What the butler might have said

PAUL BURRELL’S trial collapsed at a critical time: he was soon to give evidence in public.

Expected to last at least two days, it would have been "long, detailed and extremely interesting" testimony.

If Burrell had given evidence, he might well have been questioned about his service in the Queen's own employ as well as in Diana's.

During the case there had already been headline revelations about the Royal Family and Diana, Princess of Wales, in spite of efforts to keep intimate details to a minimum. The curtain of discretion that had covered much of their private lives was being lifted.

The Queen had returned from an official trip to Canada three days into Burrell's trial. He had been her own footman for 10 years.

During the trial, it was conceded there was:

* no proof that Burrell had sold any of Diana's or other royal property;

* no proof he had catalogued any items in preparation for sale some were in bin liners in the loft, stored in a study seat or on display in his house;

* no proof Burrell received any financial advantage other than from his own efforts after her death.

As the prosecution case neared its conclusion on Tuesday and Paul Burrell was due to go into the witness box, the trial was abruptly adjourned and the jury told to go home.

Prosecution counsel had made a Public Interest Immunity application to the judge, Mrs Justice Rafferty.

A PII application means the prosecution need not disclose its reasons for keeping secret the background to a new development or piece of evidence. It is often used to protect informers, police techniques, or state security.

Burrell's lawyer, Lord Carlile, protested the PII application to Mrs Justice Rafferty: "I have never come across anything like this during 32 years in practice. He expressed "concern and opposition to an adjournment without some reason being given to the defence."

Burrell's trial was never going to be just a common case of theft to be tried by an Old Bailey jury.

From the moment police found property in Burrell's home that once belonged to his former employers, reputations and lives were bound to change forever.

Extraordinary revelations about Diana, Princess of Wales, her relationships with her sons, family and staff were sure to follow. And they did.

Father-of-two Burrell, described as "my rock" by Diana, found his reputation on trial.

And old wounds opened in the houses of Windsor and Spencer, once united by Charles' marriage to Diana.

The prosecution team decided early in the case not to call Princes Charles and William as witnesses. Doing so would have created legal history.

Statements of ownership of the property allegedly taken by Burrell would normally have been taken but they probably remained unsigned, while a final decision on whether to prosecute was made.

This came nearly 10 months after Burrell's arrest in January last year and was ultimately decided by the Director of Public Prosecutions after advice from the main prosecutor, William Boyce.

Mr Boyce and his junior counsel, Richard Whittam, were both considered soft-spoken but iron hands of the Establishment.