From wiki:

"Some media claimed that the erratic behaviour of the paparazzi chasing the car, as reported by the BBC, had contributed to the crash. In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, and concluded that he was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz Paris and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Fayed outside the hotel. Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood might have worsened Paul's inebriation. In 2008, the jury at the British inquest Operation Paget returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles."

The French investigation took 18 months and concluded that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the crash. At the time of the crash, the paparazzi motor bikes were a considerable distance behind the car and were moving more slowly than it. No paparazzi were charged with any offence. Henri Paul was three and a half times over the French drink-drive limit, had also taken drugs that could have made things worse and was driving at over twice the tunnel's speed limit. No-one in the car was wearing a seat belt.

These are the facts, and I don't understand the implication by the British inquest jury that the paparazzi were somehow jointly to blame for the accident. In my mind, had Henri Paul been sober he might just have exercised better judgement and kept going at a reasonable speed and ignored the motor bikes, which, after all, had no ability to stop or obstruct him in that tunnel. I hate paparazzi and I understand that several of them behaved disgracefully when they eventually arrived at the scene. However, justice is not well served by our allowing the justifiable detestation of such people to cloud our judgement.