Who were the real losers in the Burrell case?

The Independent asked a number of people in different sections of society for their views on the Paul Burrell trial. We asked a series of questions covering such points as who did they believe came out worst in the affair, who should now bear the £1.5m costs and the wider issue of what the case says about the relationship between the Monarchy and the rest of society. The controversy continued to reverberate last night with sources close to the Spencer family expressing anger that Mr Burrell had agreed to give his account of the affair in the Daily Mirror, for a reported £300,000. He is expected to give his views on the Spencer family, which rejected claims that Lady Sarah McCorquodale, the older sister of the late Diana, Princess of Wales had been the driving force behind the prosecution, which collapsed last Friday.

The Independent asked a number of people in different sections of society for their views on the Paul Burrell trial. We asked a series of questions covering such points as who did they believe came out worst in the affair, who should now bear the £1.5m costs and the wider issue of what the case says about the relationship between the Monarchy and the rest of society. The controversy continued to reverberate last night with sources close to the Spencer family expressing anger that Mr Burrell had agreed to give his account of the affair in the Daily Mirror, for a reported £300,000. He is expected to give his views on the Spencer family, which rejected claims that Lady Sarah McCorquodale, the older sister of the late Diana, Princess of Wales had been the driving force behind the prosecution, which collapsed last Friday.

LORD ACKNER RETIRED LAW LORD

"So many questions remain unanswered. It may well be the lawyers in the case whose reputations are most damaged. What can be said is that there seems to have been a lack of investigation, which is, unfortunately, now a sign of our times. There's an increase in superficiality, with more emphasis on the soundbite and not enough research into the facts of the case. You can't blame the criminal justice system just because lawyers don't take proper advantage of it."

SHOLA BABINGTON-ASHE STUDENT AT THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Ms Babington-Ashe, 26, from Plaistow, East London, said: "The Queen may be an old woman but her very late intervention suggests a selective amnesia that just doesn't convince me. She was aware from the start what Burrell was accused of. Was she really that forgetful or ill-informed? It makes me suspicious not just of her motives but of Burrell's and I am not convinced by his "loyal" silence. I don't think she should pay for the case personally. No one individual pays if a case collapses so why should she? You could argue that the court acted in favour of national security so damaging secrets against the Palace and Princess Diana were not revealed. That is part and parcel of deference towards monarchy. If we don't like this and we seek to curtail it we inevitably need to question our position on the monarchy."

TONY BENN FORMER LABOUR MINISTER

"What has come out is the absurdity that the Queen is the fount of justice, prosecutes Burrell, then appears to stop the prosecution. It reveals the absurdity of the situation where I had to tell 17 lies to sit in Parliament by giving an oath of loyalty. The Prime Minister, like the loyal butler himself, has defended the Queen. We're expected to forget she spoke to Mr Burrell for three hours on the subject."

DAVID BIRD PENSIONS CONSULTANT

Mr Bird, 39, from Hackney, east London, said: "This throws into question the power of the monarchy and issues surrounding their immunity from the judicial process. It reinforces the lack of trust that most of us feel in this country. You could say most institutions always come under attack but I believe they still need to be responsible and accountable to the public. I think it proves that you cannot reform and modernise such an antiquated institution, which is allowed to stay immune to justice."

ANITA BROOKNER NOVELIST

"The police are to blame, of course. I like to think the Queen did what she could within the bounds of discretion and within the bounds of her role. It is a slight pity they did not take a proper witness statement from her. I don't think that was deference. It was negligent, they did not do their job properly.

"The whole thing is a sorry mess and it is better forgotten. One of my fears is that Paul Burrell will be feeling quite rightly dishonoured and will want to tell his side of the story, so it will go on and on. It is masking the real issues we should think about, like the problems of professionalism in the public services, not least police."

DAME ANTONIA BYATT NOVELIST

"Nobody has come out of it very well, not the Spencers or the Windsors, and I don't think the butler has come out well either. I still don't see why he has got all those things and how long is he going to keep them? The Queen has been made to look slightly foolish. Either she should have remembered earlier or just possibly she is not telling the truth. I don't think we are being told everything that happened and it is irritating in the same way that President Bush trying to convince us Saddam Hussein has links with al-Qa'ida is irritating. It's an insult to public intelligence. I don't care whether the Spencers or the Royal Family pay but I don't think we should."

CHRISTINE COLL

Ms Coll, 20, of Balornock, Glasgow, said: "I think Paul Burrell was fitted up for his loyalty to Diana and the trial ended only because of the damage he might do to the Royal Family. These events have left everybody wondering whether he was really guilty. If this case had been a Scottish one I think most people would regard the outcome as not proven rather than not guilty."

SIR PATRICK CORMACK

CONSERVATIVE MP FOR STAFFORDSHIRE SOUTH

"It seems extraordinary the police should have handled it in the way they did and should have failed to give a comprehensive account of what they had in mind when they saw the Prince of Wales and Prince William last year, or failed to go back and correct the impression they had given. I feel sorry for the Queen, who, I think, appears to have had no idea of precisely what Mr Burrell was really being charged with."

NIGEL DE COSTA

SOFTWARE ENGINEER

Mr De Costa, 39, from Watford, said: "The case should either have gone all the way or it should not have reached court. I just don't believe the Queen valiantly stepped in at the last minute and there are many cynics out there who will probably feel the same. We know our judicial system is flawed and I felt no surprise over the outcome of this case. In a way it is an apt ending of the whole Princess Diana tragedy which has rumbled on through the past decade."

COURTENAY GRIFFITHS QC CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR'S PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

"The police did not investigate properly and misled the royal family in the desire to continue with the prosecution. In a high-profile case such as this there was a massive public interest with people pushing for a prosecution. This is the second big case this year [Mr Griffiths represented one of the defendants in the Damilola Taylor case which also collapsed mid-trial] in which the police have been found to have improperly investigated. It shows that the CPS should be involved in criminal investigations at a much earlier stage so they can sift the evidence."

STEPHEN HASELER PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AT LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

Professor Haseler, also chairman of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, said: "Many things happened here which would not happen if it was anybody else. How can a trial collapse on the basis of the uncorroborated words from the Queen? If it was anyone else the police would go and take a witness statement and that person would probably have to appear in court. It is a typical example of the kind of snobbery and deference which exists in this country. Of course the Queen should pay the costs of the case and I think this has dented her image in the minds of many who might otherwise have supported her."

MICHAEL JACOBS GENERAL SECRETARY FABIAN SOCIETY

"As this case shows, the Queen's position above the law is not theoretical at all. Questions about the political impartiality of the monarchy were similarly raised following the revelations about Prince Charles's letters [to Ministers]. The British constitution in this area is not just unwritten; much of it is actually quite uncertain. The case for codifying the monarch's role in law – including making the monarch subject to the law – now needs proper public debate."

LYNNE JONES LABOUR MP FOR BIRMINGHAM SELLY OAK

"The taxpayer has come out badly because of the enormous costs of the case. The question still has not been answered why the Queen took so long to speak out; she must have been aware of the case. I deplore the concept that the Royal Family are treated deferentially because of their birth. This is yet another example incident where if anybody else had behaved in the way she did they would have been criticised."

DAME HELENA KENNEDY QC LABOUR PEER AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER

"I think we are seeing the development of tabloid justice permeating the police and those who prosecute. The police lost their sense of judgement because of who they were dealing with and that poisoned their case from an early stage. I do think it shows that we are a society still steeped in traditions but that we are seeing the emergence of a different set of values in which you can't see someone convicted because of a deference to a traditional institution."

SIR JOHN MORTIMER FORMER BARRISTER AND AUTHOR

The creator of Rumpole of the Bailey said: "I don't think any blame can be attached to the Queen because its all the fault of the police, who misled Prince Charles about Paul Burrell selling all her property, and the Crown Prosecution Service, who are, notoriously, incredibly inefficient. I think they should bear the costs of the case. I'm afraid its a very typical case of the police and CPS getting it wrong."

JENNY NOBLE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER

Ms Noble, 60, from Chingford, Essex, said: "feel angry with the police. I blame them for bungling the investigative procedure and for not following through disclosures made by Mr Burrell regarding his conversation with the Queen very early on in the process. I would also say that some of the culpability should go to the Queen's solicitors who were invited to discuss the case with Burrell's solicitors but chose not to, I believe. I would not attach any blame to the Queen herself. Being a royalist I believe she acted properly in coming forward and I don't ascribe to theories that suggest she stepped in to protect family secrets.

IRENE PATTERSON SALESWOMAN

Ms Patterson, 55, from Hamilton, near Glasgow, said: "I definitely smelled a Royal rat in this whole case. It seemed very funny to me that the Queen should step in just as the butler was about to give evidence. What did she have to hide? The whole case has been very badly handled and heads should roll for the complete waste of taxpayers' money. It's time the Queen lost her legal immunity and was answerable like the rest of us."

BEN PIMLOTT WARDEN OF GOLDSMITHS COLLEGE

The author of The Queen: Elizabeth II and The Monarchy (HarperCollins) said: "I believe the prosecuting authorities are to blame because they did not do their homework properly; the case should never have been brought and there are still unresolved mysteries. The Queen should not bear the costs because there is no evidence that she acted anything other than conscientiously. Her image has suffered, although probably not in the long term, because the whole thing has been pretty unedifying and not the Palace's finest hour. And it shows that it is no longer acceptable to have different tiers of justice in society."

CLARE RAYNER WRITER AND FORMER AGONY AUNT

"As a dyed-in-the-wool republican, I think the Windsors, the Spencers and the police, who acted like star-struck idiots, all share the blame. The police really ought to be smacked. Even the judge seemed bedazzled by the Royals. The whole thing was really like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. I feel sorry for Mr Burrell who behaved with a combination of loyalty and stupidity. If this doesn't persuade people of the virtues of a written constitution and an elected head of state I don't know what will."

ANITA RODDICK BODY SHOP FOUNDER

"I think Paul Burrell was innocent and he has displayed amazing loyalty. I felt the police did not act with due diligence. They didn't ask the Queen the important question, and they didn't seem to realise he got his money from selling his books. The instant reaction is that the Royal Family wanted to keep him quiet. What information did he have? The Queen is either forgetful or she is not. She is over 70 so perhaps we should give her the benefit of the doubt but it all point to somebody not wanting Mr Burrell to speak in public. If anybody should have to pay it should be the Metropolitan Police."

LORD ST JOHN OF FAWSLEY FORMER LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The constitutional expert said: "The Director of Public Prosecutions and the public prosecution service need to be investigated and not the unwritten constitution subverted... The Burrell case has now entered a new and dangerous phase with so-called 'constitutional experts' ringing up to declare Her Majesty should forfeit her immunity as head of state from giving evidence in court. The Queen's immunity exists not for her personally, but to preserve the dignity and position of the head of state, just as the privilege of freedom of speech for MPs is to preserve citizens' rights and not to subvert them."

RACHEL SALTER RESEARCH EXECUTIVE

Ms Salter, 21, of Finsbury Park, north London, said: "The affair raises questions about the establishment and the monarchy and what deals are brokered behind closed doors. It has dented trust in institutions already affected by previous police cases such as the Steven Lawrence inquiry and serves to refuel all those conspiracy theories which cropped up after Princess Diana's death. The matter can only be resolved with a public inquiry or we will be left dwelling on dodgy dealings that go on between various institutions and the monarchy."

JOHN WADHAM

SOLICITOR

The director of the human rights group, Liberty, said: "This puts disclosure and public interest immunity (PII) firmly in the spotlight. In the past, the prosecution's failure to disclose key evidence has sent many innocent people to prison. The PII system is a major flaw in the system because it allows evidence and documents which are clearly relevant to the case not to be disclosed to the defendant. The whole PII regime is based on secret hearings between the prosecutor and the judge. The defence has no chance to argue that this evidence is important and often won't know it exists."

LEWIS WOLPERT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON

The expert in biology as applied to medicine said: "The Crown Prosecution Services come out badly because they must have had very poor evidence that he was doing anything wrong. It is also hard not to believe that the sudden involvement of the Queen was not related to Burrell being about to enter the witness box. This media excitement over anything involving the Royals makes me more republican than ever."

Reporting team: Terry Kirby, Ian Herbert, Ian Burrell, Arifa Akbar, Nigel Morris, Richard Garner,, Steve Connor, Paul Kelbie and Ben Russell.