The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was due to be questioned on Monday about the late involvement of the Queen in the aborted trial of Paul Burrell.

Mr Burrell, the former butler of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, was acquitted of stealing items belonging to his former employer after it emerged that he had told the Queen of his intention to keep some papers.

The late intervention of the Queen has raised questions over whether the trial, estimated to have cost the taxpayer #1.5 million, could have been halted at an earlier stage or even avoided altogether.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill should be used to remove the Queen's name from prosecutions.

''It is now logical to think of replacing the monarch as the person in whose name everything is prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution and Director of Public Prosecutions,'' Mr Hughes said.

Media Lawyer, Mark Stephens, answered your questions about the trial and the legal implications in a live forum for BBC News Online.

Transcript

Newshost:
Welcome to this BBC interactive forum, I'm Susanna Reid. Paul Burrell, the former butler of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, broke his silence finally today - he says he's ready to tell his story. His trial collapsed last week - after the Queen revealed he had told her of his intention to keep some of the Princess's possessions. Mr Burrell was found not guilty of three charges of stealing from Princess Diana's estate on Friday.

The Prime Minister said the Queen acted entirely properly, but legal questions remain? Should the Queen's name be removed from all prosecutions? Should the Queen be required to give evidence in court? And should the Royal Family stump up some of the costs of the trial?

Media lawyer Mark Stephens is here to answer your many questions. Mark, thanks for joining us.

The first question is from Bob, Nottingham: Can you explain how Her Majesty, with her wealth of experience and knowledge suddenly, after two years recalls that Mr Burrell had said he had retained some of Princess Diana's belongings for safe keeping?

Mark Stephens:
It is a crucial piece of information. But I suspect that to a non-lawyer and we have to remember that although very knowledgeable and very experienced in many things, the Queen isn't a lawyer. So it really is a piece of information that really a lawyer would recognise as being the crucial piece of information which would exonerate Burrell but perhaps somebody who wasn't a lawyer wouldn't recognise that. And it's all credit, I think, to Prince Charles that he did.

Newshost:
Molly Lockhart, UK: If the Queen knew all about this case shouldn't she have intervened sooner?

Mark Stephens:
I think the real problem with this is, why did the prosecution not ask the questions? Why did the police - the investigating officers - not ask the questions? Even if you were only going to protect the Queen, as opposed to finding out all the information about the case, you shouldn't have left this prosecution exposed to the prospect of Burrell going into court and being able to say - I told the Queen I was going to take all of these things and she said it was ok. That was putting the Queen at risk, as has happened in this case, and that, I think, is where the criticism in this particular case must lie.

Newshost:
If you were in the prosecution team, why wouldn't you find out whether he'd had a conversation with the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family about safeguarding these possessions?

Mark Stephens:
Well I think that this is one of the critical questions that needs to be answered and I think we won't get an answer to that until we have a proper inquiry.

But my view is that most people don't like to ask the Royal Family difficult questions. That is the job though of lawyers, policemen and journalists - that's probably one of the reasons that we're disliked quite a lot, is that it's our job to ask the uncomfortable questions. They should not have been reduced to the level of cringing courtiers but they should have actually asked the difficult questions, if only to protect Her Majesty.

But of course we know in this particular case, it would exonerated Burrell, it would have saved an enormous amount of public money and in those circumstances, it was even more, I think, concerning that those questions weren't asked.

Newshost:
Eddie, UK: Why are we only pointing the finger at the Queen? Mr Burrell was there too. Why didn't he say something?

Mark Stephens:
I think that that's right. I think you have to understand though - and many people are unaware of this - unless you've had an audience with the sovereign, you won't know this - that any conversation with the Sovereign is the confidence of the Sovereign, by tradition.

So that's why when Burrell came out of court, he said, she's come through for me - meaning that she had revealed the confidence of that conversation. The confidence is not that of Paul Burrell to give to anybody - it is only that of Sovereign and she came through for Paul Burrell and gave the information away - as indeed she should have done.

Newshost:
Even if faced losing his liberty, even if he faced a jail sentence over this, he couldn't reveal that information because he was having a conversation with the Queen?

Mark Stephens:
Absolutely. And I think that one other thing you should understand is that the mindset of many courtiers and many of the servants in the Palace is that they would go to jail rather than reveal the confidences of the Royal Family.

I've represented a number of Royal servants and ex-Royal servants and all of them have had this great, great discretion - they're the sort of servants that you really would want in your own home because they are so discreet - they just don't tell you anything about what goes on in the Royal household and rightly so.

