Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by tal » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:34 pm
Keep yer head down Harry. I read yesterday that "Al Quaeda" are after you !!
by slimmouse » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:51 pm
tal wrote:
Keep yer head down Harry. I read yesterday that "Al Quaeda" are after you !!
The death of Harry would, IMHO, actually be a boon for the royals: create sympathy for them while, at the same time, dispose of the spawn of Diana's infidelity... no inconvenient DNA tests will ever need to be ordered. Notice William remains close to home.......
Call me a cynic....
by antiaristo » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:33 am
Lord Goldsmith moves to gag spy giving evidence in Diana case
By Gordon Thomas
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has used a gagging order against former MI6 agent, Richard Tomlinson, to stop him from giving evidence by video link to the Diana inquest.
It is the second time in the past ten days Lord Goldsmith has become involved in a gagging order controversy.
Like his attempt to silence the BBC over its report on the cash-for-honours scandal, the order against Tomlinson is also surrounded by secrecy.
A surprised senior lawyer at the French bar, maitre Clotele Normand, who is acting for the government to enforce the gagging order because Tomlinson now lives near Nice, said:
"I am astonished you have learned of this. I am not authorised to answer your questions on the matter. I cannot discuss how English law can be enforced in France against Mr Tomlinson. My instructions are that nothing can be publicly said on this matter", said the lawyer in Paris.
Tomlinson's own lawyer, Yves Rousarie, says the gagging order raised "disturbing questions".
Before Clotele Normand was instructed by Treasury solicitors in London, Special Scotland Yard Branch officers had raided Tomlinson's apartment in France.
"They took away my computers and all my legal documents, which would have enabled me to fight the gagging order", said Tomlinson.
The order against the spy was originally granted by Mr Justice Parkes in the High Court in London in 2001. The order was granted on the grounds that the former spy had contravened the Official Secrets Act by revealing details about his work.
By then the former spy had fled to France where he has remained. The order was not legally pursued at the time in France.
Last week Tomlinson said he was prepared to give evidence to the Diana inquest by video link.
"I would have focussed on the time when I was at MI6 and I saw a secret document describing in detail how to make an assassination appear like a car accident. The document had a 'yellow mark' category which means it could only be seen at the highest level. The document specifically referred to an MI6 plan to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president, by blinding his driver with a bright flash in a tunnel. The plan was exactly the same one used to create the fatal crash of Diana and Dodi", Tomlinson said in his exclusive interview.
Tomlinson believes his evidence could be a "smoking gun" at the Diana inquest.
He has made his claim before about the MI6 document -- and it has been totally dismissed by the Stevens Report on the deaths of Diana and Dodi.
But now his lawyer believes there must be "real substance in my claims otherwise Lord Goldsmith would not be implementing the gagging order against me.
"Lord Goldsmith has made it clear he wants the gagging order to be in place in France as soon as possible.
"It is virtually impossible for my lawyer to fight the gagging order because all my legal documents were removed by the Special Branch officers. Repeated attempts to retrieve them by my lawyer have been ignored by Scotland Yard.
"My only hope now is to speak out and hope public opinion will be aroused, just as it has been over the gagging of the BBC.
"Unlike the BBC, I am not in a financial position to fight the Attorney General and the government. I have used up pretty well all my savings", said Tomlinson.
His lawyer is now exploring "how to get the gagging order raised at the European Human Rights court in Strasbourg.
"But that could take many months and by then the Diana inquest would be long over. The one question I want answered is: what is MI6 afraid of in having their role forensically examined in the full public spotlight?" Tomlinson concluded.
Lady Butler-Sloss said: "French witnesses cannot be forced to give evidence, I cannot compel them.
.....
This is a serious matter, but these are French citizens with their own rights.
"I don't have power to require anyone to attend from France."
She told Michael Mansfield, QC, representing Mr Al Fayed: "At the moment there is not a shred of evidence given to me about any of these allegations."
The Privy Council Office, which dates back to the 12th century, is being downgraded as part of "efficiency savings".
A memo from Sir Gus O'Donnell, the head of the Civil Service, to the Prime Minister discusses ways to keep the changes "low key" and suggests announcing the news on the same day that the planned shake-up of the Home Office is unveiled. The strategy last night drew claims that Labour was planning to "bury bad news".
.......
Sir Gus's three-page memo, dated February 2, proposes that, despite the downgrading, Baroness Amos, the current head of the department, should retain her title as Lord President of the Privy Council so that she can continue to draw a Cabinet salary.
"How can a Coroner for the Royal Household, appointed by the Queen and apparently in her employ, instil any confidence in me and the public generally that she will fearlessly and independently investigate all the facts, and reach decisions which are impartial?"
Al Fayed for fight Diana ruling
Press Association
Friday January 26, 2007 6:43 PM
by antiaristo » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:00 am
In light of these outstanding issues, the Working Group has decided to conduct a supplementary review of the United Kingdom (“Phase two bis”) focused on progress in enacting a new foreign bribery law and in broadening the liability of legal persons for foreign bribery. The Phase two bis review will also examine whether systemic problems explain the lack of foreign bribery cases brought to prosecution as well as other matters raised in the context of the discontinuance of the BAE Al Yamamah investigation. The Phase two bis review will include an on-site visit to be conducted within one year.
Affidavit of Richard Tomlinson
www.alfayed.com
(to Judge Herve Stephan)
I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:
1. I firmly believe that there exist documents held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would yield important new evidence into the cause and circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August 1997.
2. I was employed by MI6 between September 1991 and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents that I believe would provide new evidence and new leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard various rumours, which though I was not able to see supporting documents I am confident were based on solid fact.
3. In 1992, I was working in the Eastern European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union. During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on this operation. These files contain a wide miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports, photographs etc, from which it was possible to build up a detailed understanding of the operation. The operation involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6. On more than one occasion, meetings between various figures in the operation took place at the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several intelligence reports on these meetings, which had been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time (identified in the file only by a coded designation). The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his information. I became curious to learn more about the identity of this particular informant, because his number cropped up several times and he seemed to have extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered this informants personal file from MI6's central file registry. When I read this new file, I was not at all surprised to learn that the informant was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always target the security officers of important hotels because they have such good access to intelligence. I remember, however, being mildly surprised that the nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer. I cannot claim that I remember from this reading of the file that the name of this person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of hindsight that this was he. Although I did not subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6, I am confident that the relationship between he and MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would never willingly relinquish control over such a well-placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul will therefore contain notes of meetings between him and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his death. I firmly believe that these files will contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.
4. The most senior undeclared officer in the local MI6 station would normally control an informant of M. Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST) would not be used to control such an informant, because it might lead to the identity of the informant becoming known to the local intelligence services. In Paris at the time of M Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly believe that either one or both of these officers will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of crucial importance in establishing the sequence of events leading up to the deaths of M. Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales. Mr Spearman in particular was an extremely well connected and influential officer, because he had been, prior to his appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that there may well be significance in the fact that Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before the deaths.
5. Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work primarily on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born 1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations. During one meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic. The plan was fully typed, and attached to a yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in existence. Fishwick had annotated that the document be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL. This plan contained a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by three outline proposals on how to achieve this objective. I firmly believe that the third of these scenarios contained information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed. This third scenario suggested that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash. Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses. Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training. In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that this document should be yielded by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and would provide further leads that he could follow.
6. During my service in MI6, I also learnt unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips. This service would frequently extend to asking friendly intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for their own protection. This was particularly the case for the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing without overt personal protection, even on overseas trips. Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal Household. I did not see any official papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the Royal Household, and would yield vital information about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days leading to her death.
7. I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the "paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this photographer, or whether he was one of the photographers present at the time of the fatal incident. However, I am confident that examination of UKN records would yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the inquest to eliminate or further investigate that potential line of enquiry.
8. On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this information to Judge Herve Stephan, the French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest into the accident. The lengths, which MI6, the CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving this evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it, suggests that they have something to hide.
9. On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my appointment with Judge Herve Stephan, the DST arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I received a broken rib. I was taken to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours. Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal and caused me great inconvenience and financial cost.
