reached
13 the stage that we have now reached, of not ruled in and
14 not ruled out.
15 MR CROXFORD: With respect, sir, I am not here to make
16 a speech. The not ruled out is inconsistent with the
17 evidence on the bodywork. You keep coming back, with
18 the greatest of respect, to the question of the paint.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: It is one aspect of the evidence.
20 MR CROXFORD: On the paint, of course, sir, you are correct.
21 On the bodywork, with respect, you are not and that was
22 not the question I was asking.
23 Sergeant, you went essentially to ask about some
24 quotes attributed to the father Van Thanh in a Sunday
25 tabloid newspaper in this country at the end of 2006,

132

1 didn't you?
2 A. That was one of the reasons.
3 Q. You did not go essentially to concentrate upon asking
4 details of damage or details of repair such as
5 the experts have been concerned with in their
6 investigation and reports into the state of the body,
7 did you?
8 A. We did ask questions about the damage, because that has
9 been recorded in the statements. As to the amount of
10 detail in there, I am sorry, that is what we were
11 explained.
12 Q. You have said something about the red paint being on
13 the outside only of this car. Your examination of
14 the French dossier shows that even if you open the car
15 doors -- and this was a four-door Uno, wasn't it?
16 A. Oh, I would have to have a look at a picture of the car
17 but if you say it is a four-door sir, that is fine.
18 Q. If you simply opened the doors, you could see on the
19 inside of the door, the sills and the door surround,
20 that this was originally a white car?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if you opened the hatchback at the back, you could
23 see that it was a pretty crude blow-over of the outside
24 of the car only?
25 A. Yes.

133

1 Q. In respect of this article in the tabloid newspaper, you
2 in summary have said that the father, Van Thanh, it
3 denied all the material quotes attributed to him; is
4 that correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. You had, of course, identified the journalists who had
7 written this article. Is it right that to say that they
8 have not been interviewed?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Right from the start when you asked Mr Van Thanh, I say
11 you, in fact, questions were put by French officers,
12 weren't they?
13 A. That is the procedure. We were only there to assist.
14 Q. Prior to that, no criticism intended, you had considered
15 the sort of questions which you thought should be asked,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you had tried to inform and encourage your French
19 counterparts who asked questions along the lines that
20 you hoped would be asked?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Right from the outset then, this is right, isn't it,
23 that the French officer asked Mr Van Thanh Senior about
24 two reporters from the British newspaper coming to
25 interview him. In the Van Thanh statement, sergeant,

134

1 it is at the top of the second page.
2 A. Thank you.
3 Q. So, two reporters. His immediate response was, as
4 I think you have given the jury something of
5 the flavour, they introduced themselves as British
6 police officers; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. He then went on to explain that there was a third man
9 present. So it was not just two. About two inches down
10 from the top.
11 A. I am just trying to find the right statement.
12 Q. Francois Van Thanh, page 2. I do not think I have
13 a spare statement. Do you have yours?
14 A. I can work from the French, maybe.
15 Q. Don't do that. I have found something that will pass as
16 a copy. I am just making sure that it is not marked.
17 A. I have a French copy here.
18 Q. Let's work from that.
19 Top of the second page then, two reporters. He
20 referred to them as having introduced themselves as
21 British police officers; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Then, in answer to the next question, he explained that
24 there was a third man and they took a photo of him.
25 A. Yes, that is correct.

135

1 Q. And that these men, you assume that they were reporters;
2 is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. "These men gave him a business card on which the word
5 'police' appeared"?
6 A. That is what he said.
7 Q. So on the face of it, he is telling you a story about
8 being tricked into talking to these men?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And he then went on, just over halfway down that second
11 page, to explain as you have said in evidence that he
12 was paid money to give them information?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. The sums involved, certainly by the standards of money
15 that the jury have heard about in this case, seem to be
16 comparatively modest: 100 and 150 euros. Did you make
17 any effort to check with the press how much they had
18 paid him?
19 A. I have not spoken to the members of the press.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford, can you let us into
21 the secret of where this is leading us and to what issue
22 in the inquest it goes. It may all be very interesting
23 but I am sure that a lot of us have better things to do
24 at half past three on what may well be the last
25 afternoon of evidence.

