At 16.25 on 7th April 2008 the Jury on the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of Diana, Princes of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed returned its verdict, and over the following thirty six hours I have studied the findings, looked at British and USA media, watched an important BBC programme and listened to the Al Fayed interview with Sir Trevor MacDonald. It is evident that there has been an organised effort supported by the British Government to bring to an end the speculation about conspiracy to assassinate and the endless going over the personal life of the former Princess and the mother of the third and fourth in line to the British Crown. As Rosa Monkton the close friend of Diana admitted, there will never be an end to the books and articles being written, or to the programmes and films about someone who is already a historical figure, but the Inquest has been particularly damaging to her reputation because of the focus on aspects of relationships with men to an extent which even the most salacious of the British media interests previously treated with some sensitivity. Equally one of her former private secretaries supported the holding of the Inquest because of the importance of the Princess in British life, and in my judgement anything less would have only fuelled the fires of conspiracy and it was the right thing to do however painful and difficult it has been for the family, her friends and employees. It is my belief that in fact what the Inquest achieved was to establish the truth about human beings whatever their social position, wealth or poverty, and that understanding and forgiveness are important the keys to unlocking the majority of problems of the human condition and of relationships between human beings.
It is worthwhile reflecting on how The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Scott Baker instructed the Jury, adding that the substantive finding had to apply to both.
Handout of Legal Directions
Verdicts
1. I now turn to direct you in law on the verdicts you may return. You have a hard copy of what I am now saying, because you may well need to refer to it later. You are asked to consider 5 different verdicts. The same verdict should, obviously, be returned in the case of Dodi as is returned in the case of Diana. The 5 possible verdicts are:
(1) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of following vehicles);
(2) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
(3) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles
and of the Mercedes);
(4) Accidental death;
(5) Open verdict.
2. You should, first of all, consider the first three verdicts together. If you consider that none of those verdicts should be returned, you should consider the fourth verdict, and then the fifth verdict.
Unlawful Killing by Gross Negligence Manslaughter: General
3. I have indicated that it would be open to you to find unlawful killing by gross negligence on the part of drivers or riders following the Mercedes or by grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes, or both. Such unlawful killing is a form of the very serious crime of manslaughter. What then are the ingredients of unlawful killing by gross negligence? Before you can return a verdict of unlawful killing, you must be satisfied so you are sure:
(i) First, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering owed a duty of care to the deceased – here, that would be the duty that one road user normally owes to another;
(ii) Second, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering breached that duty of care. Put shortly, whether his or their driving was negligent – that is to say, fell below the standard of driving expected of a reasonably competent driver;
(iii) Third, that the breach of duty you have identified caused the deaths. It would not need to be the sole cause of the deaths; it would be sufficient for the breach of duty to be a significant contributory cause of the crash and deaths;
(iv) Fourth, if you are sure of all those things, you must go on to consider whether the breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime. The essence of the matter is whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the person or persons whose driving you are considering was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act.
4. What that means is that you would have to be sure that the breach of duty that you have identified was so gross as to amount to the very serious crime of manslaughter. The standard of proof that applies when you consider questions of gross negligence manslaughter is the criminal standard, namely you must be satisfied so that you are sure in respect of each of the elements that I have identified.
5. It is not enough, as I am sure you are now aware, to prove mere negligence. Ordinarily, negligence gives rise only to claims for damages. But to consider a person guilty of manslaughter you have to go a lot further. You must be sure that he had been grossly negligent. Now what does ’grossly negligent’ mean? In broad terms, as I have said, the question is posed in this way; you have to consider whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the driver or drivers in question was so bad as, in all the circumstances, to amount in your judgment to a criminal act or omission. You might find that a rather circular definition. It is apparent from what I have already said that it is not enough that the conduct calls for compensation. Nor is it enough that you feel that the acts or omissions of the driver or drivers in question would call in your judgment for some form of punishment. What you have to be convinced about is that the negligence was bad enough to be condemned as the grave crime of manslaughter.
6. In considering the extent to which the driving in question must deviate from mere breach of duty and mere negligence, if I may call it that, you might derive some assistance from the word ’reckless’. You probably have a pretty clear understanding of that word. The allegation of fault in this case could only fairly be categorised as grossly negligent if the driver or drivers, in your judgment, was or were wholly indifferent to an obvious risk of death or actually foresaw that risk of death but determined to run it nonetheless. Only then could you reach the threshold of contemplating that the negligent action is of such a heinous or flagrant character as to be fairly categorised as deserving of severe punishment for the grave crime of manslaughter.
7. Another way of looking at it is this. You should embark upon the task of placing yourself in the position of the driver of the Mercedes, on the one hand, or a following vehicle on the other, going along the expressway, and approaching the Alma tunnel. It is in that context that, when considering an individual’s action, you must reflect upon whether there was an obvious, serious risk of death to the passengers in the Mercedes and that the driver or drivers concerned were either wholly indifferent to that risk or, having recognised that risk to be present, deliberately chose to run the risk by continuing what they were doing.
Separate Treatment
8. Although, as you may well think, the driving of the Mercedes and of those vehicles following it were linked, you must consider the driving of the Mercedes quite separately from that of the following vehicles. The question for you when looking at the Mercedes is whether the driver was grossly negligent in his driving in a respect that caused or contributed to the crash and the resulting deaths.
9. The position concerning the following vehicles should also be looked at separately. It may be that you will be able to isolate the conduct of individual drivers or riders (even if you do not know their names) with sufficient clarity to enable you to decide one way or another whether the driving was grossly negligent and caused or contributed to the crash and consequent deaths. But you are also entitled to look at the conduct of a number of riders and drivers of following vehicles together if you are satisfied that they were engaged in a ’joint enterprise’. That does not require an agreement in advance by those people: the question, in essence, is ’were they in it together?’ You may rely upon conduct of particular persons involved to support a conclusion they were ’in it together’ in the sense that they were consciously chasing the Mercedes in concert with the others.
Approach to the First Three Verdicts
10. You may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of one or more of the following drivers, but not on the part of the Mercedes driver. If so, you should return the first verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles).
11. Secondly, you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver, but not on the part of the following vehicles. If so, you should return the second verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes).
12. Thirdly, you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver and the following vehicles, looking at them quite separately. If so, you should return the third verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes).
Accidental Death
13. You may conclude that, whilst there was bad driving in evidence on the approach to the Alma Tunnel, it was not so bad that you can be sure that these deaths were caused by the gross negligence of anyone. If that is the position, you must go on to consider the question of accidental death.
14. The standard of proof required for you to return a verdict of accidental death is different. It is the civil standard of ’balance of probabilities’, which means no more than that something is more likely than not. You will return verdicts of accidental death if you are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the crash and subsequent deaths were the result of an accident.
15. When considering whether these deaths were the result of an accident, you must look at all of the evidence, including such evidence as there may be which might provide support for the contention that the crash was deliberately staged.
Open Verdict
16. If you unanimously decide that the evidence does not support any of the verdicts which I have identified, then you are entitled to return an open verdict. The definition of this verdict is that the evidence is insufficient to support any substantive verdict to the relevant standard of proof.
17. If that were to be the situation, it would be a failure of the evidence, not of yours, but do not use an open verdict because you cannot establish a peripheral point about the crash. Do not use an open verdict because you disagree amongst yourselves. And do not use an open verdict as a mark of censure or disapproval. Your duty is to find the facts and reach conclusions on the evidence, and this must transcend any feelings you have in the matter
It will be appreciated that the Coroner having previously ruled that because of the lack of evidence presented to the court the Jury was not being asked to decide if Diana and Dodi had been assassinated by one or more persons, on their own account, or at the instigations of others, the points made in his final paragraph of direction they could not return an open verdict as a mark of censure or disapproval. It is necessary to understand why the Coroner rejected the assassination and conspiracy claims and therefore restricted the findings, and to do this, it would necessary to read all the transcripts of evidence which are available on line and then the summing up, which is also available on line. It is my intention to reproduce the summing up over the next days.
The media based its initial reactions to the verdict on the oral statement which was followed by the publication of the statement which was followed by the publication today of the formal forms of findings
Hearing transcripts
7 April 2008 - Verdict of the jury
15 (4.25 pm)
16 (Jury present)
17 VERDICTS
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I would ask that nobody leaves
19 the court until the reading of both inquisitions is
20 complete, please.
21 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Would the jury foreman please
22 rise?
23 Madam Foreman, in the matter of the death of Mr Emad
24 El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed, have you reached
25 a verdict on which a majority of the nine of you have
1 agreed?
2 THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
3 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict and
4 indicate the number of jurors assenting to the verdict?
5 THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly
6 negligent driving of the following vehicles and of
7 the Mercedes.
8 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Thank you. Could you now read
9 the rest of the narrative on the inquisition, indicating
10 as appropriate the --
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: How many agreed and how many
12 dissented?
13 THE JURY FOREMAN: Nine, sir.
14 The deceased is Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim
15 Al Fayed. The injury causing death: multiple injuries,
16 including severe impact injury to the chest and
17 the transaction of the aorta.
18 Dodi Al Fayed died in the Alma Underpass in Paris at
19 around 12.22 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of
20 a motor crash. The crash was caused or contributed to
21 by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
22 the speed and manner of driving of the following
23 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
24 of the Mercedes through alcohol. There are nine of
25 those who agree on those conclusions.
1 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
2 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
3 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
4 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with
5 something else, and we are unanimous on those, sir.
6 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Is that the conclusion of your
7 narrative verdict?
8 THE JURY FOREMAN: It is.
9 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: In the matter of Diana,
10 Princess of Wales, have you reached a verdict on which
11 at least nine of you have agreed?
12 THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
13 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict,
14 indicating the number of jurors that have dissented to
15 that?
16 THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly
17 negligent driving of the following vehicles and of
18 the Mercedes, and that is nine of us, sir.
19 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you please read the rest of
20 the narrative of your inquisition, indicating, where
21 appropriate, the number of jurors who have assented to
22 the verdict?
23 THE JURY FOREMAN: The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales.
24 The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within
25 the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent
1 portion of the left atrium of the heart.
2 Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere
3 Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as
4 a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma
5 Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around
6 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by
7 the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
8 the speed and manner of driving of the following
9 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
10 of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed
11 on those points, sir.
12 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
13 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
14 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
15 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding
16 with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on
17 that.
18 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Have the assenting jurors signed
19 both inquisition forms?
20 THE JURY FOREMAN: They have.
21 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you pass the forms to the
22 usher? You may be seated.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
By a majority verdict of nine votes to two the Jury decided that Mr Emad El-din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed was unlawfully killed, by the grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes, and by the following vehicles. A similar second verdict was given in relation to Diana, Princess of Wales. Please note the order of responsibility and that there is no reference to the media but to following vehicles. There is a substantial difference between the finding of the French inquiry which was that there had been an accident. The British Police inquiry was on the matter of conspiracy and quite rightly the Police left it to the Coroner’s Inquiry to determine if the accident had involved unlawful action.
The second aspect of the findings is that a significant contributing factor was that the Mercedes hit one of the pillars in the underpass tunnel, rather than colliding with something else. The third contributing factor was that Diana and Dodi were not wearing seat belts.
I have watched the BBC special programme this evening which reviewed how the Inquest dealt with the main issues. The first is that the driver of the Mercedes was not drunk and that blood sample has been mixed up with someone who had committed suicide that same night given the high levels of carbon monoxide, levels which the programme suggested had not been explained at the Inquest. My intuition is that if there was a switch it was an unintentional mistake. The Inquest did confirm that the driver was known to have had the equivalent of four whiskies earlier in the evening and was known to be a drinker. Much has been made that he was able to tie his shoe laces and did not behave drunk, but those who drink on a regular basis can look and function normally but the problem only arises when they have to react quickly in an emergency. Much was made that he had 15 bank accounts although following the crash of Northern Rock many people are now spreading their funds between banks. That he was paid in large sums of money and carried around a large sum of cash has also been difficult to explain, especially after it was admitted that he been an informant for French intelligence over a number of years.