10. On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an official boarded the plane and told me to get off. At the airbridge, he told me that the airline had received a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but I was told that "it was not possible". I believe that this is because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could take further action against me. I had been back in my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me. After being detained and searched for about three hours, they eventually confiscated from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't get some of these items back until six months later.
11. Moreover, shortly after I had given this evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence in a live television interview on America's NBC television channel. I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30 August to give the interview in New York on the following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return to their seats. Four US Immigration authority officers entered the plane, came straight to my seat, asked for my passport and identity, and then frogmarched me off the plane. I was taken to the immigration detention centre, photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport. The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic to my situation and apologised for treating me so badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions from the CIA.
12. In January of this year, I booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8, and set off for the French border. At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was detained. Four officers from the DST held me for four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens", without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe this is because MI6 had told them of my true destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on my parent's telephone in the UK. My banning from France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British passport and am entitled to travel freely within the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have me banned, and have not used any recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France because they wanted to prevent me from giving further evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the time, I was planning to do.
13. Whatever MI6s role in the events leading to the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial evidence in establishing the exact causes of this tragedy. I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms my belief that they have something to hide. I believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the public interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic and historically momentous events.
The above testimony was made to the French inquiry into Princess Diana's death, headed by Judge Herve Stephan and subsequently ignored by both the inquiry itself and the media. Since testifying, Britain's security establishment has hounded Tomlinson to the point where he now lives in virtual exile in Cannes, France. However, he has not entirely disappeared and now keeps a weblog detailing his ongoing skirmishes with both French and British authorities.
by antiaristo » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:21 pm
Fayed accuses ex-Met chief over Diana inquiry
By Richard Holt and agencies
Last Updated: 1:57pm GMT 19/03/2007
Mohamed Fayed is taking legal action in France against a former chief of the Metropolitan Police who he accuses of withholding evidence in the inquiry into the deaths of his son, Dodi, and Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Harrods boss alleges that Lord Condon deliberately withheld evidence from the French investigation into the deaths in Paris in 1997.
Former assistant commissioner Sir David Veness has also been accused.
Lord Condon told the BBC that he co-operated fully with the investigation in Paris.
"I personally, Sir David Veness and all involved in the Metropolitan Police acted honourably and ethically throughout the inquiry," he said.
"We co-operated fully with the French at all stages and, on leaving, I handed over all the documents."
He added he was "surprised" by the legal action.
Mr Fayed has launched numerous lawsuits over the last 10 years in connection with Diana and Dodi's deaths.
"Princess Diana, who was my dear friend, confided in me her fears that she would be involved in a car crash or something similar on the orders of the royal household," he said today.
"It has now emerged that her fears were expressed to at least a dozen other people."
A spokesman for Mr Fayed said: "We've actually put the complaint in. In the next couple of weeks the examining magistrates will start the investigation."
Two years before she died, Diana told her lawyers she believed both she and Camilla Parker Bowles were to be "put aside" as part of a conspiracy.
She revealed her fears during a meeting with her legal representative, Lord Mishcon, in October 1995.
Lord Mishcon later said he did not believe what she was saying was credible.
Three weeks after the Princess and boyfriend Dodi were killed, Lord Condon, then the Met commissioner, learned about Diana's concerns from Lord Mishcon.
Lord Condon held the view at the time that the facts showed Diana had died in a tragic set of circumstances.
He said he would review the evidence if her death was ever regarded as suspicious, but that nothing had been brought to his attention since then to alter his position.
Mr Fayed alleges Lord Condon should have handed the information over to the French.
It is a criminal offence in France under Article 434-4 of the Code of Criminal Law to conceal a document or information potentially relevant to a crime or search for evidence, according to Mr Fayed's team.
Precise details of Diana's fears were revealed last December in the Metropolitan Police inquiry report, which concluded that the car crash was a tragic accident.
Despite these findings, Mr Fayed still maintains Diana was murdered as part of an establishment plot, which he claims was masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh.
The delayed inquest into the Princess's death has still to take place and is now scheduled to start in full this October.
by antiaristo » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:22 pm
Attorney general accused over Queen Mother's will cover-up
David Leigh
Wednesday March 28, 2007
Guardian
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, took part in a secret court session which concealed the amount of inheritance tax avoided by the Queen on her mother's death, it was disclosed yesterday.
