By Victoria Mckeown-
Martin Bashir actions in presenting mock up bank statements to Earl Spencer to lure Princess Diana to participate in the 1995 BBC Panaroma interview amounts to fraud by misrepresentation, lawyers has confirmed.
Lawyers examining the case for the advisory purpose of our publication of the topic have said the action amounts to fraud, especially as the former television presenter directly benefited from it. Three lawyers advising on the matter see no other legal interpretation to Mr. Bashir’s actions. They have so far insisted on anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the investigation, and a lack of approval from their respective bosses.
The Met police have been spoken to by this publication three times in the past week, but have been told each time that investigations are still ongoing.
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement after the Dyson report: “Following the publication of Lord Dyson’s report we will assess its contents to ensure there is no significant new evidence.” That assessment is taking too long.
A separate probe by The Eye Of Media.Com suggests that a thorough examination by the Met police into the actions of Martin Bashir will find that his actions amounted to fraud because he knowingly misrepresented the facts in a manner that he gained from, but which cost Princess Diana and the rest of the royal family.
Exactly how much the disgraced former BBC presenter earned has not been disclosed, but a Freedom Of Information Request has been sent to the Broadcasting Corporation seeking the figures in the public interest.
According to the law in relation to fraud, a person is guilty of fraud if he dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the representation to make a gain for himself or another, or cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
One lawyer anonymously told The Eye Of Media.Com: The terms of the law is clear. Under the Misrepresentation Act, A person is guilty of fraud if: )The representation is false if it is untrue or misleading, and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Bashir would have entered an implied or expressed contract with Mr Spencer that the bank statements were legitimate, thereby earning him the world exclusive interview from which he undoubted secured pecuniary gains.
The offence is determined entirely by the state of mind and actions of the defendant. If the defendant gets information by making a false representation, intending ultimately to make a gain or cause a loss, they will have committed an offence for the purposes of FrA.”.
Another lawyer anonymously said: ”when you fake bank statements and use it to gain financially, you have committed a criminal offence. It’s that simple.”
The clarity of the law means that if police are doing their job well, they will find Mr.Bashir to have been guilty of fraud. All those who were aware of his fraudulent activities, and who gained from them, were also complicit in the fraudulent act by implication.
During an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme 2 weeks ago, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said that some people say the police should be involved following Lord Dyson’s inquiry.
Robert Buckland replied: ‘That, of course, is a matter for the police and the independent prosecutorial authorities, and I’m not going to say anything to prejudge or to influence any such line of inquiry.
‘But I think anybody reading the headlines and the summary of Lord Dyson’s findings will be struck by his use of those words, fraud and deception and the like, and clearly those sort of issues, I’m afraid, could and do arise.’
Martin Bashir has offered a mere apology for his selfish and criminal behaviour which had lasting effects and could have led to a series of events that culminated in the death of Princess Diana. His subsequent comments that the bank statements had no influence of Princess Diana’s decision to participate in the panorama interview adds insult to injury, and is a flawed attempt to absolve himself from culpability.
It goes beyond an ethic breach into the realms of criminal activity because of the underlying deceit and its associated pecuniary gains for all the beneficiaries of the documentary. There is speculation as to whether the Metropolitan police are protecting Mr. Bashir, are unclear about certain nuances of the law in this case, or the more sinister potential of corruption surrounding a cover up of some kind.
Prince William himself clearly stated that the false documents caused his late mother paranoia and further strained the relationship between her and Prince Charles.
Bashir should be shivering in his boots. has been caught committed an egregious offence that arguably led to the death of the Princess Of Wales, leaving an external cost on Prince Harry who never fully recovered from the mental health effect of his mother’s untimely demise.
Prince Harry has himself cited his mother’s death as one of the reasons he decided to move away from royal duties, fearing a repeat of history on his wife Meghan Markle.
The full extent of Bashir’s offence can also have contributed to Prince Harry’s paranoia of the potential effects of press criticism against his wife Meghan Markle.
Prince Harry’s response to press attacks against his wife may have much different had his mother been still alive-which may have been quite possible had Bashir’s Panorama interview never taken place, for argument’s sake.
The Duke Of Sussex’s mental health issues are clear to see
Fake bank statements and fake stories are two sides of the same coin in the sense that they are both problematic and can have devastating consequences.
Whatever the reasons for the ongoing police investigation, it can be categorically stated that Martin Bashir committed a criminal offence for which he should be prosecuted. Without a proper explanation from the police why he is not being prosecuted, it appears to be one law for the rich and famous, another for the common man.