136

1 MR CROXFORD: I will gladly do that, sir, if yet again I am
2 going up what appears to be a side alley. You, sir,
3 through your counsel have adduced this evidence,
4 presumably for a purpose and presumably a very purpose
5 consistent with the "not rule in" and "not rule out"
6 which you keep reverting to.
7 With respect, I am looking at the "not rule out"
8 aspect to see what, if any, reliance can be placed upon
9 what appeared in this tabloid newspaper.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If you want me in the end to sum
11 up to the jury on the basis of directing them about
12 every single piece of evidence that goes against this
13 being the Fiat Uno, and on the other hand to point out
14 every single piece of evidence that points out it could
15 possibly be, then the jury is going to be here for
16 a very, very long time but it seems to me, pretty plain,
17 that on the evidence it would be quite unwise to proceed
18 on the basis that either of these Fiat Unos was the one
19 that was involved.
20 MR CROXFORD: Well, sir, those last words I would not dream
21 of disagreeing with.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Is that not good enough for your
23 purposes, then we are looking at 4,000 other ones or
24 however many thousand there may be?
25 MR CROXFORD: I am in this position and I am not trying to

137

1 look a gift horse in the mouth. Will you allow me just
2 to articulate and you will see the thinking. Of course,
3 the way in which you will sum up to the jury will be of
4 considerable assistance to the jury, but of course it
5 will not be conclusive.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: No.
7 MR CROXFORD: There are other aspects of this evidence
8 concerning Van Thanh which would, on one view, clearly
9 entitle the jury to reject any suggestion that the man
10 Van Thanh was involved, and there are aspects which have
11 either not been mentioned at all or have only been
12 touched upon by Mr Easton.
13 What I might do sir, if you could just tolerate to
14 hear me for another five minutes, instead of dealing
15 with this in the orthodox way, of carefully looking at
16 the evidence, blocking up the boltholes, as it were, and
17 going to the bald point, I will go straight to the bald
18 point and see how we are doing.
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Shall we have our break in
20 the meantime?
21 MR CROXFORD: I am entirely in your hands, sir.
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have been here for an hour and
23 a half so we should break off. Members of the jury,
24 quarter of an hour.
25 (3.30 pm)

138

1 (A short break)
2 (3.47 pm)
3 (Jury present)
4 MR CROXFORD: Sergeant, let me take one example of what
5 the father was supposed to have said to the journalists.
6 Part of it was that he alleged that he overheard
7 a conversation at his home in the middle of the night
8 between the two brothers, Thanh, who owned the car, and
9 his brother Dung and as a result of this conversation,
10 the two men left and radically altered the appearance of
11 the car. Right.
12 A. That is what --
13 Q. That is what the father was supposed to have said. When
14 Dung was interviewed in your presence, taking it in
15 summary, he told you that he had been thrown out of his
16 home by his father when he was 12 years old, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. That would have been in about 1986, therefore; correct?
19 Because he was born in 1974.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. He told you that he had been in a home and lived on the
22 streets but, by 1996, he had moved into a house/flat
23 with his girlfriend and their children?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And when this idea was put to him that there had been

139

1 this whispered conversation at his father's house, you
2 have said something rather euphemistically that told you
3 something of the family dynamics. The family dynamics
4 included allegations by each of the children of, I put
5 it politely, pretty unpleasant behaviour by the father
6 against each of them?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in the case of Dung that his father had beaten him
9 before he had been thrown out at the age of 12. So
10 the idea that he had been there in the middle of the
11 night to have this whispered conversation with his
12 brother, if you are looking at the fourth page of what
13 Dung had to say, just below halfway, he first of all
14 dealt with this idea of the article, do you have that:
15 "I did not read the article"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did he finish what he was saying there:
18 "I cannot stand the sight of my father. Why would
19 we have gone to see him and talk about that?"
20 And then over the page:
21 "I moved into Rue Fanny with my girlfriend and our
22 children at the end of 1996. I must have called at my
23 father's from time to time to see my brothers there but
24 certainly not in the middle of the night over a car."
25 That is what he told you, isn't it?