There is also agreement that a White Fiat was closely following the Mercedes and there is circumstantial evidence of some contact. It is significant that the French Police failed to find the vehicle and that such a vehicle was owned by someone where there was evidence being an assassin and whose body was then found 175 miles from his home in the burnt out Fiat. His wife, who subsequently left him for another supported his alibi for the night together with documentation that he had been booked on a flight. There has also been concern that British Intelligence MI6 specifically were involved but as explained they are only authorised to kill in times of war or exceptional circumstances. My own observation is that if a senior public figure had been responsible there would have been no need to directly involve the official intelligence service such is the way these situations can be managed and have been over several decades. In order to substantiate the allegation there had to be cause and this rested on the issue of Dodi being a Muslim. There has been speculation that it was the British establishment who would have been opposed to the divorced mother of the third and fourth in line to the Crown marrying and possible having a child by a Muslim. There are even stronger reasons why fanatical Muslim interests would have objected to such a union or to have engineered an opportunity to disable the British Monarchy and British social stability. Here was after all revolution on the streets of the capital and within the drawing rooms of the middle and chattering classes for a week.
There remains controversy over the grounds, the method and the timing of such action, It is the understanding of Mr Al Fayed that they were to announce their engagement and there has been the assertion that Diana was pregnant and this was why her body had been embalmed. There was counter evidence that from a close friend that she could not have been pregnant, that she used birth control and that she had no intention of remarrying. There are those who passionately believe that there was a conspiracy of which the driver of the vehicle played a central role, especially as he was not a chauffer, although this would also mean that he was also sacrificed in order to make the deaths appear accidents. Otherwise it seems impossible that others involved would know of the proposed change of route and he would also know that the couple did not wear seat belts. In my judgement there can never been answers beyond all reasonable doubt, short of someone coming forward with a confession with self incriminating evidence, or for incriminating evidence to emerge. I look forward to reading how the Coroner approached this issues, given that he heard all the evidence, studied the transcripts and understood the legal framework.
Diana, Princess of Wales was much loved by the general public across the world because of the image as the wronged partner in her marriage and because of her manner and approach to life and to people from all walks of life, particularly her concerns for the plight of those who suffered from ill health or who were the victims of society and of nations. She was a special individual with charisma and despite subsequent revelations about her personal life, those who had direct contact with her, or who only knew of her through the media continue to express admiration and respect and express sorrow at her premature death.
At News at Ten this Evening Mr Al Fayed appeared to be a broken and distressed man who tearfully explained that he accepted the verdict. Although he continued to have his reservations and beliefs and that there were legal ways in which he could challenge if he had wished. He had come to feel very tired. I anticipate that the media will follow his lead, given the comments of the Prime Minister and from the Princes, and those who believe in the future of a constitutional monarch in a democratically structured society.
I know how My Al Fayed feels, as I am sure do many others, including those related to the Diana, I found if difficult to sleep as I found myself going over and over the available information and issues regarding the premature and preventable death of the aunt who provided mothering in my childhood and that it has taken a year for the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman to investigate my complaint that the two reports to the Health Minister were flawed, inadequate and unacceptable.
11.00 My start of the day was consequently very slow and it was 11.15 before I had got myself up put on a suit and went off walking to the Health Centre to examine my childhood medical records. Upon closer inspection there was more information but all it did was to emphasise how little had been recorded from what I remembered, nothing until I was ten years old when my chest problems merited an examination and then twice as a teenager when referred for an eye test and then again two years which led to my wearing classes full time. There was no reference to chicken pox, yellow jaundice, to being given a hospital appointment to have my adenoids and tonsils removed and to missing school one afternoon a week throughout at least one term, may have been more, as I went for exercises to correct flat feet. I was not registered separately from my birth until the move to Wallington. Whereas yesterday the lack of information added to the reservoir of sadness within so that it burst though the already flimsy defences, to- day there was acceptance that I would never know the answer to so many questions, but at least I had tried.
12.00 I returned for a late lunch enjoying two slices of brown bread topped with smokes salmon and a horseradish sauce with a mixed salad and a banana. This evening there was a ham and cheese omelette and later a slice of toast with marmalade with a half warmed milk coffee.
14.00 Unsurprisingly I came over very tired, sleeping or drowsily watching the third in the Pirates of the Caribbean series-Dead Men’s Chest. A difficult feat because it is a noisy film and although children love tales of Galleons, sword fights and pirates I wonder if the succession of gruesome digitally created characters is suitable for the very young, especially as in this film there is a giant ship engulfing octopus like creature reminiscent of monsters of childhood nightmares.
