JUDITH MILLER AND DR DAVID KELLY AND THE MISSING IRAQI WMD

Kelly inquest denial judgement published

2012-02-23T01:40:00.006Z

Dr Stephen Frost has now published Mr Justice Nicol's judgement relating to Dr David Halpin's application to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Attorney-General to refuse to apply to the court, under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for an inquest or further inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly:

(N.B. Line-breaks edited for easier reading)

Transcript of Mr Justice Nicol's judgement on 19 December 2011
CO/8582/11

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3759 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Monday, 19th December 2011

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE NICOL

Between:

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HALPIN

Claimant

v

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr John Cooper QC (instructed by Withers LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Mr Jonathan Swift QC and Mr Jonathan Glasson (instructed by Treasury Solicitor)
appeared on behalf of the Defendant

J U D G M E N T

(As Approved by the Court)

Crown copyright©SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE

1. MR JUSTICE NICOL: This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Attorney-General to refuse to apply to the court, under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for an inquest or further inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

2. The claimant is one of a group of doctors who in September 2010 asked the Attorney to exercise his power under that provision to make application to the court.

3. As is well-known, Dr David Kelly CMG was an eminent scientist who had a high reputation both nationally and internationally as a weapons inspector. He came to public attention in July 2003, when he was identified as the alleged source of a news report by the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. Request was made for him to give evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on Thursday 10th July. He gave evidence on 15th and 16th July. On 18th July 2003 his body was found in a wood at Harrowdown Hill, a few miles away from his home in Oxfordshire.

4. Later that same day Lord Hutton, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and who was at the time a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, was requested by the Right Honourable Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to conduct an inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. His terms of reference were urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.

5. On 21st July 2003 an inquest into Dr Kelly's death was opened by Mr Nicolas Gardiner, Her Majesty's Coroner for Oxfordshire. On 12th August 2003 Lord Falconer invoked section 17A of the Coroners Act and informed the Oxfordshire Coroner that an inquiry had been established to investigate Dr Kelly's death. Section 17A(i) says this:

"(1)If on an inquest into a death the coroner is informed by the Lord Chancellor before the conclusion of the inquest that—

(a)a public inquiry conducted or chaired by a judge is being, or is to be, held into the events surrounding the death; and

(b)the Lord Chancellor considers that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by the inquiry.

the coroner shall, in the absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest and, if a jury has been summoned, may, if he thinks fit, discharge them."

6. The inquest was in accordance with that provision adjourned. On 28th January 2004 Lord Hutton completed his report and submitted it to Lord Falconer. The report was laid before the Houses of Parliament on that date and statements were made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and, in the House of Lords, by the Lord Chancellor the same afternoon. Lord Hutton came to the conclusion that Dr Kelly took his own life in the wood at Harrowdown Hill at a time between 4.15 pm on 17th July and 1.15 am on 18th July 2003, and that the principal cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to the left wrist which Dr Kelly inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body. It is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of Coproxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinical silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. Accordingly the causes of death are 1A haemorrhage, 1B incised wounds to the left wrist, 2 Coproxamol ingestion coronary arteriosclerosis. He also concluded that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly and gave his reasons for that.

7. Section 17A(4) also says:

"(4)A coroner may only resume an inquest which has been adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above if in his opinion there is exceptional reason for doing so; and he shall not do so—

(a)before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the findings of the public inquiry are published; or

(b)if the Lord Chancellor notifies the coroner that this paragraph applies, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the public inquiry is concluded."

8. On 16th March 2004 the Oxfordshire Coroner held a further public hearing to determine whether to resume the inquest into Dr Kelly's death. He gave advance notification of his intention do so. In a subsequent letter to the Attorney-General's Office of 8th December 2010, the Coroner said this:

"I was anxious to ensure, so far as possible, anyone who considered themselves properly interested should have the opportunity of making representations to me."

9. The hearing that took place on 16th March 2004 was attended by, amongst others, representatives of the Kelly family and the UK Government. Counsel for the family argued that there were no exceptional reasons justifying the resumption of the inquest. On behalf of the government, no submissions were made.

10. The Coroner considered the matter and in a considered and careful decision, concluded that there were no exceptional reasons to justify the resumption of the inquest.

11. The request which the claimant and his colleagues made to the Attorney-General, was for the Attorney to exercise his powers under section 13 of the Coroners Act. That says as follows:

"(1)This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner ('the coroner concerned') either—

(a)that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held; or

(b)where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held.

(2)The High Court may—

(a)order an inquest or, as the case may be, another inquest to be held into the death either—

(i)by the coroner concerned; or

(ii)by the coroner for another district in the same administrative area;

(b)order the coroner concerned to pay such costs of and incidental to the application as to the court may appear just; and

(c)where an inquest has been held, quash the inquisition on that inquest.

(3)In relation to an inquest held under subsection (2)(a)(ii) above, the coroner by whom it is held shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if he were the coroner for the district of the coroner concerned."

12. In this case the claimant sought to persuade the Attorney-General that an application should be made to the court for a number of reasons. In summary they were as follows.

First, Lord Falconer's decision to appoint Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry was said to have been unlawful and an interference with the inquisitorial process that would otherwise have been conducted. Secondly, there were criticisms which the claimant and his colleagues made of certain features of Lord Hutton's investigation and its adequacy or rather alleged inadequacy. Thirdly, it is said that, because Lord Hutton was appointed to conduct an inquiry on an ad hoc basis and because therefore he lacked power to summon witnesses or examine them on oath, there was necessarily a deficiency in the investigation which he could conduct and, because what he conducted was not a statutory inquest, he was unable to make the recommendations that a Coroner could have made pursuant to rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984, 1984 SI No 552.

Further, it is said that there had been a considerable quantity of new evidence that had been assembled and that new evidence ought to be considered by a freshly summoned inquest.

13. As can be seen from section 13(1) there are two alternatives that may justify an application by the Attorney-General. One is where a Coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held, and, second, is where an inquest has been held. The Attorney in this case was required to consider which of those two alternatives was applicable in the present situation ie. where an inquest had been started but not completed.

14. The conclusion that he reached was that there had in substance and in practice not been an inquest and therefore section 13(1)(a) was the applicable provision. If I may say so, sensibly, the Attorney decided, since the matter was not clear cut, to consider the application that was made to him, on the alternative basis that it should be dealt with under section 13(1)(b).

15. There is another pair of alternatives in section 13(1). That is, the Attorney may authorise another person to make an application to the High Court with his authority Alternatively the Attorney can make the application himself.

16. Mr Swift QC on the Attorney-General's behalf did not consider that there was a difference in test, according to which of those alternatives was to be adopted. My provisional view is that he was correct in this regard. Mr Cooper QC for the claimant, did not argue for a contrary position.

17. There have been a number of authorities on the test which is to be applied by the court if an application is made to it under section 13. In R (on the application of Sutovic) v HM Coroner for the Northern District of Greater London [2006] EWHC 1095 (Admin), the Divisional Court reviewed the authorities. At paragraph 54 it said this:

"The power contained in section 13(1)(b) is stated in very broad terms. The necessity or desirability of another inquest may arise by reason of one of the listed matters 'or otherwise'. Notwithstanding the width of the statutory words, its exercise by courts shows that the factors of central importance are an assessment of the possibility (as opposed to the probability) of a different verdict, the number of shortcomings in the original inquest, and the need to investigate matters raised by new evidence which had not been investigated at the inquest... 55. In cases in which the court is satisfied that a different verdict is not possible or doubts that it would be, the fact that the deceased died in custody may be 'a compelling additional factor'... This is because of the need (see paragraph [37] above) in such cases for an investigatory regime which will not only expose past violations of obligations under Article 2 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] but also promote measures to prevent or minimise the risk of future violations. The lapse of time since the death is a factor that has generally been seen as a factor against ordering a further inquest... but this is not always so ... it was stated that a new inquest may be ordered even if there is a high probability that the verdict would be the same."

18. It is clear from that and other authorities therefore, that the task of the court would not be to decide whether there is a probability of a fresh inquest returning a verdict of the same kind but whether there is a possibility that another inquest may return a different verdict.

19. There is an initial matter which is raised by the Attorney-General in his summary grounds of resistance to this application and that is whether the court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Attorney-General not to institute proceedings. Two authorities in particular are relied upon by the Attorney-General. The first is Queen v Attorney-General ex parte Ferranti. On 1st July 1994 Popplewell J concluded that the court had no jurisdiction. The matter went to the Court of Appeal which on 8th February 1995 was prepared to assume, without deciding the question of jurisdiction. It held that the Attorney-General's decision in that case anyway could not be regarded as even arguably unlawful.

20. The second case on which the Attorney-General in particular relies is Queen v Solicitor-General ex parte Michelle and Lisa Taylor, a decision of the Divisional Court on 31st July 1995. That was a case concerning the ability of two people who had been facing criminal proceedings to compel the Solicitor-General to bring proceedings for contempt of court. Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act provides that such an application can only be made by or with the permission of the Attorney-General. The Divisional Court concluded that there was no jurisdiction to review the refusal of the Solicitor-General to give authorisation for such proceedings. Both these authorities in turn both go back to the decision of the House of Lords in Gouriet v The Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435.

21. Mr Swift made clear that the Attorney continued to rely on those authorities for the proposition that this application was not justiciable. However, realistically, he appreciated that the Attorney needed to address the merits of the claimant's application as well.

22. If, hypothetically, there were substantial grounds for considering that the Attorney had acted unlawfully in refusing his consent, it would be an unattractive position, to put it neutrally, if that illegality was beyond the power of the courts to judicially review. I was grateful therefore for Mr Swift turning to the merits of the case.

23. Mr Cooper QC, explained that the background to the application was the concern that the claimant's rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been improperly interfered with by Lord Falconer's decision to appoint Lord Hutton to conduct an independent inquiry. Article 6 provides that in the determination, amongst other things, of a person's civil rights and obligations, there is a right to an independent tribunal. The concept of a civil right has been said on many occasions by the Strasbourg Court and by the domestic courts to be an autonomous concept i.e. it is to be defined and determined by reference to Strasbourg case law rather than by the meaning which might be attributed to that expression in any one of the contracting States that are party to the Convention.

24. In this case, Mr Cooper submits that the civil right in question was that of the claimant, either to be added as an interested party at an inquest of Dr Kelly, or for his application to be treated as an interested party to be properly considered. The phrase "an interested party" is the common shorthand expression referring to Rule 20 of the Coroners Rules. That says:

"(1) Without prejudice to any enactment with regard to the examination of witnesses at an inquest, any person who satisfies the coroner that he is within paragraph (2) shall be entitled to examine any witness at an inquest either in person or by [an authorised advocate as defined by section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990]:[6] Provided that...

(2) Each of the following persons shall have the rights conferred by
paragraph (1)..."

A number of categories are listed between paragraphs (a) to (g). Mr Cooper does not suggest that the claimant comes within any of them. However, there is then paragraph (h) which reads:

"any other person who, in the opinion of the coroner, is a properly interested person."

25. Mr Cooper submitted that the claimant would be such an interested person because of the investigations which he and his colleagues had conducted into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly and the contribution that they could make to a properly conducted inquest.

26. Mr Swift makes two responses. First, even if it be assumed that the claimant would have an arguable case to be treated as an interested party, that is not anywhere near to being the kind of right which Strasbourg would recognise as a "civil right". Second, he submits that if and to the extent that there was any interference with that right, it was not in consequence of Lord Falconer's decision to appoint Lord Hutton to conduct the inquiry but as a result of the Coroner's decision not to resume the inquest. Any determination therefore flowed from that decision, not from Lord Falconer's.

27. In my judgment Mr Cooper was not able to satisfy me that it is even arguable that the right he advanced on the claimant's behalf was of the nature of a "civil right" as the term is understood in the context of Article 6. Second, I accept Mr Swift's submission that it would have been open to the Coroner to resume the inquest notwithstanding Lord Hutton's inquiry. He would have had to be satisfied that there were exceptional reasons to justify doing so. But, if and so far as he was persuaded that the inquiry by Lord Hutton was deficient and he had not adequately investigated the cause of Dr Kelly's death, or had not sufficiently probed the witnesses who were called by Lord Hutton, then it would have been open to him to do so. In any event, as Mr Swift argued, it was the decision of the Coroner not to resume the inquest, which had the effect of curtailing any issue as to whether interested parties could take part or further part in the inquisitorial proceedings.

28. Mr Cooper made a more general attack on what Lord Falconer had done in 2003 as being a violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Phrases of that kind need to be unpacked. Many of the complaints which in the past would have been characterised in that way are now dealt with as examples of the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. In legal terms all that Lord Falconer was doing in 2003 was exercising his power under section 17A(I) to inform the Coroner that an inquiry chaired by a judge was being held and his opinion the cause of death was likely to be investigated adequately by that inquiry. In my judgment that involved no constitutional impropriety. Lord Falconer was simply exercising a statutory power that Parliament had given to him.

29. The claimant and his colleagues made a number of criticisms of the investigation which Lord Hutton had carried out. As part of his consideration of their application the Attorney-General went back to Lord Hutton and asked for certain comments from him.

30. In the course of his oral submissions, Mr Cooper focused particularly on the fact that Lord Hutton did not have the power to summon witnesses or administer an oath. That was one of the matters on which the Attorney asked Lord Hutton to comment. Lord Hutton responded that no one whom he would have wished to come before him and give evidence had refused, and therefore the lack of a power to summon witnesses was, in his view, immaterial. Lord Hutton also commented that he did not consider the absence of evidence being given on oath was of any significance. He observed that much of the evidence in relation to the causes of Dr Kelly's death was scientific and expert evidence, where the presence or absence of an oath is not likely to be of significance. He also commented that there had not been a suggestion from any of the parties that any of the lay witnesses who gave evidence bearing on the cause of death had a reason to lie. Overall therefore, he considered that the absence a power to require evidence to be given on oath was of any particular significance. Mr Cooper suggested that this was to denigrate an important part of procedures which are commonplace in courts and that such playing down of the significance evidence being given on oath should not be allowed to stand.

31. In my judgment though, these were all matters for the Attorney-General to consider as part of his overall consideration as to whether he ought to bring an application before the court under section 13. He was entitled to take the view that in the circumstances of this particular case, the absence of the oath by witnesses to the inquiry was not of particular significance and would not therefore play a substantial part in the overall consideration as to whether such an application should be brought.

32. Mr Cooper also commented that because Lord Hutton was conducting an ad hoc inquiry, he would not have had a power to make recommendations as a Coroner would have had under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules. Rule 43 says this:

"A coroner who believes that action should be taken to prevent the recurrence of fatalities similar to that in respect of which the inquest is being held may announce at the inquest that he is reporting the matter in writing to the person or authority who may have power to take such action and he may report the matter accordingly." The Attorney-General did not place significance on that. In my judgment, he was entitled so to do. Lord Hutton's inquiry was conducted in a blaze of publicity. His report attracted enormous public attention. It is not arguable that the absence of his power to make a Rule 43 report would have been of particular significance.

33. A very substantial part of the material presented to the Attorney-General was new evidence or new commentary which the claimant had assembled. The Attorney-General's response went through each of the points made by the claimant and his colleagues in a schedule running to 60 pages and 169 items. It was plainly a very detailed response. That is perhaps unsurprising given that on 16th March 2010 Dominic Grieve QC MP who is now the Attorney-General but who was then the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice had written to Dr Michael Powers QC about investigations that had been made into the death of Dr David Kelly.

34. Mr Grieve said:

"I am aware of the work of the Doctors Group on challenging Lord Hutton's findings. It seems to me that they have been able to make an impressive and cogent case. In the absence of being in government it is impossible to make judgment on the reasons for withholding medical and scientific evidence. However this is something I would review if in government as I am conscious this is a matter where the public have not be reassured that the Hutton inquiry satisfactorily resolved the matter." (quote unchecked)

35. In his statement to Parliament, at which the detailed responses to the new evidence were presented, the Attorney-General also referred to material that he had gathered as part of his consideration of the request. It included a further report from a Home Office pathologist, Dr Richard Shepherd, and a report from a toxicologist, Professor Flanagan. He also assembled comments and statements from Thames Valley Police who had been involved in the initial investigation. He said this:

"I have concluded that the evidence that Dr David Kelly took his own life is overwhelmingly strong. The test set out by section 13 of the Coroners Act is not met."

A little later on in his statement he said:

"There is no possibility of a different verdict on the basis of the evidence of Dr Shepherd and Professor Flanagan."

And repeated:

"In my view the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is overwhelming and it would not be even necessary or desirable in the public interest to seek a new inquest."

36. In the course of the hearing I questioned with Mr Swift whether the Attorney-General had in those passages confused the role of the court, which would have to ask itself whether it would be desirable or necessary in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be held, with his role which was whether to bring an application for such relief before the court. Mr Swift responded that it was material for the Attorney-General to reach his own conclusion as to the ultimate issue that the court would be invited to ask, since it would be the Attorney who would be the moving party seeking precisely that relief. But in any event, even if there were some lower threshold test which the Attorney ought to have asked himself, the strength of the views which he expressed were such that it would be quite clear how any such lower threshold test would be answered. I was satisfied by that response.

37. In terms of the remainder of the challenge by the claimant, it is in essence an irrationality challenge, that is an argument that no reasonable Attorney-General could reach the conclusion which the Attorney did that the material presented by the claimant and his colleagues could not lead to the conclusion that an application should be properly brought before the court.

38. An irrationality challenge always has to cross a high threshold. This is adopted by the court in recognition of the fact that its task is a secondary one. It is reviewing the decision which Parliament has entrusted to some other public body or official. In this case, by section 13, Parliament has given to the Attorney-General the important filtering decision as to whether or not to make an application for a fresh inquest to the court.

39. In his reply, Mr Cooper referred to the case of Duggan v The Coroner for Northern District of Greater London [2010] EWHC 1263 (Admin). He referred to it for the proposition that even if there was not the possibility of a fresh inquest reaching a different conclusion, the court may nonetheless order such a fresh inquest to take place to allay any suspicions which have been raised by the evidence produced to the court. He submits that the material presented by the claimant and his colleagues is in exactly the same category. So for it has been considered by the Attorney-General in private, without the opportunity for challenge, cross-examination and open testing that would take place in another freshly convened inquest. For that reason, the Attorney-General has misdirected himself as to what is required and the court ought to give permission for this application for judicial review to continue.

40. In my judgment though, Duggan was very much a decision on its own facts. There was assembled in that case very considerable cause for suspicion. It was an application under section 13, which was brought with the consent of the Attorney-General. It was therefore a case which had passed through that statutory filter. When one reads the decision one can well understand why that would have been so.

41. In the present case the Attorney-General has given, as I have explained, extremely detailed reasons why he did not accept any of the 169 reasons for acceding to the request that he apply to the High Court under section 13. Mr Cooper is of course right; that was a process that was not reached in the way that a court would reach it. But the whole point of the Attorney-General's power under section 13 is that he acts as a filter before the matter gets to a court. Parliament has considered it necessary and desirable to have such a filter. In my judgment, he has exercised that discretion and power lawfully and it is not arguable that he has exercised it unlawfully.