140

1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. He made it abundantly clear that he could not stand
3 the sight of his father and had effectively no dealings
4 with him for many, many years; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let us take another highlight, if we may. I will not
7 deal with each of the allegations the father is supposed
8 to have said to the journalist, because you have dealt
9 with them in summary already.
10 Now, when you saw the man Thanh who owned the Fiat,
11 one of the things that the French officers asked him
12 about was asking him for details of an alibi for
13 the night of the 30th/31st of August 1997?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. A pretty tall order to ask anyone, 10/11 years on to
16 recall precisely where they were on that occasion;
17 correct?
18 A. Yes, although he had been interviewed about that
19 particular incident and that particular evening on
20 a number of occasions prior to this February.
21 Q. He had indeed, and when he was interviewed on this
22 occasion on February of this year, he again gave
23 extensive details about the nature of his employment,
24 who his employer was and what he said he was doing;
25 correct?

141

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. As far as that alibi was concerned, were you aware of or
3 did you participate in the interview of Commandant Mules
4 by the Metropolitan Police on 19th to 21st July of 2006?
5 A. I do not recall the days but yes, I was one of the
6 officers interviewing.
7 Q. And you can confirm therefore that Commandant Mules said
8 in respect of Van Thanh's alibi, because when he had
9 been interviewed on those earlier occasions in
10 November 1997 and then in early 1998 by the juge, he had
11 given details of where he was working and Mules told
12 you, the police, that the alibi was checked by
13 the police inspectors at the time, as a bare minimum;
14 correct?
15 A. I do not recall all the details of the interview with
16 M Mules but if that is in the report that was written,
17 then yes.
18 Q. Page 13:
19 "In respect of Van Thanh's alibi, that is that he
20 had been at work at the relevant time, Mules said this
21 alibi was checked by the inspectors and this was the
22 bare minimum, inconceivable that this was not done.
23 Again surprised no explanation for this could be found
24 in the dossier ..."
25 A. Right. I do not have the benefit of the report, sorry.

142

1 Q. Very well. Now, you picked up on some inconsistencies
2 in the detail of the account which Thanh gave over the
3 period from November 1997 and onwards, including for
4 example, as between he and his brother Tien about who
5 provided the paint and at whose cost?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Let's not put too fine a point on it. Tien, whatever
8 the regime is in France, and I am not going to get into
9 it, he told you that he had been convicted for working
10 outside the area in which he was supposed to be working?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You are in any event, I do not doubt, an experienced
13 police officer; there was a question of uncertainty, if
14 I put it politely, about the origins of the paint,
15 wasn't there?
16 A. What do you mean by that?
17 Q. The brother Tien said he had acquired the paint, did he
18 not?
19 A. He did, sir, yes.
20 Q. He effectively acquired the paint, if I can use
21 a neutral phrase, as sort of free issue, query, from his
22 employer?
23 A. I do not know the details. It is unclear again, it is
24 one of these issues that is unclear whether it was
25 purchased, given for free or anything else.

143

1 Q. And when you interviewed Thanh, the owner, about this,
2 and the source of the paint, one of the things that he
3 told you was this, wasn't it?
4 It is the sixth page of the Thanh interview,
5 sergeant, top of the page, second line:
6 "I repeat it was Tien who had supplied the paint."
7 He had already been challenged about
8 the inconsistency in his story:
9 "It was Tien who supplied the paint. He must have
10 used some that was left over. I do not know if he was
11 allowed to take these products from his company. I do
12 not know if he paid cash for it."
13 There was a degree of embarrassment, was there not,
14 as to whether this paint that was used had, to borrow
15 another euphemism, fallen off the back of a lorry?
16 A. Yes, it is still unclear.
17 Q. Or whether it had been improperly acquired by the
18 brother Tien.
19 A. It is unclear.
20 Q. You went armed with the evidence and interviewed him,
21 having heard the evidence of the Dauzonnes and he gave
22 some evidence about his dogs wearing black muzzles?
23 A. I do not recall the colour, but muzzles, yes.
24 Q. It is the 11th page of Thanh's statement, top of the
25 page:

144

1 "My dogs wear muzzles, either in cloth or leather,
2 black in colour."
3 You never asked him about whether he decked out his
4 working dogs with a fashion accessory of a bandanna, did
5 you?
6 A. Not on this occasion, no.
7 Q. So far as press reports were concerned, he told you that
8 with the help of a French lawyer, he was taking
9 proceedings complaining about stories that had been
10 published about him in the press?
11 A. That is correct. But I do not know any details about
12 that.
13 Q. In the circumstances, I am not going to ask you any.
14 He was emphatic, wasn't he, in conclusion, first of
15 all, page 13 of the statement, that he had absolutely
16 nothing to do with this matter, not involved in
17 the accident in any way?
18 A. That is what he said.
19 Q. And he had just told you a few moments before then that
20 he was willing to be interviewed by videolink if
21 necessary?
22 A. Correct.
23 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I hope that was not too long. I am
24 obliged.
25 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr MacLeod?

145

1 MR MACLEOD: No thank you, sir.
2 MR HILLIARD: No thank you.
3 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much indeed,
4 Sergeant Easton.
5 MR HILLIARD: Then, sir I think there are just three things
6 left to do. As you know, there is a statement that has
7 recently arrived from Detective Constable Jones. It is
8 proposed that that will be dealt with as hearsay
9 evidence through again, Mr Foley, please.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
11 MR HILLIARD: Mr Foley, you are still on oath.
12 MR THOMAS FOLEY (recalled)
13 Questions from MR HILLIARD
14 MR HILLIARD: A statement of 18th March 2008. It will
15 become obvious what it relates to as I read it. Do you
16 produce a copy of that, from Detective Constable
17 Alan Jones?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Does it read as follows:
20 "Today, I spoke on the telephone to Mr Keith Gelling
21 who was the proprietor of Gelling Insurance Services of
22 High Street, Farndon, Cheshire. He owned the shop and
23 the upstairs accommodation above from 1968 until 2006
24 when he sold the entire premises to Mr and Mrs
25 Paul Burrell. They have converted the downstairs into

146

1 a florist's shop. Mr and Mrs Burrell also have a
2 residential property next door to that called Church
3 View. It is to the right of their florist's shop,
4 previously Gelling Insurance Services as one views
5 the terrace facing it from the road.
6 "To the right of the Burrell residence, Church View,
7 is the property Sunny Side which has been occupied by
8 Grant and Emma Scott since the 14th March 2002 to
9 the present. Mr Gelling and his family occupied all the
10 living accommodation whilst he owned the property and
11 no one by the name of Maddy and her son has ever lived
12 with him.
13 "However, he informed me that a lady by the name of
14 Mandy Rigby lives above Farndon Pharmacy which is to
15 the left of what is now the Burrell florist shop,
16 previously Gelling Insurance Services. She lives there
17 with her husband Graham Rigby who works in and owns
18 the pharmacy. She has a son who is now grown up and is
19 living in London. Mrs Rigby did suffer from cancer and
20 it is believed that she is now recovered."
21 Mr Foley, I think you are aware that the lady who
22 had been described as Maddy was said to have suffered
23 from cancer. Mr Mansfield referred to an illness but
24 very kindly did not read it out, but I think it is
25 necessary to do so to show the possible connection.

147

1 "Mrs Rigby did suffer from cancer but it is believed
2 she is now recovered. She is approximately 49 years
3 old. Mr Gelling states that Mrs Rigby is very friendly
4 with Mrs Burrell and believes that they have travelled
5 together to the United States of America on several
6 occasions.
7 "At 3 o'clock today I spoke on the telephone with
8 Mrs Mandy Rigby. She confirmed that she lived above
9 Farndon Pharmacy with her husband and sons and had done
10 so since 1989. She has three sons now aged 24, 22 and
11 17.
12 "I informed Mr Rigby of the allegations that
13 Mr Michael Faux had made to the Coroner during
14 yesterday's proceedings and asked her the following
15 questions:
16 "Question: Did you ever live above an insurance
17 shop?
18 "Answer: No, I have only lived above the chemist.
19 "Question: Have you ever been known as Maddy?
20 "Answer: No, Mandy or Mand.
21 "Question: Where were you living at the end of
22 2002?
23 "Answer: At the chemists.
24 "Question: Did you ever store any property for
25 Paul Burrell?

148

1 "Answer: No that is absolute rubbish.
2 "Question: And that would include any
3 correspondence from the Royal Household, in particular
4 letters from the Duke of Edinburgh?
5 "Answer: No, none whatsoever.
6 "Question: Did he ever give you any jewellery to
7 look after?
8 "Answer: No, I have never looked after any
9 jewellery.
10 "Question: Do you recall Paul Burrell's house being
11 searched in January 2001?
12 "Answer: No, I did not know them that well then,
13 but we were supposed to go out in a group that night,
14 but they did not turn up and we did not know why.
15 We did not know what happened until the following day.
16 "Question: Were you holding any property for him
17 then?
18 "Answer: No.
19 "Question: Have you ever suffered from cancer?
20 "Answer: Yes, in 2002.
21 "Question: Have you ever met Mr Faux?
22 "Answer: I think I met him at a party when Paul's
23 case had been cancelled. I was not introduced to him
24 but may have been spoken to him. I knew that his role
25 was that of a bodyguard.

149

1 "Question: Are you friends with Mr and Mrs Burrell?
2 "Answer: I would not say that I am a bosom friend
3 of Paul's but Maria and I are very good friends.
4 "Question: Do you know of anyone called Maddy?
5 "Answer: No, I do not.
6 "Mrs Rigby was quite adamant throughout our whole
7 conversation that at no time had she held or stored any
8 correspondence, jewellery or property on behalf of
9 Paul Burrell."
10 If you just wait there, and see if there are any
11 questions.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There are no questions. Thank
13 you very much, Mr Foley.
14 MR HILLIARD: Then, sir finally, two statements to be read
15 as uncontroversial, both from Mr Martin Smith.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
17 MR HILLIARD: The first reads as follows:
18 Statement of MR MARTIN SMITH (read)
19 "I Martin Smith, solicitor to the inquests, make
20 the following statement:
21 "On March 3rd 2008 I wrote to Adam Chapman at
22 the Treasury Solicitors' department. Mr Chapman is
23 instructed by the Attorney General on behalf of
24 the Royal Household.
25 "In my letter I stated that solicitors acting for

150

1 Mr Al Fayed had written to me on 19th February 2008
2 referring to the evidence of Lord Fellowes and asking
3 for disclosure of the following:
4 "(a) File notes recording discussions of historical
5 note or interest which were sent to the archives at
6 Windsor; and:
7 "(b) documents relating to a meeting on
8 8th July 1997 which was preparatory to a later meeting
9 of the Way Ahead Group.
10 "I asked Mr Chapman to identify whether any such
11 documents existed and if so, to provide me with copies.
12 "On 4th March 2008, Mr Chapman wrote to me asking me
13 to clarify the first part of this request. He asked for
14 confirmation that my request was for copies of any
15 documents recording any conversations on or shortly
16 following 20th August 1992 between Lord Fellowes and Her
17 Majesty the Queen concerning interception of
18 a communication between Diana, Princess of Wales and
19 Mr Gilbey. I replied by email on the same date
20 providing the confirmation requested.
21 "On 17th March 2008, Mr Chapman wrote to me in
22 answer to my query. In his letter, Mr Chapman stated as
23 follows.
24 "I am instructed that in relation to (a), no
25 documents recording any such conversations have been

