Paul Burrell’s trial.

[MidWayThruJanuary]

Paul Burrell’s trial for stealing items from Diana’s belongings after she died collapsed because he gave evidence that TLQ gave him permission to take them. She could not be called as a witness.
Richard Keys in the Mail has put forward the proposition that Andrew may say that his brother - the King - knew what he was doing. That would be catastrophic.

I don't understand. Why would it be catastrophic that Prince Charles knew that Paul Burrell had permission to take some of Diana's things?

In that case surely the king would over rule the "rule" and give his evidence or even a statement saying this is false (if it is)

Were talking misconduct in a public office, sharing confidendial UK information with his billionaire bank roller, not taking trinkets.

And if anything was to come about r.e. the sex offences leading to investigation and trial- again- its a bit bigger than burrels accusation

This is an extract from Richard Kay's article.
But consider this: were Mountbatten-Windsor to claim, for example, that he had kept the King informed of any part of his conduct, the implications for the constitution would be extraordinary.
As monarch, Charles cannot testify or be a witness in his own courts. A prosecution could collapse – just as royal butler Paul Burrell's case imploded in 2002.
Then it emerged that Princess Diana's butler, charged with theft, had told the Queen that he had taken some of Diana's personal items and papers for safekeeping.
On that occasion, the Crown could not call its own monarch as a witness. The case fell apart. Those who understand how these things work have not forgotten that precedent.

If my sister stole my necklace, and it was reported, but then I said "no I knew", then the police wouldn't bother pressing charges.
If my sister sold state secrets and/or abused vulnerable young adults, even if my sister said I knew about it, the police would still press charges.
If the King did know, then it makes for more intrigue and complication, but it doesn't get Andrew off the hook.

Could KC3 be compelled to give evidence in one of his own courts?

Is this what you are saying? AMW could claim that KCIII knew everything he was up to. KCIII can't be a witness in court so it essentially becomes an alibi and the trial collapses.

When you said "this could be catastrophic" you were referring to the potential collapse of a future trial being catastrophic? It read like you thought it would be catastrophic for KCIII now that the case against Burrell had collapsed which makes no sense.

That’s not what the OP is saying.

Whether or not KC3 new is surely irrelevant - It is still misconduct isn’t it?

If AMW said that Charles knew and Charles maintained that it wasn't true then surely he would be able to overrule any precedent and speak to defend himself? Just because he couldn't be "compelled" to testify doesn't mean that he might choose to.

If he chose not to then we could draw conclusions from that which might be detrimental to the reputation of the monarchy, such that it is.

Mind you, if my brother was the king I'd probably not want to throw him under the bus. Doesn't feel like a wise route of action.

It's a completely different situation. Burrell's argument was that he was keeping Diana's things safe for William and Harry because others were interfering.
Andrew cannot argue what he did was in the best interests of anyone in the RF.
Richard Kay seems to understand neither situation.

But even if Andrew claimed his brother had been aware of his conduct- what difference would that actually make? It doesn’t take away from Andrew’s own crimes.

I don’t think they need the RF to be witnesses on this - there are documents and emails that demonstrate his misconduct clear as day. And plenty of other people who worked closely with AMW who I’m sure could testify against him. I don’t think the King would need to be involved in any way?

The point about Paul Burrell is that permission is a defence to theft but TLQ couldn’t be called to court to say whether or not she had in fact given permission.

AFAIK permission from the King is not a defence to misconduct in public office. The only thing which would potentially be a defence is that the government (rather than KC3) had asked for that information to be disclosed. This can be heard in court even if it is in a closed session.

KC3 can be implicated but I don’t think his knowledge would make any difference to Andrews case.

🤣🤣🤣

Why would Charles be relevant when the offences Andrew is being charged with happened in the reign of his mother? Plus we know that Charles warned the government about employing Andrew so I can't see what Keys is on about.

He's like all these journalists. Grasping at straws and demonstrating a lack of knowledge.
It's just for the headlines.

Private Eye have already said that KC did try and warn his ma.

But I also don’t think it makes sense. Whatever information Andrew is alleged to have shared with JE, his motive seems to have been money and the extras JE offered (no disrespect intended to the victims). I can’t see that selfish Andrew would have shared such information with the wealthier, more powerful older brother he has always been so very very jealous of.

Good points.

So if KC knew-does that make him an accessory to misconduct in public office?

Andrew gave documents to Epstein, KC could not give him legal permission to do so, so KC is irrelevant to the trial. Unless you’re suggesting that he will claim that KC made him do it

Gordon Brown has submitted a dossier to the police.

Good. I really really hope Gordon Brown enjoys seeing Mandelsons downfall after Mandelson called him "smelly". Cheeky bastard, imagine saying that about your boss who happens to be the PM, to another person.

Mandelson sounded absolutely awful, even before this. What a petulant thing to say. There's a C4 documentary about Tony Blair, and Mandelson contributes.
He doesn't come across well.

Come on man

I dont think he 2 cases are comparable.
The case for theft against Paul Burrel Collapsed because the legal definition of theft requires "dishonest intent". PB said he had met with the Queen 3 hrs after Dianas death and said he was taking some items for "safe keeping". the meeting was confirmed by the Palace. Therefore it would be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt "dishonest intent".
With Andrews case does it matter if the King Knew in that it wouldn't provide a defence for Andrews alleged misconduct in public office. I mean it would be unedifying for KC but wouldn't affect Andrews guilt or innocence in this matter,surely?