Lord Goldsmith arranged, with the high court judge Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in 2002, that details of the Queen Mother's will should be kept secret. This emerged yesterday after the Guardian successfully applied to open up a private court hearing challenging the secrecy of royal wills.
In a hearing at the high court, Geoffrey Robertson QC was seeking to unseal the wills of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret on behalf of a Jersey accountant, Robert Brown, who says he could be the princess's illegitimate son. The court also heard that 27 people had claimed to be illegitimate relations of the royals in 2005.
Mr Robertson told the head of the family division, Sir Mark Potter, that there had been a royal cover-up over the wills. "A secret, unconstitutional and unlawful practice has grown up of the attorney general going to the court and asking to put royal wills outside the law," he said.
He added that parliament had never legislated to grant secrecy to royal relations and the prime minister had misinformed the Commons by claiming the practice was an ancient "constitutional convention". The practice had been invented in 1911 to conceal the will of Prince Francis, King George V's brother-in-law, who had given family jewels to a mistress.
The executors of both wills tried yesterday to have Mr Brown's lawsuit struck out. They said he had an "insane delusion" without any evidence, and could not show a genuine financial interest in the wills.
Mark Bridges, a partner at Farrer's, the Queen's solicitors, said that in 2005 alone 27 people claimed to be illegitimate relations of the royals. "This appears to be part of a wider phenomenon whereby people become psychologically obsessed and fixated with the affairs of the royal family."
Mr Robertson said his client was perfectly rational, and sought the same rights as any member of the public. By law, wills are open to public inspection. He challenged the role of Lord Goldsmith, who claimed to represent the public interest, and said the wills were being covered up to protect royal relations, with their "unique status in society", from press intrusion.
"He is utterly unaccountable, and cannot be accountable to parliament because he hasn't let the public know about these orders."
Judgment will be delivered later.
by antiaristo » Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:03 am
Supreme test for Goldsmith
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/04/2007
After questioning 136 people and combing through more than 6,000 documents, John Yates, the officer who has led the police investigation into whether honours were sold, has finally sent thefruits of his 13-month inquiry to the Crown Prosecution Service. A decision now has to be made on who, if anyone, will face prosecution. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, has insisted that our constitution requires that he makes the final decision. He has refused to relinquish the responsibility to anyone else, rejecting the charge that it is impossible for him to decide the case fairly.
The names in the frame for prosecution are Lord Levy, Ruth Turner, Jonathan Powell, Sir Christopher Evans and John McTernan. All of them are associated with Labour, as fundraisers, donors or senior party officials. Labour is of course Lord Goldsmith's party and the focus of his political loyalty.
Critics of the office of the Attorney General have always stated that it requires its occupant to combine two incompatible roles: providing legal advice and protection for the Government of the day, while at the same time taking decisions whose only justification is that they further the public interest. The interests of the Government regularly conflict with those of the people as a whole.
When that happens, the Attorney General is supposed to be able to put party loyalty to one side and to decide solely on the basis of what is in the public interest. That is precisely the trick that the Attorney General's critics say is impossible. Lord Goldsmith has to prove the critics wrong. He must demonstrate a total independence from party political loyalties and prove his commitment to deciding the issue only on the basis of the public interest.
As their record over the past decade amply demonstrates, most members of Tony Blair's Government have not been able to separate the interests of their party from those of the nation as a whole. The document we publish today, for instance, shows that from the moment they took office, Labour officials blurred the line between their party and the Government. The whole cash for honours affair was the result of the failure to distinguish between the two.
Any subsequent attempt to cover up the affair - if that indeed is what happened (and many people think that it was) - was the result of the same tendency to believe that the highest loyalty must always be to the Labour Party, and not to justice, probity or any other political or ethical value.
Lord Goldsmith promises to publish the independent legal advice he has said he will take before he makes any decision on whom to prosecute for which offences. We hope that he demonstrates his independence from the tremendous pressure his party colleagues will undoubtedly apply to him to put the party first. If he fails to do so, both he and his office will become objects of deserved contempt.
