The Diana interview: why have the police refused to investigate Martin Bashir?

A quarter of a century ago, we watched, spellbound, as a woman who married a prince bared her soul on TV. This week, we did the same.

The similarities between the Princess Diana interview with Martin Bashir for BBC’s Panorama, and Meghan’s with Oprah Winfrey, do not stop there. Harry, the son of Diana and now Meghan’s husband, was very much a presence on the earlier broadcast, as his mother described her struggles with her mental health, her isolation and loneliness within the royal family.

Sitting alongside his wife and hearing her account of inner turmoil and thoughts of suicide, and their decision to break free, Harry said: “What I was fearing was history repeating itself.” He went on: “When I’m talking about history repeating itself I’m talking about my mother.” The family, he maintained, was not interested. Harry and Meghan were advised: “This is how it is. This is just how it is.”

To further draw the parallels, Meghan wore a diamond bracelet that once belonged to Diana. She didn’t need to – the memories of Panorama and what occurred subsequently never wavered.

Diana famously told Bashir and the world that there were “three of us” in her marriage – Diana, Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, his long-time lover and later, his wife. The interview hastened her divorce from Charles and she subsequently died in a car crash in a Paris underpass while trying to flee the paparazzi. Then, there were questions asked about her lack of protection. Now, an abiding theme of the Oprah encounter was Meghan and Harry bemoaning their lack of security.

Soon after the Panorama went out in November 1995, I received a tip-off. I was an investigative reporter on The Independent. I was informed that Bashir was researching a programme about MI5. He’d produced documents that seemed to show MI5 was targeting Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother, and Diana, and the security service was monitoring her movements. These had been shown to her which is how the young and relatively unknown Bashir had secured the interview with the Princess. It was not clear if they were genuine and how they came into Bashir’s possession.

The BBC said categorically that Panorama had no such papers concerning MI5 and the Princess. Without corroborative evidence the story could not be written – it required further research. Then, in April 1996, the Mail on Sunday broke a story saying that Bashir had fabricated private bank statements detailing how Alan Waller, Earl Spencer’s former head of security, had been paid for information.

These were the documents mentioned to me back in November. The BBC confirmed they had looked into them,  “two or three months ago”, but they had played no part in obtaining the interview and that a “thorough investigation” had been held. I asked if Diana had been questioned about the statements and I was told she gave an assurance she had not seen them. The BBC press officer admitted they were fake but claimed they’d been made in connection with another programme.

There it more or less rested, until last November and the 25th anniversary of the Diana interview. TV documentaries were made and articles were written about the Panorama episode and how it came about. Earl Spencer said he’d been shown false documents, and Bashir had told him outlandish stories, to gain access to his sister.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, was challenged about the fabricating of bank statements and said the force could launch a criminal investigation. The police had not yet received a complaint from anyone with any evidence for her officers to examine. But if such a complaint was to emerge, she said, Scotland Yard would, “assess whether any crime has been committed”.

Waller duly complained. Last week, the police announced they would be taking “no further action”. Commander Alex Murray said: “In recent months, the Metropolitan Police Service received correspondence alleging unlawful activity in connection with a documentary broadcast in 1995. This was carefully assessed by specialist detectives. They obtained legal advice from Metropolitan Police lawyers, independent counsel and from the Crown Prosecution Service. Following this detailed assessment and in view of the advice we received, we have determined that it is not appropriate to begin a criminal investigation into these allegations. No further action will be taken.”

The timing, just ahead of the Oprah interview, and the wording, are intriguing. What does the phrase “not appropriate” mean? Perish the thought the police wanted to investigate but were instructed to drop it, that to be pursuing the case during the furore over Meghan and Harry would be too much – not least as the Panorama episode arguably set in chain the events that led to their leaving the royal family. Was pressure brought to bear, by Buckingham Palace, by the government, for the police to withdraw?

Anton van Dellen, the lawyer for Waller, is planning a private prosecution against Bashir and Matt Wiessler, the graphic artist working for the BBC who mocked up the documents. He’s appealed for backing.

Perhaps Harry would like to support the case? He’s certainly got the personal motivation and the financial means to do so. He could also, if he wished, apply for a judicial review of the police decision, to discover what it was exactly that made them drop the investigation.

It would be a pity, given what he said to Oprah, if nothing resulted; if he, and we, could never find out how Diana was persuaded to give the interview; if, as he put it, the reasoning was allowed to prevail: “This is how it is. This is just how it is.”