On the 7th of April 2008 a jury at the inquest of Princess Diana decided that she had been killed unlawfully. It had only taken 11 years from the crash date 31st August 1997.
The rare verdict of ‘unlawful killing’ in an inquest means that the death was deemed to be due to an ‘unlawful act’ or ‘gross negligence’ with the burden of proof being that of beyond a reasonable doubt.
This means that someone was criminally culpable in her death either by murder or by voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and the normal procedure would be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings. An inquest has no power in this direction and does not, as far as I can see, name potentially guilty parties.
The incident also happened in France, which obviously causes some problems of jurisdiction.
The official story is that she was driven at twice the speed limit through a Paris tunnel at which point the driver, who was under the influence of alcohol and drugs, lost control due to the attentions of paparazzi photographers on motorcycles and hit a concrete pillar killing himself, the princess and Dodi Fayed. Only the princess’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones survived. Presumably the unlawful killing verdict was aimed at the driver and motorcyclists.
Since her death there has been a raft of conspiracy theories.
Was the princess, who would have been 50 on 1st July 2011, pregnant?
Was she about to marry a Muslim and the son of the then Harrods owner?
Were her attempts to ban land-mines financially damaging to the UK?
Was she therefore an embarrassment that led to a ‘Royal’ command for her death?
Was her seat belt functioning correctly?
How come she wrote a letter well before the crash expressing concerns that there were plans to kill her in a car crash?
Has there been a continual conspiracy by French and UK authorities to cover all this up?
From this the Keith Allen film ‘Unlawful Killing’ was spawned.
This film was financed by Dodi Fayed’s father, Mohammed Al Fayed and was shown at the Cannes film festival in May.
But there are no plans to show the film in the UK due to ‘legal concerns’. There are allegations that the film has been banned and that some 87 scenes need to be cut before it can be shown. This includes the removal of a photograph of the princess as she lay dying in the car.
But a quick search through the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) shows that the film does not even feature. So can it have been banned by the establishment?
So one is left wondering if this is a self imposed ban over fears the writers and producers could be prosecuted for defamation if they cannot substantiate their claims.
However, it is a British made film and to not show it in the UK would be disappointing. And, after all, if the establishment has nothing to hide then it has nothing to fear, does it?
The film has its own Facebook page and website (http://www.unlawfulkilling.com/).