Judgments - Regina v Her Majesty's Attorney General (Appellant) ex parte Rusbridger and another (Respondents)
by antiaristo » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:08 pm
2.45pm
Diana inquest coroner Butler-Sloss quits
Press Association
Tuesday April 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Baroness Butler-Sloss is to step down as coroner for the Diana inquest, it was announced today.
She will leave the role in June, when Lord Justice Scott Baker will take over.
He will be the third person to take charge of the inquest, which has yet to start in full nearly 10 years after the princess was killed in a Paris car crash.
Lady Butler-Sloss said she had come to the decision after a great deal of thought and she lacked the experience required to deal with an inquest with a jury.
She said in a statement: "I must stress this does not require a fresh start for the inquests - I will continue to preside over pre-inquest hearings until Lord Justice Scott Baker takes up the appointment in June.
"This will ensure the inquests' momentum is maintained while he will have the opportunity to familiarise himself with the voluminous paperwork associated with the inquests."
Lord Justice Scott Baker will be appointed assistant deputy coroner for Inner West London by the coroner, Dr Paul Knapman, to conduct the inquests.
by antiaristo » Tue May 15, 2007 9:51 am
Documents about Diana's death 'being withheld'
By Caroline Davies
Last Updated: 1:45am BST 15/05/2007
Lawyers for Mohamed Fayed, the owner of Harrods, will today claim they are being denied access to crucial documents relating to the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed.
They claim that despite asking for all the records referred to in Lord Stevens's Operation Paget report into the tragedy, what they have been given so far is incomplete and with many omissions - including notes relating to Prince Charles's statement to police.
Some items have been withheld from them by coroner Baroness Butler-Sloss, presumably either because she feels they are not relevant, or because they are too sensitive, it is understood.
Mr Fayed's legal team, headed by Michael Mansfield QC, has already demanded documents relating to all the interviews and statements given to Lord Stevens, including any notes by detectives who approached Prince Charles in connection with the inquiry into Diana's death.
Lord Stevens recorded in his report that the prince had no knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the tragedy. Prince Philip was also approached but declined to comment to the Operation Paget inquiry.
Mr Fayed's lawyers also want any police notes in connection with that. Mr Fayed has always claimed that his son and the princess were murdered as part of an Establishment and Secret Service conspiracy masterminded by Prince Philip.
At a pre-inquest hearing in the High Court today, Mr Fayed's lawyers will claim that the haphazard and incomplete way in which the documents have been given to them is causing such confusion that it threatens the whole timetable of the controversial inquests, which are due to be re-opened in October.
They will also claim that, despite requests, no venue has yet been set for the hearings, which could cause another set-back.
Today's hearing will be the last presided over by Lady Butler-Sloss, 73, a retired senior judge.
She has stepped down as coroner for the sensitive inquests claiming she feels she lacks the experience to deal with an inquest jury.
She had intended to hear the inquests without a jury, but Mr Fayed challenged her decision and won in the appeal court.
She is due to hand over to Mr Justice Scott Baker, next month. He will be the third coroner to be in charge of the inquests since they were opened three years ago, and the fourth since the couple died in a Paris car crash 10 years ago.
12.30pm
Diana coroner rebukes Fayed lawyer
Matt Weaver and agencies
Tuesday May 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Bad-tempered exchanges between the coroner and the QC representing Mohamed Al Fayed have marred the first preliminary hearing of the inquest into the death of Diana Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed.
In the first hour of today's hearing, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is stepping down from the case, accused Michael Mansfield QC of putting her "in the dock".
The QC vigorously denied that he was attempting to "dictate" to the coroner and said he was only performing his legitimate role of "making submissions".
Lady Butler-Sloss, the deputy coroner to the Queen's household and Britain's former top woman judge, announced last month that she is stepping down from the case in June. In an unusually candid statement she said she lacked experience of dealing with jury cases with this level of public interest.
She clashed with Mr Mansfield on a number of issues, including where the eventual full inquest should be held.
Mr Mansfield said the proposed venue - Court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice - was "totally inadequate". He also complained about the "late" production of documents.
Lady Butler Sloss is being replaced by one of Britain's most senior judges, Lord Justice Scott Baker.
