Princess Diana’s Panorama Scandal: What Dianarama Reveals Now

28th Nov 2025
Princess Diana’s Panorama Scandal: What Dianarama Reveals Now Thirty years after the BBC aired the Panorama interview that transformed public understanding of Princess Diana’s life, a new book - Dianarama by investigative journalist Andy Webb, is prompting renewed scrutiny of how the broadcast was secured and the institutional failures that followed. Much of the factual foundation for this reassessment stems from the 2021 Dyson Report, an independent inquiry commissioned by the BBC, which concluded that journalist Martin Bashir used forged bank statements to gain access to Diana through her brother, Earl Spencer. Webb’s book expands on the inquiry’s public findings by drawing on Freedom of Information material, internal BBC documents and new testimony from those involved, raising fresh questions about how the corporation handled its internal investigation nearly three decades ago. The Making of a Media Flashpoint Webb’s book revisits the events leading to the 1995 interview, which Princess Diana agreed to after being introduced to Bashir by Earl Spencer. According to Dianarama and consistent with the Dyson Report, Bashir had shown Spencer fabricated bank statements suggesting individuals close to the Princess were receiving money from unidentified sources. Webb reports that these documents, combined with a series of alarming allegations made to Spencer, contributed to the meeting that ultimately enabled Bashir to secure the interview. Earl Spencer has publicly confirmed that he felt misled by the information he was given at the time. He later explained that his years of silence stemmed from a desire not to undermine Diana’s personal decision to participate in the interview. It was Webb’s FOI-driven research, released during work on a Channel 4 documentary in 2020, that prompted Spencer to describe the extent of the deception for the first time. Institutional Response and BBC Governance The BBC’s handling of the matter has long been the subject of criticism. The Dyson Report found that the corporation’s 1996 internal inquiry into Bashir’s conduct was “woeful and ineffective,” concluding that key evidence had not been fully examined. The BBC has accepted the report’s findings, issued formal public apologies and paid compensation to several individuals affected, including freelance designer Matt Wiessler, who unwittingly created the forged documents at Bashir’s request and was subsequently not rehired by the corporation. Dianarama builds on these established elements by analysing how correspondence, internal oversight and editorial processes functioned at the time. While Webb’s interpretation of certain institutional decisions is his own analysis, the documents underpinning these interpretations originate from BBC disclosures, public statements and interviews with those directly involved. Fraud, Duty of Care and Institutional Accountability From a legal standpoint, the established facts, namely the use of forged documents and the BBC’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in 1996, raise significant questions of fraud, misrepresentation, and duty of care. The Dyson Report concluded that Bashir’s conduct breached the BBC’s editorial standards and misled both Earl Spencer and the corporation itself. Although the Metropolitan Police determined in 2021 that no criminal charges would be brought, the inquiry’s findings continue to influence debates around media regulation, ethical practice and safeguards for vulnerable interview subjects. For legal professionals, Dianarama reinforces the importance of robust governance structures within public institutions. It illustrates how lapses in oversight, whether procedural or cultural can expose an organisation to substantial legal, reputational and ethical risk. Webb’s arguments about deeper systemic failures represent his interpretation, but the underlying legal issues remain relevant in discussions about modern media law and institutional accountability. A Legacy That Continues to Resonate The impact of the scandal continues to reverberate. Prince William has said publicly, in response to the Dyson Report that the deception surrounding the interview contributed to the “fear, paranoia and isolation” Diana experienced in her final years. Kensington Palace has not commented on Dianarama, but Webb reports that senior royal figures remain focused on understanding how the interview was obtained and how institutional processes failed. Meanwhile, Matt Wiessler has spoken openly about the professional and personal repercussions he endured after being excluded from further BBC work. Though he has since received a formal apology and compensation, Wiessler has described the period following the scandal as deeply damaging. In revisiting a moment long thought to be settled history, Dianarama underscores how media law, ethics and public governance intersect and how failures in one area can shape public trust for decades. The case stands as a vivid reminder of why strong oversight and clear safeguards are essential to preventing similar failures in powerful institutions. FAQ: Legal Questions Raised by the Dianarama Scandal 1. Was the BBC found legally responsible for wrongdoing? No court ruled the BBC legally liable, but the Dyson Report found the corporation failed to meet its editorial and governance standards. The BBC accepted the findings, apologised publicly and paid compensation to those affected. 2. Did Martin Bashir commit fraud? The Dyson Report described Bashir’s use of forged bank statements as “deceitful” and misleading. While this conduct resembles fraudulent misrepresentation, the Metropolitan Police concluded in 2021 that the evidence did not justify criminal charges. 3. Could the BBC face new legal action because of the revelations in Dianarama? This is unlikely unless new and materially different evidence emerges. Most foundational facts (forgeries, investigative failures, apology) are already acknowledged by the BBC and documented in the Dyson Report. 4. Did the BBC breach a duty of care toward Princess Diana? Legally, this question remains open to interpretation. Ethically, both the Dyson Report and Prince William’s public statements highlight failures in safeguarding Diana’s wellbeing. Whether these failures constitute a breach of legal duty would depend on the specific legal test applied. 5. What does Dianarama add that the Dyson Report did not establish? Webb’s book provides additional FOI documents, correspondence and interviews offering context and interpretation. These represent the author’s analysis, not legal findings. The core facts still rely on the Dyson Report and public admissions. 6. Can journalists today be prosecuted for using forged documents to secure interviews? Yes. Under modern fraud statutes, data protection laws and media regulatory codes, using fabricated documents to gain access or mislead interview subjects could result in criminal charges, civil liability and disciplinary sanctions.