![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Al Fayed, R (on the application of) v Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London [2008] EWHC 713 (Admin) (10 April 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/713.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 713 (Admin) |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE GROSS
and
MR JUSTICE WALKER
____________________
| The Queen on the Application of Mohamed Al Fayed |
Claimant |
|
| - and - |
||
| Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London |
Defendant |
____________________
for the Claimant
Ian Burnett QC and Jonathan Hough for the Respondents
Richard Horwell QC for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Hearing dates : 18th March 2008
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
President of the Queen's Bench Division :
This is the judgment of the Court
Inquests
into the deaths of
Diana,
Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed. These are our reasons, published after the Coroner's jury have returned their verdicts.
inquest
proper began a number of hearings took place. It was submitted to the Coroner that the Duke of Edinburgh should be called to give evidence and that questions should be put to Her Majesty The Queen. The Coroner gave a clear intimation that he was not disposed to do either, but that he would keep the submissions under consideration. In other words he did not reject the submissions outright, but indicated that he would, if invited to do so, review them in the light of the evidence. The
inquests
began last October. The Coroner admitted a considerable body of evidence that was only of the "most marginal relevance" to the questions the jury would have to answer. He explained that "if ever there was a case that has generated rumour and suspicion, and indeed it has done so on an international scale, surely this is it". He agreed to allow evidence of marginal relevance because it was "desirable in order to ascertain whether there is any substance in a number of assertions that have either been made by Mr Mohammed Al Fayed or have been circulating in the media or both." Nevertheless, the essential purpose of the
inquests,
in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Coroners Act 1988, was to ascertain how
Diana,
Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed came by their deaths.
inquests
the Coroner identified a list of likely issues. These included:
(a) Whether, and if so, in what circumstances,Diana,
Princess of Wales feared for her life.
(b) Whether the evidence of (Richard) Tomlinson (an ex-employee of the Secret Intelligence Service) throws any light on the collision.
(c) Whether the British or any other security services had any involvement in the collision.
(d) Whether correspondence belonging toDiana,
Princess of Wales, (including some from the Duke of Edinburgh) had disappeared and, if so, the circumstances.
Diana,
Princess of Wales containing a passage which was said to be both inflammatory and derogatory. She added that none of the letters she had seen were threatening, and in her opinion the Royal Family would do nothing to harm Princess
Diana.
Diana,
Princess of Wales and copies of her letters to him, which were presented in redacted form to the jury. After his evidence was concluded, on 17 December 2007 the claimant's solicitors wrote to the solicitor to the
inquests
contending that there were a number of relevant issues about which Brigadier Hunt-Davies had been unable to assist the Coroner. Mr Michael Mansfield QC, counsel for Mr Al-Fayed, had asked Brigadier Hunt-Davies certain questions, and the Brigadier had replied that he did not know the answer. Accordingly the Coroner was asked to call the Duke of Edinburgh to give evidence. In response the solicitor explained that the request to the Coroner to call the Duke of Edinburgh remained under review. We should however notice that the fact that the Brigadier had been unable to answer questions posed by Mr Mansfield did not carry the consequence that the Duke of Edinburgh should be called instead. The statutory task for the Coroner was to decide whether it would be expedient for the purposes of the
inquests
for the Duke of Edinburgh to be called to give evidence on these topics.
inquest
was, at last, coming to an end. The evidence of nearly 250 witnesses had been called before the jury, and the evidence was virtually complete. Written submissions were invited from all the interested persons. The Coroner was naturally giving his mind to his summing up, but on 12th March, he provided short reasons for his decision. He noted, as we do, that the submission in support of the contention that the Duke of Edinburgh should be called to give evidence, and Her Majesty The Queen asked questions, did not follow the thread of Mr Al Fayed's core belief, and his express evidence at the
inquest
that the Duke of Edinburgh was a "murderer" who organised the assassination by the SIS of both
Diana,
Princess of Wales and his son.
"(i) He accepted that there was no direct evidence of the Duke directing any plot or giving any order, and he did not at any point indicate that he wished to put to the Duke that he was in any way involved in the death of the Princess:
(ii) He submitted that the jury could conclude that "The Duke of Edinburgh is contributing to a climate of hostility":
(iii) He submitted that a series of events had occurred causing the Princess to represent a threat to the Establishment, and the Duke of Edinburgh should be called to give evidence on the cumulative effect of those events."
inquests.
This suggestion, advanced for the first time by Mr Mansfield, was based on what was described as a "troublesome" or "turbulent" priest thesis, a reference to the consequences of King Henry II's denigration of Thomas Becket, and the hasty rush in 1170 by four knights to murder him in Canterbury Cathedral. The argument is summarised in the letter before claim from Mr Al Fayed's solicitors dated 14 March 2008:
"This thesis is based on the proposition that those who are committed to the interests of the Monarchy may form their own view as to what would be best in the Monarch's best interests, and how best to protect it from perceived threats. Action may be taken to that end without orders to that effect from any member of the Royal Family; those actions may include acts which would never be countenanced by the Royal Family if they were ever consulted."
Diana,
Princess of Wales expressed fears) contributed to a climate in which rogue elements in the SIS "took matters into their own hands" to ensure that
Diana,
Princess of Wales was killed, injured or frightened in a staged accident. This new theory was advanced at virtually the end of the
inquests
at which no evidence was called or available to Mr Mansfield to substantiate Mr Al Fayed's belief about the direct involvement of the Duke of Edinburgh, or the SIS at his behest or orders, in the fatal accident.
Diana,
Princess of Wales, still less an inquiry into the relationships between the late Princess and other members of the Royal Family. He reflected on his statutory obligation to call as witnesses "all persons who tender evidence as to the facts of the death and all persons having knowledge of those facts whom he considers it expedient to examine" (section 11(2) of the Coroner's Act 1988). Whether the Duke of Edinburgh should be called to give evidence, or Her Majesty The Queen invited to answer questions, needed to be examined in the light of the evidence that had already been called. In effect, the Coroner concluded that the time had come when sufficient evidence had been called to satisfy the requirement that the relevant facts were "fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated" (per Sir Thomas Bingham MR in R v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex parte Jamieson [1995] 1 QB 1 at 26).
Inquests
and his proclaimed objective that the
inquest
should "confirm or allay rumour and suspicion" as well as fully investigate "how" the deceased met their deaths. The consequence would be what was described as an "inevitable insufficiency" of inquiry, or insufficient evidence to enable the
Inquests
to fulfil his own declaration of their purpose or their statutory purpose.
inquest
had been deprived of its coherence by the decisions now under challenge. Rumour and speculation would continue. In any event the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Majesty The Queen could provide evidence of direct relevance to the issue of "how" the fatal road traffic accident occurred.
Diana,
Princess of Wales that members of the SIS, without his knowledge, or the knowledge of those responsible for the service, conjured up a plot of their own to arrange for her to be killed.
Inquests.
The question whether it was expedient for these purposes for any evidence (from whomsoever) to be given on these or any other issues was pre-eminently a matter for his judgment. His analysis of the issues in his ruling demonstrates that there was nothing in the proposed evidence which would be of advantage to the jury when reaching their verdict. The stark reality was that enough was enough.
inquests.
In that context he was entitled to have regard to the vast amount of evidence which had been called and the very limited evidence which remained to be called. As he put it:
"in keeping open the question whether it might be expedient to call the Duke of Edinburgh I was anxious to see what evidence emerged during theinquests that might alter my initial view. Looking at the whole of the evidence and keeping firmly in mind that it is for the jury and not me to decide what evidence is to be accepted or rejected, nothing has emerged to persuade me it will be expedient to call the Duke of Edinburgh…Inquiries of Her Majesty The Queen should not be made as suggested by Mr Al Fayed on the basis that they will not assist the jury to answer the statutory questions."