What's
it about?
The trial cost the British taxpayer 1.5 million pounds, not to count the cost of the 11
month investigation that preceded it. The defendant was charged with theft of some 300
items from a dead Princess, but now senior British politicians are asking questions about
the star "witness", whose last-minute revelations led to its abrupt end. The
accused was the butler, the archetypal villain in so many drawing-room dramas, and the
surprise informant was no other than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Sound like the plot
of a BBC political thriller? No, this is too far-fetched to be fiction.
Paul Burrell is a soft-spoken throwback to a bygone era, one that you and I have never
glimpsed beyond a few scratchy movies from the golden years of British cinema. He finished
years of long service with various members of the British Royal Family as the personal
butler of the late Princess Diana. After information provided to police, his house was
raided, where various articles that belonged to the Princess were found. Charges were
brought.
The Queen's
involvement
Apparently Mr. Burrell met the Queen in December 1997, where he informed her that he
had stored some of the Princess's papers for safekeeping. As these things go, the Queen
did not offer her opinion. Buckingham Palace issued its own chronology, which goes
something like this:
- Following the raid on Mr. Burrell's home, the Queen was informed that none of her
possessions had been found amongst the Princess's effects. As a result there appeared to
be no basis for any further involvement by the Monarch.
Following this information, and based on the account now provided by the Queen, the
prosecution case collapsed and the trial ended.
Is the Queen above the law?
The Queen was not required to give evidence in the case against Mr. Burrell, as you and
I would have to if we were to dispute the basis of the prosecution. In fact, prosecutions
in England (and Australia) are brought in the name of the Queen. This is why cases are
brought as "R v. Burrell" - the "R" refers to Regina, the sovereign.
As well, the Queen is immune from prosecution, and is unlikely to be invited to give
evidence in any court proceedings. In part she cannot be allowed to entangle herself in
cases that in fact bear her own name.
Could the Queen have been called to give evidence on behalf of Mr. Burrell? Perhaps
yes. In fact, some British barristers have stated that they would have called the Queen to
the stand. But others, like constitutional expert Lord St John of Fawsley, believe it is
contrary to the principles of jurisprudence that the Queen should not have immunity. He
believes her immunity is not a privilege, but allows her to fulfil her functions as
monarch.
What we think
On the one hand, there would be dire consequences if the Queen were called to give
evidence in a civil case. Every stirrer and Republican agitator would be able to bring an
action against the Queen and call her to the stand. We are sympathetic to this view,
particularly when politicians in our own country often have access to legal representation
at the taxpayers expense. However, criminal prosecutions present a different set of
issues. In those cases, where there is a possibility of prison or other criminal
penalties, a defendant should be entitled to call any person who advances their cause.
Mr. Burrell secured a "get out of jail free" card on the basis of the word of
another person who was never tested in the witness box. Moreover, one has to wonder why
the Queen did not reveal this information for so long, when clearly it would have derailed
the prosecution long before it ever began. According to Buckingham Palace, the Queen did
not speak earlier because she believed the information she had was "irrelevant".
She then came forward as soon as she realised, from reading the newspapers, that the
information could be important. But as Labour MP Dennis Skinner said, given the same
actions as the Queen, any ordinary person would face prosecution for withholding vital
information and obstructing the course of justice.
One simple procedural change would be to launch prosecutions in the name of the
prosecuting body - in Australia that might be the Department of Public Prosecutions. No
doubt this would upset the remaining monarchists in our midst, but come on, do we really
need to continue to prosecute in the name of the Queen? And in England surely there would
be a way to discreetly take evidence from the monarch that would not infringe her
privilege, while preserving the rights of her subjects to a fair trial? What is more
important - the Queen's right to privacy and protection or the rights to a fair trial of
her subjects?
By Geoffrey Winn
Creative Director
www.law4u.com.au