Newshost:
Steve Gibson, UK: Could the entire Paul Burrell case have been avoided if the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service had asked the Palace for confirmation from the Queen?

Would it simply have been a piece of evidence in his defence or would the case just not have gone ahead at all?

Mark Stephens:
This is quite an interesting question because what the Queen says is - I assented to Paul Burrell taking certain documents away from Kensington Palace, I knew about it, I didn't say that he shouldn't do it.

Now there are two issues that arise from that: one is the documents didn't belong to the Queen so she couldn't really give permission, but even if she did, she only gave permission for documents. She didn't give permission for the nightwear, the dresses, the handbags and all the other things that he had.

So there does remain unresolved and unanswered a question which is: why, if the Queen said ok to that class of documents and that it was ok for him to take them, why did the prosecution not go ahead, if there was a prosecution to be had, in relation to the dresses, handbags and everything else.

Newshost:
But even so that piece of information did lead to his exoneration so that's as it stands.

Mark Stephens:
Yes, it did lead to his exoneration in relation to all charges in the end.

Newshost:
Andrew Hartley asks: What if it were proved that information that the Queen gave the court was false? What could the court do?

Mark Stephens:
Well, the Queen is the Queen and of course she wouldn't lie in court. But of course the Queen also is a person who would carry out her civic duty and give such evidence as was relevant to the court proceedings.

Interestingly though, if it were thought that a person who was the Sovereign had lied in court, there is no sanction for that because they are the law, they are the embodiment of the law and in those circumstances there is nothing that they can do Because, all law flows from the Crown. It goes right back into the mists of time, into history, when the ultimate dispenser of justice was indeed the King.

Newshost:
Is that the reason then why the Queen won't give evidence in court? Peter asks the question: when did that tradition begin that the Royal Family or the Sovereign shouldn't appear as a witness in court?

Mark Stephens:
This is much misunderstood. There's no rule that says that the Sovereign cannot give evidence in court. Indeed it is part of their civic duty to do so where their evidence is relevant, pertinent and it can't be obtained anywhere else.

But what you can't do is compel the Sovereign to come to court in the same way as you can't order somebody to go to court other than by a summons or a subpoena from the Sovereign. So it's effectively the Queen ordering the Queen to go to court - that wouldn't work because all justice flows from the Queen - she has to go voluntarily.

But of course there's absolutely no suggestion that she would do otherwise and I think most people would be pretty astonished if she didn't. Because she did have relevant evidence in this case, it was made known, and of course we know that Burrell was acquitted.

Newshost:
So there could have been a situation where the Queen may have turned up at the Old Bailey to provide this evidence in person?

Mark Stephens:
Absolutely. I think we're seeing questions of this come out. The last member of the Royal Family actually to give evidence in court, if you discount people like Lord Lindley, was Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales over the famous baccarat gaming scandal. He was, because of his particular elevation, given the special privilege of sitting next to the judge on a special stool at the right hand of justice so to speak.

But we've seen since then the possibility of Princess Diana herself being called to give evidence in a number of cases. We've also got the prospect of Princess Anne coming up to give evidence, in anything other than a motoring offence, before a local magistrate's court.

So I think the possibility of members of the Royal Family giving evidence in court is going to become more common currency as we go on into this century.

Newshost:
Maureen, England: As the Queen lapse of memory has cost the taxpayer �1.5 million, perhaps she should reimburse us for the costs the trial incurred?

Mark Stephens:
It's quite amusing really because she pays for it all anyway but she taxes us to pay for it. But the serious point to the question is that the Queen didn't do anything wrong here. There was no lapse of memory on the part of the Queen. It was a fact that she recognised that there was a point, fairly late, which was relevant to the case. I think the question then comes back to how the police and prosecution conducted the case and of course the Prime Minister has alluded to that today as well.

Newshost:
Do you think that a commoner would have been dealt with in exactly the same way? If, for example, one of Paul Burrell's friends had had a similarly dramatic piece of evidence but hadn't revealed it? Do you think that the Sovereign is being treated with a particular amount of leniency?

Mark Stephens:
No I don't think so. Clearly deference was made to the Sovereign - she's a very busy person and she has affairs of state to take care of and understandably, both the police and the prosecutions and others wouldn't wish to trouble her with the minutia of this case.

But I do think that her information was treated in the same way as anyone else. Justice is blind. It shouldn't make a difference whether you are the Sovereign, a prince or indeed a butler. Justice is blind to class.

Newshost:
Leo, UK: What were the Police doing telling the Prince of Wales that Burrell had been selling Diana's property abroad? Why was his statement that he had spoken with the Queen not followed up by them?

Mark Stephens:
I think this is a critical question. It was quite clear in the course of the trial where Mrs Justice Rafferty said to police officer in charge of the investigation - so you had a conversation with the princes and said that they were going back it, predicated on the basis that he'd being selling goods - and no doubt she genuinely thought that at the time that she said it.

But later, the situation changed - later the police did realise - or should have realised - that he wasn't and he was getting his money from the sales of his book, lecture tours and such like. In those circumstances, perhaps somebody ought to have communicated that information to the Palace.

I think this is one of the lessons that we have to learn out of this case and it's one of the reasons that there's an absolutely crying out for a public inquiry into the handling of this case by the police and the prosecution because we don't want this kind of expensive mistake made in the future. This has been a shambles. It's turned out to be a shambles and a very expensive shambles and we don't wish to have that recur and the only way to do that is to learn the lessons.

Newshost:
Ken asks: Is it true that the Police searched Mr Burrell's house on the strength of a letter received from a member of Diana's family? Shouldn't they have gone through the official channels and got a warrant?

Mark Stephens:
Normally you're supposed to get a warrant to search anybody's home. But they can, if they wish to - the policemen turn up on your doorstep, or indeed anyone else turns up on your doorstep - and says, I'd like to search your home because I have reason to believe that you have hidden in the house certain things - you can consent to that search and I think that's what happened in this particular case.

Burrell had nothing to hide in his view - he was merely preserving matters relating to Diana's memory - he had no intention to steal them. So he was quite happy to let the police in and show them what he had in his possession.

Newshost:
C Hutton, UK: Why should the law be changed to remove the Queen's name from prosecutions? Shouldn't the only change be made, to make it clear that, if asked and when appropriate, the Queen will fully co-operate with criminal investigations?

Mark Stephens:
This is something which is coming from radical republican lawyers and I understand why that would fit their particular agenda. Personally, I don't hold with it. Justice has historically come from the Queen. If she's prepared to go to court and give evidence wherever that's necessary - and that does seem to be case in this case - she certainly offered the evidence forward. In those circumstances there is no real issue - it's a red herring as to whether the case is carried out in the name of the state or in the name of Regina meaning the Queen.

Newshost:
Except that there could be a potential conflict of interest if it's R. v. a member of the Royal Family or somebody employed by the Royal Family.

Mark Stephens:
I don't think there's going to be a conflict of interest because the Sovereign is always going to have Crown immunity. Every head of state has Crown immunity and in those circumstances our head of state is no different to any other head of state - whether it be the President of the United States or the Republic of Congo - they all have Crown immunity.

In those circumstances I don't see any difference and I do think that it's a complete red herring to say, is it being conducted in the name of the State or in the name of the Queen. In this particular circumstance, the Queen and the State are as one - it's in her official capacity as the Head of State that actually the prosecution is conducted.

Newshost:
Ray Wright, UK: The first jury was stood down for "legal reasons". Now that the trial has been abandoned do we know why this was so?

Mark Stephens:
Well I know Susanna, but I can't tell you because there's still an order by Mrs Justice Rafferty which says that we're not allowed to say why the first trial was cracked. I think if one wanted to be open, there is no good reason now why the public shouldn't know that but it does require the lifting of that particular order.

Newshost:
It's a bit of a cloudy term isn't it - for "legal reasons"?

Mark Stephens:
Yes, it sort of covers a multitude of sins and I think it raises another issue from this case which was that I think a lot of people have been disquieted by the way in which there does seem to have been issues dealt with out of the public view.

Justice is supposed to be done publicly. The jury are there representative of the public - the public gallery are there, the press are there, the journalists are there - all representing the public interest. The fact that certain bits of statements were given to the jury to read to themselves, that certain things were accepted and not read out. So you didn't get a full flavour of the whole case and I think that that is something which is concerning.

Newshost:
Jane, UK: I understand that Mr Burrell signed a confidentiality agreement, yet there is talk of him selling his story. How can this be done legally?

Mark Stephens:
Well confidentiality agreements only apply to that which is confidential and Burrell has historically, whenever he has spoken, he's spoken about his experiences and his life but only about those matters which are already in the public domain - he sort of collects them together and gives his own very personal view of them. So those clearly command a value - probably quite a high value, if any of the rumours that we are hearing are right.

But I think that what he won't do is break any confidences of the Royal Family because he is not the type of man to do that and as a Palace servant he's not the type of person to do that. I am sure he will abide by his confidentiality agreement.

Newshost:
I'm afraid that's all the questions we have time for. Thanks to our guest Mark Stephens. This has been an interactive forum, I'm Susanna Reid, goodbye.