The trial of Paul Burrell

Between 1992 and her death in 1997 Paul Burrell had been butler to Diana, Princess of Wales. In October 2002 he stood trial at the Old Bailey charged with the theft of over 300 items associated with her, many of which had been taken into his possession after her death. His defence to the charge was that he had merely taken them for safe-keeping. After several days the trial came to an abrupt end, when the Queen herself revealed that

46 • THE INVISIBLE PALACE —PART 2 THE CONSTITUTION

after Diana's death she had had a conversation with Burrell in which he had told her that he was removing items belonging to Diana 'for safe-keeping'.

One of the many questions raised following this revelation was that of the Queen's legal immunity from giving evidence in the courts. How could Burrell have a fair trial if the Queen might have confirmed his innocence, but (as everyone appeared to accept without question) she had a legal immunity from appearing in her own courts? This could have presented a huge problem as it meant, for example, that she could not be compelled to give evidence as a defence witness. The matter, however, was not resolved by any legal ruling because as soon as it was known that this conversation had taken place, the case against Paul Burrell was dropped by the prosecution, and he was acquitted.

The constitution may be an illusion, but it is an illusion that works, and is made to work. It is so convincing and well established by practice and tradition that it has become an accepted fact, which must be guarded and protected. It is the province of the courts to guard and protect the constitution; and, if it becomes necessary, they will do just that. In this way the judiciary plays an essential role not only in the lives of individual citizens, but also in the running of the country as a whole.

Date: 2015-01-12; view: 1072