42. This matter has come before the court as an application for permission. It was not decided on the papers. When it came before Kenneth Parker J on 20th October 2011, he ordered it in for an oral hearing. He said:

"I am not satisfied that this claim is properly arguable and certain aspects appear to me to be basically misconceived. I reach that view even putting aside the formidable obstacle posed by Gouriet. Nonetheless given the particular background and the wider public concerns involved, I believe it right to allow the claimant, if so minded, to make oral submissions why, despite my view formed on the papers, permission should be granted."

43. Having heard the able submissions of Mr Cooper on behalf of the claimant, I also come to the conclusion that this is not a case where permission should be granted.

44. [The court went on to consider costs.]

http://drdavidkellyinquestrequired.blogspot.com/2012/02/transcript-of-mr-justice-nicols-strange.html"

Inquest challenge refused

2011-12-19T21:20:00.004Z

David Kelly inquest challenge rejected by high court

Doctor denied permission to seek ruling that attorney general acted unlawfully by refusing to back new inquiry into the death

Press Association

guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 December 2011 17.07 GMT

A doctor has been refused permission to bring a high court challenge over the attorney general's decision not to back a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

The government weapons inspector died in July 2003, aged 59.

Following a public inquiry, a report by Lord Hutton ruled that Kelly had killed himself. Hutton later rejected claims that his report amounted to a "whitewash".

The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, concluded in June this year that there was no possibility that any inquest would reach a verdict other than suicide.

On Monday, Mr Justice Nicol refused David Halpin, a retired orthopaedic surgeon and one of a group of doctors campaigning for a new inquest, permission to seek a ruling that the attorney general had acted "unlawfully and irrationally".

There were cries of "shame" and "this is not justice" from members of the public as the decision was announced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/19/doctor-inquest-challenge-david-kelly

19 December 2011 Last updated at 17:02

Dr David Kelly inquest ruling challenge fails

A bid to bring a High Court challenge over the attorney general's refusal to give his consent for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly has failed.

Government scientist Dr Kelly was found dead in July 2003 aged 59 after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story about Iraq intelligence.

Campaigners had sought a judicial review of the decision, which backed a finding that Dr Kelly killed himself.

The attorney general said in June the evidence for this was "overwhelming".

Dominic Grieve concluded there was no possibility that an inquest would reach any verdict other than suicide - the conclusion drawn from an inquiry into the death by Lord Hutton - and he rejected claims of a "cover-up".

But a group of doctors said Hutton's ruling was unsafe, claiming the evidence did not point to suicide. They mounted a long-running campaign for the inquest to be re-opened.

'Not justice'

On Monday, Mr Justice Nicol refused permission for one of the group, retired orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin, to seek a ruling that the attorney general had acted "unlawfully and irrationally".

Mr Halpin's lawyer, John Cooper QC, had told the court "public anguish" remained over the case, along with concerns the Hutton Inquiry had failed to get to the truth.

As the decision was announced there were cries of "shame" and "this is not justice" from members of the public.

Outside court, Mr Halpin said he was disappointed but not surprised by the decision.

Dr Kelly's body was found in woods near his home in Oxfordshire, after he was exposed as the source of a controversial BBC report casting doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.

The report led to a fierce row between the BBC and the then Labour government.

An inquest was opened but suspended when the Hutton Inquiry was set up in 2004 to look into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death.

Its report concluded Dr Kelly had killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. The original inquest was never concluded.

New dossier

In March this year, the campaigners handed to Mr Grieve a new dossier containing details about the absence of fingerprints on items found near his body.

But Mr Grieve concluded in June that the inquiry was "tantamount to an inquest". He said he could not find any legal basis for referring the case to the High Court, which has the legal authority to order an inquest.

His department published full medical and pathology reports on Dr Kelly's death.

In September, the campaigners lodged papers to seek a judicial review of the decision not to hold a new inquest.

Rejecting Mr Halpin's application to seek judicial review, the judge described how it was the attorney general's role to act as a "filter" before matters reached court.

"Parliament considered it necessary for such a filter," he said. "In my judgment he (the attorney general) has exercised that discretion and power lawfully."

The court said there was "no impropriety" or procedural flaw in the way Mr Grieve had considered the evidence and concluded a new inquest was unnecessary.

Mr Halpin, 71, from Haytor, Newton Abbott, Devon, was ordered to pay £5,568 towards the attorney general's legal costs.

"Dr Kelly's death has not been investigated properly. There has been no inquest," he said outside court.

"The Hutton Inquiry had more holes than a Gruyere cheese."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16249783

Tomorrow's hearing

2011-12-18T14:57:00.001Z

From Political Cleanup dot Org:

...On Monday 19 December 2011 a special hearing will take place at the High Court in London as part of the legal challenge which David Halpin is attempting to bring against the government’s recent decision not to hold a coroner’s inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. He is seeking a judicial review of the Attorney General’s refusal to facilitate a new inquest.

The High Court has now published details of where and when David Halpin’s hearing will take place.

It is scheduled to begin at 10.30am on Monday 19 December. It will be held in Court 3 of the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Nicol. It is expected to last two hours.

The nearest Tube stations to the court are Temple and Chancery Lane.

Due to the expected public interest in the hearing, and the airport-style security checks which must be made on entering the building, it may be wise to arrive 30 – 60 minutes early to guarantee a seat.

http://political-cleanup.org/?p=4466

A baseless conspiracy theory...

2011-12-08T19:58:00.005Z

...or a matter of some importance?

Letter to Prime Minister David Cameron about a very serious matter indeed

Dear Prime Minister,

While watching the television programme called One Step Beyond, on Edge Media TV, on Tuesday 6th December 2011, an Oxford economist and investigative journalist, called Martin Summers, made an amazing accusation concerning yourself.

According to his sources he claims that during the late 1980’s and early 90’s, South Africa sold ten uranium nuclear war-heads.

Allegedly six were sold to the US Government, and four were sold to the British Government, via Astra Holdings, a subsidiary company of Astra Fireworks.

Its claimed that Astra Holdings was funded by a number of senior Tory politicians, including Michael Heseltine and William Waldegrave, organised by Sir Kenneth Warren.

They are alleged to have brought the four war heads from Arms Corp of South Africa, on behalf of the British Government for £50 million.

Three people (Sir Kenneth Warren, Dr David Kelly and yourself Mr David Cameron), were alleged to have gone went to South Africa to finalise this deal; mediated by an Zimbabwean arms dealer called John Bredenkamp.

Allegedly the nuclear war-heads were transported to the country of Oman, where-upon Dr David Kelly went out to check on them, only to find they had been replaced with blocks of concrete.

This allegation implies British tax payers spent £50 million, which went into the pockets of the Astra Holdings shareholders pockets, of which £17.8 million was alleged to have been donated to the Tory party to fight the 1992 General Election.

Doug Hoyle, Labour MP asked in Parliament where the money came from, to which no satisfactory has ever been answer given.

It also raises serious implications in light of the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998, which states in Section 1-

(1)Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Allegedly, one of the four war heads did go off in North Korea, during 2006, which resulted a 'fizzle explosion'.

As you can imagine this information is seriously worrying to hear and I am writing as a concerned voter and leader of the SOS Party (www.sosparty.co.uk), to ask you in the first person whether these allegations are true.

Is it true Prime Minister?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Faithfully,
Matthew Taylor

http://aboutmatttaylor.blogspot.com/2011/12/letter-to-prime-minister-david-cameron.html

Revisited WMD reporting?

2011-11-09T22:32:00.006Z

Comment is Free

Why do the US media believe the worst about Iran?

In their eagerness to recycle flimsy scare stories about Iran, the US media have failed to absorb the lessons of Iraq and WMD

Brian Whitaker

guardian.co.uk

Wednesday 9 November 2011 15.36 GMT

"One of the oldest tricks in the run-up to a war is to spread terrifying stories of things that the enemy may be about to do. Government officials plant these tales, journalists water them and the public, for the most part, swallow them." I wrote this paragraph in December 2002, some three months before the US launched its invasion of Iraq, but it seems just as applicable today in relation to Iran.

The Iraq war of 2003 followed a long media build-up in which talk about Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction, simply by virtue of its constant repetition, led many prominent journalists to abandon their critical faculties. The Washington Post, for instance, devoted an extraordinary 1,800 words to an extremely flimsy (but scary) story suggesting Iraq had supplied nerve gas to al-Qaida. The paper later conceded that its coverage of the Iraqi WMD issue had been seriously defective, but by then it was too late to undo the damage.

At the New York Times, meanwhile, star reporter Judith Miller was churning out more alarmist stuff about Iraq. One story concerned US attempts to stop Iraq importing atropine, a drug used for treating heart patients which is also an effective antidote against pesticide poisoning ... and nerve gas. There were various possible interpretations, but the implication of this tale, as presented by Miller, with assistance from anonymous official sources, was that Iraq not only possessed nerve gas but intended to use it and wanted to protect its own troops from the harmful effects.

Another of Miller's "scoops" was an unverified claim that a Russian scientist, who once had access to the Soviet Union's entire collection of 120 strains of smallpox, might have visited Iraq in 1990 and might have provided the Iraqis with a version of the virus that could be resistant to vaccines and could be more easily transmitted as a biological weapon.

The story collapsed shortly afterwards when it emerged that the scientist had not, after all, visited Iraq in 1990. Just to be on the safe side, though, the Bush administration still pressed ahead with a smallpox vaccination programme – much to the delight of pharmaceutical companies.

Fast-forward to 2011 and we're left wondering if these same newspapers have really taken on board the lessons of Iraq. Here, for example, is David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, writing in its Sunday Review last weekend:

At the White House and the CIA, officials say the recently disclosed Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States – by blowing up a tony Georgetown restaurant frequented by senators, lobbyists and journalists – was just the tip of the iceberg.

Note how the allegation of an "Iranian plot" in the US – which was greeted with a good deal of scepticism when it first surfaced last month – now appears to have become an established fact (even though it has yet to be tested in court). Not only that. Sanger's anonymous officials are now asking us to believe it is part of a bigger and even more menacing Iranian plot which stretches across continents from the Yemen to Latin America.

At the Washington Post, meanwhile, Joby Warrick has been briefed by David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security. Citing Albright, Warrick describes Iranian work on a detonation device known as the R265 generator:

"According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas [design and testing] was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran's Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country's nuclear programme."

The way this is presented in the Washington Post, it points very clearly to the idea that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear bomb. But look elsewhere and that interpretation becomes less certain: possibly it wasn't nuclear at all, but a project to manufacture nanodiamonds.

Of course, these are extremely murky waters and I'm not at all sure who to believe. There is probably a lot of deception taking place on both sides. But what seems to me extraordinary is the reluctance of journalists – especially in the US mainstream – to acknowledge the uncertainties and their willingness to accept what, as far as Iran is concerned, are the most incriminating interpretations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/us-media-iran-scare-stories

High Court hearing next month

2011-11-03T16:37:00.002Z

High Court judge will hear call for inquest on Dr David Kelly's death next month

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 3:24 AM on 3rd November 2011

The death of Dr David Kelly is to be examined at the High Court next month after a senior judge ordered a special hearing as part of his review of the case.

Mr Justice Kenneth Parker is considering an application from retired West Country surgeon David Halpin to challenge the Government’s decision this summer not to hold a coroner’s inquest.

Weapons inspector Dr Kelly allegedly killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into the Iraq war.

His body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home on July 18, 2003.

He is believed to be the only person in modern times found dead in suspicious circumstances whose death has not been properly investigated by a coroner.

Mr Justice Parker’s order marks the first time that matters relating to the Iraq war, Dr Kelly’s death and the Blair government’s handling of both issues will have been brought before a court rather than a public inquiry.

If successful at the hearing, on December 19, Mr Halpin may eventually succeed in securing an inquest.

Two months ago, after Attorney General Dominic Grieve ruled out an inquest saying there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ Dr Kelly committed suicide, he sought permission to judicially review this decision.

More than 800 donors from around the world - hundreds of whom are Daily Mail readers - have contributed over £40,000 to a fund covering Mr Halpin’s legal fees.

Mr Halpin, 71, from Newton Abbot, Devon, told the Mail: ‘The ex-Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer chose to set up an ad hoc public inquiry, as opposed to a coroner’s inquest, into Dr Kelly’s death before his body had even cooled.

'If our laws had been observed an inquest under the Oxfordshire coroner would have taken place. Lord Falconer made sure there was no inquest, and our law and due legal process were subverted.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056935/High-Court-judge-hear-inquest-Dr-David-Kellys-death-month.html

David Halpin GRTV interview

2011-10-16T17:30:00.006+01:00

The Death of Dr. David Kelly

By grtv

Posted on: October 13, 2011

On July 18, 2003, British biowarfare expert and UN weapons inspector David Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill, near his home in Oxfordshire. Ruled a suicide by the official judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, now a group of British doctors is challenging the Attorney General's decision not to hold a coroner's inquest into the death, citing the overlooked, suppressed and modified evidence suggesting Dr. Kelly was murdered.

This is the GRTV Backgrounder on The Death of Dr. David Kelly.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/death-dr-david-kelly

David Halpin witness statement published

2011-09-19T22:15:00.015+01:00

David Halpin's application for permission for judicial review of the Attorney General's decision to not (re-)open an Inquest process in the case of Dr David Kelly, and an accompanying witness statement, have been published on his own website, and also on Stephen Frost's website

(N.B. I have taken the liberty of reformatted these documents to this blog's XHTLM 1.0 coding standard because they did not display quite properly at the source sites.)

In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review of the decision by the Attorney General Mr Dominic Grieve QC MP, to refuse the plea of Dr Stephen Frost et al. for an inquest into the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly CMG DSc

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Application For Permission to Bring Judicial Review Proceedings

Friday, 09 September 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN:

R
(on the application of)
DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

Claimant

and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS
________________________________________

Introduction

1. This is an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings in relation to the Attorney General’s decision of 9 June 2011 not to exercise his powers under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to apply to the High Court to seek an order to quash the inquest convened by the Mr Nicholas Gardiner, HM Coroner for Oxfordshire in 2003/2004 and to order a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly: see tab 4 Core Bundle. As the proceedings are of general public importance and in the public interest, a protective costs order is also sought.

The Facts

2. Dr David Kelly was an eminent scientist, specialising in biological weapons, employed by the Ministry of Defence. From 1991 until his death, he was deeply involved in investigating biological warfare programmes initiated by the former Iraqi regime and others. He became a weapons inspector both for the UK Government and the United Nations.

3. In July 2003, the deceased's name was leaked to the press as the alleged source of a story broadcast by the BBC about the UK Government’s dossier about the so called weapons of mass destruction. Dr Kelly was summoned and appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at a televised hearing on 15 July 2003 and he gave evidence in secret at the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on 16 July 2003.

4. On 17 July 2003, at about midnight, Dr Kelly was reported missing by his wife. Dr Kelly’s body was discovered in woodland at Harrowdown Hill in Oxfordshire at about 9:00am on 18 July 2003. There is some dispute as to whether Dr Kelly was found leaning against a tree or a short distance from it and conflicting evidence on this point emerged at the swiftly convened Hutton Inquiry.

5. The Hutton Inquiry was initiated by Lord Falconer on 18 July 2003, who was at the time acting in a dual capacity as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (a political role) and as Lord Chancellor (a judicial role): see tab 1 Core Bundle. Lord Falconer appointed Lord Hutton to Chair the Inquiry on the very same day that Dr Kelly's body was discovered.

6. The Hutton Inquiry was not a statutory inquiry, invoked under the then relevant legislation, but an ad hoc inquiry and only the third one of its type ever to have been convened. Previous ad hoc inquiries had dealt with multiple death events, such as the Shipman Inquiry.

7. On 21 July 2003, the Inquest into the death of Dr Kelly was opened by the Oxfordshire Coroner and duly adjourned. The Hutton Inquiry opened on 1 August 2003 but formally began hearing evidence on 11 August 2003. On 12 August 2003, Lord Falconer invoked Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 and Lord Falconer’s Private Office informed the Oxfordshire Coroner that an inquiry had been established to investigate Dr Kelly’s death. Before formally adjourning the Inquest, Lord Falconer suggested that the Oxfordshire Coroner might need to take evidence from the pathologist and analyst as to the cause of death. The Inquest resumed on 14 August 2003 when the Oxfordshire Coroner determined that he had sufficient evidence to register a death certificate and the Inquest was then adjourned. In short, the Coronial proceedings were stopped by Lord Falconer.

8. The Hutton Inquiry lasted 24 days and was divided into two Stages. Stage 1 lasted between 11 August to 4 September 2003 and Stage 2, involving recalled witnesses at Lord Hutton's discretion, began on 15 September and ended on 25 September 2003. None of the witnesses gave evidence under oath.

9. Lord Hutton delivered his Report on 28 January 2004, in which he adopted the conclusions of the pathologist, Dr Nicholas Hunt, that Dr Kelly had committed suicide. Lord Falconer declared himself satisfied with Lord Hutton's Report and his conclusions and required the Oxfordshire Coroner, under Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988, to find whether an exceptional reason existed not to resume the Inquest. On 16 March 2004, the Oxfordshire Coroner, after a short public hearing, concluded there was not.

10. Sometime later, at a time unknown, Lord Hutton recommended to the Oxfordshire Coroner that certain records, including medical and post mortem records, be removed from disclosure or publication for 70 years from the date of the Hutton Inquiry conclusions.

11. The Attorney General was petitioned under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to grant his Fiat to ask the High Court to quash the Inquest and order a new inquest. There is an overriding duty upon the Attorney General to be satisfied that any such decision he makes must be in the public interest. On 9 June 2011, the Attorney General decided that he would not exercise his Fiat and that no fresh inquest would be ordered.

Justiciability of the Attorney General’s Decision

12. The Claimant acknowledges the case of Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, 487 G-488 G which laid down that the Attorney General’s powers were not subject to control and supervision by the courts. In that decision Lord Wilberforce observed that the Attorney General has ‘the right, and the duty, to consider the public interest generally and widely.’ Lord Wilberforce went on to state ‘that it is the exclusive right of the Attorney General to represent the public interest – even where individuals might be interested in a larger view of the matter – it is not technical, not procedural, not fictional, it is constitutional.’

13. Viscount Dilhorne, in the same judgment, stated that ‘only the Attorney General can sue on behalf of the public for the purpose of preventing public wrongs and that a private individual cannot do so on behalf of the public though he may be able to do so if he will sustain injury as a result of a public wrong.’ Viscount Dilhorne went on to develop this rationale by observing ‘when the Attorney General gives his consent to a relator-action, he is enabling an action to be brought which an individual alone could not bring. When he refuses his consent, he is not denying the right of any individual and barring his access to the courts (see page 495) for the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a claim by an individual whose only interest is as a member of the public in relation to a public right.’

Lord Diplock reiterated the view of the House of Lords that the Attorney General had ‘the exclusive right…to represent the public interest in litigation.’

