Hearing transcripts

28 January 2008 - Morning session

1 Monday, 28th January 2008
2 (10.00 am)
3 (Jury present)
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Members of the jury, good
5 morning. A progress report which I hope might be
6 helpful for you: just to confirm that we are not sitting
7 on Monday 25th February, of which you are well aware,
8 I think, but we are sitting on Friday 7th March, again
9 a matter of which you are aware.
10 I hope that this coming Thursday you will be able to
11 sit a little bit later than usual because we have
12 a witness scheduled from the West Coast of America to
13 give evidence at 4 o'clock. I understand that there is
14 nothing in your book to indicate any particular problem
15 for that day.
16 Moving onwards, it may be helpful for you to know
17 how I see things at the moment. I anticipate that we
18 will conclude the evidence before Easter. Good Friday
19 is 21st March. How many days before Easter we finish
20 the evidence is a matter that remains to be seen, and
21 there are so many variables that I couldn't give you any
22 firm prediction about that.
23 After the evidence has been concluded, there are
24 likely to be some legal submissions which will not
25 involve you, which I will have to deal with. Then

1

1 I have to sum the case up to you.
2 How long all that will take is, at the moment, not
3 entirely clear, and won't become clear until we get to
4 that point. But as far as Easter is concerned, I have
5 indicated already that, of course, we wouldn't be
6 sitting on Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Easter Sunday,
7 Easter Monday, nor will we be sitting on the Tuesday
8 after Easter for the reason that the courts are
9 effectively shut on that day.
10 I would ask you, however, to keep all Fridays
11 thereafter available for sitting because the point will
12 be reached where I shall be summing up the case to you
13 and then you will retire to consider your verdict, and
14 we can't, as it were, take one day out of the week and
15 put it on one side at that point. But when all is said
16 and done, as far as I can see at the moment, we are on
17 target for finishing broadly six months after we
18 started, and six months after we started is 2nd April or
19 thereabouts.
20 So no promises as to precise days and so forth, and
21 there are many variables, but that's how it looks at the
22 moment and I hope that's helpful for you.
23 Well, now, the next witness is Detective Constable
24 Milburn.
25 MR BURNETT: Sir, Roger Milburn, yes, who is, I think,

2

1 a sergeant and temporary detective inspector.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Sorry, I have grossly
3 misrepresented his standing.
4 DETECTIVE INSPECTOR ROGER MILBURN (sworn)
5 A. Roger Milburn, Temporary Detective Inspector, currently
6 attached to New Scotland Yard, sir.
7 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: If you would prefer to sit,
8 please do, but stand if you prefer that.
9 A. I prefer to stand, thank you.
10 Questions from MR BURNETT
11 MR BURNETT: Mr Milburn, my name is Ian Burnett. I will be
12 asking you questions first on behalf of the Coroner, as
13 I think you know, and other counsel will be likely to
14 ask you questions in addition.
15 You have given your name and your rank. You are
16 a Met police officer; is that right?
17 A. That is correct, sir.
18 Q. You were one of the case officers in connection with the
19 prosecution of Paul Burrell; is that right?
20 A. I was. That's correct.
21 Q. Now the jury have already heard from Mr Burrell and so
22 they know that the trial ended in Mr Burrell's
23 acquittal.
24 A. Yes, it did.
25 Q. Mr Milburn, I hope it will not be necessary to go into

3

1 an enormous amount of detail about what happened during
2 that trial but there are a number of matters on which we
3 would welcome your assistance.
4 Now, we know that the trial took place in
5 October 2002 and we have heard from Mr Burrell about
6 a search that you and other officers conducted of his
7 home in January 2001.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. You remember both events, I don't doubt.
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. I will ask you first about one or two events before the
12 search in 2001. Before I do that, Mr Milburn, did you
13 make a short statement on 19th July 2007 for the
14 purposes of these inquests?
15 A. Yes, I did, sir.
16 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. We also, Mr Milburn, have a complete transcript of the
19 evidence you gave in Mr Burrell's trial. I am sure you
20 will be relieved to know that the vast majority of that,
21 on any view, is irrelevant, but have you had a chance to
22 look at some extracts of that?
23 A. I have refreshed my memory of certain parts, yes,
24 correct.
25 Q. When did the investigation into Mr Burrell commence?

4

1 A. We had information that came into Scotland Yard,
2 I believe, on 3rd November, and --
3 Q. 2000?
4 A. 2000 -- which was shortly followed by The Mail on
5 Sunday, I believe on 5th November, running a story in
6 relation to a dhow which had allegedly been stolen,
7 and --
8 Q. If we pause there, was the information that came into
9 Scotland Yard that a dhow, a boat, made of precious
10 metals, which had been a wedding present to
11 Prince Charles and the Princess of Wales, had been seen
12 offered for sale in a London shop?
13 A. Yes, it had.
14 Q. So that was the information received?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Then there was an article to the same effect in a Sunday
17 newspaper?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And, thereafter, were inquiries made of the Prince of
20 Wales' office?
21 A. Yes, there were.
22 Q. What were the results of those inquiries in just
23 a sentence or two?
24 A. Effectively the dhow was reported stolen.
25 Q. And that's what triggered the investigation?

5

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Would the jury be right, then, to assume that the
3 executors of the Princess of Wales, including Lady Sarah
4 McCorquodale, were not the instigators of the
5 investigation?
6 A. Not at that stage. There became a grey area in relation
7 to the actual ownership of the dhow which we obviously
8 investigated.
9 Q. Now you have explained that that took place at the
10 beginning of November. Did a time come when you went to
11 see Lady Sarah McCorquodale, one of the executors of the
12 Princess of Wales' estate?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Do you have with you a copy of notes you made on that
15 visit?
16 A. I have my original book that I wrote them in.
17 Q. First of all, the book, if you could just hold it up so
18 that we can see what it is. This is a fairly standard
19 notebook?
20 A. It's a date book (indicating).
21 Q. What exactly is it?
22 A. It's my own notebook of any meetings I have. I make
23 rough notes just to trigger my memory.
24 Q. Are those notes that you make as you go along through
25 the meeting or do you jot them up afterwards?

6

1 A. These ones were made as we went along during the course
2 of the meeting.
3 Q. Now the meeting with Lady Sarah McCorquodale, according
4 to your note, took place on 20th November 2000.
5 A. That's correct, sir.
6 Q. Do you remember where that meeting took place,
7 Mr Milburn?
8 A. That was at the home address of Lady Sarah.
9 Q. This is her home in Lincolnshire?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. You travelled there by appointment?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. She knew you were coming?
14 A. Absolutely.
15 Q. In general terms, what was the purpose of the meeting?
16 A. In general terms, the purpose of the meeting was to
17 establish or try to establish the ownership of the dhow
18 between the executors or the Prince of Wales' office.
19 Q. So you were particularly concerned, were you, to
20 understand what had happened to wedding presents?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. Perhaps you can take us through your note. I will ask
23 for the various pages to be pulled up on the screen.
24 Mr Milburn, I hope no discourtesy in saying that your
25 handwriting is both distinctive but not that easy to

7

1 read.
2 A. That's not the first time that's been said.
3 Q. When we see the document, we will see various things
4 have been blacked out. They are telephone numbers and
5 one or two names in connection with a tape, also about
6 which the jury have already heard.
7 A. That's fine.
8 Q. So they will come up on the screen, I hope in front of
9 you as well as behind you. Could we have
10 [INQ0060520] -- Mr Foley ahead of me as ever, thank you.
11 I will see whether I can help you through the
12 bits --
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We have no typed copies of this,
14 have we?
15 MR BURNETT: Sir, we do have typed copies, but unfortunately
16 the typed copies are not 100 per cent accurate, as we
17 will see. We can certainly have a typed copy up and it
18 may well be then that on the typed copy we can see one
19 or two changes
20 Can we go through it, Mr Milburn?
21 A. Certainly.
22 Q. "Original executor"?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And the "20/11/00", that's your way of writing the date,
25 is it?

8

1 A. Yes, it was.
2 Q. "Mother and I" comes next.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Does that refer back to "Original executor"?
5 A. It does.
6 Q. Could you read the next line please?
7 A. "London, three days a week for two to three months.
8 "Wedding presents all to Prince Charles.
9 "Clothes, personal belongings to Althorp.
10 "Jane Fellowes (Lady Sarah's sister).
11 "Paul Burrell, keys."
12 Q. All right, "Paul Burrell, keys", do you know what that
13 was a reference to?
14 A. That would have meant that Paul Burrell would have had
15 the keys to Kensington Palace.
16 Q. Sir, for those following this on a typescript, that
17 line, "Paul Burrell, keys", is not on the typescript
18 version. It is one of the bits that has been left out.
19 Moving on, "Paul Burrell in charge of organisation
20 of possessions".
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. "All wedding presents to Prince Charles".
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. What does the next one say?
25 A. "3 am, nothing should have been taken at that time of

9

1 day."
2 Q. All right. Pausing there, one has seen two references
3 to "wedding presents". Is that because the dhow was
4 believed to be a wedding present?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Can you remember what the reference to 3 am was about?
7 A. Yes, I can. Prior to seeing Lady Sarah, we had had a PC
8 who gave evidence during the course of the trial of
9 Paul Burrell, PC Ward, who contacted me to tell me that
10 during the course of when Paul Burrell and Lady Sarah
11 were sorting the possessions out of the late Princess,
12 that he had seen Paul Burrell at 3 am removing items
13 from Kensington Palace.
14 Q. I see.
15 A. So I asked the question to Lady Sarah, "Should he have
16 been there at that time?"
17 Q. All right. The reference a little further up to "London
18 three days a week for two to three months", is that
19 a reference to the time that Lady Sarah and/or her
20 mother spent in London?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Moving on, the next line appears to be:
23 "Box in sitting room as you described. Now at
24 Althorp."
25 A. Correct.

10

1 Q. We have heard about a box and we shall hear some more
2 about it, but "as you described", are you able to
3 explain how a mention of the box came about?
4 A. Yes, certainly. PC Ward had said to me that he had seen
5 Paul Burrell carrying a small box and gave me, from
6 memory, some dimensions, and I would have indicated to
7 Lady Sarah that it was "that big by about that big"
8 (indicated) and the reply was as you see, the box was in
9 the sitting room.
10 Q. At Mr Burrell's trial, there were descriptions of
11 a number of boxes, but from this answer, did you
12 understand Lady Sarah to be telling you that the box was
13 at her brother's family home at Althorp?
14 A. At that point, yes, but maybe 10 or 15 minutes later
15 I think Lady Sarah must have remembered that it was
16 actually at her home, and she said "Actually it's here"
17 and she showed it to myself and my fellow officer.
18 Q. That's right, isn't it, that the box was in
19 Lincolnshire --
20 A. It was.
21 Q. -- and had always been in Lincolnshire since it left
22 Kensington Palace as far as you were aware?
23 A. I know it was in Lincolnshire.
24 Q. So do you think that that's a mistake that you made in
25 noting what was said?

11

1 A. No, that was what was said at the time. I think
2 Lady Sarah remembered, as our meeting went on, that
3 actually the box was at her home address and she showed
4 it to us.
5 Q. Then we move on. There is a reference to a "Christies
6 inventory"; is that right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And the name "Meredith Ethrington Smith"?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Who is a Christies person; is that right?
11 A. Yes, I believe so.
12 Q. And the next line?
13 A. "Produced 'Feb 98'".
14 Q. So is that a reference back to the inventory?
15 A. It would have been.
16 Q. Then there is a reference to David Thomas at
17 ^sp Garrards.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. The next line, we've lost the bottom of it, although
20 I think --
21 A. I think it's "September and October inventory".
22 Q. I think it's "September 1997", is it?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 MR BURNETT: Again, sir, that's an error in the typewritten
25 version for those following that.

12

1 If we turn the page, there is then a reference to
2 Michael Gibbins with some telephone numbers.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. He is called "Office manager of Princess".
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. What's the next line?
7 A. "Correspondence shredded".
8 Q. That was the context of that discussion. Can you
9 remember now? It's a very long time ago, Mr Milburn.
10 A. I can't remember the specific conversation. It was
11 simply that correspondence had been shredded.
12 Q. Then there is a reference to "Correspondence in box".
13 A. Mm.
14 Q. What comes next?
15 A. "Taken by Christmas by Lady Sarah".
16 Q. Now we will see a little later in this note that
17 Lady Sarah suggested to you that Mr Burrell had got the
18 contents of the box.
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Also -- maybe you don't remember -- but the box itself,
21 Lady Sarah said at the Burrell trial, didn't go to
22 Lincolnshire until well into the spring of 1998.
23 A. I can't remember that.
24 Q. Can you actually remember this conversation now or is
25 the note your sole and only way through to it?

13

1 A. Obviously the note assists me because it was made
2 several years ago, but I can't remember the exact
3 contents of that part of the conversation we had.
4 Q. Do you see, though, it doesn't make a lot of sense given
5 that Lady Sarah has always said -- and it is recorded in
6 the note later -- that --
7 A. No, I understand that. I don't know -- I would be
8 guessing, and it would be wrong for me to guess, the
9 reason why. It may have been that some correspondence
10 was taken and some was left. I don't know.
11 Q. All right. Moving on, can you help us with the next
12 bit?
13 A. Yes, "Burrell not asked to take or destroy any of
14 Diana's belongings".
15 Q. So that was concerned with matters that eventually came
16 up at the trial?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Then just read through to the end please.
19 A. "'Paul 'Burrell.
20 "Cheshire.
21 "Adamant he didn't want anything.
22 "Cufflinks.
23 "Signed photo.
24 "Tie pin.
25 "Ceramic boxes.

14

1 "Employment July/August 97".
2 Q. Are you able to remember what the reference to
3 "cufflinks", "signed photo", "tie pin" and "ceramic
4 boxes" was?
5 A. That's what Lady Sarah was telling me all that
6 Paul Burrell should have.
7 Q. Okay. Over the page, it looks like "Inland Revenue
8 instructed by Sotheby's". Perhaps the other way round?
9 A. Maybe.
10 Q. Then "Items missing". Is that the next one?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. What's under that?
13 A. "29.30 September 98, 1st October 98".
14 Q. Do you have any idea what that's about?
15 A. That, I guess, may have been the time that the
16 Inland Revenue or Sotheby's were doing the inventory.
17 I couldn't be 100 per cent on that.
18 Q. You can't tell now?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Then there is a reference, "30th June 98, offices
21 empty".
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Then in brackets we have some initials.
24 A. "JH".
25 Q. Do we know what that is?

15

1 A. It is james Hewitt.
2 Q. Thank you. Then there is a name blanked out.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. What do we have next?
5 A. "Contents of box with Burrell."
6 Q. So that's your note of Lady Sarah explaining her belief
7 that the contents of the box were with Paul Burrell?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Then we have "JH sign ring", is that?
10 A. "JH" -- that's my abbreviation for "signet ring".
11 Q. Next?
12 A. "Letters, Prince Philip".
13 Q. Next?
14 A. "Patrick Jephson's resignation letter".
15 Q. And next?
16 A. "Dictaphone tape".
17 Q. With --
18 A. "Confession of George Smith".
19 Q. Again we have heard about that, but we don't need to go
20 into the detail of who and why.
21 Then the number "5", it looks like you were going to
22 write something down there, but didn't.
23 A. I ran out of things to write. I expected another item
24 so I had already written the "5" down in preparation.
25 Q. Then the next line?

16

1 A. "Dhow should have gone to St James's".
2 Q. Now it's Lady Sarah's recollection that the box didn't
3 have any letters from Prince Philip in it when she saw
4 it at Kensington Palace and that she didn't mention that
5 to you; she mentioned correspondence concerning the
6 divorce. Are you able to help on that at all?
7 A. The only thing I would like to say in respect to that is
8 this is a note I made at the time. I would have had no
9 reason to write "Letters, Prince Philip" at all, and
10 I think Lady Sarah must be mistaken due to the length of
11 time that's passed since we had the meeting.
12 Q. You know that she gave that evidence also in
13 Paul Burrell's trial.
14 A. I can't remember that.
15 Q. You perhaps don't remember it, although I suspect
16 you were there. Then the dhow is mentioned at the end,
17 "... should have gone to St James's", which of course
18 was where Prince Charles then lived in London --
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. -- and where his office was.
21 Now, before you went to see Lady Sarah, had you been
22 concerned about any particular items other than the
23 dhow?
24 A. We had information that came after the original
25 investigation had commenced that there was a vase that

17

1 had also been stolen.
2 Q. You don't appear to ask about that.
3 A. No, I don't. I think it came after, actually.
4 Q. So these were notes that you made at the time, but it
5 wasn't for the purposes of taking a statement?
6 A. No, it wasn't. Over on the next page -- I don't know if
7 you have that -- there was another meeting arranged,
8 Tuesday 5th December, at Scotland Yard. The purpose of
9 this meeting was solely really to establish ownership of
10 the dhow and to meet Lady Sarah in respect of what could
11 possibly become an ongoing investigation.
12 Q. You gave evidence at the trial concerning the search
13 that you conducted of Paul Burrell's house.
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Perhaps I can ask you some questions about that. You
16 went to Paul Burrell's house on 18th January 2001; that
17 is right, isn't it?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you arrested him in connection with an allegation of
20 theft from the estate of a dhow?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And you conducted, along with other officers, a search
23 of his home?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. What did you go to his home looking for?

18

1 A. We had had information that Paul Burrell had been
2 involved in the sale of the dhow. I had documentation
3 which showed that another butler had been involved in
4 the sale of the dhow and we had information that
5 Paul Burrell had been involved in the sale of the dhow.
6 So I went to the premises, his home address, to arrest
7 him on suspicion of theft and to also search for any
8 correspondence which would support the allegation or
9 not, as the case may be.
10 Q. The allegation of theft of the dhow?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. So you were looking for documentation dealing with the
13 dhow?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. It's right -- and the jury will remember -- that
16 Paul Burrell was never in fact charged with the theft of
17 the dhow --
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. -- or proceeded against in respect of that.
20 A. Absolutely, it was counsel's advice.
21 Q. So as long as everybody remembers that.
22 Whilst you were there, you came across all sorts of
23 other things which raised your suspicions and you
24 arrested him in connection with theft of other matters;
25 is that right?

19

1 A. Subsequently, yes.
2 Q. But you found nothing to link him with the dhow?
3 A. No, we didn't.
4 Q. Was your purpose, in going to Mr Burrell's address in
5 Cheshire, to look for letters from the
6 Duke of Edinburgh?
7 A. No. The purpose of the visit to Cheshire was to arrest
8 Paul Burrell on suspicion of theft of the dhow, but at
9 the same time Lady Sarah had asked us, if and when we
10 were to speak to Paul Burrell, I was to ask or we were
11 to ask if he knew the contents -- excuse me, the
12 whereabouts of the contents of the box was, which is
13 what we did.
14 Q. Lady Sarah wanted the contents of the box back?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. She believed Paul Burrell had the contents?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that your colleague,
19 Inspector de Brunner, asked him about that --
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. -- and asked him whether he had the contents, and that
22 Lady Sarah wanted them back, but he told you that he
23 didn't have them and he didn't know where they were?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. It was suggested to you in the course of Mr Burrell's

20

1 trial that Mr Burrell had been told that if he gave the
2 box or its contents back, the search would be complete;
3 in other words it was suggested to you that the real
4 reason for going to his home was to look for the box.
5 A. I understand.
6 Q. Was that true?
7 A. No, not at all. A 100 per cent inaccurate allegation by
8 Mr Burrell.
9 Q. Whilst you searched his home, did you come across
10 anything that you understood to be the content of the
11 box?
12 A. No, we didn't, sir.
13 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do we have the box in court?
14 MR BURNETT: I know the box is in the building, but I don't
15 think it's in court at the moment.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am just wondering if Mr Milburn
17 ought to be given a chance of looking at it and
18 seeing --
19 MR BURNETT: To confirm it's the one he saw in Lincolnshire.
20 Certainly we can get it and I don't doubt that
21 Mr Milburn will be asked some more questions so we can
22 deal with that at the end.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
24 MR BURNETT: Those are my questions, sir.
25 Questions from MR MANSFIELD

21

1 MR MANSFIELD: Good morning, Officer. I am
2 Michael Mansfield. I represent Mohamed Al Fayed.
3 A. Morning, sir.
4 MR MANSFIELD: Sir, I wonder if the box could in fact be
5 produced.
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes. That's what I was asking
7 for.
8 MR MANSFIELD: This happened at the Old Bailey, exactly the
9 same. There were questions asked and it was at the
10 Old Bailey, but there was a delay.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am sorry about that. I thought
12 it was in court, in fact.
13 MR MANSFIELD: I wonder if it could be ... I won't waste
14 time, Officer, because provided it's here within a few
15 minutes -- and I will not ask you about your
16 recollections of it before a box is produced today.
17 I want to, as I have with other witnesses -- because
18 it may be easier for you to take things chronologically
19 in this instance, and you can use your -- I think you
20 called it a "day book"; is that the notebook you have
21 there?
22 A. Yes, a day book, notebook, index book.
23 Q. Yes, whatever. How did you come -- you have mentioned
24 the dhow -- to go to Lady Sarah? Did she ring you or
25 did you make contact with her?

22

1 A. I think there was a dispute about the ownership of the
2 dhow.
3 Q. Of the dhow?
4 A. As Lady Sarah was an executor, she was the obvious
5 person to talk to. In relation to your specific
6 question, I can't remember who contacted who first.
7 Q. Let us deal with the dhow. When you went to
8 Mr Burrell's address, he was immediately arrested for
9 theft of the dhow, wasn't he?
10 A. Yes, he was.
11 Q. In other words, no questions asked, nothing found, just
12 arrested?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Of course, once you have made an arrest under the Police
15 and Criminal Evidence Act, you are empowered to make
16 a search, aren't you?
17 A. Yes, under section 32.
18 Q. You don't need a warrant or anything of that kind?
19 A. No, we don't, sir.
20 Q. The information that he had been involved -- and I use
21 the word "information" -- had any of that come from any
22 of the executors?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Right. Did you ever interview -- as it's put on the
25 first page, "Mother and I" -- the other executor at that

23

1 stage?
2 A. At that stage, no. We did later.
3 Q. You did later. But about the dhow?
4 A. I would have to check my notes in relation to --
5 obviously the other executor was Frances Shand Kydd.
6 Q. That's right.
7 A. We did speak to her on more than one occasion, but
8 I can't remember at that stage whether it was to do with
9 the dhow. I think it was more likely to be with the
10 other property that was found at his home address.
11 Q. I will come to some of it. Please understand I am not
12 going through everything. Was the information that
13 Mr Burrell had actually offered this for sale?
14 A. No.
15 Q. No. Was the information that he had ever had the dhow
16 in his possession?
17 A. That I can't remember. I don't think so.
18 Q. Well you have to have reasonable grounds to arrest so
19 that you can search. So what were the reasonable
20 grounds?
21 A. We interviewed Harold Brown, who was the other butler.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. He changed his story, I think, from memory, three times;
24 from the first occasion, from memory, that he gave the
25 proceeds to the Princess; and the second occasion, that

24

1 he couldn't remember what he did with the money; and the
2 third occasion, he gave the money to Paul Burrell.
3 Q. How does that involve Paul Burrell in the theft of the
4 dhow?
5 A. I will get to that.
6 Q. Right.
7 A. Paul Burrell came into the investigation as a result of
8 Stephen -- sorry, Jan Havlick, who was also arrested in
9 respect to handling the dhow, who said "Paul and Harold
10 do this sort of thing together" -- I think was the
11 quote. Harold Brown had told us that he had given the
12 money from the proceeds, the sale of the dhow, to
13 Paul Burrell to put into the Princess's fund. We
14 established that that money never got paid into the fund
15 and therefore it gave us reasonable grounds, at that
16 stage, to arrest him on suspicion of theft.
17 Q. The theft of the dhow?
18 A. Being involved in the theft of the dhow.
19 Q. Being involved in the theft. Well would it be fair to
20 say that so far what you have said is a pretty thin
21 basis for an arrest as opposed to inquiries, isn't it?
22 A. I was satisfied that Mr Burrell had been involved in the
23 theft of the dhow, so I arrested him for it.
24 Q. Well, I am not going to spend a lot of time on that
25 because obviously I went to get to the item that's now

25

1 brought in here. You have indicated at the trial and
2 today that you did see the box, a box, somewhere, and we
3 will have to come to this --
4 A. I saw it at Lady Sarah's home address.
5 Q. In Lincolnshire?
6 A. Mm.
7 Q. So on 20th November, where were you? In Lincolnshire?
8 A. I drove to Lincolnshire to see --
9 Q. Yes, you were in Lincolnshire. So on
10 20th November 2000, the box was in Lincolnshire?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. Is it this box (indicating)?
13 A. I think so. I couldn't swear 100 per cent because it's
14 several years ago, but it was a box of that dimension,
15 yes.
16 Q. I can't see the lid from here. Does it have anything on
17 it? Sorry, can you see?
18 A. Not that I can see, no.
19 Q. Could somebody very kindly tilt the box so we can see
20 whether there is anything at all on the lid, any
21 inscription or anything.
22 That's on the inside. Thank you very much. I take
23 it there is nothing on the inside. Well, from what we
24 can see here, there is an inlay and then a central part.
25 Does it lift out? I see. It opens out, so you can put

26

1 things in the central part of the box. I don't know
2 whether the jury can see. If you could turn it round so
3 the jury can see the box. Is it too heavy? Could you
4 just shut the lid. Sorry about this. Just tilt it so
5 the jury can see what the lid looks like. Right. Thank
6 you very much.
7 That is a wooden box with a large key with a piece
8 of string attached to it. That's how it appears now.
9 You think that that is the box you saw in Lincolnshire
10 in November 2000?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now where in your notes does it indicate that the box,
13 that box, if that's the one you saw, was in fact in
14 Lincolnshire and that you saw it then?
15 A. My notes don't reflect that, no.
16 Q. Your notes don't reflect it. So that you understand the
17 point of the question -- and I am sure it will not come
18 as a surprise -- it's really to track down two
19 categories of document. I will indicate now what the
20 categories of document are.
21 One are letters from the Duke of Edinburgh --
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. -- and so it's entirely clear what I am speaking about,
24 the originals of the letters that the Duke of Edinburgh
25 wrote in 1992 to Diana, in other words the originals she

27

1 received, and/or other letters written either before
2 1992 or after 1992 to Diana. Do you follow? That's one
3 category.
4 A. I understand.
5 Q. The second category is copies of letters, because we
6 understand she kept them, of letters sent by her to the
7 Duke of Edinburgh, her copies; do you follow?
8 A. I have never seen any letters.
9 Q. No. I will come on to this in a minute. I know that's
10 what you are saying at the moment and it may jog your
11 memory as we go through. That's the second category.
12 A third category, I will call it a "dossier", but
13 for these purposes it's a compilation of documents
14 entitled "Profiting from misery", which were documents
15 itemising companies who had been allegedly involved in
16 planting or deploying landmines in Angola, Bosnia and
17 other places in the world. Do you follow the point?
18 A. I understand the point.
19 Q. Right. So it's those categories of document. We have
20 heard some evidence that you may be aware that documents
21 of that kind, sensitive documents, she secreted in
22 different places, and this box seems to be one of the
23 places; do you follow?
24 A. I understand where you are going, yes.
25 Q. Right. So your notes don't indicate that the box in

28

1 fact, in November 2000, was there, but you do have
2 a recollection of seeing it?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Now did you look inside it?
5 A. No, I don't think I did because the box was never ever
6 part of a case that I was investigating, so --
7 Q. We will come to that. Are you sure about that?
8 A. 100 per cent sure. I was shown the box by Lady Sarah
9 and that's as far as it went.
10 Q. I want to suggest to you that the box did become
11 an important part. Police went to her address and took
12 photographs of the box, did they not?
13 A. Not by me, no.
14 Q. I can't say who did it. This is evidence that
15 Lady Sarah gave at the trial, that a police officer came
16 to take photographs because there was going to be
17 a prosecution in relation to, at the very least, the
18 contents of the box, if not the box itself.
19 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
20 Q. So you don't know anything about that?
21 A. I have no recollection of taking a photograph of that
22 box.
23 Q. No, but you worked for a particular squad at that time,
24 did you not?
25 A. I was on the special inquiry team.

29

1 Q. I am sorry?
2 A. I was on the special inquiry team.
3 Q. A special inquiry team based at New Scotland Yard?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Did you have any connection with the Organised Crime
6 Group?
7 A. I was part of the Organised Crime Group --
8 Q. Part of that group?
9 A. -- but prior to going into the special inquiry team.
10 They split.
11 Q. When did they split?
12 A. September 2000, I went to the special inquiry team, and
13 that was when it was formed, so it would be around that
14 time.
15 Q. So you were part of the Organised Crime Group in 1997?
16 A. No, I wasn't.
17 Q. When were you part of the group?
18 A. 1999.
19 Q. Sorry, right. So organised crime in 1999, and then it
20 splits in September 2000. Was your senior officer
21 a DAC Veness?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Who was it?
24 A. It was Assistant Commissioner Veness.
25 Q. Well, it's the same person, only a different rank,

30

1 Veness.
2 So Mr Veness, would he, in 2000, have known about
3 your inquiries?
4 A. Yes, he would have done.
5 Q. He would have done.
6 A. He would have known that there was an investigation of
7 that type.
8 Q. The box, you say, isn't -- wasn't -- part of any
9 investigation that you were aware of. Who else would
10 have wanted to go to her address and take photographs of
11 the box if she is right?
12 A. There was another investigation being conducted by
13 a separate department.
14 Q. Right. Who was that?
15 A. In relation to the allegation of the sexual assault that
16 had taken place, they may have taken a photograph of the
17 box, but I have no knowledge of it.
18 Q. Right. So just continuing with your visit on
19 20th November, you don't recall looking in the box
20 because I want to ask you whether, in the box, at that
21 time, it had contents?
22 A. That I don't know the answer to. I didn't look inside
23 it. Lady Sarah certainly never mentioned that it still
24 contained correspondence. As I said earlier, she asked
25 us to ask Mr Burrell, if and when we saw him, if he

31

1 still had them. But I have no recollection of seeing
2 anything inside the box at all.
3 Q. You see, she may say -- certainly she said at the
4 trial -- that the box in fact had two categories; in
5 other words what she categorised as sensitive material
6 and non-sensitive. You presumably can't help about
7 that?
8 A. I have no knowledge of that. You will have to ask
9 Lady Sarah.
10 Q. Yes, I certainly will. The "sensitive" essentially is
11 the list that you took down, although she disagrees with
12 one of the items, as you know. So whether the box in
13 November 2000 had other items in it, you didn't look and
14 she didn't say?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Although the box was there, you didn't alter your notes
17 to suggest that the box wasn't at Althorp, as now
18 written on the first page?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. How long were you with her that day, roughly speaking?
21 I mean, an hour or so?
22 A. Hour and a half, two hours, something like that. Maybe
23 less. I can't remember.
24 Q. Certainly you can look at it. On the second -- I am
25 looking at the typed page, because it's slightly

32

1 easier -- on the second page you have been asked about
2 correspondence being shredded. You don't know now who
3 actually did it. Do you recall whether in fact she told
4 you who had done that?
5 A. Not at that stage, no. I became aware that
6 Frances Shand Kydd was shredding material.
7 Q. When did you become aware of that?
8 A. I can't remember, sir.
9 Q. Right. Is there anything in your day book that helps?
10 A. Not in that, no. I did see Frances Shand Kydd several
11 times. It would have been in a statement --
12 Q. I want to ask you carefully about the next entry
13 because, still trying to do an audit trail on what has
14 happened to this material, we are back to the box,
15 aren't we? "Correspondence in box" is your note.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Was anyone with you during all of this interview with
18 Lady Sarah?
19 A. Yes, there was.
20 Q. Who was it?
21 A. It was DI Bamford, as she was then known; de Brunner as
22 she is now.
23 Q. Anyone else?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did she see the notes that you had taken afterwards?

33

1 A. Who, Lady Sarah or Ms de Brunner?
2 Q. Well, either of them actually.
3 A. They would have seen them when I was writing them.
4 I certainly wouldn't have handed over my notebook and
5 said "Have a look at my notes". They are my notes.
6 Q. So it's a fairly large book. So they both would have
7 seen you entering it. Your fellow officer, was she
8 actually in charge of this whole matter?
9 A. She was the investigating officer.
10 Q. She was. So she would have recourse to your notes if
11 this matter was going to be progressed, wouldn't she?
12 A. She would have ...? Sorry, I missed that.
13 Q. Access to your notes?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The entry that comes next is "Correspondence in box
16 taken by Christmas by Lady Sarah".
17 A. There is actually a bracket "(N)" -- I put a line after
18 that in "box" -- and then there is a new sentence,
19 "Taken by Christmas by Lady Sarah".
20 Q. Yes. Perhaps we could have that page up on screen,
21 please. It's the second handwritten page which I think
22 should be [INQ0060521]. So the jury can see written
23 halfway down there:
24 "Correspondence shredded.
25 "Correspondence in box.

34

1 "[Then there is a line] Taken by Christmas by
2 Lady Sarah."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. What's that referring to?
5 A. As I said earlier, there may be some correspondence
6 taken by Lady Sarah. I can't remember.
7 Q. You see, it's quite important. You don't separate out
8 by saying "some correspondence". It's just
9 "correspondence in box/taken by Christmas".
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Not only does the note not suggest that the box was
12 there, where here does it suggest that she asked you to
13 ask him where the contents of the box was?
14 A. It doesn't, but I remember the conversation.
15 Q. It doesn't. So when do you say she did ask you?
16 A. At that point.
17 Q. At that point, so --
18 A. As we were leaving, from memory.
19 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't note it down, that you
20 were being asked to ask Burrell?
21 A. Maybe because I was actually on the way out of the
22 house.
23 Q. Yes. That doesn't stop you noting it down when you get
24 back to the Yard, does it?
25 A. It's a request that I would remember.

35

1 Q. You see, we will come to actually what happened when you
2 got to the house where he lived. Do you normally just
3 convey requests between people for missing property? Is
4 that your job normally?
5 A. It's an open question. I am asked to do something and
6 I did it; simple as that.
7 Q. Was she suggesting that he had taken it?
8 A. She was suggesting that he was still in possession.
9 Q. That he had taken it?
10 A. She was saying that he was still in possession of it.
11 Q. Yes, that he had taken it?
12 A. They are your words, not mine. She was saying that "Can
13 we ask Mr Burrell if he can return the correspondence?"
14 Q. Yes, the --
15 A. There was no allegation there.
16 Q. This is not correspondence which he would be entitled
17 to, is it?
18 A. I don't know about that because at some stage I think
19 Lady Sarah asked him to look after the contents of the
20 box.
21 Q. Oh, did she?
22 A. Because --
23 Q. When do you think that happened?
24 A. From memory, the reason why Lady Sarah didn't take the
25 contents of the box when it was opened or eventually

36

1 opened was that she was due to travel by train back up
2 to Lincoln -- I think it was a weekend -- and she wasn't
3 in a position to take the material, so she asked
4 Mr Burrell to look after it.
5 Q. When did you discover that, though?
6 A. I can't remember.
7 Q. That wasn't anything that was said at this time, was it?
8 A. I can't remember. It may have been. I can't remember.
9 Q. There is not a single note to suggest that she said,
10 "Look, he has it because I asked him to have it because
11 I had to go by train and couldn't take it on a train".
12 That's not in there, is it?
13 A. It's not in there, but I remember it, Mr Mansfield.
14 Q. Yes, that's what was said at the trial. Do you think
15 you might be infusing what was said at the trial back
16 into your memory of this meeting?
17 A. I wasn't present when Lady Sarah gave evidence.
18 Q. You don't have to be. There are transcripts of the
19 trial, aren't there?
20 A. Yes, there are.
21 Q. Have you read what she has said?
22 A. I haven't, actually.
23 Q. There is no suggestion here that she said "I have given
24 it to him for safe-keeping because I can't take it on
25 the train"?

37

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. That would be quite important -- if, in fact, you are
3 going to investigate, at least ask Mr Burrell about the
4 contents of the box, it would be important to say to
5 him, "Look, Lady Sarah says it was given to you for
6 safe-keeping"?
7 A. From memory he was told that Lady Sarah had said that he
8 was still in possession of the contents of the box.
9 Q. No, no, no, sorry. It would be important to say to him,
10 if you are going to pursue the inquiry, "Look,
11 Lady Sarah says she entrusted it to you for safe-keeping
12 because she couldn't take it on the train". That would
13 be important, wouldn't it?
14 A. You may say that. I certainly didn't.
15 Q. Well what's the point of asking him if you haven't got
16 the circumstances?
17 A. He was asked if he was in possession of anything from
18 Kensington Palace, to which the answer was "no". He was
19 then asked if he was still in possession of the
20 documentation from the box. He said he didn't have it,
21 so here endeth that conversation.
22 Q. We will come to exactly what was said in just one
23 moment, when you come to go to his address. So "Taken
24 by Christmas by Lady Sarah", you cannot now say whether
25 it's all the correspondence or a part of it or anything,

38

1 can you?
2 A. No, I can't.
3 Q. "Burrell not asked to take or destroy" and so forth.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Then we have the last page[INQ0060522]. I don't ask for it to go up
6 because you have already indicated that there are four
7 items there. You would have no reason, you have said,
8 to write down "Letters, Prince Philip" unless she told
9 you something to that effect.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Right. In fact, as you have already indicated, because
12 there is a note of it on the first page, you had
13 information from a police officer, didn't you?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Was his name "Ward"?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. He was a protection officer or an officer who was on
18 duty in the little sentry box that's near
19 Kensington Palace; is that right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. He had seen, in 1998, around June of 1998,
22 Paul Burrell's car backing up to Kensington Palace at
23 3 am in the morning --
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. -- at a time when in fact he was no longer living at

39

1 that address?
2 A. I don't know about that.
3 Q. All right. Anyway, at a time which was, to say the
4 least, a bit odd --
5 A. Yes, it was.
6 Q. -- and at a time when it would appear that no-one had
7 permission to remove items from Kensington Palace?
8 A. Which I found out in November, yes.
9 Q. Which you discovered in November. That's November
10 of 2000?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. One of the items that the officer claimed to have seen
13 him removing was a wooden box?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Something similar to that box that's now here?
16 A. He said he saw Paul Burrell removing a box.
17 Q. A wooden box?
18 A. That's why I asked Lady Sarah "Are you missing a wooden
19 box?"
20 Q. So you were interested in what a police officer told you
21 about the movement of a wooden box and --
22 A. Other items.
23 Q. -- other items. Yes, "I am interested in the box, but
24 not so much the other items".
25 A. I was interested in the other items as well as the box.

40

1 Q. Yes, but it looks as though -- leave aside Lady Sarah --
2 on the basis of what a police officer was saying, there
3 was something quite important here; a box had been taken
4 allegedly from Kensington Palace?
5 A. And other items.
6 Q. And other items.
7 A. A box is a fairly significant thing to describe to
8 somebody.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. So that's why I asked.
11 Q. I accept that. The question I am wanting to pose to you
12 is: having had information from a police officer that
13 a box was being removed, that box then became quite
14 significant, didn't it?
15 A. No.
16 Q. No? Particularly if it is suggested here that somehow
17 or another, if it's the same box, that box has arrived
18 in Lincolnshire?
19 A. The box was never significant to our investigation. The
20 contents were significant to Lady Sarah.
21 Q. Wait a minute. We are talking about the possibility of
22 theft. Now if you have information from a police
23 officer that a wooden box has been removed and, looking
24 at your note, it's the box in the sitting room as you
25 described, you might want to know from Lady Sarah

41

1 effectively, if it's the same box, how the box arrived
2 in Lincolnshire, wouldn't you?
3 A. Yes, absolutely.
4 Q. Right, what's the answer to that?
5 A. Lady Sarah said the box was up in Lincoln.
6 Q. Yes, not that it was because you are there and you say
7 you saw it.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. How did it get there if a police officer sees it being
10 removed in 1998 and it's in Lincolnshire by the
11 year 2000?
12 A. I have no idea and I think that's a question that
13 Lady Sarah should be asked.
14 Q. No, it's a question for you now.
15 A. Well, I can't answer it because I don't know.
16 Q. Because it's one of the things that you would need to
17 investigate with Lady Sarah, having had information from
18 a police officer?
19 A. Which is exactly what we did, with respect. We asked
20 her if she had any knowledge of the missing box. Her
21 reply was "A box is at Althorp", and then some time
22 later she said "Actually, it's here". So the box was
23 never an issue. The box was never stolen.
24 Q. We will see whether it's an issue.
25 A. To my investigation, it was never an issue.

42

1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The box was in her home.
3 Q. But this note doesn't suggest any investigation by you
4 of Lady Sarah about how this box, reportedly taken by
5 Burrell, has finally ended up in Lincoln, does it?
6 A. Correct, because I didn't need to.
7 Q. If the box contained sensitive material, you might need
8 to know who has really had it, mightn't you?
9 A. Well, we were asked by Lady Sarah to ask Mr Burrell
10 where the contents were and it was never an issue. It
11 was never part of our case. It was never part of our
12 trial.
13 Q. We will come to whether it was part of the trial in a
14 moment. You knew, before you left her premises, that
15 the suggestion of what was in the box, somehow or
16 another removed from Kensington Palace, seen by a police
17 officer and then ending up in Lincolnshire, contained --
18 if you just look at the list, I am not going to ask you
19 to read them out again, but the items there are
20 peculiarly sensitive, aren't they?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. So sensitive that when we came to the trial, you were
23 not prepared to even tell the jury about item number 1
24 and you wanted to write it down, didn't you?
25 A. Yes. I had my reasons for that.

43

1 Q. Yes. I am not suggesting you didn't. That's why
2 I suggest to you -- item number 1, sensitive as it is,
3 it's a ring.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Sensitive as it was meant that it would be quite
6 important to find out where the sensitive ring had been,
7 it's continuity and where it ended up; correct?
8 A. No, I disagree.
9 Q. Where is it then?
10 A. Mr Mansfield, it was never part of our case. We were
11 asked by Lady Sarah to establish if Paul Burrell had it.
12 That is the end of the story.
13 Q. That's it, is it? You find he has not got it in his
14 premises and you give up?
15 A. There was never an allegation that those items had been
16 stolen, Mr Mansfield.
17 Q. It's beginning to look as though they might have been,
18 isn't it?
19 A. Well, they certainly haven't come out into the public
20 domain.
21 Q. No. In fact, can we put it this way: that the item
22 numbered 2 -- so item number 1 has not been found --
23 item number 2, which if they were the originals of
24 letters of Prince Philip, they have not come into the
25 public domain or rather into your notice either, have

44

1 they?
2 A. No, they haven't.
3 Q. Has anybody, including the Duke of Edinburgh, suggested
4 that there really ought to be a search for the
5 originals?
6 A. Never, as far as I am aware, has an allegation been made
7 by anybody that these items have been stolen.
8 Q. Is that because somebody has them and doesn't want to
9 make the allegation?
10 A. You can speculate to the cows come home. I have no
11 idea.
12 Q. The third item is the Patrick Jephson resignation letter
13 and the fourth item I don't elaborate on. It's fairly
14 clear the nature of that.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So have any of these items -- that's the four you have
17 listed -- ever seen the light of day?
18 A. Not that I am aware of.
19 Q. Do you find that a rather concerning matter?
20 A. Obviously somebody still has them.
21 Q. Do you find that a rather concerning matter?
22 A. They are not my property.
23 Q. I am sorry, Officer, as a matter of being a public
24 official, do you find that items of this sensitivity
25 which, at the early stage in November, you are being

45

1 asked to track down as missing -- is it a matter of
2 concern to you that they, to this day, are still
3 missing?
4 A. It's an unanswered question, yes.
5 Q. All right. Because I want to suggest to you that by the
6 time we get to the trial -- just to remind the jury,
7 that's a visit that takes place in November 2000, but
8 then comes a time when you give evidence in
9 October 2002.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. But what you are doing there, again so the jury can
12 follow it, is you are giving evidence of your attendance
13 at Mr Burrell's address in January 2001.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, you begin -- and I am just going to summarise the
16 early part. You are asked by those representing the
17 Crown about the investigation in relation to the dhow
18 and that you have been investigating it since the early
19 part of 2000; do you remember saying that?
20 A. November 2000.
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Yes, not the early part of 2000.
23 Q. Well that is what was put to you. Well, "I said since
24 the early part of ..." -- I will not quibble about
25 exactly when.