20.00 There was an engaging and thrilling European Cup quarter final between Arsenal and You will never walk alone who won in the end.
00.00 After playing some Hearts where I have managed to win two games in succession as well as lose 25 and at chess where I have now won forty games in succession at level two and still going, I am sufficiently tired to try sleep in bed.
It is worthwhile reflecting on how The Rt. Hon Lord Justice Scott Baker instructed the Jury, adding that the substantive finding had to apply to both.
Handout of Legal Directions
Verdicts
1. I now turn to direct you in law on the verdicts you may return. You have a hard copy of what I am now saying, because you may well need to refer to it later. You are asked to consider 5 different verdicts. The same verdict should, obviously, be returned in the case of Dodi as is returned in the case of Diana. The 5 possible verdicts are:
(1) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of following vehicles);
(2) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes);
(3) Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles
and of the Mercedes);
(4) Accidental death;
(5) Open verdict.
2. You should, first of all, consider the first three verdicts together. If you consider that none of those verdicts should be returned, you should consider the fourth verdict, and then the fifth verdict.
Unlawful Killing by Gross Negligence Manslaughter: General
3. I have indicated that it would be open to you to find unlawful killing by gross negligence on the part of drivers or riders following the Mercedes or by grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes, or both. Such unlawful killing is a form of the very serious crime of manslaughter. What then are the ingredients of unlawful killing by gross negligence? Before you can return a verdict of unlawful killing, you must be satisfied so you are sure:
(i) First, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering owed a duty of care to the deceased – here, that would be the duty that one road user normally owes to another;
(ii) Second, that the person or persons whose driving you are considering breached that duty of care. Put shortly, whether his or their driving was negligent – that is to say, fell below the standard of driving expected of a reasonably competent driver;
(iii) Third, that the breach of duty you have identified caused the deaths. It would not need to be the sole cause of the deaths; it would be sufficient for the breach of duty to be a significant contributory cause of the crash and deaths;
(iv) Fourth, if you are sure of all those things, you must go on to consider whether the breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime. The essence of the matter is whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the person or persons whose driving you are considering was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act.
4. What that means is that you would have to be sure that the breach of duty that you have identified was so gross as to amount to the very serious crime of manslaughter. The standard of proof that applies when you consider questions of gross negligence manslaughter is the criminal standard, namely you must be satisfied so that you are sure in respect of each of the elements that I have identified.
5. It is not enough, as I am sure you are now aware, to prove mere negligence. Ordinarily, negligence gives rise only to claims for damages. But to consider a person guilty of manslaughter you have to go a lot further. You must be sure that he had been grossly negligent. Now what does ’grossly negligent’ mean? In broad terms, as I have said, the question is posed in this way; you have to consider whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the driver or drivers in question was so bad as, in all the circumstances, to amount in your judgment to a criminal act or omission. You might find that a rather circular definition. It is apparent from what I have already said that it is not enough that the conduct calls for compensation. Nor is it enough that you feel that the acts or omissions of the driver or drivers in question would call in your judgment for some form of punishment. What you have to be convinced about is that the negligence was bad enough to be condemned as the grave crime of manslaughter.
6. In considering the extent to which the driving in question must deviate from mere breach of duty and mere negligence, if I may call it that, you might derive some assistance from the word ’reckless’. You probably have a pretty clear understanding of that word. The allegation of fault in this case could only fairly be categorised as grossly negligent if the driver or drivers, in your judgment, was or were wholly indifferent to an obvious risk of death or actually foresaw that risk of death but determined to run it nonetheless. Only then could you reach the threshold of contemplating that the negligent action is of such a heinous or flagrant character as to be fairly categorised as deserving of severe punishment for the grave crime of manslaughter.
7. Another way of looking at it is this. You should embark upon the task of placing yourself in the position of the driver of the Mercedes, on the one hand, or a following vehicle on the other, going along the expressway, and approaching the Alma tunnel. It is in that context that, when considering an individual’s action, you must reflect upon whether there was an obvious, serious risk of death to the passengers in the Mercedes and that the driver or drivers concerned were either wholly indifferent to that risk or, having recognised that risk to be present, deliberately chose to run the risk by continuing what they were doing.
