London, Oct 4 : The inquest into Princess Diana’s death has heard that there was an apparent discrepancy between what Lord Stevens said to the parents of Henri Paul when he met them in Paris on 8th November 2006 and what was said in the Operation Paget report.

The inquest jury looked at the statement wherein Lord Stevens told Paul's grieving parents that their son had not been drinking heavily on the night of the crash, as well as the contradicting official Operation Paget report into the tragedy which concluded Diana and Dodi died because Paul was drunk and speeding.

Clarifying the subject, Lord Justice Scott Baker told the jury that Lord Stevens’ comments had been taken out of context, fuelling further controversy about the tragedy.

The coroner said that the former police chief had only been trying to 'reassure' Jean and Gisele Paul, who had been deeply upset by newspaper reports that their son was ‘as drunk as a pig’ hours before the accident.

“On the one hand, Lord Stevens was telling the parents of Henri Paul he was not drunk, while on the other, the Paget Report concludes he was unfit to drive through drink,” the Daily Mail quoted Lord Baker, as saying.

“I anticipate Lord Stevens will give evidence that he was trying to reassure the Pauls that their son had not been ‘as drunk as a pig’, as had been alleged in some newspapers,” he added.

It is alleged that Paul worked for security services in France or in the UK and was instrumental in carrying out the plan, either unintentionally or otherwise, to have Diana and Dodi murdered in the underpass, a plan which, of course, resulted in his own death.

The coroner confirmed that tests had shown Paul was twice the French drink drive limit and traces of Prozac were found in his blood.

"It is further said that it was publicly and erroneously put about that he was unfit to drive through drink in order to cover up the real cause of the crash. Henri Paul's role and his actions leading up to the crash in the early hours of Sunday 31 August are critical to assessing the conspiracy to murder allegations,” he said.

The coroner told the jury that on the night of the accident, Paul left work at 7pm and went “missing” for three hours until he was called to return to the hotel after the unexpected return of Diana and Dodi.

“You may think that he did not, when he left, expect to return that night. What was he doing for the next three hours?” the coroner said.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that Paul was seen in the bar of the Ritz Hotel between 10pm and midnight consuming at least two glasses of Ricard, an aniseed liqueur.

And while there is no evidence to prove that he had consumed any alcohol before then, it was perfectly possible as at that stage Paul did not know he would be called back to work - let alone to drive his boss's car.

Lord Justice Scott Baker told the jury there was “no doubt” that Paul had been prescribed a variety of medications shortly before his death, including Aotal, or Acamprosate, which causes a dislike of alcohol, because he had been “worried” about his drinking, and Prozac - an anti-depressent.

“You will by now, I am sure, have understood that there is a major issue not only whether or not he was unfit to drive through drink or drugs, but also whether evidence has been fabricated or made up to suggest that he was drunk when, in truth, he was not,” he said. (With inputs from ANI)