46

1 Then you deal with his arrest on suspicion of theft
2 of the dhow.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. He wasn't charged in relation to that. Are these
5 sections of the transcript that you have read recently?
6 A. Several months ago now.
7 Q. Have you been asked, since your statement last year, to
8 make any other statement or observations about this
9 question of letters and the box?
10 A. Who by?
11 Q. Well, anyone.
12 A. When? I mean, I made --
13 Q. Between July of this last year and now.
14 A. I don't think so, no.
15 Q. All right. Then you move into having arrested him on
16 suspicion of theft and cautioned him --
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. "He made no reply". You then indicated to the jury
19 there what was said immediately after his arrest, the
20 first thing that happened.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. I am going to go through this carefully. Do you have
23 a note of it there?
24 A. I have a note that I made at the time, yes.
25 Q. If you have the part in the note which says, "I then

47

1 said 'Is there anything that you have ... taken from
2 Kensington Palace?' He said 'no' '".
3 A. Can I just find it?
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Which page are you on?
5 MR MANSFIELD: Page 8 of the transcript.
6 A. Yes. "'Is there anything that you have here which has
7 been taken from Kensington Palace?'. He said 'no'".
8 Q. DCI de Brunner says, "Do you remember removing a box
9 from Kensington Palace which was located in the sitting
10 room?"
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, that question was plainly based on what --
13 partly -- the officer claimed he had seen, wasn't it?
14 A. Yes, it was.
15 Q. You see, it's very prominent in one of the things that
16 you say first of all to him, isn't it? Having arrested
17 him, you go straight -- or rather your fellow officer
18 does -- to the question of removing a box.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. That's because you really did want to discover what had
21 happened to the box because, if you had already seen it
22 and it was in Lincoln, it's a bit odd why you would be
23 asking him about removing a box; do you follow?
24 A. I follow, but I don't agree.
25 Q. All right. Why were you asking him about removing

48

1 a box?
2 A. The purpose was to establish where the contents were.
3 So, therefore, if we just say to Mr Burrell, "Were you
4 in possession of contents from a box?", then there is no
5 lead-up. So the leading question is "Did you remove
6 a box from Kensington Palace, yes or no?" If he then
7 says "Yes, I did", the next question is "Do you know
8 where the contents are?". That's why it was phrased
9 like that.
10 Q. We will see how it actually develops. Mr Burrell said:
11 "It was so long ago. I removed a lot of property."
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So he is not saying he didn't remove the box; neither is
14 he saying he did.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Your fellow officer said:
17 "This was a small wooden oak box which contained
18 several documents."
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Then he says, that's Burrell:
21 "I remember the box. It was engraved with the
22 letter 'D'. The last time I saw it, it was in the
23 sitting room."
24 The officer:
25 "Did you ever remove it?"

49

1 Burrell:
2 "No."
3 Fellow officer:
4 "Lady Sarah McCorquodale states that you have the
5 contents of this box and she has asked you for it back."
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Burrell:
8 "She never asked me for it. Why didn't she ask me?"
9 Officer:
10 "Do you know where these documents are?"
11 He said :
12 "No."
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. First of all, at no stage in that conversation is it
15 suggested that the box is in Lady Sarah's possession, is
16 it?
17 A. No, that's correct. But the purpose was to establish
18 where the contents were. As I tried to explain earlier,
19 he was asked if he removed the box and it's a way to
20 trigger one's memory in respect to that. He may have
21 removed loads of boxes from Kensington Palace. I don't
22 know.
23 Q. When you then did -- and I will not go through every
24 item of it, obviously -- you then spend all day at his
25 address, don't you?

50

1 A. A fair portion of the day, yes.
2 Q. Most of the day?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Collecting various items?
5 A. "Collecting" isn't the word I would use. I would use --
6 we were looking for property in respect to the sale of
7 the dhow. We then found property which at that stage we
8 believed he was unlawfully in possession of, so
9 therefore the search continued.
10 Q. We know that he wasn't charged in relation to the dhow
11 and you found nothing in relation to that --
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. -- let alone obviously the dhow itself. Was the dhow
14 ever found?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. Where was it?
17 A. It was in Spink, the jewellers. It had been altered.
18 Q. When was it found?
19 A. Shortly after 5th November. I can't remember the
20 precise date.
21 Q. Of 2000?
22 A. Yes, it was.
23 Q. Right. When you went through, not only did you not find
24 anything to do with the dhow, you didn't find any of the
25 items specified in that list that Lady Sarah had given

51

1 you?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. I will ask you this question because this wasn't on the
4 list: did you ever find, in the Burrells' possession,
5 a dossier or compilation headed "Profiting out of
6 misery"?
7 A. I can't remember. No recollection of that.
8 Q. You have no recollection of that?
9 A. No. Everything we took from Mr Burrell's house was
10 documented. So if it's not on the property list, then
11 as far as I am concerned we never had it.
12 Q. Well, it is not on the property list, so as far as
13 that's concerned, he didn't have that.
14 The box and its contents not having been located,
15 you must have reported back to Lady Sarah that none of
16 the items that you have noted down were in Mr Burrell's
17 possession.
18 A. Quite possibly, yes.
19 Q. Unless you really weren't interested, you would have to
20 report back to her, wouldn't you?
21 A. I can't remember whether I did or I didn't.
22 Q. Does your day book help because you have another meeting
23 with her -- I think you have put it in there.
24 A. We do. It wouldn't have been discussed in December of
25 2000 because we didn't go there until January.

52

1 Q. No.
2 A. But I can't remember. It's so long ago.
3 Q. I have to ask you this: did you in fact find items
4 listed?
5 A. Did I find what?
6 Q. Any of the items listed --
7 A. No.
8 Q. -- by Lady Sarah when you went to Burrell's address?
9 A. No, nothing at all.
10 Q. If you didn't, why didn't you go back to her and say,
11 "I am terribly sorry, we couldn't find any of it. We
12 ought to take this matter further"?
13 A. I said I had possibly spoken to her.
14 Q. This is extremely important, do you agree, this aspect,
15 the follow-up, because if he hasn't got them and she
16 hasn't got them, it's beginning to look rather worrying?
17 A. Again, that's a matter for Lady Sarah. The property
18 belongs to the executors. I may have told her that we
19 hadn't found them. I can't remember. I have made no
20 note of it and now we are talking several years ago.
21 Q. All right. I appreciate it's a long time ago and I am
22 not trying to tax your memory. Does it follow,
23 therefore, that there is nothing in your notebook to
24 suggest any follow-up meeting with her?
25 A. I saw her several times.

53

1 Q. On this topic?
2 A. On this topic I can't remember.
3 Q. If you can't remember, does your notebook have any
4 record of a meeting with her in which, soon after your
5 visit to Burrell in 2001, you said to her, "Sorry, no
6 documents" or "None of the items you have listed"?
7 A. (Pause). No, it wouldn't appear so.
8 Q. No?
9 A. No.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Did the policeman who was on duty
11 at Kensington Palace and saw Mr Burrell at 3 am
12 removing, amongst other things, a box ever identify the
13 box?
14 A. I don't believe he did, sir, no.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: So it might have been the same
16 one; it might have been a different one?
17 A. It may well have been. I don't know.
18 MR MANSFIELD: Were any boxes found in Mr Burrell's
19 possession? Any boxes of any kind that may have come
20 from Kensington Palace?
21 A. Not like that, no. Cardboard boxes, yes, but --
22 Q. Sorry, I meant wooden boxes not cardboard boxes. Again,
23 I do not want to unfairly put it to you if there is
24 a note in there, but it appears, looking through the
25 notebook, there is not a note of any meeting with her in

54

1 which you report back to her, "Sorry, couldn't find it"
2 or her reaction to it.
3 A. I have no note of it. It doesn't mean to say it never
4 happened.
5 Q. What was her reaction then?
6 A. I can't remember because -- I have said I possibly did.
7 I don't know. I can't remember.
8 Q. You don't know. If something like this had happened,
9 that is report back to her, would you have noted it
10 down?
11 A. Not necessarily.
12 Q. Why not?
13 A. Well, for start-off, it was never -- as again -- part of
14 our investigation. If I had said to Lady Sarah, "No, we
15 hadn't found the property that you asked us to", yes,
16 it's a possibility that that conversation took place,
17 but I wouldn't make a note of it.
18 Q. All right. At the trial the box was brought to court,
19 wasn't it?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 Q. Who asked for that?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. Because?
24 A. Because the defence of Mr Burrell had made a big issue
25 of the box, and from my previous experience, juries

55

1 don't like mysteries. So I asked for the box to be
2 brought to court so they could see it.
3 Q. Understatement of the century, yes. They don't like
4 mysteries. So you asked for the box. Can I ask you:
5 it's that box, is it --
6 A. From recollection, yes.
7 Q. -- that comes to court?
8 A. Yes, I think so.
9 Q. The point the defence were making -- it's been put to
10 you already -- was that Mr Burrell was being told,
11 according to what was being put on his behalf -- and he
12 has confirmed it here because I have asked him -- is
13 that if he were to, as it were, cough up the box or the
14 contents, then you will all go away. Is there any
15 possibility you or de Brunner said that to him or his
16 wife?
17 A. None whatsoever.
18 Q. None?
19 A. It wasn't the reason why we were there and it's
20 a defence tactic, I would suggest.
21 Q. Of course you might suggest that. A tactic to do what?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Because the box wasn't part of the trial.
24 A. Absolutely.
25 Q. What would be the point --

56

1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. -- if you are going to make that observation?
3 A. I don't know; maybe to say that we were there
4 unlawfully. I don't know.
5 Q. Of course there was concern about the search. Do you
6 remember? It was all about whether there was a need for
7 a warrant and so on, the point I have already made to
8 you.
9 A. Yes, absolutely. I was asked that question.
10 Q. In other words, is there any possibility that in fact
11 you had rather thin grounds for arrest, but you needed
12 to arrest in order to search because what you were
13 really after were missing sensitive materials? Do you
14 follow the point?
15 A. I follow it. I completely deny it because it's
16 inaccurate.
17 Q. That was essentially the thrust of what was being put to
18 you at the trial, wasn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Right. When the box was brought, was it like that
21 (indicating), in other words empty? I assume it's
22 empty. I have not looked inside.
23 A. I believe so, yes. I can't remember seeing the key,
24 but ...
25 Q. I will come to that. Had the lock been forced?