Separate Treatment
8. Although, as you may well think, the driving of the Mercedes and of those vehicles following it were linked, you must consider the driving of the Mercedes quite separately from that of the following vehicles. The question for you when looking at the Mercedes is whether the driver was grossly negligent in his driving in a respect that caused or contributed to the crash and the resulting deaths.
9. The position concerning the following vehicles should also be looked at separately. It may be that you will be able to isolate the conduct of individual drivers or riders (even if you do not know their names) with sufficient clarity to enable you to decide one way or another whether the driving was grossly negligent and caused or contributed to the crash and consequent deaths. But you are also entitled to look at the conduct of a number of riders and drivers of following vehicles together if you are satisfied that they were engaged in a ’joint enterprise’. That does not require an agreement in advance by those people: the question, in essence, is ’were they in it together?’ You may rely upon conduct of particular persons involved to support a conclusion they were ’in it together’ in the sense that they were consciously chasing the Mercedes in concert with the others.
Approach to the First Three Verdicts
10. You may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of one or more of the following drivers, but not on the part of the Mercedes driver. If so, you should return the first verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles).
11. Secondly, you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver, but not on the part of the following vehicles. If so, you should return the second verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes).
12. Thirdly, you may decide that you are sure that the crash and deaths were caused by grossly negligent driving on the part of the Mercedes driver and the following vehicles, looking at them quite separately. If so, you should return the third verdict: Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes).
Accidental Death
13. You may conclude that, whilst there was bad driving in evidence on the approach to the Alma Tunnel, it was not so bad that you can be sure that these deaths were caused by the gross negligence of anyone. If that is the position, you must go on to consider the question of accidental death.
14. The standard of proof required for you to return a verdict of accidental death is different. It is the civil standard of ’balance of probabilities’, which means no more than that something is more likely than not. You will return verdicts of accidental death if you are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the crash and subsequent deaths were the result of an accident.
15. When considering whether these deaths were the result of an accident, you must look at all of the evidence, including such evidence as there may be which might provide support for the contention that the crash was deliberately staged.
Open Verdict
16. If you unanimously decide that the evidence does not support any of the verdicts which I have identified, then you are entitled to return an open verdict. The definition of this verdict is that the evidence is insufficient to support any substantive verdict to the relevant standard of proof.
17. If that were to be the situation, it would be a failure of the evidence, not of yours, but do not use an open verdict because you cannot establish a peripheral point about the crash. Do not use an open verdict because you disagree amongst yourselves. And do not use an open verdict as a mark of censure or disapproval. Your duty is to find the facts and reach conclusions on the evidence, and this must transcend any feelings you have in the matter
It will be appreciated that the Coroner having previously ruled that because of the lack of evidence presented to the court the Jury was not being asked to decide if Diana and Dodi had been assassinated by one or more persons, on their own account, or at the instigations of others, the points made in his final paragraph of direction they could not return an open verdict as a mark of censure or disapproval. It is necessary to understand why the Coroner rejected the assassination and conspiracy claims and therefore restricted the findings, and to do this, it would necessary to read all the transcripts of evidence which are available on line and then the summing up, which is also available on line. It is my intention to reproduce the summing up over the next days.
The media based its initial reactions to the verdict on the oral statement which was followed by the publication of the statement which was followed by the publication today of the formal forms of findings
Hearing transcripts
7 April 2008 - Verdict of the jury
15 (4.25 pm)
16 (Jury present)
17 VERDICTS
18 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I would ask that nobody leaves
19 the court until the reading of both inquisitions is
20 complete, please.
21 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Would the jury foreman please
22 rise?
23 Madam Foreman, in the matter of the death of Mr Emad
24 El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed, have you reached
25 a verdict on which a majority of the nine of you have
1 agreed?
2 THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
3 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict and
4 indicate the number of jurors assenting to the verdict?
5 THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly
6 negligent driving of the following vehicles and of
7 the Mercedes.
