Burrell trial: The case against the Crown

Paul Burrell, the former royal butler accused of stealing hundreds of items of property belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, was cleared of all charges yesterday after the disclosure of a crucial conversation he had with the Queen in 1997.

The sudden collapse of one of the most high-profile criminal trials of recent times triggered accusations and recriminations about the parts played by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Royal Family.

After three days of legal argument and mounting speculation, a packed Court 1 at the Old Bailey was told yesterday morning that the Crown would drop the prosecution because it had learnt Mr Burrell had told the Queen shortly after Diana's death that he was taking some of her papers into his possession for "safe keeping". The revelation, which fatally undermined the prosecution case, put a reigning monarch at the heart of a major criminal case for the first time in British legal history.

But as Mr Burrell, 44, left the Old Bailey, declaring that "the Queen has come through for me, the lady has come through for me", there was widespread scepticism at the official explanation for why the £1.5m trial had been abandoned.

Later, his father, Graham Burrell, said: "I think he would have gone to jail rather than be disloyal to the Queen."

On Monday evening, the prosecution had sought a Public Interest Immunity certificate, a "gagging order", to withhold details of the conversation between Mr Burrell and the Queen from the public. The application followed two meetings over four days involving the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh. Yesterday, at 10.54am, Mrs Justice Rafferty told the court that the issue of the PII had been "resolved". William Boyce QC, for the prosecution, rose to his feet and stated solemnly that the charges against Mr Burrell were to be withdrawn.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "The decision to drop the case was entirely a decision for the prosecution. The Queen was not briefed either on Mr Burrell's defence case or the prosecution case against him. The prosecution did not ask the Queen, at any stage, for details about her meeting with Mr Burrell." A Palace spokesman denied the prosecution was dropped because of the possibility that members of the Royal Family could have been subpoenaed by the defence.

After his arrest, Mr Burrell mentioned his meeting with the Queen to police, but did not disclose that he had told her he was taking Diana's property.

The police investigation had failed to ask what happened at the meeting, and the omission was not noticed by the Crown Prosecution Service when it pressed charges against the former butler. Throughout the trial the Queen, too, apparently failed to remember she had taken part in a conversation which, if revealed, would make the theft charges against Mr Burrell unsustainable.

According to the Palace's account, she first told the Prince of Wales about the meeting with Mr Burrell while travelling to the Bali memorial service at St Paul's last Friday. Prince Charles realised its full import and, after a further meeting with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh on Monday, he called the police.

Yesterday a statement for Mr Burrell said: "The evidence in the trial has shown up many mistakes on the part of the police. It is a matter of regret that no proper investigation was carried out into the accuracy of the 39-page statement given to the police on 16 August 2001 ... In that statement Mr Burrell referred to a private audience granted to him by the Queen. It is surprising that no inquiries were made to the Queen in relation to that meeting."

Scotland Yard denied Mr Burrell had made this claim in his statement, saying it was made in a defence statement submitted in February this year.

Mr Boyce told the court: "Because the Queen's personal property was not involved and because of concerns to avoid any suggestions that Buckingham Palace was trying to interfere with the investigation of this case, the Queen was not briefed on the way in which the case against Burrell was being prepared.

"It has been an important part of the prosecution case that there was no evidence that Mr Burrell informed anyone that he was holding any property belonging to the Princess of Wales, the Prince of Wales or Prince William."

This fatal blow to the prosecution case was the last in a line of damaging revelations. Earlier in the trial, the court had been told that the officer in charge of the case, Detective Chief Inspector Maxine de Brunner, "grossly misled" Prince Charles and Prince William at Highgrove by claiming detectives had seen photos of Mr Burrell wearing Diana's clothing, and about items being sold abroad. She conceded, under cross-examination, that there was no evidence to support these allegations.

The trial had aroused concern about the openness of justice after prosecutors refused to read sections of Mr Burrell's statement in open court.

Last night the prosecution's account of events was being challenged by Labour MPs. Louise Ellman, the MP for Liverpool Riverside, said: "It's very difficult to believe the Queen did not understand the significance of what she knew until the last week."