Diana driver's alcohol intake not necessarily relevant
Evidence that Diana, Princess of Wales’s driver had been drinking is not necessarily “relevant” to the cause of the crash which killed her, an expert claimed today.
Crash specialist Dr John Searle, who was hired by Mohamed al Fayed’s Ritz Hotel to investigate aspects of the tragedy, told Diana’s inquest that being twice the legal drink-drive limit would have created only a “small risk” of having an accident on the fateful journey.
Dr Searle told the hearing that although drinking the amount it has been claimed driver Henri Paul did that night would have increased the chances of having an accident, the risk would still be “one in many thousands”.
He was speaking as it was confirmed that lawyers are launching a legal challenge to a key ruling on how the inquest at the High Court in London is to proceed after French paparazzi witnesses refused to attend.
Lawyers for Henri Paul’s family, the Ritz Hotel where he worked and its owner Mohamed al Fayed have lodged papers applying for judicial review of the coroner’s decision to admit written rather than live evidence.
It is understood the challenge, which would be heard within around two weeks time, is not expected to cause any immediate interruption in the inquest itself.
Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr al Fayed, fears that if the paparazzi are not forced to give evidence other French witnesses – including key experts - might also refuse.
Henri Paul was killed alongside Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed in a crash in the Pont de l’Alma Tunnel in Paris in the early hours of August 31 1997.
The jury have been told that tests on Mr Paul’s body found he was around twice the UK drink-drive limit at the time, although they have not yet heard specific evidence on that point.
Mohamed al Fayed believes Mr Paul was not drunk and that the samples may have been switched.
Dr Searle was one of three experts who carried out mock-up tests in the UK to calculate where the Mercedes driven by Mr Paul collided with a mystery white Fiat Uno at the scene of the crash.
The court heard that in his report he also analysed factors such as the layout of the road and suggested the structure of the tunnel with pillars rather than a concrete crash barrier was dangerous.
He also included statistics on what role, if any, alcohol would have played.
He told the court today that drinking the amount Henri Paul is alleged to have done would have increased his risk of having an accident by around 10 times.
But he said that meant Henri Paul’s risk of having a crash over a 2.5 mile journey from the Ritz Hotel to Dodi’s flat in Paris – where the couple are thought to have been going – would be similar to that of another person having an accident over 25 miles.
“There is a risk, but it’s a small risk, it still remains a one in many thousands chance of having an accident,” he said.
The coroner asked him: “Is it your evidence that if, and I appreciate that it’s a big ’if’ because that area of the case has not been heard yet, that if the driver was over twice the legal limit, that you are not persuaded that this has any relevance to this tragedy and that the jury should proceed accordingly?”
He replied: “In a nutshell, yes.
“The accident rate in increased, Sir, by a very significant amount, but that does not mean that it must necessarily have a bearing upon what has happened and why.
“There are other factors also that counter balance that one.”
