The inquest in to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, cannot hear evidence from paparazzi present at the scene of the crash unless they agree to be cross-examined, two High Court judges ruled today.

The family of the Princess's driver, Henri Paul, challenged a decision by the coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, that statements made by photographers shortly after the crash could be heard at the inquest even though they refused to give evidence in person.

All but one of the photographers who were in or around the Pont de l’Alma Tunnel in Paris on August 31, 1997 have refused to attend the inquest, even by a video link from France.

The coroner cannot force them to attend the hearing, and the French Government has refused to intervene.

Lord Justice Baker ruled that statements made by the photographers to police could be read to the jury in spite of their absence.

But lawyers for Jean and Giselle Paul — supported by the Paris Ritz Hotel, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed — objected on the grounds that reading the statements without witnesses to cross-examine would deny them the chance to challenge the evidence.

They said the coroner’s decision was against rule 37 of the 1984 Coroners’ Rules, which allows such documentary evidence to be admitted only where it is “unlikely to be disputed” and not objected to by the official “interested persons” in the case.

Today, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Aikens, sitting in a separate room at the High Court from the inquest itself, agreed.

The judges said that such evidence could only be admitted if a "witness" was called — although they did not specify that this must necessarily be the photographers themselves.

The ruling raises questions over how the inquest should proceed, since it involves a substantial batch of taped evidence.

It could also spur changes to the way inquests are conducted in England and Wales.

Lord Justice Scott Baker immediately and successfully applied for leave to appeal the judgment, expressing concern that it could "add materially to the length and cost of these inquests”.

The ruling by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Aikens questioned the “fitness for purpose” of the Coroners' Rules and said the matter should have been addressed before the inquest got under way.

They said: “It is unfortunate and regrettable that no attempt was made before the commencement of these inquest proceedings either to address the limitations on the ability of a coroner to obtain evidence from persons resident overseas, or the issues concerning the scope and effect of the ill-drafted Rule 37.”

The judges said the case underlined the need for “urgent” reform of the system.

A hearing last month was told that long-awaited changes to the inquest system resulting from the Harold Shipman inquiry were expected this year, but they were not included in the Queen’s Speech.

Lord Justice Thomas told the original hearing that the rules governing inquests in England and Wales were “antiquated rubbish” and described it as a “lamentable state of affairs”.

Richard Keen, QC, representing the Paul family, told the original hearing that if the photographers were not prepared to attend the inquest in person, the law allowed for another witness to be called to present the statements second-hand.

This included hearing evidence from police officers who took the statements or a British officer involved in the Scotland Yard investigation into the crash.

“At least there will be the opportunity for the interested persons to examine that witness on these issues,” Mr Keen said.

In today’s ruling the judges said it would be for the coroner to decide on the witness to be called and stated that it could be police officers.

“We see no reason why the witness called to adduce the hearsay evidence contained in the statement cannot read the statement to the jury.”

“The upshot is that we grant permission for judicial review and set aside the decision of the coroner, but only insofar as it holds the statements can be read to the jury without calling a witness,” they said.

However the coroner has already highlighted difficulties in calling French police: he has no more power to call them than he does the photographers.

Michael Cole, spokesman for Mr Al Fayed, called on the Justice Minister, Jack Straw, to make fresh attempts through the French Government to secure the attendance of vital French witnesses, including members of the paparazzi, at the inquest.

“This application for judicial review was a very successful, worthwhile exercise. Justice has been very strongly served by today’s ruling,” Mr Cole said.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers