From: bern.boergeenreclame@planet.nl   
      
   Battle to let jury decide truth about Diana   
   27/01/07   
   By Padraic Flanagan   
      
   A LEGAL bid to stop the Princess Diana inquest being held without a jury was   
   launched last night by Mohamed Al Fayed.   
      
   The Harrods owner wants a judge to compel Deputy Royal Coroner Dame   
   Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to conduct the hearings before a panel of ordinary   
   men and women.   
      
   In court papers filed yesterday, the tycoon claims Lady Butler-Sloss's   
   independence could be compromised because she is a salaried employee of the   
   royal household as its coroner.   
      
   Mr Al Fayed's lawyers issued an application to the High Court for a judicial   
   review of her decision on January 8 not to empanel a jury - calling her   
   ruling "perverse".   
      
   The lawyers also argue that the retired senior judge cannot be viewed as   
   impartial because she is so closely associated with Lord Stevens, and his   
   finding that the deaths of Diana and Mr Al Fayed's son Dodi in a Paris car   
   crash in August 1997 were an accident.   
      
   In a statement to the High Court supporting his application, Mr Al Fayed   
   claimed Lady Butler-Sloss's involvement was "inappropriate".   
      
   He said her appointment as Deputy Royal Coroner was arranged by the Lord   
   Steward of the Queen's Household, Sir James Hamilton.   
      
   Under the terms of her contract, according to Mr Al Fayed's lawyers, Lady   
   Butler-Sloss qualifies for a home and salary from the Queen.   
      
   "If any of this is correct it is highly unusual and I simply do not believe   
   that this is an appropriate way for the inquests to be held," says Mr Al   
   Fayed.   
      
   "I have no confidence in such a court and I do not believe the public will   
   accept that an employee of the Queen - or a person so closely connected to   
   the royal household - should be allowed to hear and determine the findings   
   of the inquests."   
      
   After the January 8 hearing, Mr Al Fayed described the decision by Lady   
   Butler-Sloss to sit without a jury as "shocking but predictable" and part of   
   an Establishment plot to cover up the alleged murder of Diana and Dodi, in   
   which chauffeur Henri Paul also died.   
      
   Commenting on his legal move yesterday, the businessman said: "If the public   
   is to have confidence in the verdicts that will eventually be reached, it is   
   essential that the public should be fully involved. The jury should see the   
   witnesses being sworn to tell the truth, listen to their testimony and come   
   to their own conclusions.   
      
   "Unless there is a jury, I shall not accept the verdicts, and I do not think   
   any   
   right-thinking person in this country, or abroad, will do so either."   
      
   Mr Al Fayed said he remained convinced Diana and Dodi were the victims of an   
   Establishment plot to prevent the Princess marrying a Muslim. "It is now   
   firmly established that Princess Diana herself feared for her safety and   
   pointed the finger directly at senior members of the Royal Family.   
      
   "How can a coroner for the Royal Household, appointed by the Queen, instil   
   confidence that she will fearlessly and independently investigate the facts,   
   and reach impartial decisions?"   
      
   At the preliminary hearing earlier this month, Lady Butler-Sloss noted the   
   desire of Princes William and Harry for the inquests to be prompt and   
   transparent. Mr Al Fayed's legal team are hoping to overturn the no-jury   
   decision before a second preliminary hearing in March.   
      
   At that hearing the coroner was due to view a 3D model of the Pont de l'Alma   
   tunnel crash site, created for the Metropolitan Police investigation.   
      
   At least 40 witnesses will give evidence at the full inquest, many by   
   video-link from Paris.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)