8 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Thank you. Could you now read
9 the rest of the narrative on the inquisition, indicating
10 as appropriate the --
11 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: How many agreed and how many
12 dissented?
13 THE JURY FOREMAN: Nine, sir.
14 The deceased is Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim
15 Al Fayed. The injury causing death: multiple injuries,
16 including severe impact injury to the chest and
17 the transaction of the aorta.
18 Dodi Al Fayed died in the Alma Underpass in Paris at
19 around 12.22 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of
20 a motor crash. The crash was caused or contributed to
21 by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
22 the speed and manner of driving of the following
23 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
24 of the Mercedes through alcohol. There are nine of
25 those who agree on those conclusions.
1 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
2 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
3 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
4 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with
5 something else, and we are unanimous on those, sir.
6 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Is that the conclusion of your
7 narrative verdict?
8 THE JURY FOREMAN: It is.
9 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: In the matter of Diana,
10 Princess of Wales, have you reached a verdict on which
11 at least nine of you have agreed?
12 THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
13 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict,
14 indicating the number of jurors that have dissented to
15 that?
16 THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly
17 negligent driving of the following vehicles and of
18 the Mercedes, and that is nine of us, sir.
19 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you please read the rest of
20 the narrative of your inquisition, indicating, where
21 appropriate, the number of jurors who have assented to
22 the verdict?
23 THE JURY FOREMAN: The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales.
24 The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within
25 the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent
1 portion of the left atrium of the heart.
2 Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere
3 Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as
4 a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma
5 Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around
6 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by
7 the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes,
8 the speed and manner of driving of the following
9 vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver
10 of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed
11 on those points, sir.
12 In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or
13 contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not
14 wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck
15 the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding
16 with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on
17 that.
18 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Have the assenting jurors signed
19 both inquisition forms?
20 THE JURY FOREMAN: They have.
21 SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you pass the forms to the
22 usher? You may be seated.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you very much.
By a majority verdict of nine votes to two the Jury decided that Mr Emad El-din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed was unlawfully killed, by the grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes, and by the following vehicles. A similar second verdict was given in relation to Diana, Princess of Wales. Please note the order of responsibility and that there is no reference to the media but to following vehicles. There is a substantial difference between the finding of the French inquiry which was that there had been an accident. The British Police inquiry was on the matter of conspiracy and quite rightly the Police left it to the Coroner’s Inquiry to determine if the accident had involved unlawful action.
The second aspect of the findings is that a significant contributing factor was that the Mercedes hit one of the pillars in the underpass tunnel, rather than colliding with something else. The third contributing factor was that Diana and Dodi were not wearing seat belts.
I have watched the BBC special programme this evening which reviewed how the Inquest dealt with the main issues. The first is that the driver of the Mercedes was not drunk and that blood sample has been mixed up with someone who had committed suicide that same night given the high levels of carbon monoxide, levels which the programme suggested had not been explained at the Inquest. My intuition is that if there was a switch it was an unintentional mistake. The Inquest did confirm that the driver was known to have had the equivalent of four whiskies earlier in the evening and was known to be a drinker. Much has been made that he was able to tie his shoe laces and did not behave drunk, but those who drink on a regular basis can look and function normally but the problem only arises when they have to react quickly in an emergency. Much was made that he had 15 bank accounts although following the crash of Northern Rock many people are now spreading their funds between banks. That he was paid in large sums of money and carried around a large sum of cash has also been difficult to explain, especially after it was admitted that he been an informant for French intelligence over a number of years.
There is also agreement that a White Fiat was closely following the Mercedes and there is circumstantial evidence of some contact. It is significant that the French Police failed to find the vehicle and that such a vehicle was owned by someone where there was evidence being an assassin and whose body was then found 175 miles from his home in the burnt out Fiat. His wife, who subsequently left him for another supported his alibi for the night together with documentation that he had been booked on a flight. There has also been concern that British Intelligence MI6 specifically were involved but as explained they are only authorised to kill in times of war or exceptional circumstances. My own observation is that if a senior public figure had been responsible there would have been no need to directly involve the official intelligence service such is the way these situations can be managed and have been over several decades. In order to substantiate the allegation there had to be cause and this rested on the issue of Dodi being a Muslim. There has been speculation that it was the British establishment who would have been opposed to the divorced mother of the third and fourth in line to the Crown marrying and possible having a child by a Muslim. There are even stronger reasons why fanatical Muslim interests would have objected to such a union or to have engineered an opportunity to disable the British Monarchy and British social stability. Here was after all revolution on the streets of the capital and within the drawing rooms of the middle and chattering classes for a week.
