This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7071506.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
French U-turn over Diana inquest French U-turn over Diana inquest
(about 3 hours later)
The coroner in the Diana, Princess of Wales, inquest has said that a decision has been taken in France not to force paparazzi to give evidence. The coroner in the Princess Diana inquest has accused the French of taking a "political" decision not to force paparazzi to give evidence.
Lord Justice Scott Baker said the apparent change in the French position had happened in the past week. Lord Justice Scott Baker said that, in the past week, a decision not to compel witnesses to give evidence had been taken at a "very high level".
It had previously been expected that French laws would be used to compel witnesses in that country to attend a video link with the court in London. It had previously been expected that French law would force them to attend a Paris video link with the London court.
The coroner said the decision had been taken at a "very high level". France has cited fears for "public order" as a reason for the U-turn.
Lord Justice Scott Baker also said the French authorities had expressed concerns over the aggressive nature of British cross-examination. Michael Mansfield QC, representing Dodi Al Fayed's father, Mohamed, has called for Minister of Justice Jack Straw to intervene to get the French to force witnesses to give evidence.
'Not law'
Princess Diana, her companion, Dodi Al Fayed, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul, died after the crash in the Pont de l'Alma Tunnel in Paris in the early hours of 31 August 1997 after leaving the Ritz Hotel.
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 Lord Justice Scott BakerI 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 Lord Justice Scott Baker
It has also emerged that French legal authorities were citing fears for "public order" should the British court continue insisting on the paparazzi facing cross-examination by video link, rather than having their previous statements read out. The French U-turn emerged during a legal argument over how the inquest is to proceed in the light of paparazzi refusing to give evidence.
The situation came to light during a legal argument over how the inquest is to proceed in the light of paparazzi refusing to give evidence. Lawyers told the court they had received advice that, under French domestic law, witnesses could potentially be compelled to attend the video suite at the Palais de Justice.
The court also heard that while some paparazzi could not be traced, at least six whose whereabouts were known had not been issued with summonses.
This was despite earlier assurances to lawyers that this had taken place some time ago.
Change in position
Princess Diana, her companion, Dodi Al Fayed, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul died after the crash in the Pont de l'Alma Tunnel in Paris in the early hours of 31 August 1997 after leaving the Ritz Hotel.
Richard Keen QC, representing the family of Mr Paul, and other lawyers told the court they had received advice that, under French domestic law, witnesses could potentially be compelled to attend the video suite at the Palais de Justice in Paris.
However, the coroner told them: "That's not going to happen.However, the coroner told them: "That's not going to happen.
"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. "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."
"But it does appear that there has been a change in position by the French authorities taken at a very high level and it seems to me that we are controlled not by what you may or may not believe to be the position in the French law, but what the French are actually prepared to do." Lord Justice Scott Baker said he believed France's decision had not been taken under French law but was, instead affected by, "what the French are actually prepared to do".
Tom de la Mare, representing the Ritz Hotel in Paris, said the French position appeared to be a question of "stance" taken by a French magistrate, rather than advice on the meaning of the law. The court also heard that, while some paparazzi could not be traced, at least six whose whereabouts were known had not been issued with summonses.
But the coroner replied: "It is not a stance taken by the French magistrate. It is stance taken a great deal higher by the French authorities", although he did not disclose how high up the decision had been made. This was despite earlier assurances to lawyers that this had taken place some time ago, the coroner said.
'Nation's interests'
Michael Mansfield QC accused the French authorities of using "subterfuge".
He raised concerns that other importance witnesses could also be "protected" from giving evidence to the inquest.
He produced a copy of a section of the French Civil Code - Article 694-4 - referred to by the French authorities in their decision not to force paparazzi to give evidence.
The court heard that the article spoke of instances where a request for judicial assistance could "threaten public order for the fundamental interests of the nation".
Mr Mansfield called on Mr Straw to make representations to his French counterpart.