151

1 located. However, it is considered appropriate to draw
2 to the Coroner's attention the evidence of one document
3 which falls outside the strict terms of the Coroner's
4 request. Notwithstanding this, the Coroner may wish to
5 consider whether sight of the document would be of
6 assistance to him.
7 "I am instructed in respect of (b) no documents have
8 been located relating to a meeting on 8th July 1997.
9 During a search made for documents in (b), a memorandum
10 dated 18th July 1997, and relating to the Way Ahead
11 Group meeting on 23rd July 1997, was located. I attach
12 a copy.
13 "I spoke to Mr Chapman shortly after receiving his
14 letter. I asked him to provide me with a copy of the
15 document to which he had referred in response to my
16 first query so that the Coroner might review it for
17 relevance. Mr Chapman subsequently brought the document
18 in question to me and the Coroner reviewed it.
19 "He considered it irrelevant to any issues in these
20 inquests.
21 "Following evidence yesterday from Mr Michael Faux
22 the Coroner asked me to make inquiries to ascertain
23 the colour of the printed letterhead on Buckingham
24 Palace notepaper in the late 1990s. I telephoned
25 Lord Fellowes this morning to make this query. He told

152

1 me that the letterhead on Buckingham Palace writing
2 paper during his time working there was printed in red
3 ink and that this remains the position today. The only
4 printing on a document of which he was aware which was
5 gold was Her Majesty the Queen's cipher or coat of arms,
6 not the address and that this was only printed on very
7 formal documents, such as invitations to state
8 banquets."
9 And it concludes:
10 "I believe the facts stated in this statement are
11 true."
12 It is dated 18th March 2008.
13 Then the second statement reads as follows:
14 "I Martin Smith, solicitor to the inquests, make
15 the following statement:
16 "I make this statement to inform this court of the
17 communications received from the Inquests' Secretariat
18 from certain witnesses since they gave evidence."
19 The first one is Alberto Repossi.
20 "Mr Repossi gave evidence on 10th December 2007. In
21 the course of his evidence he undertook to provide
22 various documents:
23 "(a) He was questioned about a receipt relating to
24 various rings including the 'Dis-Moi Oui' ring.
25 The receipt was number 0154 [and he gives a reference to

153

1 the number of the copy]. Mr Repossi was asked and
2 agreed to provide the receipts that were immediately
3 before and after that receipt, and said they would be in
4 his premises in Paris. As I understand it, the purpose
5 of this request was to validate the receipt which has
6 been provided by showing the dates and details of the
7 transactions before and after.
8 "He gave evidence that he had taken the 'Dis-Moi
9 Oui' ring to St Tropez for a private meeting with
10 Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. He agreed that there
11 would exist records of him taking the ring and other
12 jewellery to St Tropez, and he undertook to provide
13 those records. He also agreed to give the police access
14 to the hard drive of the computer storing those records.
15 "(c) He gave evidence that the 'Dis-Moi Oui' ring
16 had been sent to the Repossi factory in Turin for
17 resizing and accepted that the sending of the ring would
18 probably have resulted in documents being created. He
19 agreed to provide those documents and said that they
20 would be in his premises in Monte Carlo. He gave
21 the following specific undertakings:
22 "(i) he agreed that there would exist a 'police
23 book' containing the record of the 'Dis-Moi Oui' ring
24 being sent from Monte Carlo to Turin and he undertook to
25 provide the book.

154

1 (ii) he agreed that there would also be a record at
2 the Turin factory showing the receipt of the ring, and
3 he undertook to provide that record.
4 "On 20th December 2007, I wrote to Mr Repossi to ask
5 him to provide the documents which he had undertaken to
6 supply. He was given a deadline of 7th January 2008, to
7 give him time to locate the documents. On
8 5th February 2008, I received a letter from Mr Repossi
9 in which he made reference to an email which he claimed
10 to have sent on 9th January 2008, but which I had not
11 received. He attached a copy of that email in which he
12 asked for a list of documents which he was required to
13 provide. My colleague, Mrs Gungadur sent an email to
14 Mr Repossi's assistant referring Mr Repossi to
15 a transcript of his evidence and pressing Mr Repossi to
16 send the documents as a matter of urgency. On
17 12th February 2008, Mr Repossi's assistant replied