There remains controversy over the grounds, the method and the timing of such action, It is the understanding of Mr Al Fayed that they were to announce their engagement and there has been the assertion that Diana was pregnant and this was why her body had been embalmed. There was counter evidence that from a close friend that she could not have been pregnant, that she used birth control and that she had no intention of remarrying. There are those who passionately believe that there was a conspiracy of which the driver of the vehicle played a central role, especially as he was not a chauffer, although this would also mean that he was also sacrificed in order to make the deaths appear accidents. Otherwise it seems impossible that others involved would know of the proposed change of route and he would also know that the couple did not wear seat belts. In my judgement there can never been answers beyond all reasonable doubt, short of someone coming forward with a confession with self incriminating evidence, or for incriminating evidence to emerge. I look forward to reading how the Coroner approached this issues, given that he heard all the evidence, studied the transcripts and understood the legal framework.
Diana, Princess of Wales was much loved by the general public across the world because of the image as the wronged partner in her marriage and because of her manner and approach to life and to people from all walks of life, particularly her concerns for the plight of those who suffered from ill health or who were the victims of society and of nations. She was a special individual with charisma and despite subsequent revelations about her personal life, those who had direct contact with her, or who only knew of her through the media continue to express admiration and respect and express sorrow at her premature death.
At News at Ten this Evening Mr Al Fayed appeared to be a broken and distressed man who tearfully explained that he accepted the verdict. Although he continued to have his reservations and beliefs and that there were legal ways in which he could challenge if he had wished. He had come to feel very tired. I anticipate that the media will follow his lead, given the comments of the Prime Minister and from the Princes, and those who believe in the future of a constitutional monarch in a democratically structured society.
I know how My Al Fayed feels, as I am sure do many others, including those related to the Diana, I found if difficult to sleep as I found myself going over and over the available information and issues regarding the premature and preventable death of the aunt who provided mothering in my childhood and that it has taken a year for the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman to investigate my complaint that the two reports to the Health Minister were flawed, inadequate and unacceptable.
11.00 My start of the day was consequently very slow and it was 11.15 before I had got myself up put on a suit and went off walking to the Health Centre to examine my childhood medical records. Upon closer inspection there was more information but all it did was to emphasise how little had been recorded from what I remembered, nothing until I was ten years old when my chest problems merited an examination and then twice as a teenager when referred for an eye test and then again two years which led to my wearing classes full time. There was no reference to chicken pox, yellow jaundice, to being given a hospital appointment to have my adenoids and tonsils removed and to missing school one afternoon a week throughout at least one term, may have been more, as I went for exercises to correct flat feet. I was not registered separately from my birth until the move to Wallington. Whereas yesterday the lack of information added to the reservoir of sadness within so that it burst though the already flimsy defences, to- day there was acceptance that I would never know the answer to so many questions, but at least I had tried.
12.00 I returned for a late lunch enjoying two slices of brown bread topped with smokes salmon and a horseradish sauce with a mixed salad and a banana. This evening there was a ham and cheese omelette and later a slice of toast with marmalade with a half warmed milk coffee.
14.00 Unsurprisingly I came over very tired, sleeping or drowsily watching the third in the Pirates of the Caribbean series-Dead Men’s Chest. A difficult feat because it is a noisy film and although children love tales of Galleons, sword fights and pirates I wonder if the succession of gruesome digitally created characters is suitable for the very young, especially as in this film there is a giant ship engulfing octopus like creature reminiscent of monsters of childhood nightmares.
20.00 There was an engaging and thrilling European Cup quarter final between Arsenal and You will never walk alone who won in the end.
00.00 After playing some Hearts where I have managed to win two games in succession as well as lose 25 and at chess where I have now won forty games in succession at level two and still going, I am sufficiently tired to try sleep in bed.
No comments:
Post a Comment