57

1 A. The lock had been -- I think, from memory, the lock had
2 been forced by Lady Sarah because the key had been lost,
3 she told me.
4 Q. So this was obviously before it came to court?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, the key with the piece of string on there
7 (indicated), is that the key that you recall?
8 A. I have never seen the key before. I have only ever seen
9 the box.
10 Q. When you were shown it at her home address, it didn't
11 have a key?
12 A. Not that I can recollect, no.
13 Q. But she opened it without a key?
14 A. I can't remember.
15 Q. Well, I would like you to think. I know it's a long
16 time ago. It's a fairly prominent key. When you went
17 to Lincoln, did she have to open it with a key?
18 A. I can't remember opening it.
19 Q. And when it came to the Old Bailey, did you have to use
20 a key to open it?
21 A. Not that I can remember, no.
22 Q. How was the lock forced?
23 A. I don't know. You would have to ask Lady Sarah.
24 Q. Did you examine it when it was brought to the
25 Old Bailey?

58

1 A. No. I had no reason to.
2 Q. Well, it might be of some interest, even at that late
3 stage, since you had not found any documents in
4 Paul Burrell's address, just to check what was in it.
5 A. Well, my understanding was that it was empty.
6 Q. Did you check it?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. I want to ask you this: what happened to the box, if
9 it's that one, after the trial?
10 A. Well, Lady Sarah was asked to bring it. I would presume
11 she took it back with her to Lincoln. I don't know.
12 Q. Just the follow-up questions: because the easy way of
13 getting to grips with this, in other words where this
14 material is, if it in fact either belongs to -- that's
15 the items on the list 1 to 4 that you have -- they
16 either belong to, as it were, Princess Diana's estate --
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. -- or they belong, of course, to the donors in the first
19 place, the various individuals who are related to the
20 items -- so was there any follow-up, for example by you
21 or anyone on your behalf making inquiries at Althorp to
22 see whether -- I will come to the point -- they have any
23 of the original letters relating to the
24 Duke of Edinburgh?
25 A. No, there wasn't.

59

1 Q. Have you ever been asked to do that?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So as far as you were concerned, once the trial was
4 over, the box goes and that's it?
5 A. Correct.
6 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.
7 MR KEEN: No questions, sir.
8 MR CROXFORD: No, thank you, sir.
9 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Will you be any length of time?
10 MR HORWELL: No, sir.
11 Questions from MR HORWELL
12 MR HORWELL: My name is Richard Horwell. I appear on behalf
13 of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police.
14 A. How do you do, sir.
15 Q. There is only one topic that I wish to ask you about and
16 it came from the evidence that Mr Burrell gave in these
17 proceedings, not anything to do with his trial.
18 He said to this jury that he believed that the
19 phones of friends of his had been monitored because he
20 saw a list with names and numbers blanked out, and that
21 was a list that was disclosed to him during the course
22 of the preparations leading up to the trial.
23 First of all, was ever such a list disclosed to
24 Mr Burrell before the trial?
25 A. During the course of any police investigation, sir,

60

1 there is material which is described as "unused
2 material", which is generated throughout the course of
3 an investigation, and one of those items was a list of
4 actions which had been generated throughout the course
5 of the investigation. That action list would have been
6 supplied to the CPS as unused material. Contained
7 within that action list there were subscriber checks
8 where the numbers had been blacked out.
9 Q. The reason why subscriber checks were carried out in
10 relation to telephone calls that Mr Burrell had been
11 making, can you just explain that, please?
12 A. Yes, certainly. It was two-fold. We had information
13 from Mark Boland, who was Prince Charles' private
14 secretary at the time, that Paul Burrell had been
15 contacting the Palace with a view to arranging a meeting
16 with Prince Charles and/or Mark Boland.
17 Mark Boland was a prosecution witness in our case,
18 a potential prosecution witness in our case, and as
19 a result of that I wanted to establish who Paul Burrell
20 had actually been ringing, to see who else he had been
21 making contact with.
22 Additionally, we had had a complaint via the CPS
23 from his solicitor stating that we had been tapping his
24 home phone due to the fact the amount of press leaks
25 that were occurring at the time.

61

1 Q. Due to the amount of ...?
2 A. Press leaks that were occurring at the time. We
3 established the cause of the press leaks in as much as
4 I obtained a statement from a gentleman who had been
5 receiving payment from the Daily Mirror on behalf of
6 Paul Burrell's brother, Graham Burrell, and Graham
7 Burrell was actually selling stories. So that's where
8 all the press leaks were coming from.
9 This individual was accepting cheques from the Daily
10 Mirror and then paying them into his account and then
11 Graham Burrell was taking the majority of the money. So
12 that's where the press leaks were coming from, and
13 that's one of the reasons why I believe Paul Burrell
14 thought we were tapping his phone, but we weren't.
15 Q. There was no monitoring of any phone; is that right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. It must follow, but I will ask the question: there was
18 no disclosure that there was any monitoring of any
19 phone?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. When you wished to look at the numbers that Mr Burrell
22 had been calling, you obtained those numbers from, what,
23 billing information?
24 A. Billing information.
25 Q. Which police regularly obtain in investigations?

62

1 A. It is a form of investigations that we do, sir.
2 Q. You have heard the allegation that has been put, that
3 when you went to Mr Burrell's home in January 2001, you
4 went there not to find correspondence relating to the
5 dhow, but for other reasons?
6 A. I have heard the allegation.
7 Q. What do you say about that?
8 A. It's completely incorrect.
9 Q. What, in fact, happened is that you searched his home
10 for correspondence relating to the dhow?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And then found a great deal of property you weren't
13 expecting to see; is that right?
14 A. Yes, that is absolutely correct.
15 Q. Property that plainly had belonged to Diana in her life?
16 A. And her children.
17 Q. And her children, and that Mr Burrell was, to use
18 a neutral term, storing?
19 A. If you like to put it like that, yes.
20 Q. Some of that property related to the children, as you
21 have said; for example, a school book even --
22 A. Prince William's school book.
23 Q. -- was found in -- was it the attic?
24 A. I believe so. I would have to check back.
25 Q. That's where most of this property was found?

63

1 A. Correct, and in the study.
2 Q. And the nature and the diversity and the quantity of the
3 property found, did that come as a great surprise to
4 you?
5 A. Yes, it did.
6 Q. Having found it, you took it for obvious reasons --
7 A. We did.
8 Q. -- for a police investigation to commence?
9 A. That is correct.
10 MR HORWELL: Thank you.
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett?
12 Further questions from MR BURNETT
13 MR BURNETT: Sir, I will just be a couple of minutes,
14 I think.
15 Following from the questions that my learned friend
16 has just asked, it's right, isn't it, that in fact you
17 seized 415 items in the search?
18 A. Separate items, yes, but one item could be, for
19 argument's sake, 1,000 negatives.
20 Q. But it gives an idea of the scale of the property that
21 you found which you weren't expecting to find?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. You were asked by my learned friend, Mr Mansfield, about
24 the description of the box given by the police officer
25 who had seen Mr Burrell moving one at 3 in the morning.

64

1 A. Correct.
2 Q. My learned friend also put to you the conversation that
3 you had with Mr Burrell, and Mr Burrell himself
4 described a box with a "D" --
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. -- on its top. Does that box have a "D" on its top?
7 A. Not that I can see from here, no.
8 Q. We can look at it again if we need to. Do you remember
9 that in the course of the trial of Mr Burrell, there
10 was, in fact, reference made by his counsel,
11 Lord Carlile, to three different boxes?
12 A. I would take your word for that, yes.
13 Q. Can I see if I can jog your memory about the description
14 given by PC Ward, who was the officer who reported
15 seeing Mr Burrell and see if this helps your memory?
16 A. Yes, certainly.
17 Q. He said this in describing what he saw:
18 "He was then coming out from the alleyway with
19 a mahogany box. It was very ornamental. It was
20 something I would class as a presentation box which
21 seemed to have some sort of brass fittings on it."
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Does that jog your memory now?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. Does that have brass fittings on it?

65

1 A. Not that I can see, no.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Does it look like a presentation
3 box?
4 A. No. Apart from the key surround, it's very dark, but it
5 doesn't appear to be brass.
6 MR BURNETT: Maybe the jury themselves can make a judgment
7 as to whether or not it is --
8 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think at some point we might
9 get this a little nearer to the jury so they can have
10 a look at it.
11 MR BURNETT: Yes. Sir, certainly we can arrange that, and
12 perhaps we could have our break now and then we might do
13 that straight afterwards.
14 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, you have finished with
15 Mr Milburn, have you?
16 MR BURNETT: Yes, sir. Those are the only questions I have.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much. That's all
18 we require. We are grateful to you for giving evidence.
19 A. Thank you, sir.
20 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: We will have a break now for the
21 usual quarter of an hour.
22 (11.35 am)
23 (A short break)
24 (11.52 am)
25 (Jury out)

66

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The best plan, I think, is for
2 the jury to have a look at the box as they come past.
3 MR BURNETT: Certainly, sir.
4 (Jury present)
5 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I call next Detective Inspector
6 Scotchbrook.
7 DETECTIVE INSPECTOR JANE SCOTCHBROOK (sworn)
8 A. Jane Scotchbrook, Detective Inspector for
9 Operation Paget, sir.
10 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Do you prefer to sit or stand?
11 A. I will stand. Thank you, sir.
12 Questions from MR HILLIARD
13 MR HILLIARD: I want to ask you questions about the Burrell
14 note. That, as you know, was the note written by the
15 Princess of Wales in which she expressed fears for her
16 safety. You know the document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. We have heard that part of that appeared in the
19 Daily Mirror newspaper on 20th October of 2003?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is this right, that after that, as you understood it,
22 the then coroner, Michael Burgess, got in touch with
23 Mr Burrell, and then, in 2004 Mr Burgess got in touch
24 with you and sent you what he had got from Paul Burrell?
25 A. That's correct, sir, yes.

67

1 Q. That wasn't the complete note, is this right, as it
2 transpired? It was just one page of it that had some
3 parts blanked out?
4 A. Yes, parts of it had been redacted.
5 Q. Did Mr Burgess ask you to get access to the original and
6 look at the whole thing if you could?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. On 23rd March 2004, did you meet Mr Shaw, who was
9 Mr Burrell's then solicitor?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. He showed you the note, is that right?
12 A. That's correct, sir.
13 Q. Is this right, he showed you several pages, more than
14 one?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is this right, although you can't be completely certain
17 how many pages you were shown, you read it and it seemed
18 complete?
19 A. It did, sir, yes.
20 Q. But that remained, did it, after you had looked at it,
21 with the solicitor, Mr Shaw?
22 A. That's correct. There was an undertaking for it to
23 remain in their offices, sir.
24 Q. Then, in due course, Lady Butler-Sloss took over as
25 Coroner and she asked for the note; is that right?

68

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On 12th March of last year, did you get a colour
3 photocopy from the solicitor, Mr Thomas, who was by that
4 time acting for Mr Burrell?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. As you understood it, the original, is this right, was
7 with Mr Burrell but he was abroad?
8 A. That's correct. Sorry, I don't know if the letter was
9 with him, but it was no longer at the solicitor's. He
10 was abroad, which was why we couldn't get hold of it.
11 Q. And the colour photocopy you got, is this right, was six
12 single-sided sheets, six sheets of paper?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Writing on one side?
15 A. Oh, sorry, of the photocopy?
16 Q. That's right, the photocopy.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 23rd May of last year, you went back to the solicitor,
19 is this right, for the original?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. And you got it this time; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then, on 12th June of last year, did you compare the
24 original that you had got in May with the photocopy that
25 you had got in March?

69

1 A. That's correct, yes.
2 Q. Did you discover that there were more pages in the
3 original than in the photocopy?
4 A. Yes, more pages in the original than the photocopy, sir.
5 Q. Did it come to this? We have heard six single-sided
6 sheets on the photocopy. When you got the original,
7 I think that consisted of five pages with writing on
8 each side, so if you copied those just on one side you
9 would get ten pages.
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. But you had only had six in a copy, so you had been
12 missing four; is that right?
13 A. Yes, in effect, two double-sided pages were missing.
14 Q. But now you have the lot?
15 A. As I understand it, yes.
16 MR HILLIARD: Thank you very much.
17 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Mansfield?
18 Questions from MR MANSFIELD
19 MR MANSFIELD: Yes, very few questions.
20 First of all, at any stage was an envelope attached
21 to these pages?
22 A. I don't believe so, no.
23 Q. All right. Sorry, it's not a trick question or
24 anything, it's just we don't have an envelope in
25 relation to these and I just wanted to know whether you

70

1 were ever shown an envelope that may have accompanied
2 these.
3 A. I don't believe so. If there had been, I am sure
4 I would have written it in my statement.
5 Q. When you first saw them, were they folded in
6 a particular way or were just they straight sheets or
7 again do you remember?
8 A. I believe they were just straight sheets.
9 Q. A couple of other matters. One, when you were working
10 for the Stevens Inquiry and doing inquiries on behalf of
11 Lord Stevens, did you have a discretion to, as it were,
12 omit relevant material?
13 A. I wouldn't omit any relevant material.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. If I omitted -- are you talking about if I took -- are
16 you talking about statements?
17 Q. Yes. When taking a statement, did you have authority to
18 omit relevant material?
19 A. I would make a personal decision. If I didn't believe
20 something was relevant to a statement, I would not put
21 it in, if it was something that wasn't actually dealing
22 with the investigation.
23 Q. Yes. I am sorry to ask you. There is a reason. I am
24 not going to go through it in detail. Were each of the
25 officers given that remit, in other words -- I am

71

1 putting it shortly -- "Don't take a full statement from
2 the witness, just take from the witness what you regard
3 as relevant"?
4 A. No I wouldn't say that was an instruction that was
5 given. That is an understanding I have when I take
6 a statement because you take -- we are initially
7 evidence-gatherers, so we take all the information, but
8 some of that information is not pertinent to the
9 inquiry, so that I would --
10 Q. What was the inquiry, as you understood it, when you
11 came into it?
12 A. There were two strands to the inquiry. One was to act
13 as Coroner's officers, to assist with any inquiries in
14 England and to liaise with the French officers to get
15 information from French witnesses or from abroad, and
16 also to look into the allegation of conspiracy to murder
17 Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.
18 Q. So when did you come into it?
19 A. Did I come into the inquiry?
20 Q. Sorry, when did you come into it?
21 A. I started the inquiry, I believe it was, January 2004,
22 back end of January.
23 Q. So it's after the inquests have been opened publicly --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and the Coroner has indicated there will be a Stevens

72

1 Inquiry?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Just dealing with the conspiracy allegations, is it
4 right, therefore, that the only allegation being looked
5 at was whether this was, as being put forward by
6 Mohamed Al Fayed, a conspiracy to do serious harm or
7 murder Diana and Dodi?
8 A. We were looking at an allegation made by Mr Al Fayed.
9 If anything else came to the inquiry that considered --
10 you know, whether from members of the public, we would
11 also consider that as well.
12 Q. Did you consider other people's allegations? In other
13 words the inquest is looking not just at what Mr
14 Mohamed Al Fayed said.
15 A. No, it was if there were other allegations.
16 Q. If there were other allegations you would look at them?
17 A. If something had come in, and we did receive information
18 from various members of the public and we would look at
19 those things if it was based on something factual.
20 Q. Did you have a particular role within it?
21 A. Well, yes, I looked at the actions that officers were
22 carrying out, in effect, so --
23 Q. Who had everyday charge? I will not ask you if it's not
24 you, but did you have everyday charge of it or did
25 Lord Stevens have a hands-on approach to this or was it

73

1 Mr Douglas? Who was actually in charge of it?
2 A. There was a structure to our team. Lord Stevens was at
3 the head of it. There was Mr Brown, when I first came
4 in, who was Assistant Commissioner, then there was
5 Detective Chief Superintendent David Douglas, Detective
6 Chief Inspector Mark Hodges and then myself.
7 Q. I am just trying to ascertain really who is the
8 operative officer here on a day-to-day basis who would
9 have overall supervision.
10 A. I would supervise detective sergeants and the detective
11 constables who were out making inquiries, but it was
12 never down to one sole person. There was communication
13 between all of us.
14 Q. Would it be in fact Mr Douglas looking at the hierarchy?
15 Would he have the overall --
16 A. He was the senior investigating officer.
17 Q. In relation to certainly a particular statement and the
18 question of nasty letters -- do you remember?
19 A. Nasty letters?
20 Q. Yes. Duke of Edinburgh, nasty letters. I am putting it
21 in short form.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You took a statement from Simone Simmons?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. There came a time when you were asked -- I will give you

74

1 the date of the original statement because you may not
2 remember it off-hand: 2004, 3rd September?
3 A. Simone Simmons' statement?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. That is when it is dated. You probably took it before
7 that. That's 2004.
8 In 2006, you were asked whether you had any
9 knowledge of the content of the nasty letters.
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Who asked you? It's down as "Detective Chief
12 Superintendent". Who was that? Is that Douglas?
13 A. That would have been Mr Douglas.
14 Q. Do you know why he was asking you?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. So he asks you if you had any knowledge of the nasty
17 letters. Is that the only question that he asked you in
18 relation to her statement?
19 A. As far as I can recall, but if you know something ...
20 Q. No, I am just asking. It appears to be the only
21 question that you were asked in relation to her
22 statement, and somebody else took a note, DC Claire
23 ^sp Southcote.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. For reasons that we have adhered to throughout, I am not

75

1 going to read out the note that she took, but it is
2 a note indicating that the content of the letters
3 plainly could be construed as derogatory in relation to
4 the Duke's assessment of Diana.
5 A. I don't know if I have put it ...
6 Q. No, well, I do not want to embarrass anybody and I am
7 going to take it carefully. Do you recall that when in
8 fact you, as it were, obtained the DC's note, it was
9 much fuller in relation to the letters than what in fact
10 had been put in Simone Simmons' statement? Do you
11 follow?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. That's correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you indicated that you had taken the decision not to
16 enter the information that's in the message -- it's
17 number 927 -- about the nasty letters because it was
18 personal and, as far as you were concerned -- and these
19 are the words I wanted to ask you about -- "of no
20 relevance to the case". Do you want to see a copy of
21 the message or do you have it there?
22 A. I have one somewhere here, but that may be more easy,
23 yes.
24 Q. Mine is marked up. I do apologise. (Handed) Do you
25 want to look at the copy we have been given?

76

1 A.