In 2007, Mohamed Al-Fayed forced a coroner’s inquest into the deaths of Dodi and Diana, which was held at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, and headed by Lord Justice Scott Baker. On 7 April 2008, the jury released its verdict (see Document, p.443), stating that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and the pursuing paparazzi. The jury also named the intoxication of the driver, the victims’ decisions to not wear seat belts and the speed of the Mercedes as contributing factors in the deaths.
There may be an innocuous reason for the serially identical conclusions of the French inquiry, Operation Paget and the Scott Baker inquest: they are correct and the goddess-like Diana suffered the fate of many poor mortals. She was killed by a drunk driver.
Noel Botham,
Peter Hounam and Derek McAdam,
Trevor Rees-Jones and Moira Johnston,
DOCUMENT: CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO THE DEATHS OF DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES AND MR DODI AL FAYED: RULING ON VERDICTS [EXTRACTS] AND JURY’S VERDICT
1) I propose to leave the following verdicts to the jury:-
1) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi);
2) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
3) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
4) Accidental death;
5) Open verdict.
These are my reasons. I have received written and oral submissions from Interested Persons and from Counsel to the Inquests. My reasons are necessarily in relatively summary form because of the limited time available and the need to prepare the summing-up. I shall not, therefore, deal with all the points made in over 450 pages of written submissions.
2) The inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed heard evidence over a period of 5 ? months. They have covered a wide range of topics. At the heart of the evidence has been detailed consideration of the circumstances of the crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris just after midnight on 31 August 1997. We have heard from dozens of witnesses who saw some part of the journey of the Mercedes from the rear of the Ritz Hotel to the scene of the crash. Some have given oral evidence, others have had their evidence read under rule 37 of the Coroners Rules as uncontroversial. Yet more has been introduced as hearsay evidence when it has not been possible to secure the attendance of a witness. The circumstances of the crash have also been considered in detail by a range of experts, whose opinions have been explained to the jury. There was considerable agreement between those experts. Similarly, we have heard an enormous quantity of evidence that goes, in one way or another, to conspiracy theories that have abounded since the crash. […]
4) There is some common ground on the verdicts which should be left. All are agreed that the verdicts accidental death and open verdict should be left to the jury. All are agreed that, whatever “short-form” verdict is returned by the jury, it can and should be supplemented by a short, non-judgmental narrative conclusion. The debate has focussed on the following questions:
i) Should unlawful killing be left to the jury on the basis that the crash was deliberately staged, with the intention of killing, harming or scaring? Deliberately causing the crash with the intention of killing the occupants of the car or causing them serious injury would support a verdict of unlawful killing by murder. Deliberately causing the crash with a view to scaring the occupants of the car would support a verdict of unlawful killing on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter. Mr Al Fayed submits that such a verdict should be left to the jury, whereas the Metropolitan Police submit that it should not.
ii) Should unlawful killing be left to the jury on the basis of gross negligence manslaughter by the driving of following paparazzi? The Ritz Hotel submits that it should, while the Metropolitan Police disagree. There is a subsidiary issue. The Ritz contends that this verdict should be left both on the basis of gross negligence manslaughter and on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter; the latter founded on a hypothetical offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
iii) Should unlawful killing be left to the jury on the basis of gross negligence manslaughter by the driver of the Mercedes (Henri Paul)? The Metropolitan Police say that this verdict should be left, while the family of Henri Paul argue that it should not.
[…]
12) For some years, Mr Al Fayed has expressed the firm belief that his son and the Princess of Wales were murdered in furtherance of a conspiracy to kill them or do them serious harm. This “broad and overarching allegation” was elaborated in written submissions before the inquest began. Mr Al Fayed believes that the conspiracy was orchestrated by the Duke of Edinburgh and executed by the Secret Intelligence Service on his orders. In the light of the evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS. Mr Mansfield now submits that the jury should consider an alternative scenario, which he terms the “troublesome priest thesis”: a plan by unknown individuals (perhaps rogue SIS operatives) to stage the crash in order to serve the perceived interests or wishes of the Royal Family or “the Establishment”, as he and Mr Al Fayed term it. He also now submits that the aim of the plot may have been to scare the Princess. That submission may rest in part on a realistic acceptance that there could have been no certainty that the Princess and Mr Al Fayed would die or be seriously harmed. The lethal forces that resulted in the deaths of Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul resulted from the high speed of the Mercedes (about 65 mph at the moment of the collision) and the fact that it impacted with the corner of a pillar. Had the Mercedes hit the side of the pillar or gone out of control and hit the wall on the other side of its carriageway, it would probably have been deflected and the outcome may well have been different. Additionally, the occupants were not wearing seat belts. The expert evidence was that wearing a seat belt would either have prevented or at the very least diminished the prospect of a fatal injury.
13) As I said in my Reasons regarding the decision not to call the Duke of Edinburgh to give evidence, the question of whether this was a staged crash is different from the question of whether the Duke could have been involved. But because it is impossible for anyone to argue that particular individuals or agencies were involved, beyond what amounts to speculation, it is necessary to focus on the issue whether the circumstances of the crash point to a staged accident. In other words, would the evidence of the events on the evening of 30/31 August 1997 enable the jury to be sure that the crash was staged by somebody of whose identity there is no evidence? In my judgment it would not.
14) It is common ground between the reconstruction experts, and has not been disputed by anybody, that, either at the entrance to the Alma underpass or shortly into it, the Mercedes had a glancing collision with a white, slower moving Fiat Uno. The collision was between the right front corner of the Mercedes and the left rear corner of the Uno. There was a 17 cm overlap between the vehicles at the time of collision, and the point of impact was around the dividing line between the two lanes of the carriageway. Debris from the rear left light cluster of the Fiat was found at the scene, as was debris from the front right light cluster of the Mercedes. Additionally, the Fiat left a smear of paint on the Mercedes. There is some doubt about where precisely the collision took place, but of the fact that an impact took place between the Mercedes and the Fiat there is no doubt. The Mercedes clipped the slower moving Fiat as it went past. It would, in my view, be irrational for the jury to come to any conclusion other than that the presence of the Fiat was a potent contributory factor in the loss of control of the Mercedes and thus the crash and the deaths.
15) Mr Mansfield made clear in his oral submissions that the driver of the Fiat Uno, who has never been
