Diana driver had serious drink problem, inquest told

Scientists hired by Mohamed al Fayed to question findings on Henri Paul's blood alcohol levels concluded he had a drink problem, the Diana inquest heard today.

The High Court jury heard that Mr Paul - who was driving the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in 1997 - might not have appeared impaired because his body may have built up a tolerance to alcohol through heavy drinking.

CCTV footage shows Mr Paul on the night of August 30-31, 1997 walking around the Ritz Hotel in Paris apparently unimpaired, even bending over to tie his shoelace at one point.

Bar receipts from the hotel suggest he purchased two large measures of Ricard, a strong aniseed spirit, however.

Post-mortem tests indicated that he had been about three times the French drink-drive limit.

The jury heard that such levels would have left an "average man" looking "markedly impaired".

Bodyguard Kes Wingfield, who was with Mr Paul in the hotel bar, told the jury yesterday he had not smelt drink on Mr Paul's breath but added that this may be because he "stank" of cigars.

Mohamed al Fayed disputes the findings that Henri Paul had been drinking on the night of the crash.

The Harrods owner - whose son Dodi was killed along with Diana and Mr Paul - believes samples may have been switched at the Paris morgue to cover up an alleged murder plot orchestrated by intelligence services.

The court heard today that Mr al Fayed dispatched Prof Peter Vanezis - who was then professor of forensic medical sciences at Glasgow University - to Paris two days after the crash hoping to do a second post-mortem examination on Mr Paul's body.

He was refused permission by the French authorities but was later given pathologists' reports to analyse, the jury were told.

He raised concerns about the quality of the initial blood test taken from Mr Paul's body, the jury heard.

But he was later given results of analysis of other samples including hair and vitreous humour which pointed to Mr Paul having been drinking.

Prof Vanezis - now of Barts and the London (Queen Mary University of London) - later produced a joint report with forensic toxicologist Prof John Oliver, Swiss forensic pathology professor Thomas Krompecher and Patrice Mangin, professor of legal medicine at Lausanne University.

They concluded: "Looking at the overall picture, it may be fairly clearly observed that Mr Paul had an alcohol problem and he drank high levels of alcohol regularly."

Giving evidence today, Prof Vanezis explained: "One of the things obviously we were considering, and obviously this was very much at the top of our minds, was whether or not that person that appeared normal in the CCTV images may well have built up a tolerance to alcohol."

The report adds: "There is no doubt that the average man's faculties would have been markedly impaired but a regular drinker like Mr Paul is likely to have been impaired less."

The report also notes that while Mr Paul may have suffered "some impairment", the "degree" of it could still be debated because of the tolerance he had built up as a heavy drinker.

The experts also had doubts about whether the blood samples tested were even Mr Paul's, the jury was told.

In a December 2000 report, they said: "The inaccuracies are such we cannot at present be satisfied that the samples apparently tested are indeed those of Henri Paul."

They expressed "grave reservations" and called for independent testing.

Despite the early suggestions that Mr Paul had alcohol problems, no checks were made on his liver.

This was the case even though French pathologist Professor Dominique Lecomte had the samples for three years, Richard Keen QC, for Mr Paul's parents, pointed out.

The experts also felt that the identification procedure of his body, the collection, labelling and overall chain of custody of the samples did not "meet the standards applicable in the UK", the court heard.

The chain of custody of the samples is such that questions still remain about the number of blood samples taken, when and from where.

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker noted: "It appears that the audit trail from a number of samples can best be answered by Professor Lecomte."

It is uncertain whether Prof Lecomte is going to give evidence at the inquest because of ongoing matters in France.

According to Mr Keen, the "apparent mystery" surrounding the blood alcohol analysis of Mr Paul may not be resolved without explanations from Prof Lecomte, pathologist Dr Jean Pierre Campana and toxicologist Dr Gilbert Pepin, who all carried out examinations.

Prof Vanezis said: "They are the only people who can really tell us what they did and what happened."

Looking at all the material, Prof Vanezis also described the reliability of the chain of custody for the second blood samples analysed by Dr Pepin as "virtually non-existent... it was chaotic."