14. The Claimant seeks to argue that the decision in Gouriet is no longer good law and that the basis upon which it was decided no longer prevails. The present position is that the Attorney General is no longer regarded as the sole guardian of what is in the public interest, which was a central principle of the decision in Gouriet.

15. In Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother [2008] 1 WLR 2327 EWCA the Court of Appeal held that a private individual was entitled, in the public interest, to have a substantive hearing of his claim to inspect the wills of members of the Royal family. Lord Phillips MR at paragraph 38 of that case observed ‘The conclusion (of the House of Lords in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers) that, in the absence of the consent of the Attorney General, Mr Gouriet was barred from pursuing the proceedings was based on an analysis of the statutory provisions in issue. By contrast, there is nothing on the face of Section 124 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to suggest that the court may only exercise its powers under it on an application by the Attorney General.’

16. The Claimant will seek to argue that private individuals may now properly seek judicial review of decisions of the public prosecutor whether or not to initiate criminal proceedings. This power did not exist at the time of the judgment in Gouriet. The Claimant will refer to R (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin): [2009] 1WLR 2072 at paragraph 52 which stated ‘The exercise of the court’s power of judicial review is less rare in the decision not to prosecute than a decision to prosecute (because a decision not to prosecute is final, subject to judicial review, whereas a decision to prosecute leaves the defendant free to challenge the prosecution’s case in the usual way through the criminal court) but is still exceptional.’

17. The Claimant will seek to take an analogy with the case of R (Corner House Research and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (JUSTICE intervening) [2009] 1AC 756, HL per Lord Bingham at 831 paragraph 30, which in part reads that ‘It is accepted that the decisions of the Director (of Public Prosecutions) are not immune from review by the courts.’ The House of Lords in Corner House Research made the precise analogy between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General.

18. In argument the Claimant will refer to a number of other authorities which indicate that in modern times the courts have consistently held that private individuals may seek judicial review of decisions of the public prosecutor not only in matters of initiation or failure to take court proceedings or to discontinue police investigations, but additionally of decisions whether to takeover or discontinue ongoing private prosecutions. See R v DPP Ex Parte Duckenfield [2000] 1 WLR 55 EWCA per Laws LJ at 67-8 and R (Gujra) v Crown Prosecution Service [2011] EWHC 472 (Admin): [2011] 2 Cr. App. R 12 at paragraph 41.

19. On this issue the Claimant will also seek to assert that the case of R v Attorney General Ex Parte Ferrante [1995] COD 18 is instructive. This case established on its facts that there were no grounds to impugn a decision refusing to authorise an application to the High Court to reopen a coroner’s inquest. Here Popplewell J conceded ‘It seems to me that if the principle in Gouriet is now to be treated as no longer good law in relation to the Attorney General’s powers it must be for a higher court than me so to say.’ In coming to this conclusion his Lordship held that the court had no jurisdiction to judicially review the Attorney General’s refusal to give authority under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

20. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the Attorney General was entitled to have regard to the prospects of success of an application under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 and had not erred in law applying the test that he did. In coming to this decision the Court of Appeal decided on the merits of the case on the assumption that the Attorney General’s decision was subject in principle to judicial review. Sir Thomas Bingham (as he then was) stated ‘On behalf of the appellant it was argued that the incoming tide of judicial review has overtaken this older authority (Gouriet), that we are here concerned with a statutory power, not a prerogative power, and accordingly the time has come when the court would be bound to hold that a public officer in this position, exercising public powers, is susceptible to control by the courts in his exercise of them. The learned judge went into that issue, which is clearly a very important one, in great detail and concluded that the authorities were in favour of the Attorney General’s argument and that, if they were to be overridden, it would have to be done by a higher court than his.

We in this court have not heard argument on this issue, because it appeared to us to be unnecessary to resolve it for the purposes of resolving this appeal. For purposes of giving judgment on the issues which do arise, I shall assume in favour of the appellant that the Attorney General’s decision to grant or withhold authority under Section 13 is subject to judicial review, but I wish to make it plain that in making that assumption I should not now or hereafter be taken as expressing any view one way or the other on what is clearly an extremely complex question.’

21. The Claimant will also refer to R v Attorney General Ex Parte Rockall [2000] 1 WLR 882 where permission for judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision not to withdraw consent to prosecution was refused because there was no arguable ground rather than the justiciability argument.

22. It will further be argued that the fact that historically the Attorney General has been regarded as exercising a quasi-judicial function need not now be regarded as an obstacle to judicial review of his decisions, in exercise of this function. The Claimant refers to R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28: [2011] 3 WLR 107 which confirmed that decisions of a body statutorily designated as being ‘a superior court of record’ may still be subject to the judicial review supervisory jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

23. In all the circumstances and reflecting all the case-law it will be the Claimant’s argument that the Attorney General’s decision is justiciable.

Standing to bring Judicial Review

24. The Claimant, Dr David Halpin FRCS, is an eminent medical practitioner and reference is made to his statement dated 8 September 2011 and its paginated exhibit DSH1. He has argued for over seven years that there should be a proper and thorough investigation into the death of Dr Kelly. His arguments have culminated in the need for a fresh inquest into this death. The present Attorney General, whilst in Opposition, acknowledged the work of the Claimant in a letter dated 16 March 2010 when he observed ‘I am aware of the work of the doctors’ group on challenging Lord Hutton’s findings. It seems to me that they have been able to make an impressive and cogent case’. (See page 310 DSH1).

25. The Claimant refers to Section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which provides that a court may not grant permission to apply for judicial review unless the Claimant has demonstrated ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter to which the claim relates. It will be argued that whether a Claimant has established a sufficient interest is a question of both fact and law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

26. Reference will be made to Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self Employed & Small Businesses Ltd. [1982] AC 617 at 638, 639-640 and 644. Here Lord Diplock in the House of Lords stated ‘The rules as to standing for the purpose of applying for prerogative orders, like most of English public law, are not to be found in any statute. They were made by judges, by judges they can be changed; and so they have been over the years to meet the need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law.’

27. In R v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Dixon [1998] Env LR 111 QBD Sedley J, in rejecting a challenge to the standing of an applicant to bring a judicial review against a planning authority’s grant of outline planning permission, observed:

‘Public law is not at base about rights, even though abuses of power may and often do invade private rights; it is about wrongs – that is to say misuses of public power; and the courts have always been alive to the fact that a person or organisation with no particular stake in the issue or the outcome may, without in any sense being a mere meddler, wish and be well placed to call the attention of the court to an apparent misuse of public power.’

28. In R (on the application of Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 119; [2001] 3 All ER 449 per Rose LJ at paragraphs 20-1, where the Divisional Court accepted that the threshold for standing in judicial review is at a low level, he stated ‘This, as it seems to me, is because of the importance in public law that someone should be able to call decision makers to account.’

29. The Claimant will refer to R (Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1370 in which Jonathan Parker LJ observed that ‘It seems to me that a litigant who has a real and genuine interest in challenging an administrative decision must be entitled to present his challenge on all available grounds.’

30. In R v Legal Aid Board Ex Parte Bateman [1992] 1 WLR 711 at 718 B the court held that it was important to recognise in appropriate cases ‘the right of responsible citizens to enter the lists for the benefit of the public, or of a section of the public, of which they themselves are members.’ The Claimant asserts his position and in part again relies upon the observations of the Attorney General, when he was in Opposition, when in his letter of 16 March 2010 he confirms the “impressive and cogent” arguments of the Claimant and his colleagues.

31. The Claimant will seek to refer to In Re S (Hospital Patient: Courts Jurisdiction) [1996] Fam 1 at 18 G where it was stated ‘It can be suggested that where a serious justiciable issue is brought before the court by a party with a genuine and legitimate interest in obtaining a decision against an adverse party the court will not impose nice tests to determine the precise legal standing of that Claimant.’

32. The Claimant acknowledges that he has been previously told that he was not an ‘interested person’ as defined by Rule 20 of the Coroners Rules 1984 for the purpose of the Inquest and that the Attorney General does not consider that he has sufficient interest to apply to the High Court under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 should the Attorney General have granted his fiat. However this is not an inquest and the Claimant will assert that the test for standing for judicial review purposes is much wider than the test to be an ‘interested person’, and that, from the authorities cited above, he certainly meets that test for standing.

33. In all the circumstances the Claimant asserts that he has ample standing to bring this judicial review.

Substantive Grounds

34. The Claimant seeks to argue the following substantive grounds and asserts them in no particular order of priority. Rather they are listed in chronological order.

- The role of the Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer.

- The role of the Attorney General.

- The insufficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry.

- New evidence.

35. Although the Claimant will assert that a fresh inquest could produce a different result, in any event it will be argued that, even if there is a high probability of the same result as that which occurred in the Hutton Inquiry, that is no reason to refuse a fresh inquest. See R v HM Coroner for Swansea and Gower Ex Parte Wilson [1988] QB 26 and Sutovic v HM Coroner for North London [2006] EWHC 1095 (Admin).

36. The Claimant also argues that these authorities, and particularly Sutovic, establish that a new inquest can be ordered to allay suspicions see R (on the application of Duggan) v HM Coroner for North London [2010] EWHC 1263 (Admin) per Elias LJ at paragraph 27. To substantiate this limb of the Claimant’s argument he refers again to page 310 of DSH1 and the letter from the Attorney General, when in Opposition, dated 16 March 2010 which stated ‘I am conscious this is a matter where the public have not been reassured that the Hutton Inquiry satisfactorily resolved the matter.’

The Role of the Lord Chancellor

37. Between July 2003 and the end of April 2004, Lord Falconer fulfilled two roles within government. One was as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the other was as Lord Chancellor. This dual role ended on the 3 April 2006 when the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice ceased to be the head of the judiciary and the latter role was assumed by the Lord Chief Justice who has no political role.

38. The Claimant asserts that the decisions made by Lord Falconer lacked independence and objective impartiality. It follows that the Attorney General, in not acceding to a fresh inquest and confirming the decision of Lord Falconer, acted irrationally and Wednesbury unreasonably. The particularity of the Lord Chancellor’s role complained of is that he inappropriately combined political and judicial decision-making in relation to the purported inquest into the death of Dr Kelly. On 18 July 2003, as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer announced his decision that a public inquiry would be held by Lord Hutton.

39. The Inquiry held by Lord Hutton was not a public inquiry under the then statute, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 (which has since been repealed and replaced by the Inquiries Act 2005). The 1921 Act was intended to be used for the most serious matters of urgent public importance and provided for a tribunal of inquiry that closely resembled courtroom procedure. For instance it had been used to initiate an inquiry into the disaster at Aberfan in 1966 and the original inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday in 1972. The practice developed over time of government setting up ad hoc, non-statutory inquiries and according to the Cabinet Office Guidance contained on its website this was often done ‘because there was no appropriate legislation for statutory ones.’ (www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/national-recovery-guidance-generic-issues-inquiries): see tab 8 Core Bundle.

40. Significantly, non-statutory ad hoc inquiries, such as the one initiated by Lord Falconer, are distinct from the statutory version in that they are not vested with the powers, privileges and rights of the High Court. The Butler Inquiry into Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction was a non-statutory public inquiry compared to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry which was a statutory public inquiry brought about under Section 7 of the 1996 Police Act.

41. The Claimant will argue that when the decision was made by Lord Falconer on 18 July 2003 as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs the range and focus of the ad hoc Inquiry was entirely fixed by him in a political capacity and done with undue haste. The Claimant observes that Lord Falconer appointed Lord Hutton to the ad hoc Inquiry on the same day that the body of Dr Kelly was discovered, 18 July 2003 (see tab 1 Core Bundle). The decision not to hold a statutory public inquiry and the expeditious convening of the ad hoc Inquiry did not enable any interested parties to have a meaningful input into the range and scope of the Inquiry or the processes and procedures that would be used in its conduct. The Claimant will also argue that, in an ad hoc inquiry of this nature, witnesses are not compellable compared to those in a statutory inquiry.

42. Having acted in a political capacity on the 18 July 2003, the Claimant will contend that Lord Falconer then stepped into the arena in his judicial capacity, as Lord Chancellor, when he concerned himself with the proceedings commenced by the Oxfordshire Coroner. On 12 August 2003 powers under Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 were invoked by Lord Falconer to adjourn the Inquest into the death of Dr Kelly pending the outcome of his ad hoc Inquiry. Upon the conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry, Lord Falconer, it is contended, again stepped into the arena in his judicial capacity to exercise powers under Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 when he declared himself satisfied with Lord Hutton’s conclusion and therefore required the Oxfordshire Coroner to find an ‘exceptional reason’ not to resume the Inquest.

43. The Claimant will seek to argue that the dual exercise of judicial and political roles by Lord Falconer was both unconstitutional and inappropriate and offended basic principles of the separation of powers doctrine.

44. In mounting this argument the Claimant will refer to McGonnell v UK 30 EHRR 289. This case concerned a Guernsey flower grower who had been refused planning consent. His appeal had been heard by the Bailiff of Guernsey, who had also presided over the Island’s legislature where the development plan, under which the planning decision was taken, was adopted. The European Court held that this constituted a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). At paragraph 61 of that judgment the European Commission stated ‘…the Bailiff was not only a senior member of the judiciary of the island, but was also a senior member of the legislature… and, in addition, a senior member of the executive…the Commission considers that this is incompatible with the requisite appearances of independence and impartiality for a judge to have legislative and executive functions as substantial as those in the present case.’

45. Soon after this important case, the UK Government started to separate the powers of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. By June 2003, Lord Falconer had stated that he would no longer sit on any cases in the House of Lords. He would have been acutely aware of the need to confine himself to his political rather than his judicial role or risk an Article 6 ECHR challenge. Whilst retaining the role of Lord Chancellor, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, with effect from the 3 April 2006, transferred the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor to the President of the Courts of England and Wales and an independent Supreme Court was established separately from the House of Lords. (See House of Commons Library Standard Notes SN/PC/2105 and SN/PC/3792 at tabs 2 and 3 of Core Bundle).

46. The Claimant will argue that in R (on the application of the Barclays and Others) v The Secretary of State for Justice and Others [2008] EWCA Civ 1319, the Court of Appeal applied the McGonnell principle to hold that the Seneschal of Sark could not sit as the President of Sark’s legislature, the Chief Pleas, and also be the Island’s Chief Judge. See the observations of Lord Justice Etherton at paragraph 161 of that report ‘A litigant cannot be expected to know whether the Seneschal has been involved in a process within the Chief Pleas which, whether in relation to legislation or an executive matter, might have some direct or indirect bearing on the subject matter of the proceedings. The reasonable assumption would be that the Seneschal probably has been, or at least might well be, so involved, but the litigant cannot reasonably be expected to have researched and discovered any such involvement. Accordingly, in every case, so far as the litigant is concerned, there exists a possibility of lack of independence and impartiality by the Seneschal acting in a judicial capacity…for those reasons, I consider that the Reform Law gives rise to a violation of Article 6.’ The Claimant observes that the Barclays appealed other points to the House of Lords but the Government did not cross appeal on the Article 6 point. Accordingly, the Claimant will argue that the Court of Appeal’s 2008 judgment is authority for reinforcing the McGonnell principle.

47. It will be the Claimant’s argument that at the time of the Attorney General’s own investigation into Dr Kelly’s death and his subsequent decision on 9 June 2011, it was well established law that any judicial decisions of Lord Falconer could have been challenged as an unlawful breach of Article 6 of the ECHR. From the documentation which the Claimant has before him, including correspondence from the Treasury Solicitor and the Attorney General to various parties, (see tab 6 Core Bundle), there have been no substantive responses from Lord Falconer as to his role in the matter.

48. The Claimant will argue that the Attorney General acted irrationally by failing to find that Lord Falconer’s role in preventing an inquest was legally and constitutionally flawed and, therefore, that the basis of the Hutton Inquiry was fundamentally undermined.

49. Furthermore the Claimant will argue that the invocation of Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 was flawed and that the failure of the Attorney General to remedy this by providing for a fresh inquest was irrational.

50. It will be contended that the purpose of Section 17A was to enable the Lord Chancellor, in exceptional cases of public importance, to intervene and to ensure that, in the public interest, an investigation is carried out into a death which goes beyond the remit of coronial jurisdiction, but which still allows the death in question to be investigated adequately by a judicial inquiry set up to inquire into the wider circumstances in which the death occurred. At the time that Lord Falconer invoked Section 17A it had only previously been used on three other occasions. First, in February 2000 to deal with 31 deaths resulting from the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. In this matter Lord Cullen chaired the inquiry which was established on a statutory basis under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The second time concerned the 311 deaths associated with Dr. Harold Shipman and again the inquiry was constituted on a statutory basis under the Tribunals and Inquiries (Evidence) Act 1921. In November 2003 a further statutory inquiry chaired by Mr Justice Steel was set up under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to consider 4 fatalities associated with the shipping vessel Gaul. The Claimant will observe that the use of the ad hoc Inquiry in the context of Dr Kelly’s death was, given the facts of this case, an exceptional and improper use of non-statutory inquiry powers. Previously the three events which caused the invocation of Section 17A involved multiple deaths and were considered by statutory public inquiries.

51. The Claimant will argue that the particularised inefficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry, which are later set out in these grounds, have at their root the provision under which the Inquiry was set up. The Hutton Inquiry opened on 1 August 2003 with the terms of reference ‘urgently, to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.’ It will be argued that the Inquiry was deficient when compared to that of an inquest in the following ways.

52. The Claimant will state that the purpose of an investigation into death at an inquest is to find out:

a) who the deceased was;

b) how the deceased came by his death;

c) when the deceased came by his death;

d) where the deceased was when he came by his death; and

e) ascertain in what circumstances the deceased came by his death.

The Claimant will rely upon the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 and developed case-law.

53. In particular the Claimant will rely upon R v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset Ex Parte Middleton [2004] UKHL 10. This case was on appeal to the House of Lords from a decision in the Court of Appeal in 2002. The Court of Appeal found that where there had been a potential breach of Article 2 of the ECHR the State had a procedural duty to investigate, and that the procedural duty promoted three interlocking aims (minimising the risk of future like deaths, giving the beginnings of justice to the bereaved and assuaging the anxieties of the public) and what was required to satisfy the duty would vary with the circumstances. The subsequent House of Lords judgment, it will be argued, recognised the potential violation of Article 2 of the ECHR by procedures within inquests pre-Middleton (recognising that the previous authority of HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe Ex Parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1 did not meet ECHR requirements). To remedy the problem the House of Lords interpreted the word ‘how’ in Section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the Coroners Act 1988 and Rule 36(1)(b) of the Coroners Rules 1984 to mean not simply ‘by what means’ but ‘by what means and in what circumstances’.

54. It will be argued that the consequence of Middleton is that the inquest becomes a fact finding inquiry to ascertain by what means and in what circumstances the deceased came by his death. The purpose of a Middleton-type inquest is to ensure, so far as possible, that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrong doing (if justified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learnt from his death may save the lives of others. (See R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653 paragraphs 2 and 3 of Lord Bingham’s judgment.)

