French Failure To Summonse Diana Inquest Witnesses Slammed

The Princess Diana inquest in London has heard a demand for witnesses to be compelled to give evidence.

The court was told that at least six of the photographers who were in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997, when the Princess, Dodi Fayed and their driver, Henri Paul, were killed had not been issued with summonses despite previous assurances that this had already been done.

The French authorities were accused of “subterfuge” and attempting to protect the paparazzi who witnessed the last moments of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner, told the inquest that a “political” decision had been taken within the office of the French Minister of Justice not to compel witnesses, despite previous assurances.

He said that the French authorities were said to be concerned about the aggressive nature of the cross-examination at the inquest and were citing fears for “public order” if the paparazzi were to give evidence by video link.

The coroner told the court: “I was certainly under the impression, at least until the end of last week that . . . the witnesses would, at the very least, be required to come to court.

“The decision to respond to my international letter of request in the terms that I’ve disclosed to you was taken in the minister’s office and at a high level and appears to have been a political decision.”

Lawyers for parties in the inquest said that the move amounted to political interference with international obligations.

The revelation was made at a special hearing at the High Court without the jury to decide how the inquest should proceed in the light of paparazzi’s refusal to give evidence themselves.

The court was told that the decision had been based on a section in the French civil code that dealt with matters that might “threaten public order for the fundamental interests of the nation”.

Michael Mansfield, QC, who is representing Mohamed Al Fayed, called upon Jack Straw, the Government’s Justice Secretary, to intervene and persuade the French Government to compel witnesses to give evidence, because of the “unique” nature of the inquest.

He said: “If there is going to be no revelation by the French on the basis on which a political decision has been taken, we say, on the face of it, it is subterfuge, and we are concerned witnesses are being protected by the reference to public order.”

He produced a copy of the article of the French Civil Code that had been referred to and, to laughter in the court, said that it appeared to “run against everything, I think, the Revolution was fought for”.

Mr Mansfield said that the stance being taken in Paris could apply not just to the paparazzi but to key “professional witnesses”.

It is thought that he was referring to the pathologists responsible for samples taken from Mr Paul’s body that are disputed by Mr Al Fayed.

The hearing had been called to deal with legal argument on whether documents such as the paparazzi statements to the French police could be admitted in evidence if they do not attend themselves.

(BMcC)