R vs BURRELL , " DIANA'S ROCK " ( 2002 )

Royal butler trial thrown out after intervention by Queen

1st NOV , 2002.
DAILY MAIL online

An emotional Paul Burrell
leaves the Old Bailey

Royal butler Paul Burrell today thanked the Queen after he was sensationally cleared at the Old Bailey of stealing hundreds of Diana, Princess of Wales's belongings.
In an extraordinary and unprecedented development, the 12-day-old case collapsed when it was revealed the Queen had come forward at the weekend with crucial information.
As a stunned courtroom absorbed the news, Mr Burrell stepped from the dock and fell sobbing into his lawyer's arms as it dawned on him he was a free man.
The man Diana described as her "rock" later declared through tears he was thrilled, adding: "The Queen came through for me."
"Regina versus Burrell" was effectively halted by Regina. It emerged that while following the progress of the trial, the Queen wondered about the relevance of Mr Burrell telling her, a few weeks after Diana died, that he had taken some of her papers for safekeeping. She confided in the Prince of Wales and he informed police.
The revelation fatally undermined the prosecution's case, which was based on the claim that Mr Burrell had removed Diana's belongings without telling anyone.
Today, after three days of frantic behind-the-scenes activity while the trial was on hold, prosecutor William Boyce QC announced: "The prosecution has concluded that the current trial is no longer viable."
Judge Mrs Justice Rafferty directed that Mr Burrell was not guilty on all three counts of theft - against Diana, the Prince of Wales and Prince William - and told him he was free to go, nearly two years after he was arrested.
Amid emotional scenes outside the court building, Mr Burrell stood next to his solicitor, Andrew Shaw, who declared "an immense victory" and attacked police blunders and the stubborn refusal of detectives to believe that the former butler was "the Princess's most loyal and close confidante".
He said: "He has always maintained his total innocence."
It remained unclear what will happen to the disputed property seized when police raided Mr Burrell's house in Farndon, Cheshire, in January 2001, though much of it is likely to be handed to the Prince of Wales and Prince William at some point.
The jury, which was not in court to hear the judge throw out the case, was shown dozens of photographs showing the items, which included Diana's dresses, shoes and hats, a pair of her pyjamas, and highly personal letters from her to Prince William.
The significance of the Queen's shock information was said to have struck her after she returned from Canada, where she was on a Golden Jubilee tour when the trial began.
She mentioned it to the Prince of Wales last Friday as they were driving in a royal limousine to St Paul's Cathedral in central London - close to the Old Bailey - for a memorial service for the victims of the Bali bomb blast.
She told Charles she had met Mr Burrell, at his request, in the weeks after the death of Diana and the butler said he was keeping some papers for safe keeping.
Believing this might be relevant to the trial, the Prince alerted his private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, who in turn instructed royal lawyer Fiona Shackleton to inform police.
The prosecution was given the news on Monday this week.
The 11th hour intervention came at a critical point in the trial, which was scheduled to last six weeks, as Mr Burrell was on the verge of giving evidence. He was expected to spend about two days in the witness box explaining why he had the 310 items in the loft, study, living room and stairs of his Cheshire house.
Among a number of sceptics, Labour MP Paul Flynn described the reason given for the collapse of the trial as "unconvincing" and "not plausible".
He said: "The most likely reason is that when Paul Burrell came to give evidence he was going to provide extremely damaging new information which would be damaging to the Royal Family. This was the reason the trial was halted prematurely on this entirely unconvincing pretext."
In a statement, Buckingham Palace said: "The decision to drop the case against Mr Burrell was entirely a decision for the prosecution.
"The Queen was not briefed on either Mr Burrell's defence case or the prosecution case against him. The prosecution did not ask the Queen, at any stage, for details about her meeting with Mr Burrell."
Asked whether the case had been halted at the Queen's request, the Palace said: "Absolutely not. There is no question of the Queen interfering in due legal process.
"The case was dropped because the prosecution realised their position was no longer viable." Outside the Old Bailey, Mr Burrell's solicitor said the former royal servant had not even revealed to his own lawyers until this week the details of the private conversation with the Queen five years' ago.
Mr Shaw said: "Mr Burrell remains deeply loyal to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and to the Queen whom he served in a personal capacity for 10 years.
"It is to his utmost credit and typical of the man that it was only this week that he instructed his lawyers as to the full terms of the conversation.
"Those terms were confirmed by the Queen this morning."
Rosa Monckton, a friend of the late Princess of Wales and one of the people expected to give evidence on Mr Burrell's behalf, added later: "Paul is very discreet, that's why he was so good at his job. He was the ultimate discreet person."
Peter Cosgrove, Mr Burrell's brother-in-law, was almost in tears as he gave his reaction. "I'm so happy, I can't tell you. What they have done to the family is unbelievable. I don't forgive them. I tell you, it is so wrong, what they did. It is disgusting. I'm so happy."
Mr Burrell's wife Maria, a former Buckingham Palace maid, was given the news on the phone by his solicitor as her husband was weeping into his barrister's black robes.
She was said to be "extremely emotional" but thrilled at the fast-moving developments.
The trial began unravelling at 10.55am when Mrs Justice Rafferty walked into Court Number One to announce that a secrecy application, which had halted the trial on Tuesday, had been resolved.
She said she would not have to rule on the prosecution's Public Interest Immunity application, which is likely to have been about the Queen's dramatic new information.
Mrs Justice Rafferty suggested the prosecution and defence counsel might like to exchange views, and adjourned the court for 10 minutes.
It was at this point it became apparent that the case was about to collapse - although the jury was not even in the court building. The case was ending in their absence.
Mr Burrell, in a smart grey suit and yellow checked shirt, appeared emotionless as he left the dock but when he reached his barrister, Lord Carlile QC, in the well of the court he collapsed into his arms.
Muffled sobs and gasps could be heard as he buried his face in the QC's right shoulder. Ten minutes later, the judge returned and the prosecutor Mr Boyce rose to his feet.
He said: "It has been an important part of the prosecution case that there was no evidence that Mr Burrell informed anyone that he was holding any property belonging to the executors of Diana, Princess of Wales, the Prince of Wales or Prince William."
But on Monday this week, prosecutors were informed that in fact he had told someone - the Queen.
Mr Boyce said: "During a discussion last Friday between the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales learned about the information.
"The Prince of Wales, whose property and that of Prince William was directly involved, thought that the information about the meeting might be relevant in the proceedings."
Mr Boyce said: "In all the circumstances, the prosecution has concluded that the current trial is no longer viable because it has proceeded on a false premise that Mr Burrell had never told anyone that he was holding anything for safekeeping.
"The prosecution have formed the view that there would no longer be a realistic prospect of conviction in this case, and that therefore the only appropriate course is to offer no further evidence against Mr Burrell and to invite the court to direct that verdicts of 'not guilty' should be entered in this case."
The QC said Mr Burrell had mentioned to police in various statements that he had held a private meeting with the Queen, but had not referred to what was said.
As a result, he said, neither the police nor the prosecution asked the Queen about the meeting - an omission described as "surprising" by Mr Burrell's solicitor.
Mark Stephens, a media lawyer, said Mr Burrell could sue police after the collapse of the case as they had failed to follow up the fact he had spoken to the Queen.
Mr Boyce insisted the Queen had not been briefed on the way the case was being prepared "to avoid any suggestion that Buckingham Palace was trying to interfere with the investigation".
"Therefore Her Majesty had no means of knowing until after the trial had started of the relevance to the prosecution of the fact that Mr Burrell had mentioned to Her Majesty that he had taken items for safe keeping."
Outside court, solicitor Mr Shaw said Mr Burrell was "happy and relieved to have been acquitted on all charges after the terrible ordeal of the last 21 months".
He went on: "Mr Burrell has had not only the steadfast support of his wife, Maria, who has not attended court purely because she was a witness in this case and was not allowed to do so, but also of the very close family and all of his friends.
"Many of the Princess's personal friends who rallied behind him and were prepared to give evidence for him and break their silence are also people that he will permanently and enduringly be grateful to.
"We also thank the general public for their support throughout the trial. He's been inundated with letters and messages of support from around the world and we thank those people as well who have kept faith with them."
A spokesman for Diana's brother said Earl Spencer had no comment to make on the trial's collapse. The 11-month police investigation and trial is estimated to have cost £1.5 million.
Scotland Yard offered no defence of their investigation but claimed Mr Burrell had not mentioned the meeting with the Queen to detectives until February this year - a claim disputed by the CPS and Mr Burrell's solicitor.
A CPS spokeswoman said: "The prosecution was brought in the same way that all prosecutions are brought, in accordance with the Code for Prosecutors."