55. Since Middleton it will be argued that there have been procedural developments further to enhance the ambit of the coronial inquiry. Systemic failure is an important ingredient which can enhance the need for the investigative role of an inquest, R (JL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 2558 (Admin). This case is authority that where the threat to life allegedly comes from a State agent and the individual concerned was in the care or under the direct control of the State, then such investigative duty will arise unless it is clear that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the State could bear no responsibility for what occurred. The Claimant will seek to refer to R (Lin) v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] Inquest Law Reports 161. Examples of systemic failure in Lin ranged from wide issues in relation to the system for safety management and culture to control of contractors.

56. The Claimant will seek to argue that Dr Kelly, as the foremost Government expert employed by the Ministry of Defence in high profile matters and where there were high pressure political issues, was not protected by the State, or his employers from any pressures that might be placed upon him that could harm his health and/or wellbeing. The Claimant will not only seek to highlight the general concerns from which Dr Kelly should have been protected but will also seek to examine whether any leaks to journalists including Mr Andrew Gilligan, which ultimately, it is argued by some, resulted in Dr. Kelly’s death, were caused by high level Government minsters.

57. The Claimant will argue that the power provided to a coroner at an inquest under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984, permitting a coroner to report in writing to ‘the person or authority who may have power’ that they take any relevant action in the event that he ‘believes that action should be taken to prevent the reoccurrence of fatalities similar to that in respect of which the inquest is being held’ was not formally available or prescribed in the Hutton Inquiry. Furthermore the coroner has power under the Coroners Rules to seek responses from the State or organisations as to the coroner’s observations and/or potential criticisms within strict time frames. Again the Claimant will argue this was not available to the Hutton Inquiry.

58. The Claimant will further refer to particular omissions within the Hutton Inquiry compared to what may have occurred during a coronial inquiry. He will assert that the place of Dr Kelly’s death is not stated, the time of Dr Kelly’s death is recorded in very broad terms and in reliance upon evidence which is on the face of it unreliable (see, for example, the delay on the part of Dr Hunt described later).

59. The Claimant will assert that the investigation into the levels of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene were inadequately dealt with at the Hutton Inquiry. In short the blood concentrations detected in the blood sample NCH/47 in Dr Allan’s report indicate a level above the therapeutic but below the toxic range. He reported no drug content in a second blood sample NCH/44. Another two blood samples were mentioned but no drug concentrations were described. (However, Dr Allan found a residue equivalent to one fifth of a co-proxamol tablet in Dr Kelly’s stomach.) The site of origin of the five blood samples taken by Dr Hunt are unknown except for one which came from the heart. Dr Allan studied four of these samples. These studies are insufficient to reach any firm conclusions as to the drug levels in Dr Kelly’s blood at the time of his death and, therefore, his intention or otherwise to kill himself, a fundamental matter in reaching a verdict of suicide. The Claimant will assert that Dr Allan was not pressed on such matters and nor did Lord Hutton, it is respectfully argued, look into them in any alternative manner leaving a significant gap in the forensic analysis. The Claimant will refer to an article in the British Medical Journal in September 2004 which observed that the level of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in Dr Kelly’s blood should not have been taken as an accurate indicator of the amount allegedly ingested (see page 318 of DSH1).

60. The Claimant will seek to refer to the transcript of evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry by Dr Hunt (see page 54 of DSH1). During the inquest Dr Hunt provided evidence in relation to the alleged narrowing of Dr Kelly’s coronary arteries. The Claimant has also referred to statements made by Dr Hunt after the Inquiry, and presumably with the permission of the coroner, in a Sunday Times article on 27 August 2010 (see page 91 of DSH1) when he indicated that had Dr Kelly died as he put it ‘in the canteen at Porton Down’ an examination of his coronary arteries would have been very good reason to cite this disease as a cause of death. Dr Hunt opined that his underlying condition greatly reduced the ability of Dr Kelly’s heart to withstand sudden blood loss and made him more susceptible to stress. These latest statements contradict what Dr Hunt said at the Hutton Inquiry when he observed that the coronary condition ‘may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but (was) not the major part in the cause of death.’ The Claimant also relies on this as fresh evidence which requires examination at a new inquest.

61. In his evidence at the Hutton Inquiry Dr Hunt also stated that he carried out the rectal body temperature measurement at 7:15pm on the 18 July 2003. The Claimant observes that this was some seven hours after Dr Hunt was first given access to the location where Dr Kelly’s body was found (12:10pm) and some five hours after he was given access to conduct a full examination of the scene (14:10pm). The delay in taking the body’s rectal temperature was not challenged by Lord Hutton or any advocates at the Inquiry. The Claimant will state that the significance of this failure to seek an explanation for this delay is important. The body cools after death, if the environmental temperature is lower, and the longer the delay in taking the rectal body temperature, the wider the time window within which death may have occurred. The accurate assessment of a time of death becomes more difficult as time passes.

62. It is apparent from the documents supplied to the Claimant by cover of a letter of 3 September 2010 from the Attorney General that (see tab 6(25)) ‘Dr Hunt was not cross examined because the Counsel representing the interested parties at the inquiry accepted that the medical evidence and all the other medical evidence which was given made it clear that Dr Kelly had committed suicide.’ This is not accepted by the Claimant as a decision which could have been made on the facts presented and/or now on the fresh evidence available. The Claimant is unsure whether counsel was medically qualified or whether there were in the Inquiry other appropriately qualified medical personnel who could question Dr Hunt.

The Role of the Attorney General

63. The Claimant argues that the Attorney General acted unlawfully in coming to his decision to refuse to make a Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 application in that he undertook his own personal investigation of matters relating to Dr Kelly’s death. The Claimant will assert in the circumstances that the Attorney General reached his own view on the matter rather than confining his considerations solely to the issue of whether either a new inquest might result in a different verdict on Dr Kelly’s death, or even if it would not, whether nevertheless one should be ordered. On this limb the Claimant will refer to a number of sources.

64. First, he will refer to the Parliamentary observations by the Attorney General during the course of debate (House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 June 2011 beginning at column 301.) At column 302 the Attorney General stated that he had ‘to exercise a non-political role as guardian of the public interest and consider whether any proper grounds existed for such an application (fresh inquest) to be made. Recognising the importance of the matter, I have sought the help of independent experts to review the evidence and the new information supplied to me. That has involved help from Dr Richard Shepherd, a leading forensic pathologist, and Professor Robert Flanagan, a distinguished toxicologist. I have also sought and received the considered views of Lord Hutton; Mr Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner; Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who carried out the original post-mortem; and others in response to the allegations made against their handling of the matter originally. I have also been greatly assisted by officers of the Thames Valley Police.’ Within this response the Attorney General refers to a sixty page list within a schedule dealing with the particularity of his findings. That is entitled ‘Schedule of responses to issues raised in the course of the consideration as to whether to make an application under S 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.’ (See tab 5 Core Bundle).

65. In the Attorney General’s decision ‘Request for an Inquest into the Death of Dr David Kelly. Statement by the Attorney General 9th June 2011’ (see tab 4 Core Bundle) the Attorney General states on page 1 ‘In the light of the public interest in this case, I have taken the very unusual step of carrying out my own investigation into whether an Inquest is necessary or desirable in the public interest. That investigation and my consideration of its results has now been completed.’

66. The Attorney General goes on to give further details of the sources of his research. At page 9 he states ‘In carrying out my review of the evidence, I have given careful consideration to the original report from Thames Valley Police. I have considered the statements taken by the police and seen all of the germane documentary evidence. I have seen many photographs of the scene, the body, Dr Kelly’s home, and the post-mortem. I have familiarised myself with the proceedings before the Oxfordshire Coroner and before the Hutton Inquiry. I have read relevant extracts from the book by Norman Baker and I have read the very many submissions made by members of the public. I have been assisted by the care with which many of that (sic) arguments have been put by the solicitors acting for the medically qualified individuals.’ The Attorney General goes on ‘I have sought comments on the various submissions made by the Oxfordshire Coroner, Mr Gardiner, from Lord Hutton, Lord Falconer and the Ministry of Justice. I have sought information and views from the forensic pathologist, Dr Hunt, the toxicologist Dr Allan and Thames Valley Police…I have also commissioned independent expert evidence from a Home Office pathologist, Dr Richard Shepherd, and from an independent expert toxicologist, Professor Flanagan. I have had the benefit of legal advice from a member of the independent Bar with expertise in this field and the advantage of discussing the case with my fellow Law Officers, the Solicitor General and Advocate General for Scotland.’

67. The Claimant will argue that the Attorney General irrationally and unreasonably exceeded his powers in reinvestigating the issues relating to Dr Kelly’s death. Although the Claimant has seen a small number of the reports referred to by the Attorney General in his post-Hutton investigation, the Claimant is completely unaware of what information the Attorney General may have gleaned from his ‘very unusual step of carrying out’ his own personal investigation.

68. In particular the Claimant is unaware of what the Attorney General means by ‘germane documentary evidence’; what photographs and post-mortem documentation he has seen; what extracts from Norman Baker’s book he has read; from whom and what was the substance of the ‘very many submissions made by members of the public’; the totality of submissions received from the Oxfordshire Coroner, Mr Gardiner, Lord Hutton, Lord Falconer and the Ministry of Justice (some of which have been disclosed but the predominant part has not, including, significantly, any response from Lord Falconer); what ‘information and views’ the Attorney General received from Dr Hunt and Dr Allan and furthermore the Thames Valley Police, including specifically what ‘assistance’ they provided; whether there is any disclosable detail of the advice that the Attorney General received from ‘an independent member of the Bar with expertise in this field’ and any information concerning the discussions that the Attorney General had with his ‘fellow Law Officers, the Solicitor General and Advocate General for Scotland.’ The Attorney General's recognition of the submissions made by the Thames Valley Police failed, at the same time, to note the same force had withheld from the inquiry at least 8 items of important evidence.

69. In the conclusion of his statement of 9 June 2011 the Attorney General at page 10 states ‘In considering all the evidence available… I have only found evidence that supports and confirms the findings of the Coroner and Lord Hutton.’ (See tab 4 Core Bundle). The Claimant would like to see all this information and, it is argued, is entitled to see this information.

70. The Claimant will also argue that the Attorney General had a conflict of interest in making his decision whether to apply to the High Court to order a new inquest in the light of the fact that he voted in the House of Commons in favour of the war in Iraq, including supporting the then Government's continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and the declaration of war. The Claimant will assert that Dr Kelly’s death, on any verdict, was all about the war on Iraq and the intrigue woven around it, especially the ‘dossier’ in relation to which Dr Kelly had testified shortly before his death. The Attorney General was, at the time, one of the MPs who voted for the war on Iraq, while Dr Kelly could be said to be one of its many victims. In the light of this, the Claimant will assert that there is a clear conflict between the Attorney General’s vote in the Commons on 18 March 2003 and his decision to reject the plea of the doctors’ group to apply for a new inquest.

The insufficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry

71. As well as arguing irrationality on the basis of the above purported role of the Attorney General, the Claimant will also seek to argue that the Attorney General entirely misunderstood the potential ambit of coronial proceedings in irrationally refusing to exercise his powers under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. To substantiate this, the Claimant will refer to the Attorney General’s statement to the House of Commons on 9 June 2011 at column 305 (see tab 7 Core Bundle) where he stated ‘Indeed, as I understood it, the decision marked the seriousness with which Lord Falconer took the matter at the time, and it marked his desire to have an inquiry that would be capable of going further in its scope than an inquest, particularly in respect of looking at some of the surrounding circumstances, which an inquest would not be particularly well placed to do.’

72. The Claimant refers to his submissions above in relation to the ambit of an inquest with particular reference to the authorities of Jamieson and Middleton. It is respectfully submitted that had the Attorney General properly understood the ambit of an inquest he would have known, and indeed so should Lord Falconer have known at the time, that the extended role of an inquest, enhanced or otherwise, could properly and fully cover all aspects in the investigation into the death of Dr Kelly. Indeed the Claimant will argue that a point often made by government to avoid a public inquiry, be it statutory or ad hoc, is that an inquest can adequately, properly and thoroughly perform the exercise in any event.

73. The Claimant will also argue that the Attorney General misunderstood the law in relation to the ordering of a fresh inquest (as referred to above). To substantiate this the Claimant will refer to the House of Commons statement by the Attorney General on 9 June 2011 at column 302 (se tab 7 Core Bundle) when he states, in refusing an application for a fresh inquest, that ‘There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.’ The Claimant will assert that the Attorney General irrationally addressed his mind to whether the inquest would come to a different verdict in contradiction to established case-law, as referred to above in these grounds, which indicates that whether or not an inquest verdict would be altered does not debar a fresh inquest from being ordered.

74. The Claimant will refer respectfully to the responses of Lord Hutton contained in a letter of 1 December 2010 to the Attorney General’s Office concerning the inadequacy of the inquiry processes compared to an inquest: see tab 6(27) Core Bundle. At paragraph 2 of that letter, Lord Hutton is of the view that his Inquiry was a more thorough process than an inquest and states certain reasons. The Claimant deals with them point by point.

75. His Lordship states as an advantage that counsel and solicitors were appointed as counsel and solicitor to the Inquiry and that they gave his Lordship the benefit of their advice as to what witnesses should be called. The Claimant asserts that in a coronial procedure, pre-inquest hearings would allow for all interested parties to have input into this process, which was denied at the Inquiry.

76. Lord Hutton indicates that examination of witnesses was organised by ‘experienced counsel.’ The Claimant will state that an examination of previous high profile inquests also includes the skill and ability of experienced counsel instructed on behalf of interested parties. Counsel to an inquest is also available within coronial proceedings to assist the court.

77. His Lordship observes that the experienced counsel instructed on behalf of the family and others could have cross-examined any of the witnesses about the cause of Dr Kelly’s death. The Claimant refers to his arguments above that no such cross-examination was in fact undertaken but, in the light of the procedural inadequacy referred to above and fresh evidence to be referred to later, there should have been cross-examination or challenge.

78. His Lordship refers to the publication of material on the Inquiry website and he states that this ‘would not occur at most inquests’. Most high profile inquests not only have this facility, the Claimant will argue, but also some inquests have a live feed facility. Therefore it will be asserted by the Claimant, if relevant, that there is no technological advantage achieved at an inquiry over that which could have been achieved at a high profile inquest.

79. The Claimant takes issue respectfully with his Lordship’s observation that 20 pages of his report dealing with the causes of Dr Kelly’s death were in ‘very much more detailed than the inquisition or narrative verdict of an inquest conducted by a coroner.’ The Claimant, as a matter of fact, disputes this with reference to other high profile inquests and in particular the most recent inquest relating to the 7/7 events. The Claimant will also reiterate that his Lordship did not have the facility of a Rule 43 Procedure available at the Inquiry to require post hearing answers and remedy from the State and any relevant organisations.

80. The Claimant will refer to the authority of Glennys Jones v HM Coroner for the Southern District of Greater London and Dr Deshminder Virdi [2010] EWHC 931 (Admin) to support his contentions relating to the insufficiency of the Inquiry. In that case, Owen J at paragraph 28 stated ‘I consider that a full and proper investigation of the means by which the deceased met his death would have involved investigating in particular whether the quantity of fentanyl prescribed and apparently used by the deceased could have been fatal in certain circumstances and if so, whether such circumstances were present. It would also have involved consideration of whether fentanyl in samples of blood and urine taken at post mortem ...3 days after death, was a reliable indication of the concentration in the blood stream at the time of death’. This was a case examining whether a drug did or did not contribute to death and it is asserted lays down clearly the precise enquiries which should be made by an inquiry into death, which were not in the cited case and not, it is submitted in the case of Dr Kelly at the Hutton Inquiry in relation to toxicology, there being no proper challenge to this evidence at the Inquiry, because as Lord Hutton put it, all parties accepted that the evidence pointed to suicide.

81. Furthermore, Rule 36 of the Coroners Rules 1984 was not met as the place of death is not stated on Dr Kelly’s death certificate. It gives his date of death as 18 July 2003. It then states regarding the place of death: ‘Found dead at Harrowdown Hill, Longworth, Oxon’. On 18 August 2003, less than three weeks into the Hutton Inquiry, which opened on 1 August 2003, Dr Kelly’s death certificate had been completed and the cause of his death officially registered as haemorrhage. Put another way, five weeks before the Hutton Inquiry ended on 24 September 2003, and while Lord Hutton was still hearing evidence about Dr Kelly’s death from witnesses, the official record of the cause of death was written and the case effectively closed. Not only would this never have happened had there been a coroner’s inquest but it suggests that Lord Hutton had made up his mind about the cause of death before his Inquiry finished. And, although it bears the signature of the registrar, the death certificate is not signed by either a doctor or a coroner, as every death certificate should be.

82. The Claimant’s argument that the ad hoc inquiry was inappropriate when compared to coronial procedure relies upon a number of further matters. The Claimant has referred above to the absence of any pre-inquiry hearings. The inquest procedure has developed a process where there may be one or a number of pre-inquest hearings. These hearings not only give opportunity for all parties to make submissions on witnesses that may be called to assist the inquest, but also allow matters of law and procedure to be argued and agreed, if possible, between all parties. This was denied in the ad hoc Hutton Inquiry. The Claimant or any interested party was not given the opportunity to make submissions upon the content and procedure at Stage One or Stage Two of the Hutton Inquiry. The Claimant will argue that this is significant given that a cross-examination of witnesses was only permitted in Stage Two of the Hutton Inquiry.

83. Furthermore the witnesses recalled in Stage Two were recalled at the discretion of his Lordship. The Claimant will argue that such decisions which go to the fundamentals of a thorough and fair inquiry should have been argued or at least the opportunity been given for argument at what in the coronial system would be pre-inquest hearings.

84. Furthermore the Claimant will assert that opportunity should have been given for witnesses to be called and examined who were not called and examined during the process; the Claimant will assert that there at least 25 such witnesses, including the following:

- Mai Pederson. She had served as translator with Dr Kelly's inspection team in Iraq in the 1990s. The Claimant believes that she would have testified, if her identity had been concealed, that an injury Dr Kelly sustained to his right elbow area in the early 1990s meant that his right hand was very weak and she believed he would not have been able to cut his wrist.

- Judith Miller. She was a US journalist and friend of Dr Kelly to whom he wrote an email very shortly before his death saying that there were 'many dark actors playing games'.

- David T McGee. He was the police photographer who could have given useful information in relation to the discrepancies regarding the position of Dr Kelly’s body.

- John Dabbs and Pamela Dabbs. They were the married couple with whom Dr Kelly spent the last weekend of his life and could have given useful information about Dr Kelly’s mood at that time.

- Dr Kelly’s dentist. Her name is unknown but she is known to the police because she alerted them to an alleged break-in at her surgery on the day Dr Kelly’s body was found. On that day, she discovered that his dental records had, according to her, disappeared from a filing cabinet in the surgery. They subsequently reappeared in their rightful place in a filing cabinet in the surgery within about 48 hours (with unidentified fingerprints on them).

