THE collapse of the theft trial against Paul Burrell made it unrealistic for a jury to convict Harold Brown, another former butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, an Old Bailey judge was told yesterday.

In an unusual move the prosecution made a lengthy statement justifying why it was dropping the case against Harold Brown and Jan Havlik, a jeweller.

William Boyce, QC, spent 45 minutes reading a 19-page statement detailing the “evidence” before announcing that the Director of Public Prosecutions would “offer no evidence”. The extraordinary manoeuvre provoked Mr Brown’s counsel to respond by revealing that the Prince of Wales once gave a “gold wedding ring” to his staff.

Mr Boyce said that, as well as the inquiry by Sir Michael Peat and Edmund Lawson, QC, into Mr Burrell’s trial, a police investigation had been “instigated into matters arising during and since”.

Mr Boyce had applied unsuccessfully to delay this second royal butler trial until those inquiries were concluded.

“It is alleged that Harold Brown stole property belonging to the estate of Diana, Princess of Wales, and sold it on to Jan Havlik, who worked in the jewellery department at Spink and Son,” he said.

Documents showed that Mr Brown deposited a diamond daffodil motif, an emerald-and-diamond bangle, a pair of 18-carat gold earrings and a silver-gilt model of an Arab dhow with Spink, he said.

The motif was recovered from Mr Brown after he was arrested. Spink bought the bangle and earrings for £3,700 and the dhow, minus its jewelled flag, for £1,200. Mr Havlik signed the receipt forms. He later sold the bangle and earrings to a jeweller for Spink.

The dhow, a wedding gift, became Diana’s after divorce. In November 2000 a detective was told that a London company was offering it for sale. Three detectives went to Spink and found the refurbished dhow on sale for £30,000.

Mr Brown was seen by police at Kensington Palace on November 14, 2000. “He denied selling the dhow to anyone, but he said that he did certain things for Diana, Princess of Wales, that he did not think were right at the time, but he did not elaborate on that answer,” Mr Boyce said.

Mr Brown told police: “The money for the flag was handed over to the Princess. I cannot remember whether it was to her directly or to Paul Burrell, who, after I left, was the mediator between me and the objects that the Princess was in the process of disposing of.

“I was invited back to collect the dhow without the flag by Paul Burrell. I handed the proceeds back to Paul Burrell, understanding that they would go to the memorial fund.

“I have spent my life not talking about other people . . . to my own detriment.”

Mr Brown said that he was given items as presents by Diana and, therefore, had every right to sell them.

When Viscount Ullswater, a private secretary to Princess Margaret, interviewed Mr Brown in December 2000, the butler expanded on Diana’s generosity. His suspension from employment was revoked and he returned to work as Princess Margaret’s butler.

“Lady Sarah McCorquodale (the Princess’s sister) is of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that Diana, Princess of Wales, would have gifted various items of her personal jewellery to Harold Brown,” Mr Boyce said.

“Michael Gibbins (the Princess’s former private secretary) describes the Princess as a very generous person who made a point of remembering her staff’s birthdays and Christmas, but that she was intensely possessive over her own private possessions and doubted that she would have gifted personal items to anyone.”

Mr Boyce said that, before Mr Burrell’s trial, the Crown case would have been that Mr Brown’s inference that he had Mr Burrell’s authority was “inherently incredible, in that no butler could ‘authorise’ a . . . sale after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

“During the recent trial . . . it emerged that, during a private meeting with the Queen in the weeks following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Paul Burrell had mentioned to the Queen that he had taken some of the Princess’s papers for safekeeping. The disclosed information permits the defence of Harold Brown to demonstrate that Paul Burrell was an apparently credible authoriser of such acts, given that he had informed the Queen that he was withholding papers from the executors and the Queen had not discernibly disapproved.”

The apparent implausibility of a servant legitimately disposing of royal property after the owner’s death had been “significantly weakened”, he said.

An important part of the defence case, the reasonableness of Mr Brown relying on Mr Burrell’s authority, was “greatly enhanced”.

Mr Boyce said: “Recent police inquiries have revealed that, at least in the household of the Prince of Wales, private gifts to the Prince of Wales had been properly sold or exchanged by staff.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Time-worn Freddie gives up Test matches
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it's all in the mind