REPORT TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES BY SIR MICHAEL PEAT AND EDMUND LAWSON QC 13th March 2003 PPSysB Page SO Pag Table 831750 831750$$99 11-03-03 15:37:01 Unit PAG1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Introduction On 11th November 2002, following the termination of the trial of Mr Paul Burrell, The Prince of Wales asked his Private Secretary, Sir Michael Peat, assisted by Edmund Lawson QC, to inquire into and report to him in respect of four matters raised in Press reports. His Royal Highness was concerned to know whether the Press reports were correct and, if so, to address any failings or deficiencies in the administrative procedures in his OYce. This is the Report which we, Sir Michael Peat and Edmund Lawson, have prepared and which sets out our findings and conclusions in respect of the following four questions. 1. Was there an improper cover-up of the rape allegation made by Mr George Smith in 1996? 2. Was there anything improper or remiss in the conduct of The Prince of Wales’s Household with respect to the termination of the Burrell trial? 3. Have oYcial gifts given to The Prince of Wales been sold? 4. Have any staV in the Prince of Wales’s Household received improper payments or other benefits? Sir Michael Peat, who became The Prince of Wales’s Private Secretary on 12th August 2002, was himself involved in discussion with the Police and others in connection with the Burrell trial; and he was involved in the disclosure made on 28th October 2002 to the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) of The Queen’s earlier conversation with Mr Burrell. In these circumstances Sir Michael considered it best that he should not report with respect to this part of the Inquiry. Accordingly, the Section of our otherwise joint Report covering Question 2 is the exclusive responsibility of Mr Lawson. The investigation As a non-statutory Inquiry, we had no power to compel the co-operation of those identified as having or possibly having information which concerned our terms of reference. We are pleased to say, however, that with very few exceptions1, all those approached by us agreed to assist whether by the provision of documents or information or both; and we are grateful to them. Early in our investigations we requested the help of the newspapers which had published substantial articles relating to one or more of the Questions. They were 1 Messrs. Burrell and Brown declined to be involved. Miss Mendham, Personal Secretary to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, spoke briefly to Sir Michael in respect of aspects of Question 1 but otherwise would not assist. 1 PPSysB Page E Pag Table 831750 831750$$99 11-03-03 15:37:01 Unit PAG1 unable to assist us beyond referring to the published material and, understandably, were unwilling to reveal sources. We had no lawful power to take evidence under oath. Principal witnesses were, however, interviewed by us, often in addition to their providing written accounts; others clarified their written accounts in informal interview. Appended, as Annex 1, is a list of those who have assisted the Inquiry. To the extent that individuals are criticised in this Report, notice of provisional criticisms was provided; and due account has been taken, in completing this Report, of representations made to us in response. Conclusions A summary of our conclusions in respect of each of the four Questions is given below. 1. Was there an improper cover-up of the rape allegation made by Mr George Smithin 1996? No one believed Mr Smith’s rape allegation. The Prince of Wales gave no credence to it and Household staV with whom Mrs Shackleton discussed the allegation shared his disbelief. Hounslow Police did not give the allegation credence and did not investigate it. The allegation was not investigated by the Household because it was disbelieved, because Mr Smith declined to pursue his complaint and because investigation, to the extent that it was considered, was pointless. It had been decided that Mr Smith had to go; and those were the instructions received from The Prince of Wales. A, if not the, major concern from an early stage was to avoid publicity being given to what was believed to be a baseless allegation. There was also a proper concern to follow The Prince of Wales’s instruction that Mr Smith should be well provided for. The objectives were, therefore, to remove Mr Smith, without giving him cause to repeat the allegation; and to provide generously for his, Mr Smith’s, future. The two were obviously connected. A serious allegation of this sort should not, in our opinion, have been treated so dismissively, even though there was universal disbelief as to its veracity, without (at minimum) full and documented consideration of the decision not to investigate. It might have been diVerent if Mr Smith had unequivocally and apparently rationally confirmed that the allegation was not true. That is not, however, what he did. As recorded by Mrs Shackleton’s assistant, he only indicated that he did not wish to pursue it, expressly by reason of the ‘power’ of the alleged assailant (“AA”) and implicitly because he thought that he might be able to keep his job. No one considered the significance of the reasons given by Mr Smith. The reason for no proper consideration apparently being given to the matter probably lay in the ‘mind-set’ of those involved in the Household: ‘poor George’ had made up this allegation; publicity of it would be unfairly damaging to the ‘innocent’ AA; his having made, as they saw it, a false and serious allegation against AA made it impossible for him to work in the same Household as AA; his health problems made him unfit for duty; and so, ‘George had to go’. 2 PPSysB Page O Pag Table 831750 831750$$99 11-03-03 15:37:01 Unit PAG1 The settlement with Mr Smith was very generous, but not to the extent that we are driven to conclude that it derived from an improper motive (that is, to suppress the truth). In short, there was an anxiety to prevent dissemination or publication of Mr Smith’s rape allegation. There was, however, clearly a belief, genuinely held, that there was no truth in that allegation. There was not, therefore, an improper cover- up in the sense that those involved deliberately or dishonestly sought to suppress what they believed to be, or thought might be, true. 2. Was there anything improper or remiss in the conduct of The Prince of Wales’s Household with respect to the termination of the Burrell trial? The Prince of Wales had, throughout, serious concerns about the implications of Mr Burrell being tried. He was concerned at the prospect of himself and, more particularly, his sons being called as witnesses, and understandably worried that information personal to himself and his family would be revealed during the trial and be the subject of intense media interest. His main concern in that regard was the distress which could be caused to his sons by ‘revelations’, true or not, relating to their mother. Those concerns and worries were increased by the stance adopted by Mr Burrell’s lawyers after Mr Burrell was charged, in correspondence and in meetings. He would have preferred it if a trial could have been avoided. He was advised, however, that he could not properly intervene and should not be seen to be interfering with or seeking to influence the prosecution process, and he followed that advice. Several obvious opportunities presented themselves during the investigation to intervene and to stop the process, but none was taken. The disclosure made on 28th October 2002 of The Queen’s conversation with Mr Burrell was properly made. Had it not been made, those advising Her Majesty and The Prince of Wales could rightly and strongly have been criticised. The suggestion that the disclosure was made for improper motive and in the expectation of preventing the trial continuing finds no support in the available evidence. I conclude that there was no improper conduct by or on behalf of The Prince of Wales in respect of the termination of the Burrell trial. 3. Have oYcial gifts given to The Prince of Wales been sold? The policies and procedures in The Prince of Wales’s Household to record and control the receipt, maintenance and disposal of oYcial and other gifts, including the maintenance of inventory records, have been deficient. This was not, we believe, intentional, but the result of pressure of work and limited resources and in part because those involved had become accustomed to the informal practices then operating. The procedures have been or are in course of being enhanced to be in line with current best practice. It has always been the policy, even though not documented, that oYcial gifts should not be sold, exchanged, or given away other than to charity. However, there was no documented definition of oYcial gifts, and while The Prince of Wales himself was quite clear that they included gifts received during or in connection with an 3 PPSysB Page E Pag Table 831750 831750$$99 11-03-03 15:37:01 Unit PAG1 oYcial engagement recorded in the Court Circular and gifts sent in by the public, many staV were unaware of the definition, and had not been given any guidance as to how oYcial gifts should be treated. The procedures have now been enhanced and the definition of oYcial gifts extended to include all items given by businesses. The lack of adequate records made it diYcult to identify whether or not oYcial gifts have been sold, exchanged or given away.