- Chief Inspector Alan Young, of Thames Valley Police, who led the investigation into Dr Kelly’s death.

85. The Claimant will also argue that the issue concerning whether a jury should or should not have been appointed to an inquest would have been considered at a pre-inquest hearing. The very inception of an ad hoc Inquiry deprived any party from the benefit of jury deliberation. It will be argued that in the context of an inquest a jury might have been empanelled under Section 8 (4) of the Coroners Act 1988.

86. The Claimant will seek to criticise the ad hoc Inquiry on the basis that none of the witnesses gave sworn evidence. There were 74 witnesses called in this Inquiry and Lord Hutton at page 5 of his letter of the 1 December 2010, paragraph 5(iii) indicates that he was not ‘hampered’ by the fact that witnesses did not give their evidence on oath. Lord Hutton indicated that there was nothing before him to indicate that any of the witnesses had cause or reason to give false evidence. The need for an oath is also minimalised by the Attorney General in his response document referred to above of 9 June 2011 at page 8. He states ‘I accept that the evidence received by the Inquiry was not given on oath when it would have been at an Inquest but I am doubtful as to how significant such a difference it made in the circumstances of this case. The threat of perjury charges does not make honest witnesses more careful in giving evidence – errors will still creep in and perjury charges would only be brought in respect of deliberate statements made which were known or believed by the maker to be untrue. Nor is the threat of perjury charges likely to deter a dishonest witness who had been involved in a murder or was complicit in seeking to pervert the course of justice… The perceived benefit of hearing evidence on oath is also inevitably reduced in respect of expert evidence and other evidence that can be corroborated in other ways…’

87. It will be the Claimant’s case that the oath is an important feature and indeed was highlighted recently as an important feature in Lord Leveson’s phone-hacking inquiry. It will be argued that if the Attorney General is right in the ‘perceived’ benefit of an oath then this will utterly undermine the important function that an oath plays in any hearing, let alone one of such public importance. It will be argued by the Claimant that the Attorney General’s position on the oath is tantamount to an argument that an oath is not necessary where witnesses are inherently dishonest or in respect of expert evidence or other evidence which can be corroborated. This, it will be argued, is untenable and irrational.

88. The Claimant now refers to the highly unusual decision of Lord Hutton in the Inquiry to recommend (paragraph 165 of the 60 page Attorney General Schedule at tab 5 Core Bundle) that certain material including post-mortem reports and other medical reports (unspecified) should not be made available for inspection by third parties for 70 years. This recommendation was made in secret. Its existence was not included in the Hutton Report or spoken of by Lord Hutton or anyone else connected with the Hutton Inquiry at any stage. It was only revealed in January 2010 by the Oxfordshire Coroner in a letter to Dr Halpin and four other medical doctors. Furthermore its legal basis has never been explained. Although this recommendation has now been countermanded in respect of some documents, the Claimant argues that for the vast majority of documents, Lord Hutton’s secrecy recommendation means that they still remain hidden. His Lordship responds to this observation in his first response to the Office of the Attorney General on 3 September 2010 by indicating that ‘evidence given by witnesses’ was put on the Inquiry website (tab 6(25) Core Bundle). This does not deal with the primary documentary sources. It will be the Claimant’s argument that such a recommendation made by Lord Hutton could not have been made in any inquest and is extremely irregular.

Fresh Evidence

89. The Claimant will refer to a number of items of fresh evidence which could be presented at a new inquest to assist in the examination of this case. The Claimant would remind the Court that, in any event, this may lead to and should have led to a view being taken that a fresh inquest should be ordered in the interest of justice and repeat the words of Elias LJ in the case of Duggan (referred to above) ‘if for no other reason that it should seek to allay suspicions which have been naturally raised by all the evidence which has now been produced to the court.’. In this context the Claimant refers to the remarks of the Attorney General on 9 June 2011 in the House of Commons as recorded by Hansard at column 305 that there was ‘huge and legitimate public concern’ in this matter.

90. With this in mind the Claimant will refer to:

- Evidence produced by request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Thames Valley Police which revealed that no fingerprints or DNA were recovered from the spectacles found on Dr Kelly’s body despite three tests being carried out; no tests were carried out to find fingerprints or DNA on the keys or a key fob found on Dr Kelly’s body; that the mobile telephone found in the possession of Dr Kelly was not interrogated; and that no fingerprints were found on the knife allegedly used to cause the death of Dr Kelly. This particular knife was established to have been a knife that Dr Kelly had owned since boyhood and there was no evidence that gloves were found at the scene.

- Furthermore, as a result of the request it has been revealed that no fingerprints were discovered on the blister packs of medication that Dr Kelly allegedly swallowed at the time of his death.

- Furthermore, from this request it has been revealed that no fingerprints were found or discovered from a water bottle allegedly found near Dr Kelly’s body.

- Significantly, it also emerged from the request that a police helicopter with heat seeking equipment searched for Dr Kelly on the night he disappeared. At 2:50am on 18 July 2003 it flew over the exact spot where his body was later found less than six hours later at 8:30am. Yet Dr Hunt, who took Dr Kelly’s rectal temperature but only as late as 7:15pm on 18 July 2003, determined that Dr Kelly could have been alive at 1:15am on that day. It is very strange, therefore, that the helicopter did not find Dr Kelly’s warm body.

- None of this information was presented by the Thames Valley Police to the Hutton Inquiry.

91. The Claimant will argue that the absence of fingerprints and DNA material upon the various items is potentially highly suspicious and should have been examined at the Hutton Inquiry. Furthermore, there was no examination as to whether DNA or fingerprint marks were removed from any of these items, which again would tend to support an outcome other than suicide.

92. The Claimant refers to a medical report signed by a number of eminent doctors concluding that it is highly improbable that Dr Kelly could have died as a result of the pathological factors given by Dr Hunt as the cause of death. (This report is at page 1 of DSH1.)

Conclusion

93. The Attorney General’s decision on 9 June 2011 not to exercise his power under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to apply to the High Court to seek an order to quash the inquest held by the Oxford Coroner Nicholas Gardiner in 2003/04 and order a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly is both irrational and unreasonable for all the above stated reasons. The Attorney General should now apply to the High Court or allow a third party to do so so that a new inquest be initiated. The Claimant argues that the Attorney General’s above mentioned decision was Wednesbury unreasonable so as to sanction the court to quash his decision on the grounds of irrationality and direct that he apply to the High Court.

94. The Claimant also seeks a protective costs order on the grounds that he is retired and is of relatively modest means and is relying on public fundraising in order to bring the current proceedings, which are of great public importance and concern. Although funds have been raised to cover legal expenses (with solicitors and counsel working on discounted rates) there is no provision for any adverse costs order. The Claimant has no private interest in the outcome of the case and may not be able to continue these proceedings, which he is bringing in the public interest, unless a protective costs order is made.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN:

R
(on the application of)
DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

Claimant

and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS
________________________________________

WITHERS LLP

http://drdavidkellyinquestrequired.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-matter-of-application-for-permission.html

WITNESS STATEMENT

(1) Claiman
(2) D S Halpin
(3) First
(4) 8 September 2011
(5) Exhibit DSH1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN:

R
(on the application of)
DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

Claimant

and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

I, Dr David Sydney Halpin FRCS, of Kiln Shotts, Haytor, Newton Abbot, TQ13 9XR will say as follows:

In[t]roduction

1.I make this statement seeking permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the Attorney General's decision of 9 June 2011 not to apply to the High Court to seek an order to quash the inquest convened by the Coroner Nicholas Gardiner in 2003/2004 and to order a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

2. I am a retired medical doctor and am one of the group of doctors who have made submissions to the Attorney General in this matter before (such other doctors being Dr Stephen Frost, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, Dr Martin Birnstingl and Dr Andrew Rouse). Although the doctors have acted as a group previously, with Dr Frost as our lead memorialist, I am now the sole Claimant in these proceedings.

3. I have read the Statement of Facts and Grounds relied upon and I am able to confirm that the facts set out in the document are accurate and in accordance with my knowledge.

4. I make this witness statement from my own knowledge, save where otherwise stated, and, where so stated, I believe those matters to be true. There is now produced and shown to me a paginated bundle of true copy documents marked DSH1, to which I shall refer in this statement.

Professional background

5. I qualified MB BS in 1964 at St Mary’s Hospital and obtained the FRCS in 1969. I started my training as an orthopaedic and trauma surgeon in 1970 and was appointed to Torbay Hospital and the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Hospital Exeter in 1975. I covered all facets of my area except for dealing with severe spinal deformity. My duties were very 'hands on' at Torbay. I dealt with all the severe trauma when I was on duty. Sometimes I had to repair the tendons and nerves in the wrists of young people who had slit their wrists in the mistaken belief that they would then die.

6. My 'academic' abilities were recognised by my being asked to serve on the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery for 4 years. I was closely and enjoyably involved in teaching and in encouraging young surgeons.

The death of Dr David Kelly and my interest

7. Although I did not follow the Hutton Inquiry closely at the time, shortly afterwards in the Autumn of 2003 I noted some facts which had significance for me as a doctor and surgeon. I consequently sent a short letter to the Morning Star which, although I no longer have a copy, I recall was published 15 December 2003. The letter stated:

‘I write to enquire as to the status of the Coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. I hope that it has not been subsumed within the Hutton enquiry. […] We have been told that he died from a cut wrist and that he had non-lethal levels of an analgesic in his blood.

As a past trauma and orthopaedic surgeon I cannot easily accept that even the deepest cut into one wrist would cause such exsanguination that death resulted. The two arteries are of matchstick size and would have quickly shut down and clotted. Furthermore we have a man who was expert in lethal substances and who apparently chose a most uncertain method of suicide.

The picture fits more with 'a cry for help'.

I have hesitated in writing this because I would not wish to hurt any family feelings.

David Halpin FRCS’

8. I learned little by little that:

8.1 The ulnar artery alone had been transected (ie cut straight across) thus allowing it to shut down more readily. Much later I defined in a document titled ‘Opinion as to the likelihood that the death of David Kelly CMG DSc was the direct result of haemorrhage due to transection of his left ulnar artery’ all the factors that limit arterial bleeding (see DSH1/1-15). My conclusion was that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery was highly unlikely to have been so voluminous and rapid that it was the primary cause of death. This was agreed by the group of doctors referred to in paragraph 2.

8.2 The inquest had indeed been subsumed in the Hutton Inquiry.

8.3 The core/rectal temperature had not been taken by Dr Nicholas Hunt until 7 hours after he had arrived at the scene.

9. In due course I was drawn into a group of 11 doctors, two of whom had expertise that was as appropriate as mine. One was Martin Birnstingl FRCS, a surgeon with a vascular interest who had served at St Bartholomew’s Hospital and who had been President of the Vascular Society. He, along with the other doctors, shared my view that one does not bleed to death from a transected ulnar artery at the wrist.

10. As medical professionals we were all keenly aware of the common law duty to report any information likely to lead to an inquest. Dame Janet Smith confirmed at paragraph 19.128 of the third report of the Shipman Inquiry that 'all citizens are under a common law duty to report to the police or coroner any information likely to lead to an inquest'. She also said in that same report 'in my view, there should be a statutory duty on any qualified or responsible person to report to the Coroner Service any concern relating to the cause or circumstances of death of which he becomes aware in the course of his duties. In the class of 'qualified' persons, I include doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics' (DSH1/16). We were all keenly aware of this and considered it our legal and ethical duty to pursue the questions and concerns we had about the findings at the Hutton Inquiry.

11. We gathered as many of the facts together as we could and in 2004 we wrote to Mr Nicholas Gardiner, Oxfordshire Coroner, requesting him to re-open the inquest. Copies of our letters appear at DSH1/63-70. The Thames Valley Police had concluded that Dr Kelly’s death did not warrant a full murder investigation. Consequently we took the view that further reporting to the Police and the Coroner would be fruitless and so have made our representations to the Attorney General directly. These were summarised in the Memorial of Dr Stephen Frost and its Addendum (DSH1/17-309).

12. Our group continued to press for an inquest and in the years since we have spent thousands of hours in study, analysis and in pleading. Our hard work was acknowledged by the Attorney General in his letter of 16 March 2010, when he stated ‘I am aware of the work of the doctors’ group on challenging Lord Hutton’s findings. It seems to me that they have been able to make an impressive and cogent case.’ (DHS1/310).

13. I persisted in this and I am making this application for judicial review now for the following reasons.

14. First, my medical knowledge did not allow me to accept that the first cause of death was haemorrhage from transection of the ulnar artery. Furthermore, I believe that there is good evidence that puts into question the second cause of death – overdosage with coproxamol tablets.

15. Secondly, I could not see the rationale for the hasty institution of an ad hoc inquiry by Lord Falconer on 18 July 2003 whilst Dr Kelly's corpse was still cooling. The proper and lawful response should surely have been an inquest first, with the inquiry as to political/media influences later on.

16. Thirdly, I was brought up in a family where to lie is a cardinal sin. I cannot accept that the many wilful omissions and the few actual lies in the Hutton Inquiry should be left uninvestigated.

17. Fourthly, I am aware that the shock which many fellow citizens felt on news of Dr Kelly’s death has persisted. Many feel that this sad and very morbid death of a highly esteemed public servant requires and merits proper examination.

The grounds for review

18.The grounds for review detail my standing to bring this claim and cover, broadly, the following four areas:

18.1 The role of the Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State of Constitutional Affairs.

18.2 The role of the Attorney General.

18.3 The insufficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry.

18.4 New evidence.

I entirely agree with the grounds and wish to make the following further points.

Standing and public interest

19. I understand from my advisors that I can bring a claim for judicial review only if I have ‘sufficient interest’ in this matter. I believe that I have standing to bring this claim for the following reasons.

20. First, I am a highly experienced medical practitioner. Secondly, I have been interested in this matter for many years and, with the assistance of other medical colleagues, have carried out a great deal of research. Thirdly, although I am now the sole Claimant, I still have the support of my medical colleagues and also a great deal of support from the public.

21. I believe that this claim raises issues of great public importance and I believe that it is right that someone should be able to call the Attorney General and other influential politicians to account. I respectfully submit that I am a suitable person to do so, due to my experience and medical knowledge.

22. While I do not wish to cause undue distress to Dr Kelly's family, the timing of his death and the circumstances shortly prior to his death were, understandably, subject to a great deal of press interest, and are still clearly keenly felt today. I believe that these have not been adequately addressed. I was, therefore, gratified to see that the Attorney General, in his letter of 16 March 2010, shared my concern: ‘I am conscious this is a matter where the public have not been reassured that the Hutton Inquiry satisfactorily resolved the matter.’ (DSH1/310).

23. The various questions which have been raised over the Hutton Inquiry, and the outstanding queries and suspicions, are a blight on this country’s proud tradition of the rule of law. I believe that these are serious matters which the public deserve to have dealt with in the open, transparent and procedurally robust forum of a properly convened inquest.

24. Furthermore, the grounds for judicial review raise serious questions about the role of the Lord Chancellor and separation of powers, which I believe have wide ranging constitutional implications beyond the question of Dr Kelly's death. This has been partially recognised in the Government’s subsequent reform of the role and the current Ministry of Justice.

25. For all these reasons I believe that this matter is in the highest public interest and that I have standing to bring these issues before this Honourable Court.

The current medical issues

26. While not wanting unnecessarily to duplicate the contents of the grounds of judicial review, I would like to concentrate on the following medical points, which are within my knowledge and expertise, and which I believe demonstrate the importance of having a new inquiry by way of inquest due to the insufficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry.

27. The Hutton Inquiry did not, in my view, properly fulfil the role of an inquest. The place of death is not stated, as one would expect in an inquest, the time of death is very broad, and the evidence for it is, I believe, unreliable due to Dr Hunt’s delay in taking the rectal temperature.

28. More significantly, I believe that the investigation into the levels of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene was inadequate. To summarise, the concentrations detected in one blood sample (NCH/47) referred to in Dr Allan’s Report indicate a level above the therapeutic but below the toxic range. However Dr Allan reported no drug content in a second sample (NCH/44) and, while another two blood samples were mentioned, no drug concentrations were described (DSH1/311-317). The site of origin of the five blood samples taken by Dr Hunt are unknown, except for one which came from the heart. These are serious issues yet Dr Allan was not pressed on these issues at the Hutton Inquiry. I believe that an inquest could, and would, have looked into these issues more fully than the Hutton Inquiry. These issues have been considered before and in September 2004 I and four other doctors wrote to the Guardian (see DSH1/150) following its coverage of an editorial in the British Medical Journal which observed that the level of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in Dr Kelly’s blood should not have been taken as an accurate indicator of the amount allegedly ingested (DSH1/318).

29. I have further reason to believe that Dr Hunt’s evidence should have been more thoroughly tested. I attach a copy of the transcript of the evidence he gave to the Hutton Inquiry at DSH1/54-62. Dr Hunt gave evidence in relation to the alleged narrowing of Dr Kelly’s coronary arteries and observed that the condition ‘may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but (was) not the major part in the cause of death’. However on 27 August 2010 Dr Hunt was quoted in The Sunday Times, and presumably with the permission of the Oxford Coroner, as saying: ‘If he [Dr Kelly] had dropped dead in the canteen at Porton Down and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died’ (DSH1/91). This is a significant discrepancy and indicative of the fresh evidence that should be properly examined and, I believe, could result in a different outcome if an inquest were to be held now.

30. I also have my own concerns about the cause of death. I have referred above to the conclusion, shared by the group of doctors, that the bleeding from Dr Kelly's ulnar artery was highly unlikely to have been so voluminous and rapid that it was the primary cause of death. I attach at DSH1/1 a copy of a medical report prepared by the group of doctors giving our opinion that, broadly, it was highly improbable that Dr Kelly could have died as a result of the pathological factors given by Dr Hunt as the cause of death. I confirm that, in my professional opinion, the contents of that report remain valid.

31. I believe that this information, together with the fresh evidence outlined in the grounds, should have been considered by the Attorney General in coming to his decision. Unfortunately, while I am aware that he undertook various personal investigations (and I believe that he exceeded his powers in doing so) I am unaware what information he considered. This is because his investigations took place partly behind closed doors in conjunction with others (not all of whose identities are known) whose opinions have never been tested in open court or in any other official context. I believe that I am entitled to have access to all this information, as it may include matters which, if properly examined at an inquest, may well lead to a different outcome.

Public fundraising

32. My concerns are also shared by other members of the public. Although I am an individual Claimant, I am fortunate to have the backing, including financial backing, of many members of the public who have responded to a campaign to raise the necessary funds to bring the present proceedings. I am very grateful to all those who have donated, as their support has made the difference between this application going ahead or not. I have retired and am of relatively modest means – I have a wife and family to support and I do not have the financial assets to bring this case without this public assistance.

