A British coroner on Thursday warned against criticism of the inquest into the death of Princess Diana, after senior politicians
called it a waste of time.
“Comments made outside this court, often about a limited aspect of the evidence, may tender the maker or publisher liable to contempt of court,” judge Scott Baker said at the long-running hearing in London.
“I again urge great care that nothing is said, written or published that may influence the jury.” The inquest was the best way to confirm or allay “public suspicion” about the 1997 Paris car crash that killed princess, her lover Dodi Fayed and their driver Henri Paul, he added.
Earlier, George Foulkes, a Labour member of Britain’s unelected upper House of Lords who sits on the Parliamentary
Intelligence and
Security Committee, said the hearing was a “fruitless exercise”. “It’s becoming a farce and a circus and it will put the whole judicial system into disrepute if it continues,” he told BBC radio, adding that many of the theories about the crash were already public knowledge.
A French judicial inquiry and a separate British police review of the crash both concluded Diana and Dodi died as a result of an accident, caused by Paul driving too fast whilst over the drink-drive limit.
Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, maintains the couple were murdered as part of a plot by the British establishment and security services. He told the inquest on Monday the assassination had been carried out on the orders of Queen Elizabeth II’s husband Prince Philip because of opposition to the mother of the future king marrying a Muslim and having a child by him.
The former head of Britain’s overseas intelligence shadows, Richard Dearlove, came out of the shadows Wednesday to refute the allegations, describing them as “absurd” and a slur on both him and the secret service.
He said it was in the public interest that officers were not “tied up” giving evidence “rather than dealing with counter-terrorism issues”. Another committee member, Labour lawmaker Dari Taylor, told The Times that calling the MI6 officers was “going far too far” at a time when the security services were already overworked.