Was it really worth it? The inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed, her companion, closed yesterday with the jury reaching a verdict that they had been killed owing to gross negligence on the part of Henri Paul, their driver, and the pursuing paparazzi. The verdict surprised no-one, other than Mohamed Al Fayed. It came at the end of six months of evidence at a cost of nearly £3m to the public purse. According to Dr Michael Powers QC, an expert in this legal area, the inquest swallowed up 10% of the annual budget for coroners' cases in England and Wales.
Was it public money well spent out of a finite budget under the additional pressure of dealing with armed forces' deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan? Dr Powers suggested it was not, and it is difficult to disagree. But any judgment must take account of several factors. First, there was the evidence itself, by turns compelling, sensational, revelatory and unbelievable. The jury heard that Diana turned to mediums, complementary therapists and soothsayers as she looked for peace and contentment in her life. The inquest heard from spies and millionaires. There was evidence of a "Pandora's box" of secrets entrusted to Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler, who was left without a reputation by Lord Justice Scott Baker and who might face criminal charges for perjury.
Intimate details of Diana's private life were laid bare by her friends and former lovers with one aim in mind: to challenge Mr Al Fayed's assertion that she and Dodi had been murdered on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. There was not a shred of evidence to support a callous and irresponsible flight of fancy. Diana's sons and her circle of family and friends have had to endure much these past six months. The public examination of her life will have served some purpose if it causes Mr Al Fayed to accept the verdict and end his pursuit.
There are no grounds for a judicial review funded by the public purse. If he wants to carry on, let him do so by recourse to civil action, paid for out of his own pocket. His clout has already exerted a disproportionate influence on the English judicial system.
There remains one unsatisfactory aspect of this affair: the inability of the inquiry to call the paparazzi to account. They contributed to the crash yet, rather than help, they feasted at the scene, expecting to sell their images to the press for thousands of pounds. But public revulsion at the behaviour of the paparazzi and sections of the press involved in the auction caused the industry to examine its code of practice. The Press Complaints Commission was reconstituted and is better placed to investigate excess thoroughly and impartially. Persistent pursuit of individuals was banned. The paparazzi now earn much less from British newspapers. Whether their behaviour abroad has been tempered is questionable as they have a worldwide market to sell to. From a British perspective, however, this has been a chink of light in a very dark, sad and long-lasting episode. Surely, now, that episode must draw to a close.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article