33. To date £35,000 has been raised, from over 600 individual donations. Comments have included:

33.1 ‘We hope you are successful with raising the necessary money - an inquest is long overdue.’ (TK, Exeter)

33.2 ‘I do hope the Inquest Fund reaches its total. I passionately believe in justice being seen to be done.’ (PW, Brighton)

33.3 ‘Both my husband and myself sincerely hope that you receive enough funds to proceed. Dr David Kelly was a man with great integrity and deserves justice.’ (SH, Horsham)

33.4 ‘I am so sorry that I cannot afford a larger donation but I am a disabled pensioner on a very low income. I very much hope that you will reach the necessary fund target for a review procedure. Dr Kelly deserves an honest decent hearing of his case and for the 'smokescreen merchants' to be exposed.’ (KS, London)

33.5 ‘I am a pensioner with very limited funds… As an ex-Soldier thought that I had fought for democracy and pride in British standards. I feel let down… I wish the campaign well, and hope that you can give us back some pride and expose this cover-up.’

My application for a protective costs order

34. Thanks to this response from the public, I now have a ‘fighting fund’ of approximately £35,000. My solicitors and leading counsel have both agreed to discount their normal charging rates and to cap their fees in order that this case can be brought. This will cover my own lawyers’ fees for the first stage of the proceedings.

35. However, there is no provision to cover any adverse costs award, should the Attorney General decide to contest my application and succeed in this. My family is understandably very concerned about the potential effect of an adverse costs order and I doubt I would be able to continue this matter, despite my very strong convictions, if my potential exposure to adverse costs is too great.

36. Consequently I have applied for a protective costs order. I believe that this is justified for the following reasons.

36.1 The issues raised by this claim are of great public importance and interest.

36.2 I have no private interest in the outcome of the case.

36.3 It would also be fair and just to make such an order in the light of my limited financial assets. I am retired and of relatively modest means – I receive an NHS pension appropriate to my grade and share a bungalow with my wife.

36.4 In the light of the risk to my family’s livelihood, although I strongly believe in the importance of this case, it is very unlikely that I would be able to continue with these proceedings if a protective costs order is not made.

Conclusion

37. I humbly submit that there has been an insufficiency of inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly and that the Attorney General’s decision not to apply to the High Court to seek a new inquest was highly irrational.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

………………………………
Dr David Halpin FRCS
Dated:

(1) Claimant
(2) D S Halpin
(3) First
(4) 8 September 2011
(5) Exhibit DSH1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN:

R
(on the application of)
(1) DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

Claimant

and
(1) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF
DR DAVID SYDNEY HALPIN FRCS

Withers LLP
16 Old Bailey
London
EC4M 7EG

http://drdavidkellyinquestrequired.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-matter-of-application-for-permission_4063.html

Legal battle for inquest to begin

2011-09-03T00:43:00.001+01:00

Fight for inquest on David Kelly is going to court after doctor launches legal challenge

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 12:40 AM on 3rd September 2011

The Government faces a legal challenge next week over its decision not to hold a coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve ruled one out in June after conducting an investigation that concluded there was 'overwhelming evidence' the Whitehall weapons inspector committed suicide.

Now a doctor who is suspicious of the official account of Dr Kelly's death has started proceedings for a judicial review of Mr Grieve's decision.

After an appeal just a week ago, hundreds of Daily Mail readers have contributed £33,000 to a fund set up to help secure an inquest.

Using this money to cover legal fees, papers will be lodged at the High Court by Thursday – the deadline for launching a judicial review.

Dr David Halpin, who has been co-ordinating a group of doctors fighting for an inquest since December 2003, will be the claimant in the action.

Documents for the judicial review are being prepared by barrister John Cooper QC and solicitor Jennifer McDermott.

It is understood the judicial review is likely to focus on the actions of at least one senior member of Tony Blair's government involved in the initial decision not to have a full inquest into Dr Kelly's death.

Abnormalities that will be emphasised include the fact that no witness has ever spoken under oath about the death, and many documents that have been withheld from the public will be sought.

An argument will also be made that Mr Grieve exceeded his powers as Attorney General by conducting his own investigation into the affair.

Dr Kelly allegedly killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Mr Blair's government of lying to take Britain into the Iraq war.

His body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home on July 18, 2003.

Days later, an inquest into his death began as a matter of routine, but was swiftly closed down and replaced by a non-statutory public inquiry led by Lord Hutton.

He found Dr Kelly killed himself after slashing his wrist with a pruning knife and overdosing on painkillers.

However, Dr Halpin says he finds it 'highly improbable' that Dr Kelly bled to death and disputes medical evidence about the concentration of drugs in his body.

Before deciding against an inquest, Mr Grieve was presented with fresh evidence by the doctors highlighting irregularities.

These included the fact that there were no fingerprints on items found with Dr Kelly's body, including the knife he allegedly used to kill himself and two packs of pills he supposedly swallowed.

Last year it emerged that in 2004 all medical and scientific reports relating to his death were secretly classified for 70 years. No legal explanation for this has ever been made.

Dr Halpin and his fellow campaigners hope the judicial review will eventually lead to a full inquest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033212/Fight-inquest-David-Kelly-going-court-doctor-launches-legal-challenge.html

New legal challenge for inquest

2011-08-27T11:26:00.004+01:00

Doctors unleash legal challenge over inquest Dr David Kelly never had

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 1:11 AM on 27th August 2011

Doctors are preparing to challenge the Government’s decision not to hold an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

In June, Attorney General Dominic Grieve ruled one out after telling Parliament evidence that the weapons inspector killed himself was ‘overwhelmingly strong’.

He was responding to legal papers sent to his office by the doctors.

But now they have told the Daily Mail that they still believe it vital that a coroner consider the case and are seeking a judicial review of Mr Grieve’s decision.

The doctors said they had spent ‘a considerable amount of time reflecting on the situation’ and had read Mr Grieve’s recent response ‘extremely carefully’.

But they concluded that there were matters which he did not address satisfactorily and they felt ‘a duty’ to carry on with their campaign.

This month the doctors were given a 33-page legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC, a colleague of Cherie Blair at Matrix chambers in London, indicating that Mr Grieve’s decision could be judicially reviewed, paving the way for an inquest. They are now set to proceed, managed by solicitors Withers LLP.

Following a meeting with John Cooper QC last week in which they discussed how the case would be taken forward they have now asked to be represented by him during the judicial review.

The doctors are acting because they believe there are unanswered questions about Dr Kelly’s death.

Speaking on behalf of the other three doctors involved in the case, Dr David Halpin said: ‘We need to raise about £50,000 to cover stage one legal fees to take this to the High Court but we believe this must be done. Britain has great potential for good but many people know it is now mired in mendacity. They must help the doctors get light into the dark corner of the Dr Kelly cover-up. Truth must out.’

The lawyers must be formally instructed by August 30 so that proceedings can begin by September 8, the legal deadline by which the judicial review must be under way.

The doctors’ decision is likely to cause significant unease within Whitehall. No full explanation has been supplied for closing down the inquest into Dr Kelly’s death, which began as a matter of routine immediately after his body was found. It was replaced with a public inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, who did not hear witness evidence under oath.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one former MP told the Mail that Dr Kelly’s death ‘almost certainly encompassed highly sensitive matters of national security which is why there was no inquest’.

Dr Kelly, a world-renowned weapons inspector, allegedly killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into the Iraq war.

His body was found in woods close to his home in Oxfordshire on July 18 2003. He had booked a return plane ticket to Baghdad, where he worked, on the morning he disappeared.

The Hutton Inquiry found that he killed himself after slashing his wrist with a blunt pruning knife and overdosing on painkillers.

Mr Grieve was presented with fresh evidence by the doctors and others questioning the official finding and highlighting irregularities.

This included the fact that there were no fingerprints on five items found with Dr Kelly’s body: the knife he allegedly used to kill himself, a watch, his mobile phone, an open water bottle and two blister packs of pills he supposedly swallowed.

Despite the police knowing about the lack of fingerprints at the time this was never raised at the Hutton Inquiry and was only established years later using the Freedom of Information Act.

There is also photographic evidence suggesting Dr Kelly’s body was moved after it was found.

Last year it emerged that in 2004 all medical and scientific reports relating to his death – including photographs of his body – were secretly classified for 70 years.
Much of the material affected by this highly unusual gagging order has still not been released and no legal explanation for it has ever been made.

Mr Halpin added: ‘Coroners, not politicians, should determine how, where and when someone has died. That is our law in our country. There is an element of David and Goliath here.’

If you would like to donate, visit www.inquest4drdk.co.uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030663/Doctors-unleash-legal-challenge-inquest-Dr-David-Kelly-had.html

The Hunt for Tony Blair

2011-08-26T22:39:00.001+01:00

Comic Strip returns with Tony Blair on the run in Channel 4 film noir comedy

The Hunt for Tony Blair premieres in Edinburgh, with Stephen Mangan as Blair and Jennifer Saunders as Lady Thatcher

John Plunkett

guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 August 2011 19.40 BST

They were the comedy writers who re-imagined the 1984 miners' strike as an action movie, with Arthur Scargill played by an Al Pacino lookalike. Then there was their take on the Greater London Council, with Ken Livingstone portrayed by a fictional Charles Bronson.

Now the team behind Channel 4's Comic Strip have turned their fire on Tony Blair and Lady Thatcher in a comedy timed to coincide with the findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war.

The Hunt for Tony Blair, which received its world premiere in Edinburgh on Friday, has Stephen Mangan playing the former prime minister in the 1950s-style film noir pastiche. He is a fugitive responsible for a string of killings including the former foreign secretary Robin Cook. And he is implicated in the death of John Smith.

Mangan, who starred in Channel 4's Green Wing and played Dirk Gently in a recent BBC adaptation of the Douglas Adams detective novel, appears in an all-star cast including Jennifer Saunders as Lady Thatcher, Harry Enfield as Alastair Campbell and Robbie Coltrane as the detective on Blair's trail.

Blair takes refuge with Thatcher – played as a cross between Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis – whom he discovers at home watching old newsreels of the Falklands war. The pair are shown sharing a post-coital cigarette. "I'm so in love with you," she tells Blair. "I won my war. You didn't."

Director Peter Richardson, who co-wrote the comedy with Pete Richens, said Mangan's take on Blair bore comparison with Michael Sheen's award-winning take on the former Labour leader in The Deal. "I hope people will forget Michael Sheen after this. He's done a fantastic job," said Richardson.

On the run from the police, Blair tells his wife Cherie: "It's no big deal. I've been charged with murder," and in his desperation turns to his friends for help. But Melvyn Bragg refuses to take his call and Bernie Ecclestone is no help either.

"You couldn't lend me a really fast car, could you?" Blair asks the Formula 1 impresario. "Preferably one without 'Durex' written on the side."

But if Mangan does an admirable take on Blair, then Nigel Planer steals every scene he appears in as an uncannily accurate Lord Mandelson. Asked by police where Blair might be hiding, Mandelson replies: "Tuscany or Florida or Barbados with Cliff Richard."

Alastair Campbell is played by Enfield in a cameo role, in a memorable, expletive-strewn performance. Ford Kiernan has Gordon Brown saying: "Don't call me a psycho. I'll rip your face off!"

Richardson said he had been sensitive to the portrayal of real people in the film, including Smith and Cook, who is pushed off the top of a hill by Blair.

"Yes I do worry about Robin Cook and John Smith. There's no suggestion he actually did murder these people; it's ridiculous and not true," he told the Media Guardian Edinburgh International Festival.

"We couldn't do anything about David Kelly, for instance, because it was too real and too serious.

"We deliberately didn't go down that road. Robin Cook was the champion of his cause, he stood up to Blair and we have shown that," said Richardson.

Richardson said he had read Blair's autobiography, A Journey, and lifted some lines wholesale for the screenplay. "There are a few lines in the book which suddenly seemed to fit the film very well. He always mentions his book as much as possible."

He said he "didn't think a great deal" of the former prime minister, and thought viewers would "like to see Tony Blair chased".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/aug/26/comic-strip-tony-blair-film

MoS - Blair to face criticism over Iraq

2011-07-31T11:58:00.003+01:00

The damning of Tony Blair: Former PM to be held to account on Iraq in Chilcot report on war

Iraq war deal 'signed in blood' by former Prime Minister

Cabinet members kept in the dark in build-up to the war

'Obvious failings' in post-war planning

By Simon Walters

Last updated at 11:21 AM on 31st July 2011

Tony Blair is to face scathing criticism from the official inquiry into the Iraq War for the role he played in leading Britain into one of its biggest foreign policy fiascos in modern history.

The Mail on Sunday has been told that the former Prime Minister will be held to account on four main failings:

* Bogus claims that were made about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

* Not telling the British public about his secret pledge with George Bush to go to war.

* Keeping the Cabinet in the dark by his ‘sofa government’ style.

* Failing to plan to avoid the post-war chaos in Iraq.

Well-placed sources say the reputations of Mr Blair and key allies will suffer major damage when the report by Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq War inquiry is published this autumn.

Mr Blair, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and ex-Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell are all expected to be criticised.

All those taken to task by Chilcot’s five-strong panel of experts will receive notice in the next few weeks of the inquiry’s conclusions.

They will be given a final chance to respond to their alleged failings before the report is finalised. Although it has not yet been written, clear indications have been given as to which areas it will focus on.

The damning verdict of the Chilcot Inquiry comes eight years after Mr Blair went to war against Saddam Hussein with George Bush.

A total of 179 British soldiers died in Iraq while estimates for the number of Iraqi dead vary from 100,000 to 650,000.

Although Saddam was toppled within weeks, the invasion led to a bloody aftermath and there were claims that it contributed to increased terrorism in the UK and elsewhere.

The Chilcot Inquiry, set up by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown two years ago, is the third inquiry into the conflict. It followed the Butler Inquiry into the intelligence failings and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Ministry of Defence weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

Inquiry chairman, former civil servant Sir John Chilcot, 72, was asked to conduct a more searching investigation spanning the period from 2001, two years before the war, right through to 2009.

The Mail on Sunday understands that the inquiry rounds on Mr Blair for telling Parliament that intelligence suggesting Saddam had WMDs was ‘beyond doubt’.

In evidence, a defiant Mr Blair said he had no regrets about the war and maintained Britain would ultimately be able to look back on it with ‘immense pride’.

But he admitted he had misunderstood the claim in a Downing Street dossier that Saddam could launch WMDs in 45 minutes.

He also conceded there was not a ‘growing’ threat from Saddam in the autumn of 2002 – despite stating precisely that in the Commons before the war.

The inquiry report is also expected to criticise spin doctor Mr Campbell, whose denial that the dossier on Saddam’s weapons was designed to ‘make the case for war’ was challenged by former spy chief Major-General Michael Laurie, who was head of intelligence collection for the Defence Intelligence Agency.

Major-General Laurie told the inquiry two months ago: ‘Alastair Campbell said the purpose of the dossier was not “to make a case for war”. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used.

‘We knew at the time that its purpose was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence. I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given.’

And earlier this month an unnamed MI6 officer said Mr Campbell acted like ‘an unguided missile’ in work on the intelligence dossier.

The spin doctor had ‘a propensity to have rushes of blood to the head and pass various stories and information to journalists without appropriate prior consultation’.

The inquiry is also understood to focus on the way that Mr Blair privately told Mr Bush more than a year before the conflict that he would back the war, while claiming in public he had not made up his mind.

Mr Blair denied that a deal to go to war had been ‘signed in blood’ at President Bush’s Texas ranch in 2002. He said they merely agreed to ‘deal’ with Saddam.

However, a rift between Mr Blair and Mr Straw over whether the UK supported ‘regime change’ will also feature prominently in Chilcot’s conclusions.

Furthermore, Mr Straw is in the line of fire after saying he only ‘very reluctantly’ endorsed the war, but ignored warnings from Foreign Office legal advisers that it was illegal.

Sir Michael Wood, former senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, said he considered resigning in protest at the war and was sidelined after he objected.

Mr Blair’s ‘sofa government’ style, whereby key decisions on the war were made in his study by a small circle of confidants – with most Cabinet Ministers and officials excluded – is also expected to be condemned.

Former Cabinet Secretaries Lord Wilson and Lord Turnbull, who both served under Mr Blair, told of their failed pleas to Mr Blair to rely on traditional Cabinet committees.

Lord Turnbull said the Cabinet was not asked to approve the war until the eve of the invasion in March 2003, by which time they were ‘imprisoned’ and had little choice but to agree – or see Mr Blair ousted.

The failure to anticipate the post-war turmoil that followed Saddam’s defeat is believed to be another major part of Chilcot’s conclusions.

The inquiry heard how Major-General Tim Cross, a senior British officer, asked Mr Blair to delay the invasion of Iraq two days before the conflict, partly because planning for afterwards was ‘woefully thin’.

Major-General Cross said: ‘I remember saying, in so many words, I have no doubt at all that we will win this military campaign. I do not believe that we are ready for post-war Iraq.’

When he arrived in Baghdad after the war, things were worse than he expected. ‘Baghdad was held together by chicken wire and chewing gum,’ he said.

Last night sources close to Mr Blair said that they were aware of the kind of criticism he was likely to face.

A spokesman for the Chilcot Inquiry said: ‘We will not provide a running commentary on the inquiry.’ A source close to the inquiry said reports that Mr Blair would be heavily criticised were ‘speculation’.

A spokesman for Tony Blair said: ‘This is a deliberate attempt to pre-judge a report that hasn't even been written yet.

'We're not going comment until it has been published.’

How Chilcot put Blair on the rack

IRAQ WAR DEAL ‘SIGNED IN BLOOD’ BY BLAIR

The inquiry pursued a claim that a deal was ‘signed in blood’ by Mr Blair at Mr Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2002, a year before the war – while Mr Straw denied regime change was considered.

Panel member Sir Roderic Lyne asked Mr Straw: ‘What Mr Blair said about Crawford was very simple – Saddam either had a change of heart or regime change was on the agenda. He says it is on the agenda, you say it was off. Weren’t you and the Prime Minister aiming for different objectives?’

SOFA GOVERNMENT

Inquiry member Sir Lawrence Freedman challenged the way Cabinet Ministers were kept in the dark in the build-up to the war.

His colleague Sir Roderic said: ‘Would the board of any company ever be asked to take collective responsibility for a major strategic decision without a single paper or discussion in a board committee?’

DODGY INTELLIGENCE DOSSIERS

Sir John Chilcot said Mr Blair’s claim that the secret services had established ‘beyond doubt’ that Saddam had WMD ‘was not possible to make on the basis of intelligence’.

When Mr Blair insisted: ‘I did believe it, frankly, beyond doubt,’ Sir Lawrence said: ‘Beyond your doubt, but beyond anybody’s doubt?’ Sir Roderic suggested Mr Blair had ‘misled Parliament’.

POST-WAR BLUNDERS

Inquiry member Baroness Prashar questioned Mr Blair on ‘obvious failings’ in post-war planning. There was ‘so much concentration on the (military) campaign planning that attention wasn’t paid to the aftermath.’

