What the butler said

James Morton comments on the legal implications surrounding the royal family following the Queen's involvement in the Burrell case

Some years ago there was a north London solicitor whose briefs to counsel were on the short side of terse.

A long version would read 'Counsel is sent here with the depositions'.

I was once shown a particularly long effort which read, if I recall it in full, 'Counsel will please do his best for the client who is a friend of Princess Margaret, although instructing solicitors note with surprise that it is her sister who is doing the prosecuting'.

That would be done away with if anti-royalists and reformers had their way after the recent piece of theatre of the absurd, 'What The Butler Said He Said', which recently had a short run at the Bailey.

My namesake JB Morton once wrote that 'justice must be seen to be believed', but disbelieved is probably correct in this instance.

Since the piece closed, but before the spin-off of a leading player's memoirs was announced, just about everybody has been blamed.

We are assured that there was no conspiracy but those of us with unpleasant minds find that hard to accept.

In fact it is difficult because it can only work on the basis that Her Majesty agreed to be the fall guy.

Did you know that is the only term in wrestling which has made its way into general usage? (Given HM's predilection for the sport, I thought you might be interested.) To save all sorts of unhappy revelations of family life, she has allowed herself to be portrayed as an elderly and forgetful lady out of touch with current issues, who reads only the Racing Post and has no interest in former family retainers who just happen to be accused of stealing the family's personal belongings.

Should the law be changed so HM could be forced to go into the witness box? There is something inherently distasteful in the idea of the 'fount of justice' - the fid def bit seems to have long gone in our new and better society - being cross-examined.

I don't suppose she minds at all if counsel's brief says The Country v Tom Smith, but is being cross-examined a different game?

I suspect she would never get out of the witness box, what with all those people who write to her about their cases trying to call her on their behalf.

There would be no hope of any visits to Wigan let alone overseas tours.

Tony Blair wouldn't be able to have his weekly meeting.

She would be kept at court, hanging around all day and everyday waiting to be called.

'Sorry, Mr Blair, she's still in court.

They're sitting later than Parliament tonight'.

'No need to call her first, she's a pensioner'.

In fact, why not go the whole hog and make her and the other royals do jury service? It might interfere with the racing, but they could possibly have one exemption each for the Gold Cup.

No, like so many of these ill-conceived ideas, it wouldn't really work.

So should any heads roll? There are a number of possible candidates.

I suspect that at least one of the police officers would be directing traffic in Balham on Christmas Day if there were any officers who did that sort of thing any more.

Then there is the question of the long-suffering Crown Prosecution Service which should have known, reasoned, etcetera.

Should the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith, offer his resignation? There is an argument that he should.

He is a very decent man, but much of the blame must lie at his door.

His Japanese counterpart would already be holding his bleeding stomach on the carpet.

If Mr Calvert Smith were to offer his resignation it would show there is still some honour left.

Any offer should not be accepted.

First, the gesture is enough and, secondly, there is nobody else wanting the poisoned chalice that goes under the title DPP.

One could also argue that the Attorney-General might also care to consider his position.

After, all the buck should stop at the top.

Can he have not been briefed on a daily basis? There's also an argument that he might have undertaken the prosecution.

In the past, Attorneys-General used to undertake all poisoning cases personally, so seriously were they regarded.

This case has poisoned the perception of justice in the view of many people.

Should it not be the top man who has to stand up and explain how his case is in tatters, rather than his hireling?

Of course, nothing will happen.

True, there may be an inquiry; but the results probably will not be public.

It will all be off the pages in a few weeks, certainly the law bits, pushed aside by a minor television actor found naked in Bognor Regis.

'En bien continuons' as, I think, Sartre wrote in Huit Clos.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist