Some more.
Joshua Rozenberg is the law correspondent of many years standing for both the Telegraph and the BBC.
He's pretty straight.
Which is why the angle he stresses here is interesting:
Fayed may quiz royals at Diana's inquest
By Caroline Davies and Joshua Rozenberg
Last Updated: 3:09am GMT 03/03/2007
Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales faced the prospect of being personally cross-examined by Mohamed Fayed after the Harrods owner won an extraordinary and unprecedented legal battle yesterday to have the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Fayed's son Dodi heard before a jury.
In the High Court, three senior judges overturned a decision by Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household, Baroness Butler-Sloss, to sit alone, ruling that a jury would be mandatory because the concurrent inquests might have to investigate Mr Fayed's claims that Prince Philip had "masterminded" the two deaths.
Mr Fayed's spokesman said the ruling was "greatly encouraging". And his legal advisers saw it as a clear signal to Lady Butler-Sloss that she should explore claims that Diana feared for her life as well as allegations that security agents were responsible for the deaths.
An elated Mr Fayed will now redouble his efforts to force Prince Philip and Prince Charles into the witness box. If successful, as an "interested person" he could insist on cross-examining the royal witnesses himself - a truly mortifying prospect for the Royals.
The decision on which witnesses will be called still lies with Lady Butler-Sloss, who is due to sit on Monday to decide the scope of the inquest, due to start in May.
Prince Charles was interviewed by police during the lengthy inquiry into the deaths by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens. His report, published in December, concluded that they were a tragic accident. Prince Philip, however, ignored requests to co-operate with the inquiry and has refrained from publicly commenting on Mr Fayed's allegations of conspiracy.
Prince William spoke to the police, but Lady Butler-Sloss has already indicated that it is highly unlikely he or Prince Harry, who are also interested parties in the inquests, would have to give evidence.
Mr Fayed, who has claimed the couple were murdered by secret agents on the orders of Prince Philip to prevent the princess marrying a Muslim, welcomed the ruling. "The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of the evidence, but I fear there will be attempts to keep it from them. If so, that will be yet another battle I will have to fight," he said in a statement.
In a less restrained outburst on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, he said the country was "ruled by donkeys", adding: "They are gangsters and murderers and Nazi bastards who killed my son."
In their detailed judgment, Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, said: "In order that there should be public confidence in the outcome of the inquest, a jury should be summoned in cases where the state, by its agents, may have had some responsibility for the death".
They found that Lady Butler-Sloss was wrong to have reached her decision not to call a jury before the full scope of the inquests were determined. She had also acted unlawfully in deciding to sit as Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household.
As a result, she will sit as assistant deputy coroner for Westminster on Monday.
http://tinyurl.com/2efeedBut when you look at the judgement it becomes clear that the conspiracy allegations were a secondary reason for the decision:
46. Sections 8(3)(a) and (b) make it mandatory to summon a jury in cases where the death occurred in prison or while the deceased was in police custody or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported execution of his duty. The policy consideration behind these provisions is clear; in order that there should be public confidence in the outcome of the inquest, a jury should be summoned in cases where the state, by its agents, may have had some responsibility for the death. As we have said, in the present case, Mr Al Fayed has alleged that Duke of Edinburgh and the Security Services conspired to kill the Princess and Dodi Al Fayed. The allegation is that agents of the state have been involved in the deaths. If, when Lady Butler-Sloss determines the scope of the inquests, she decides that Mr Al Fayed’s allegation must be inquired into, the possible role of state agents would be an important consideration material to her discretionary decision whether to summon a jury. Indeed, we think that that consideration might well be determinative in favour of summoning a jury.
However, our decision to quash Lady Butler-Sloss’s decision not to summon a jury is based on our conclusion that the mandatory provision in section 8(3)(d) applies in the circumstances of this case.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgme ... 020307.pdfsection 8(3)(d) is the provision relating to public safety:- that is there might be a repetition of the papparazzi phenomenom, especially in the case of Kate Middleton.
THAT was the basis of the judgement.Butler-Sloss, who has never before in her life heard a Coroner's inquest, has now been appointed Coroner three times. She is the deputy royal coroner: she is the deputy assistant coroner for Surrey: and now she is the deputy assistant coroner for Westminster.
The poor woman must be run ragged!
The three judges were careful to say nothing prejudicial about her. There was no finding of bias on her part, and they made it clear that there is no reason why she should not see the job through.
But the inclusion of para 46 cited above was not necessary for the judgement.
The fact that it was included will up the pressure on Butler-Sloss and weaken her ability to carry out instructions.
What instructions?
To keep those three damning documents out of the public domain:
The Mishcon note
The Burrell letter
The Scotland Yard minute.
We will hear a great deal about "The scope of the inquests".
That's code.
Code for whether or not the jury will be allowed to have sight of exactly those three documents.
From the Independent:
Welcoming today's victory, Mr al Fayed said: "This is not the end of the road, but an important step.
"The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of the evidence, but I fear there will be attempts to keep it from them. If so, that will be yet another battle I will have to fight."
He added: "I have already had to fight for almost 10 years to establish once and for all how they died, why they died, who ordered their murders and who slaughtered them with such awful brutality.
"This is my duty as a father. I shall not fail Diana or Dodi, though the barriers erected against me have been many and formidable.
"Now that the coroner is compelled to have a jury, and provided that they are allowed to hear all the evidence, it will become clear beyond doubt that murder was committed.
"Diana herself knew just how much danger she was in. Those malicious people who carried out the crime and those who ordered them to do it will now finally be exposed.
"I am encouraged by today's judgment and now hope that justice can be done without further attempts to impair the process."
He called for senior members of the royal family, including Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales, to be called to give evidence at the inquest.
........
A spokeswoman for Clarence House said: "We have no comment to make about the ruling. It is a matter for the courts."
But she added that people should refer to the letter placed in court on behalf of Princes Harry and William by their private secretary, Major Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, on January 8.
In particular, she read out the section saying: "The Princes have asked me to indicate that it is their desire that the inquest should not only be open, fair and transparent but that it should move swiftly to a conclusion."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/ ... 320991.ece
Those are the two positions:
Al Fayed - "Let the jury decide on ALL the evidence"
Princess Charlie - "Move swiftly to a conclusion"