She told Mr Straw: ‘The U.S. was dysfunctional . . . yet we continued to assume they would sort it out. It wasn’t for want of people drawing it to the attention of the Prime Minister. Why did we not pay enough attention to that?’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020625/Chilcot-inquiry-Tony-Blair-held-account-Iraq-War.html

Tom Mangold speaks out

2011-06-12T11:59:00.005+01:00

'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals

By Tom Mangold

Last updated at 1:17 AM on 12th June 2011

Once again, the conspiracy theorists are crying foul over the refusal of the Government to hold an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

They believe the weapons inspector – the source for claims that the notorious intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction had been ‘sexed up’ – was murdered by the British Government. And that there has been a systematic cover-up.

The conspiracy theorists are – as usual – wildly off target about Dr Kelly’s tragic suicide.

However, Attorney General Dominic Grieve’s decision last week compounds the error made in 2003 to allow Lord Hutton’s inquiry to take the place of an inquest and plays into the hands of those who seek to peddle sensational untruths.

Inquests have a long, noble tradition of uncovering inconvenient truths. Unlike official inquiries, whose terms of reference are often massaged by politicians, inquests are impartial and can be embarrassing for governments and uncomfort¬able for bereaved families.

I know from personal experience that the failure to hold an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death meant that crucial information on his state of mind, deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle, never reached the public domain.

David Kelly was a friend of mine. We also had a close friend in common. Both our mutual friend and I gave statements to the coroner’s officer about David’s last days. My friend was given the choice of whether his evidence should be referred to Lord Hutton.

Given the fevered state of political debate at the time – remember that BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan had been accused of lying on air about the ‘sexed-up’ dossier – my friend decided that an inquest was the proper forum for his evidence to be heard.

He was uneasy that the Hutton Inquiry did not take evidence on oath and feared it might become a political circus.

Both our testimonies languished, unread, in a dusty coroner’s file. Unwittingly, we had both played into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.

My friend later gave anodyne, uncontroversial evidence to Lord Hutton. We had a long conversation last week and although he insists he must not be named, I can now reveal what was going through Dr Kelly’s mind in the days before he took his own life.

Our mutual friend’s testimony, based on intimate conversations with Dr Kelly 48 hours before his death on July 17, 2003, clearly reveals that he did not feel he was being hounded to death by the Government.

But his mind was in turmoil about two things: his professional reputation and his marriage. Both, he felt, were in tatters.

The key to Dr Kelly’s suicide has always been what happened on July 15 at the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, where Dr Kelly was asked whether he had briefed BBC Newsnight’s Susan Watts about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Liberal Democrat MP David Chidgey read Dr Kelly a long quotation from a piece broadcast by Watts on Newsnight the previous month.

Dr Kelly replied he did not recognise the words. On further questioning, he denied being the author of the quote. Subsequently he also denied giving an interview to the BBC’s Gavin Hewitt. Both statements were untrue.

Worse still, Watts’s interview with Dr Kelly had been recorded. A few hours later, Dr Kelly told our mutual friend: ‘I expected a slap on the wrist about saying too much to Andrew Gilligan, but I was completely blind-sided by that session with Chidgey.’

Dr Kelly said he did not feel he had deliberately lied to the committee, but he admitted he ‘sort of recognised’ the words read to him by the MP but simply did not recall the interview.

‘What I said in committee was a sort of holding operation,’ he said, ‘but I blame myself for getting it wrong.’

There was no mention during this long and important conversation of Dr Kelly blaming the Government or his immediate bosses for putting more pressure on him than he could withstand.

Indeed, it has always seemed absurd to me that Dr Kelly would have cracked under pressure. This was the man who reduced the vile Iraqi government minister Dr Rihab ‘Toxic’ Taha to impotent hysteria.

This was the man who saw through the deepest KGB deceptions about its manufacture of deadly anthrax and bubonic plague spores. And this was the man I once interviewed for seven hours non-stop for a book, and who declined my wife’s offer of respite and cups of tea. ‘I’m enjoying this,’ he told her.

Dr Kelly asked for our friend’s advice on his marriage and about his friendship with Mai Pedersen, a US Air Force Sergeant and interpreter who worked with the UN weapons inspection team in Baghdad and is generally believed to have been a Pentagon informant.

It is a matter of fact that David’s professional involvement with Pedersen had become a personal friendship.

It is also true his marriage seemed to have reached a tipping point and that his imminent early retirement at 60 – he was 59 – presented a host of new problems, such as whether he should accept a job with a think-tank close to Pedersen in California, a move that would have signalled the end of the marriage.

The main pressure on Dr Kelly was not from the Government, but from his immediate bosses at the MoD who demanded he reveal every contact he had had with journalists.

David tried to keep the list to a minimum and might have got away with the Susan Watts untruth. But he didn’t know the interview had been recorded – or that the BBC would reveal this.

On the morning of his death, David was in good spirits because he believed he had weathered the worst of the storm and was soon due to return to Baghdad and Pedersen.

His emails to friends were upbeat. But I believe that he was later warned by a colleague that the truth about his interview with Watts had leaked – and he would be revealed as having lied to the committee.

In a moment, he faced the prospect of personal and professional ruin. And he took what he believed to be the only honourable way out.

I always held David in the very highest regard both as a friend and as a servant of this nation. I know the truth of his suicide would have done terrible damage to David’s fully deserved reputation for honesty and integrity.

But I am also convinced that had the Government hounded him to his lonely death, he would have left a suicide note or a letter to his friends, placing the blame where he thought it belonged.

In not leaving a note, I am certain he left another very clear message – he was ending it all through a mixture of shame and the imminent foreclosure of whatever future life he had been planning for himself.

That this tragic story has been turned into a distasteful carnival of conspiracy theories is due in no small part to the failure to hold an impartial inquest with the correct evidential procedures.

I also believe that this failure was compounded by an error of judgment on the part of Lord Hutton in attending David’s funeral and allowing Janice, his widow, to give evidence by video.

It might be that he wished to protect her even further from the stresses of an open inquest. We may never know: Lord Hutton ordered that the evidence be sealed for 70 years.

And even when the files are opened they may not contain the whole truth. Without the evidence, given on oath, of one of David’s closest friends, the picture cannot be fully complete. The memory of David will by hijacked by conspiracy theorists for ever. And that is the final sadness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002640/Dr-David-Kelly-Friend-says-world-know-truth-thanks-Hutton-Inquiry.html

Inquest not "necessary or desirable in the public interest"

2011-06-10T21:40:00.004+01:00

Dr David Kelly

Attorney General Dr Kelly written statement 9 June 2011

Schedule of responses to issues raised

Thames Valley Police (TVP) statements:

Annex TVP 1 Evidence of Dr Coe

Annex TVP 2 Fingerprint and DNA evidence

Annex TVP 3 The position of the body when found

Annex TVP 4 Three men in black

Annex TVP 5 Telephone contacts

Annex TVP 6 Dental records

Dr Nicholas Hunt, forensic pathologist:

Post mortem report by Dr Hunt 25 July 2003

AGO to Hunt 22 March 2011

Hunt to AGO 25 May 2011

Mr Roy Green, forensic biologist:

Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003

Dr Richard Shepherd, forensic pathologist:

Forensic medical report by Dr Shepherd 16 March 2011

AGO to Shepherd 12 November 2010

Professor Robert Flanagan, toxicologist:

Witness statement by Professor Flanagan 12 March 2011

AGO to Flanagan 17 February 2011

Dr Alexander Allan, toxicologist:

Dr Allan statement 1 21 July 2003

Dr Allan statement 2 18 August 2003

Dr Allan Statement 3 17 September 2003

HM Coroner Oxfordshire, N.G. Gardiner Esq.

AGO to Gardiner 15 November 2010

Gardiner to AGO 3 December 2010

Gardiner to AGO 8 December 2010

AGO to Gardiner 22 March 2011

Gardiner to AGO 6 May 2011

AGO to Gardiner 9 May 2011

Gardiner to AGO 12 May 2011

The Right Honourable Lord Hutton

Lord Hutton to AGO 3 September 2010

AGO to Lord Hutton 12 November 2010

Lord Hutton to AGO 1 December 2010

Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

AGO to MoJ 25 November 2010

MoJ to AGO 24 February 2011

Grieve decision on Thursday?

2011-06-08T22:12:00.002+01:00

Doctors will launch court fight if Dr David Kelly inquest demand is turned down

By Miles Goslett and James Slack

Last updated at 12:41 PM on 7th June 2011

A group of doctors is preparing to mount a legal challenge if the Attorney General this week refuses an inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

Dominic Grieve, who has spent nine months considering the case for a new inquiry, is expected to announce his decision on Thursday.

Campaigners are braced for him to deliver a ‘No’ verdict after Prime Minister David Cameron said last month he did not want the Kelly files re-opened.

If this happens, the doctors – who have unearthed mountains of evidence which casts doubt on the Hutton Inquiry verdict of suicide – will lodge an immediate judicial review. The Attorney General would then have to justify his decision in the High Court.

Last night Dr Stephen Frost said: ‘We doctors and lawyers are unanimous in our view that the case for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death as presented by us to the Attorney General is unanswerable in law.

‘It would therefore be very surprising if the Attorney General decided that no inquest was necessary. If he were to say no we would vigorously contest his decision in the courts through judicial review.

‘A proper inquest into the death of any British citizen is required by the laws of this country. Everyone now knows that the Hutton Inquiry, which purported to fulfil the coronial requirement, was a woefully inadequate instrument for investigating Dr Kelly’s death.’

Dr Michael Powers QC, representing the doctors, added: ‘The doctors have become the voice of all those members of the public who have disquiet about both the form and the adequacy of Lord Hutton’s inquiry.’

Dr Kelly is said to have killed himself in July 2003 after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing the Labour government of lying to take Britain into war in Iraq.

Uniquely for a suspicious death, no coroner’s inquest has been held. Instead, the public inquiry into his death chaired by Lord Hutton found he committed suicide by taking painkillers and cutting his left wrist with a blunt knife.

The doctors say a string of unanswered questions include whether Dr Kelly could have lost a fatal amount of blood through the severed ulnar artery in his wrist.

There are also questions over whether he could have cut his wrist in the way described by the Hutton Report. Dr Mai Pedersen, a close friend, says an injury to his right arm had left Dr Kelly unable to cut even steak with it, and he had to do this clumsily with his left hand.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1395060/Doctors-launch-court-fight-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest-demand-turned-down.html

Cameron pre-empts Grieve?

2011-05-18T22:00:00.003+01:00

Politics

David Cameron rules out further inquiries into death of Dr David Kelly

Prime Minister David Cameron has ruled out further inquiries into the death of Dr David Kelly.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

4:37PM BST 18 May 2011

Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after he had been revealed as the source of a BBC report questioning the accuracy of a Government dossier arguing the case for war in Iraq.

The Hutton Inquiry in 2004 found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide, and then-Justice Secretary Lord Falconer ruled the inquiry could take the place of an inquest in the coroner's court.

However a group of doctors have since campaigned for a full inquest, pointing out that Lord Hutton spent only half a day of his 24-day inquiry considering the cause of Dr Kelly’s death.

Sir Peter Tapsell, a senior Tory backbencher, asked Mr Cameron during Prime Minister’s Questions: “Now that there is to be an investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, isn’t there a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?”

Mr Cameron said while he welcomed the Metropolitan Police review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he was not supportive of a similar move in the case of Dr Kelly.

David Cameron said the Hutton report into the Government weapons inspector's death had been “fairly clear”, adding: “I don't think it's necessary to take that case forward.”

He said: “On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that were carried out and the report into it were fairly clear and I don’t think it is necessary to take that case forward.”

The remarks appeared to catch the office of the Attorney General off-guard, with officials suggesting that nothing had change. A spokesman for Mr Grieve’s office said he would announce “in due course” whether he will ask the High Court to order an inquest.

She said: “The Attorney General is still considering representations made and we will be making a decision in due course.

“He has not consulted any of his Cabinet colleagues on the issue and is undertaking the review in his public interest role. He is still considering the material and the representations made and will make his decision in due course.”

Dr Michael Powers, one of the doctors campaigning for the inquest, accused Mr Cameron of intervening in a decision which had to be determined “in law”.

He said: “It is remarkable that the PM should give his opinion on this matter, namely that he thinks previous inquiries into the death of Dr David Kelly are sufficient.

“It is a matter of law as to whether the inquiry of Lord Hutton was sufficient. It is for the Attorney General to consider all the evidence which has been placed before him and to reach a decision which can be justified in law.

“In short, whether or not there should be a fresh inquest into the death of Dr Kelly is a matter of law and not of politics.”

Last summer Mr Grieve signaled he was prepared to intervene in the controversy, admitting that those who doubted his suicide “may have a valid point”.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Grieve said he hoped to settle any concerns about the government scientist’s death to “give the public reassurance”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8521641/David-Cameron-rules-out-further-inquiries-into-death-of-Dr-David-Kelly.html

Further helicopter involvement disclosed under FOI

2011-05-14T09:57:00.002+01:00

Mystery of the helicopter that landed at scene of Dr Kelly's death after his body was found

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 12:50 AM on 14th May 2011

A helicopter mysteriously landed at the scene of Dr David Kelly’s death shortly after the body was found.

The aircraft only remained on the ground for five minutes before leaving, suggesting it either deposited or collected somebody or something.

Details from its flight log, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show that the helicopter – hired by Thames Valley police – landed at Harrowdown Hill in Oxfordshire at 10.55am on July 18, 2003, 90 minutes after the body was discovered by volunteer search teams.

Significantly, the flight log has been heavily redacted, making it impossible to know who was on board or what its exact purpose was.

The flight was not mentioned in oral evidence at the Hutton Inquiry, set up by Tony Blair to investigate Dr Kelly’s death.

Dr Andrew Watt, who has previously raised questions about the suicide finding reached by Lord Hutton, has written to Attorney General Dominic Grieve drawing his attention to the flight.

Dr Watt, a clinical pharmacologist, said: ‘If the purpose of the helicopter flight was innocent, one has to ask why it was kept secret.’

[]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386967/Mystery-helicopter-landed-scene-Dr-Kellys-death-body-found.html

TVP disclosure logs

2011-04-26T21:37:00.004+01:00

These are something I've just become aware of - since March 8th Thames Valley Police have been posting details of FOI Act requests relating to investigations on their website.

See:

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-depts/aboutus-depts-infman/aboutus-depts-foi/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log/aboutus-depts-foi-disclosure-log-investigate.htm

An open letter to the Prime Minister

2011-03-27T11:40:00.003+01:00

Subversion of Due Process: The Death of Dr. David Kelly

Open Letter to Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron

by Dr. Christopher Burns-Cox and Dr. Stephen Frost and Dr. Andrew Rouse

March 26, 2011

Dear Prime Minister,

SUBVERSION OF DUE PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENCY OF INQUIRY IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF DR DAVID KELLY

When Lord Hutton reported on 28 January 2004, many said "whitewash”. The Hutton Report was indeed a "whitewash", not so much because Lord Hutton wrongly found the BBC and not the Government responsible for Dr Kelly's "suicide" but much more importantly because Lord Hutton failed adequately to address the cause of death itself and the manner of death. The invocation by Lord Falconer, in his role as Lord Chancellor, of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners Act to replace the statutory inquest by a non-statutory ad hoc judicial inquiry was highly irregular, as was the Coroner’s decision not to re-open the inquest following Hutton’s report. Not only did Lord Falconer, in his role as Minister for Constitutional Affairs, commission the Hutton Inquiry and determine its very narrow remit but he also decided, in his role as Lord Chancellor, that it would be an adequate replacement for a statutory inquest, when it was clearly no such thing. Given all this meddling with due process of the law it is perhaps not surprising that the death itself was not properly investigated.

Thus, not only was the form of inquiry inappropriate but the inquiry itself was clearly insufficient. There can be little doubt now that Lord Hutton presided over a blatant insufficiency of inquiry and the evidence to support that view is overwhelming. Some of that evidence, but for practical reasons not all, has been presented to Dominic Grieve QC, the present Attorney General.

Lord Hutton's finding of suicide is clearly unsafe and may, especially given the extraordinary context of Dr Kelly's death, represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice to occur in this country. Many people in our country have known to a greater or lesser degree that that was the case but it was left to a few doctors, and latterly one journalist, to pick up the pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle and to assemble a picture clear enough to present to the Attorney General. The doctors are requesting that an inquest be ordered through their lawyers, Frances Swaine and Merry Varney of the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. and Dr Michael Powers QC, in the form of a formal application to the Attorney General for his "fiat" to apply to the High Court to order an inquest as allowed under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act.

Under Section 13 there are six reasons why the Attorney General may grant such "fiat". These are:

1) insufficiency of inquiry

2) irregularity of proceedings

3) rejection of evidence

4) new facts or evidence

5) fraud (in this context deception)

6) refusal or neglect to hold an inquest when one ought to be held

The doctors have provided abundant evidence to satisfy all six of these reasons; the Attorney General needs evidence of only one reason to grant his "fiat".

Further, the Attorney General is not required to satisfy himself that the verdict of suicide would change, only that it might change.

Accordingly, in September 2010, Leigh Day & Co. delivered a 34 page legal document called the Memorial to the Attorney General. On 28 February 2011, an Addendum to the Memorial was also provided to and at the request of the Attorney General. Both documents may be viewed in full on the BBC Online website. The doctors and Leigh Day & Co. have had sight of many other submissions to the Attorney General. It seems to the doctors and their lawyers that the case for an inquest is unanswerable.

It is surely in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, that an inquest into this death now takes place. The laws of this country, and indeed of Europe, require that the death of any British citizen dying in the manner in which Dr David Kelly is said to have died is investigated at an inquest, at which the Coroner possesses statutory powers. These include the power to hear evidence under oath, the power to subpoena witnesses, the power to have witnesses aggressively cross-examined and the power to call a jury. Lord Hutton possessed none of these powers, but the public was led to believe that Lord Hutton was better equipped to investigate Dr Kelly's death than was the Coroner. Further, Lord Hutton heard medical evidence for just one half of one day out of twenty four days of evidence, and found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide; no coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard. The level of proof required for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide is very high, since a suicide verdict closes the case for ever and automatically stops any murder investigation, in addition to permanently smearing the deceased (when he can no longer argue back) and his family. The Coroner is required to hear evidence which constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased killed himself and that he intended to kill himself, before he may return a verdict of suicide. Lord Hutton did not hear evidence which came near to satisfying that test.

We write to you asking that you endorse the request that an inquest be ordered. You will be aware that this important death, especially in the context in which it occurred, and the long subsequent fight for an inquest has been observed with mounting interest worldwide. Many will regard the response to the request for an inquest as a litmus test as to the good intentions and credibility of your government.

It is unfortunate that your government inherited this case from the preceding three governments, all of which did all they could to stop the necessary inquest. But, now surely is the time to begin the attempt to restore the tarnished reputation of our country around the world by holding a full, frank and fearless inquest into Dr David Kelly's death, so that “the truth, pure and simple”, of what happened can finally be established “however complex, painful or unacceptable to whomsoever that truth may be” (Christopher Clarke QC, in his opening statement as Leading Counsel to the Saville “Bloody Sunday” Inquiry).