Involve Queen in Diana inquest - QC
Press Association
Tuesday May 15, 2007 1:13 PM
Lawyers for Mohamed al Fayed have launched a bid to involve the Queen in the Diana, Princess of Wales inquest.
They called for the monarch to be "directly approached" over conversations she allegedly had with former royal butler Paul Burrell.
Mr Burrell, who previously worked for the Princess, claimed after the collapse of his Old Bailey trial for theft that the monarch had once warned him of "powers at work in this country which we have no knowledge about".
Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr al Fayed at a preliminary hearing for the inquest at the High Court in London called for the Queen to be contacted over the matter.
He told Baroness Butler-Sloss, the outgoing coroner for the case: "The inquiries which we suggest be made to assist is for Her Majesty being directly approached and asked was there evidence of conversations as alleged by Mr Burrell?"
He added that references to what the Queen is alleged to have said were edited out of the police documents Mr al Fayed's legal team had received.
He said: "Nobody appears to have approached Her Majesty about the content of the conversations. What we have noticed over the weekend is that these conversations with Her Majesty in the versions of statements by Operation Paget have been redacted."
Lady Butler-Sloss remarked: "They have been redacted at my request." She added: "As far as Her Majesty is concerned, I don't know what the protocol is and whatever the protocol may be should be observed. For the time being, I have redacted the conversations of what Her Majesty is supposed to have said..In as far as you're saying that Her Majesty should be directly approached, I think that's unheard-of."
Lady Butler-Sloss said she was not saying Mr al Fayed's team could not have the edited passages, but she would not direct on the matter at that time.
Mr al Fayed claims Diana was pregnant with his son Dodi's child and they were murdered in an establishment and secret service plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
Burrell says Queen warned him of mystery powers at work
Paul Burrell says the Queen warned him his close relationship with Princess Diana could put him in danger.
Mr Burrell says the Queen told him: "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.
He told the Daily Mirror: "She made sure I knew she was being deadly serious."
But Mr Burrell says he has no idea who or what the Queen was talking about.
He added: "There were many things she could have been referring to. But she was clearly warning me to be vigilant."
The Queen forced the collapse of Mr Burrell's theft trial last week, when she recalled he'd told her he was looking after some of Diana's belongings.
In his account of the three hour meeting at Buckingham Palace, Mr Burrell said: "I told Her Majesty that I intended to protect the Princess's world and keep safe her secrets.
"The Queen responded by nodding her approval and smiling," he told the paper.
He says the Queen told him no-one had been as close to a member of the Royal Family as he had.
Mr Burrell says he is only speaking out now because he fears the Queen's reputation is being damaged by speculation over her eleventh-hour intervention in the case.
Story filed: 23:37 Tuesday 5th November 2002
All this will come as no surprise to the Prince of Wales or indeed to Prince William. Ask them to show you a copy of my letter to Prince William dated 4 January 2002. What Regina called “powers…of which we know nothing”, I called “the Shadow Sovereign”, and Adolph Hitler called “the most dangerous woman in Europe”. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Mr Al Fayed's team also want access to a letter written by Diana, seen by Mr Burrell, in which the princess apparently claimed the Prince of Wales was planning an accident in her car.
Lady Butler-Sloss said in court today that she had made requests for the original but had had no luck in obtaining it.
by antiaristo » Sun May 20, 2007 7:06 am
Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 3:14am BST 20/05/2007
Amid the joy of Charles and Camilla's wedding announcement, a carefully sounded note of caution suggested that the Duchess of Cornwall would never be queen.
In 2005, only 7pc of the public wanted Camilla to become queen
Clarence House went some way to appeasing critics of the couple's previous adulterous relationship by suggesting that the duchess will become princess consort when Charles becomes king.
Now a television documentary is to claim that the Prince of Wales is, in fact, determined to make his wife queen when he accedes to the throne. It is understood that he is intent on gaining public support so that by the time of his coronation, both will be crowned at Westminster Abbey.
The programme's claims will infuriate critics of the couple who still feel that because of the once-adulterous nature of the relationship, the duchess should never become queen.
Under present legislation, she will automatically become queen when Prince Charles, as her husband, becomes king. It would almost certainly require an Act of Parliament for her not to be queen but the prince is said to hope that with the public support on his wife's side by the time of his coronation, this will not be necessary.
Channel 4, which will show the programme Queen Camilla on May 31, claims that it will reveal the "real" relationship between the prince and the duchess. They married in April 2005 after an on-off relationship lasting more than 30 years, enduring through Charles's marriage to Lady Diana Spencer and Camilla's to Andrew Parker Bowles.
Former royal staff disclose in the programme some of the ruses used by the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles to try to keep their relationship secret. It has been alleged in the past that she used to hide in the boot of a car to slip in and out of Highgrove, the prince's Gloucestershire home. The documentary contains interviews with friends of the couple, including Lords Carrington and Gowrie, both former senior politicians, and Angela Huth, the writer and broadcaster.
A Channel 4 source said: "The film exposes the campaign to resurrect Camilla's reputation and install her as queen beside Charles, and asks whether she offers hope for the future of the British monarchy."
When the marriage was announced in February 2005, Clarence House explained the title that the then Camilla Parker Bowles would use when her husband becomes king, saying: "It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the princess consort."
Royal aides were being sensitive to widespread public criticism of Mrs Parker Bowles, in the light of the couple's relationship while both were married to other people. An opinion poll at the time indicated that 65 per cent of people believed the couple should marry, but only seven per cent wanted Camilla to be queen.
The original statement issued by Clarence House was carefully prepared by Sir Michael Peat, Prince Charles's principal private secretary, and Paddy Harverson, his communications secretary. It received the support of the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Senior courtiers have indicated to The Sunday Telegraph, however, that it was carefully worded so as not to commit Camilla to her future title. One senior royal official said that ultimately, what she is called is "a matter for the government and the prime minister of the day. We will have to consider what people feel at the time".
Words such as "intention" are used when the Royal family wants future flexibility. In 1995, after the Queen urged the Waleses to divorce, the prince's private office said he had no "intention" of remarrying. Yet he hoped to be in a position one day to do so.
This newspaper has learned that Clarence House turned down an approach from the programme-maker, Blakeway Productions, to co-operate with the documentary by authorising "access" to the couple's friends and royal officials.
Royal aides remain angry that Channel 4 broadcast a Dispatches programme, Charles: The Meddling Prince, this year which questioned his fitness to be king and accused him of improperly interfering in affairs of state. Clarence House issued detailed responses in an attempt to refute the allegations.
In November 1998, another Dispatches programme, to mark the prince's 50th birthday, portrayed him as a lazy, greedy man whose concern for the environment was little more than skin-deep.
The latest documentary is not entirely critical of the duchess. It claims that she calms the prince's rages, makes him laugh, advises him and helps him sustain his commitment to duty.
“This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous – my husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.”
Princes and Palace clash over 'all-night' Diana party
By KATIE NICHOLL - More by this author »Last updated at 20:57pm on 19th May 2007
Comments (5)
Plans for the memorial concert for Diana Princess of Wales have hit a hitch over an exclusive all-night party that Princes William and Harry intend to host after the main event.
Tempers are becoming frayed in the Royal Household over the exclusive VIP bash that is scheduled to start when the final curtain falls on the Wembley concert on July 1.
William and Harry, who came up with the idea for the concert, hope headliners including Sir Elton John, Rod Stewart and Lily Allen will attend the party.
But senior aides feel that the all-night bash is not a fitting tribute to the late Princess.
The party, which has been kept a secret until now, is being overseen by Prince Harry's mentor and former Welsh Guards officer Mark Dyer.
Johnny Roxburgh, owner of The Admirable Crichton catering and events company, and Michael Fawcett, the Prince of Wales's former valet, have also been brought in by Clarence House to help organise it.
Dyer and Roxburgh often work together, but they were pointedly banned by the Queen from organising Charles and Camilla's wedding reception two years ago.
Says my Royal spy: 'Mark Dyer is up to his neck with plans for the party at the moment, along with Michael Fawcett and Johnny Roxburgh. Some of the senior courtiers, however, think it is entirely inappropriate.
'There is a genuine fear that the Princes could be photographed falling out of the party in the early hours. It is not seen as a fitting memorial.'
There is also concern that there are not enough sponsors involved. My source says: 'The Palace want the event to be entirely self-funded, but Pepsi, Moet and Budweiser have all turned it down for sponsorship because they feel they won't get enough branding.'
by antiaristo » Thu May 24, 2007 1:13 pm
Chirac linked to £30m secret bank account
By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 2:32am BST 24/05/2007
French investigating magistrates have acquired "explosive" documents suggesting that "large sums of money" were funnelled into a secret Japanese bank account in the name of Jacques Chirac, it was claimed yesterday.
The judges have bank statements and more than a hundred notes written by a former French intelligence chief, Gen Philippe Rondot, on the subject, but were unable to consult them until Mr Chirac stepped down as president last week.
According to the satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, one of the dossiers bears the title "Japanese Affair," with two others called "Affair of PR1" and "Affair of PR2" - PR meaning president.
Such was the nature of the judges' findings that they held an emergency meeting on Monday and Tuesday and hauled in Gen Rondot for questioning on the alleged bank account, the magazine said.
The existence of such an account, into which £30 million had been paid over a number of years, was first mooted last May by Gen Rondot during questioning over a separate spy scandal.
Gen Rondot told judges that French intelligence agents had stumbled on the accounts at the Tokyo Sowa Bank in 1996 when investigating the financial credentials of a Japanese businessman and friend of Mr Chirac who wanted to invest in France.
Mr Chirac took the exceptional step of denying that he had a secret bank account.
Gen Rondot subsequently retracted the claim but the former spymaster was an obsessive note taker and the judges acquired his diaries.
The content of the dossiers has "convinced the judges of the existence of Chirac's Japanese bank account," a judge told the newspaper.
"Once the documents are verified, there is sufficient material to open a new investigation into abuse of trust and corruption," a judge told Le Canard.
The inquiry will focus on who paid sums into the account and how - if at all - Mr Chirac benefited from it.
Mr Chirac stands to lose his presidential immunity on June 16 - one month after leaving office. He could then be brought in for questioning. He is also expected to be interviewed as a witness or "assisted witness" - one step short of being under official investigation - concerning a party funding scandal during his time as mayor of Paris.
Mr Chirac's entourage is reportedly resigned to the fact that the judges will bring him in and perhaps place him under investigation.
Nicolas Sarkozy has denied reports that he had promised to protect Mr Chirac from prosecution in return for his support in the presidential elections.
Related articles
Sarkozy aims for 'simplified' EU treaty
15 May 2007: Chirac exits 'tired, sad' and facing inquiry
10 May 2006: Chirac denies claims of £30m paid into secret Japanese bank account
14 May 2006: De Villepin and Chirac implicated in 'French Watergate' scandal
29 April 2006: Chirac denies using fraud inquiry to smear rival
by Byrne » Fri May 25, 2007 5:42 am
Nicolas Sarkozy has denied reports that he had promised to protect Mr Chirac from prosecution in return for his support in the presidential elections.
by Hammer of Los » Fri May 25, 2007 9:47 am
by Byrne » Fri May 25, 2007 11:15 am
Hammer of Los wrote:Sarkozy might be demonstrating to the British "establishment" that he has his sources of information close to these "terrorist matters." Just to let them know that he knows, so to speak.
Does that sound reasonable?
by antiaristo » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:32 pm
Hutton pair join Diana inquest
Press Association
Wednesday June 6, 2007 6:23 PM
A solicitor and a secretary have been appointed to help run the Diana, Princess of Wales, inquest.
Martin Smith and Lee Hughes both worked previously on the Hutton inquiry.
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: "The appointments reflect the exceptional nature of the inquests and the workload this entails."
Mr Smith, a partner in the public and regulatory law group at Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, will act as solicitor to the coroner.
Lord Justice Scott Baker is taking over the role of coroner from Baroness Butler-Sloss, who is quitting after confessing she lacked the experience to deal with an inquest with a jury.
Lee Hughes will be the secretary for the inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi Fayed.
He also held the same post for the Hutton inquiry, which investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
Mr Hughes is currently director of courts appointments at the Judicial Appointments Commission.
A further preliminary hearing is due to take place at the High Court in London next week.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