If an inquest is denied, despite all the evidence carefully provided to the Attorney General, there is a real and grave risk that your government will be seen as continuing, and being complicit in, an enormous conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Further, any “no” decision will be vigorously contested in the courts via judicial review by the doctors’ lawyers.

Finally, while the wishes of the family may be taken into account by the Coroner as to whether or not an inquest should be held, those wishes are not determinative in law. The Coroner's primary duty is to the deceased, not to the family of the deceased. Similarly, the Attorney General's primary duty, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act, is to the deceased, not to the family of the deceased. The Coroner speaks for the dead to protect the living.

This letter, addressed to you, is an open letter and it will be made available to the Press Association for onward publication.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Christopher Burns-Cox MD FRCP

Dr Stephen Frost BSc MB ChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)

Dr Andrew Rouse MB BS MPH FFPHM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20110326&articleId=23969

Doctors' solicitor makes final submission

2011-03-02T20:53:00.004Z

Final submissions made to AG in Kelly inquest case

02 March 2011

Frances Swaine, Partner and Head of the human rights department at Leigh Day, assisted by Merry Varney, solicitor in the human rights department, act on behalf of the group of doctors seeking the Attorney General’s authorisation (known as a fiat) for the group to approach the High Court to seek a full inquest into the death of Dr Kelly in July 2003.

The Attorney General invited the group of doctors to bring to his attention any further matters supporting their call for a new and full Inquest into the death following the medical submissions made by the doctors in a Memorial (the document setting out the basis on which the Attorney General’s fiat is sought) in September 2010, and the subsequent disclosure by the Ministry of Justice of the post mortem and toxicology reports.

Although our clients sought access to the post mortem and toxicology reports, both Leigh Day & our clients did not support the public disclosure of the reports in the manner that occurred.

The Addendum

An Addendum to the Memorial has now been submitted to the Attorney General in line with his invitation, highlighting many further concerns arising from the recent disclosure of the post mortem and toxicology reports, as well as setting out numerous questions and issues that remain unanswered and unaddressed by the Hutton Inquiry and that would properly be the concern of any Coroner investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly.

These further submissions focused inter alia on the following:

•The death certificate does not give the time nor the place of death (normally fundamental to the end of a Coroner’s inquest)

•Discrepancies between the post mortem report referring to an extended pool of blood by the body noted by the pathologist, Dr Hunt, yet not mentioned by any other attendees of the Hutton Inquiry, including those who spent time in the vicinity of the body

•The absence of any measurements taken regarding the amount of blood that existed outside the body, which is usually standard when investigating a suspicious death and necessary to report conclusively on whether cause of death was blood loss

•The fact that the Thames Valley Police in response to requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that no fingerprints were found or recovered from any of the items found in the vicinity of the body, including the mobile phone, the blister packs of pills, the water bottle, the watch and the pruning knife. This was not discussed by the Hutton Inquiry, despite there having been no mention of gloves found on or near the body

•The failure of the Inquiry to hear evidence from witnesses that would properly have been called at an inquest, including one of the police detectives who attended the body, the last person reported by the media to have seen Dr Kelly on the day of this death, the forensic biologist who attended the scene for most of the day following discovery of the body, and a colleague who offered to provide evidence to Lord Hutton regarding Dr Kelly’s views on suicide and a lack of strength in his right hand and wrist.

•The failure of the Inquiry to hear evidence from experts in any clinical discipline relating to the cause of death, including no vascular surgeon who could provide an expert opinion regarding establishing cause of death by severing the ulnar artery.

•The disclosure of correspondence at the time of the Inquiry between the Department for Constitutional Affairs and H M Coroner, Nicholas Gardiner which refers to a preliminary cause of death “no longer represent[ing] the view of the Pathologist”, yet no reference is made in the transcripts of the Hutton Inquiry of any change of view by the Pathologist.

Frances Swaine commented that:

“The Attorney General has now received information that raises grave concerns as to the adequacy and sufficiency of the Hutton Inquiry. A suicide verdict requires indisputable evidence that a deceased physically took their own life and that the deceased had the intention to do so. In order to reach this verdict, a full and proper investigation of all the circumstances, including detailed consideration of medical reports and hearing of expert medical evidence, is required. This has not to date taken place in respect of the tragic death of Dr Kelly.”

Leigh Day & Co and our clients are aware of wide support from other eminent parties for the granting of the Attorney General’s fiat and a decision is eagerly awaited.

http://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news-archive-2011/final-submissions-made-to-ag-in-kelly-inquest-case

Carne Ross on the lies of defectors

2011-02-16T10:33:00.002Z

Curveball and the manufacture of a lie

As WMD expert David Kelly knew, intelligence from a defector is the least reliable. But the fix was in – an avoidable war the result

Carne Ross

guardian.co.uk

Tuesday 15 February 2011 21.30 GMT

The Guardian's revelation that "Curveball", the renowned source of intelligence on Iraq's WMD, made it all up is yet another nail in the coffin of those who claim that the intelligence was clear about the alleged threat. Curveball's evidence that Iraq was secretly rebuilding a substantial biological weapons capacity was a key part of US and British claims that Iraq presented a growing and imminent threat.

Now that the truth about this propaganda has been revealed, we can expect that those who constructed it – Tony Blair, Dick Cheney et al – will now amend their usual arguments to suggest that they were innocently misled by evidence such as Curveball's. After all, if a defector claimed that there was a substantial bio-weapons programme, as "Curveball" did, how could they know that he was lying? Again, we will be confronted with the "not my fault!" excuse from those who manufactured the case for an avoidable war.

But once again, they are trying to mislead. Here's why.

As I learned in my work on Iraq's WMD in the late 90s and early 2000s, when I was Britain's Iraq expert at the UN security council and responsible for liaison with the weapons inspectors, intelligence on WMD is a confusing and complicated issue. There was a great deal of data, much of it contradictory, from an array of different sources – intercepts of communications, aerial and satellite imagery and "humint" from defectors or agents inside Iraq. Our task in the government was to try to make sense of all this, and interpret from the data a reasonably plausible and coherent picture of what was actually going on.

It is with sadness that I note that my most perceptive tutor in this complex art was David Kelly, the British weapons scientist who was then our foremost expert on biological weapons (BW) – but also skilled in the more comprehensive analysis of Iraq's WMD. Along with other weapons scientists, David would conduct detailed private seminars, organised by me, at the UK mission for other UN security council diplomats, to explain the evidence about Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, and missiles: what we knew, and what we didn't.

David was a highly-experienced BW scientist who had conducted scores of on-the-ground inspections in the former Soviet Union, as well as in Iraq. In his quiet, humble, yet authoritative way, he would patiently explain to diplomats like me, keen to make bold claims about complex data, that the reality of the intelligence was less clear. It presented many more questions than answers: in fact, all we could confidently speak of was what we did not know, rather than what we knew.

Given the complexity of the data, no single source could ever be taken as authoritative. And the least convincing sources – by their very nature – were defectors. We knew full well that, for very understandable reasons, defectors had a powerful incentive to exaggerate the nature of Iraq's development of WMD. They hated Saddam and wanted him gone. Long before Curveball, there were other defectors who made sometimes wild claims about Iraq's weapons programmes. I remember one report that suggested Iraq had armed its Scud missiles (none of which, in fact, existed, it later emerged) with nuclear warheads, ready to be launched at Israel and other targets. Defector intelligence was, therefore, lowest in the hierarchy of evidence; photographic or signals intercepts were, for obvious reasons, treated as more plausible.

Each piece of evidence, whatever its source, was first subjected to rigorous cross-checking before inclusion in overall analyses. All sources of intelligence suffered from particular deficits: Iraq knew that its signals were monitored and thus limited its communications traffic; it also hid any WMD activity under roofs in military and civilian sites, thereby limiting the value of overhead reconnaissance. So, all evidence had to be tested by the simple method of seeking corroboration from other sources. This method was used across Whitehall, and in the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office in particular, and was the basis for the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments of the WMD threat, several of which I contributed to. In the years I worked on the subject (1997-2002), the picture produced by this method was very clear: there was no credible evidence of substantial stocks of WMD in Iraq.

And it was this method – clearly – that was abandoned in advance of the war. Instead of a careful cross-checking of evidence, reports that suited the story of an imminent Iraqi threat were picked out, polished and formed the basis of public claims like Colin Powell's presentation to the UN security council, or the No 10 dossier. This was exactly how a false case for war was constructed: not by the deliberate creation of a falsehood, but by willfully and secretly manipulating the evidence to exaggerate the importance of reports like Curveball's, and to ignore contradictory evidence. This was a subtle process, elaborated from report to report, in such a way that allowed officials themselves to believe that they were not deliberately lying – more editing, perhaps, or simplifying for public presentation.

David Kelly and I discussed [this] very process – which he abhorred – a few weeks before he died. His revelation of it to a clumsy journalist, who called it "sexing up" (not a word that I think David would have used), was to trigger the events that led to his tragic death. Others of my former colleagues in the MOD and Foreign Office have freely admitted to me that this is precisely what took place. Yet, for all its subtlety and secrecy, we should name this process for what it was: the manufacture of a lie.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/15/curveball-wmd-carne-ross

Blair to give more evidence

2011-01-16T19:38:00.003Z

Blair faces fresh questions on Iraq evidence

Former prime minister recalled by Chilcot inquiry to face quiz on 'contradictions' between his evidence and that of other witnesses

Mark Townsend
The Observer, Sunday 16 January 2011

Tony Blair is set for fresh embarrassment over the Iraq war this week when he is cross-examined about contradictions relating to the manipulation of intelligence before the invasion.

The former prime minister will give evidence for up to four-and-a-half hours during his second appearance before the Chilcot inquiry on Friday.

Sources say Blair's previous testimony appears to differ from some given in private by other witnesses, thought to include the former chairman of the joint intelligence committee, Sir John Scarlett.

Evidence previously offered in camera will now be made public and it is believed that conflicting claims made by Scarlett and Blair will be central to the latter's public grilling this week.

Scarlett oversaw the infamous "dodgy dossier" of 2002 which included the now discredited claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

It is also thought that Blair will face new queries over claims he put pressure on former attorney general Lord Goldsmith to declare the war legal.

Blair is again likely to face protests from anti-war campaigners.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/16/blair-chilcott-inquiry-recall

Inquest 'memorial' published

2010-12-13T12:42:00.004Z

EXCLUSIVE: Published for the first time, the papers which could finally force full inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly

By Miles Goslett
Last updated at 10:46 AM on 13th December 2010

Today, the Daily Mail publishes for the first time the legal document which could trigger a full coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

The document, formally known as a memorial was written by group of campaigning doctors who have been trying to secure an inquest since 2004.

It lists the sequence of events which led up to Dr Kelly's death and the legal reasons they believe an inquest ought to be held.

It was sent to Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC by the doctors' lawyers, Leigh Day & Co., in September. Mr Grieve, who has read the document, is now considering whether to allow an application to the High Court for an inquest. The Mail has learnt that he has recently appointed a medical expert to assist him. His decision is expected shortly.

Dr Kelly, a world-renowned weapons inspector, is said to have killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into war.

His body was found in woods close to his home in Oxfordshire on July 18 2003. Uniquely, for an unexpected death such as his, no coroner’s inquest has ever been held.

The Hutton inquiry into his death found that he killed himself after slashing his wrist with a blunt knife and overdosing on painkillers.

On Monday the Mail revealed that no fingerprints were found on the blister packs of pills which Dr Kelly supposedly took. No fingerprints were recovered either from the knife or a bottle of water found by his side. He was not wearing gloves when his body was found, nor were there gloves anywhere near the body.

The memorial argues that Dr Kelly’s death was not sufficiently investigated and claims that there are a large number of irregularities surrounding it.

It names Lord Falconer, once Tony Blair's flatmate and in June 2003 appointed Lord Chancellor, as the architect of the public inquiry into Dr Kelly's death chaired by Lord Hutton.

More...READ THE FULL REPORT INTO DR KELLY'S DEATH HERE

It was Falconer who proposed the controversial decision to abandon a coroner's inquest, where witnesses would be cross-examined under oath, and replace it with a non-statutory examination of the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death. As a result no witness, including Tony Blair and his press secretary Alastair Campbell, swore an oath or was cross-examined.

Dr Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office forensic pathologist who carried out the autopsy on Dr Kelly, is also criticised in the memorial for having breached professional guidelines by giving a newspaper interview earlier this year in which he called Dr Kelly's death a 'textbook suicide'. His failure to properly carry out his duties at the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found is outlined.

The memorial addresses - and answers - each of the six legal points necessary for a coroner's inquest to be re-opened. Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 only one of these points has to be satisfied for an inquest to take place.

The 10,000-word document was co-authored by doctors Stephen Frost, Martin Birnstingl, Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin and Andrew Rouse.

It also requests that if an inquest is held a new coroner should be appointed to oversee it, replacing Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner.

Dr Michael Powers QC, who has been instructed to represent the doctors in their legal action, said: 'The circumstances of this case are highly unusual. Evidential issues have been debated in public for want of an inquest.

'The Attorney General's department has had three months to consider the matter. The time has come for the doctors’ Memorial also to be put into the public domain.

'It is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the process and the legal reason why there should be an inquest.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337199/David-Kelly-Papers-finally-force-inquest.html

Tony Blair returns to Inquiry

2010-12-09T01:45:00.001Z

Public Ballot: Application to Attend the Public Hearing of Rt Hon Tony Blair

The Inquiry announced on 8 December that when the former Prime Minister, Rt Hon Tony Blair, gives further public evidence to the Inquiry Committee, seats in the hearing room will be allocated via a public ballot.

Given the expected high level of demand for seats in the 60-seat hearing room for this session the Inquiry has again decided that a ballot represents the best way to ensure those who wish to attend have an equal chance of doing so. As was the case when Mr Blair gave evidence to the Inquiry in January 2010, a third of the seats in the hearing room will be reserved for the families of those Armed Forces personnel and British citizens who died or are missing in Iraq; these seats will be allocated by a separate ballot.

Mr Blair’s hearing will take place over a half day between 18 January and 04 February. The exact timetable for the public hearings in 2011 will be published on the Iraq Inquiry website one week in advance, normally on a Monday.

[]

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/news/20101208-ballot.aspx

FOIA request disclosures

2010-12-06T19:01:00.005Z

Riddle of missing fingerprints on Dr David Kelly's 'overdose' pill packs

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 11:22 PM on 5th December 2010

Fresh doubts have been raised over how Dr David Kelly died after police admitted no fingerprints were found on the packs of pills he supposedly overdosed on.

The public inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death found the weapons expert killed himself by slashing his wrist with a pruning knife and taking ‘an excess amount of co-proxamol tablets’.

Three blister packs of the painkiller, each able to hold ten pills, were retrieved from Dr Kelly’s coat pocket when his body was found in woods near his home.

Only one tablet remained, leading his post mortem examination report to state he may have taken up to 29 pills.

Co-proxamol ingestion is listed as a cause of death on his death certificate.

But Thames Valley Police has now revealed that when it tested two of the blister packs for fingerprints there were ‘none recovered’.

The development is doubly significant because police have already said the knife which Dr Kelly is said to have used to cut his wrist did not have fingerprints on – nor did an open bottle of water found beside his body.

The lack of fingerprints on these items is particularly difficult to explain given that Dr Kelly was not wearing gloves when his body was recovered on July 18, 2003. No gloves were found at the scene.

Dr Kelly is said to have killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into war.

Uniquely, for an unexpected death such as his, no coroner’s inquest has ever been held.

The idea that Dr Kelly took pills of any description has long been contested by those who knew him.

Mai Pederson, a U.S. military official who worked with Dr Kelly in Iraq in the 1990s, has told the Mail he suffered from ‘unexplained dysphagia’ – a syndrome that can make it almost impossible to swallow pills. Friends have confirmed this.

Police have also revealed the half litre bottle of water found next to Dr Kelly’s body had 111ml of water left in it, triggering questions about the likelihood that he could have swallowed 29 pills with the aid of 389ml of water – about half a pint.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that the third co-proxamol blister pack was not subjected to a fingerprint search but was ‘reserved for DNA’ with a ‘full profile of Dr Kelly obtained’.

But this unspecified DNA evidence – which could for example be blood or sweat – does not explain the lack of prints on the first two packs.

Fingerprint expert Peter Swann, said: ‘Fingerprint testing is a complex area. It is surprising no prints were found on any of these items.

‘It is possible there were no prints but it would be advisable to have the exhibits re-examined by an independent expert.’

It is not known if any of the exhibits have been destroyed. None of the exhibits was presented as evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve is currently considering whether there is sufficient new evidence to apply to the High Court for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death.

Dr Michael Powers QC, who represents a group of doctors campaigning for an inquest, said: ‘The fact no fingerprints were recovered is odd to say the least.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335961/Dr-David-Kelly-No-fingerprints-pack-pills-supposedly-overdosed-on.html

For more information and discussion regarding the above FOIA requests please see:

Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder by Brian Spencer

and:

Chilcot's Cheating Us by Dr Andrew Watt

Public opinion polling data

2010-11-17T17:51:00.002Z

(11/17/10) - Britons Want to Launch a Full Inquest into David Kelly’s Death

One-in-four respondents believe the former weapons inspector committed suicide, and almost half are not sure.

The demise of Dr. David Kelly remains a mystery for many Britons, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

Last month, the Government released a formerly secret autopsy report on the death of Dr. Kelly—a former United Nations (UN) weapons inspector—in 2003.

The report reaffirms that Dr. Kelly committed suicide after he was exposed as the source of a report that accused the Tony Blair Government of overstating intelligence reports to make the case for war against Iraq more plausible.

In the online survey of a representative sample of 2,021 British adults, 25 per cent of respondents think that Dr. Kelly’s committed suicide, while 28 per cent disagree with this notion. Almost half of Britons (47%) are undecided.

The Government has rejected calls for a full inquest into Dr. Kelly’s demise. A majority of respondents in Britain (52%) support launching a full inquest into the death of Dr. Kelly, while 27 per cent are opposed.

Download Full Tables

Download Full Methodology Statement

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43516/britons-want-to-launch-a-full-inquest-into-david-kellys-death

New Thames Valley Police involvement

2010-11-13T10:57:00.004Z

Drug expert claims David Kelly was murdered as he could not have taken overdose

By Miles Goslett and Sue Reid

Last updated at 9:34 AM on 13th November 2010

Police have been urged to start a murder inquiry into Dr David Kelly’s death following further allegations that he did not commit suicide.

Officers have been told the government scientist could not have taken an overdose of painkillers.

This overdose was found by the original pathologist to be one of the causes of his death.

Dr Andrew Watt, an experienced clinical pharmacologist, says he has told Thames Valley Police it is not possible Dr Kelly could have swallowed more than a ‘safe’ dose of two coproxamol tablets because there was so little in his system after death.

He said: ‘I reported to the Thames force that I believe that the death of Dr Kelly may have been murder. I have received an acknowledgement and they have given me an incident number.

‘I have been told that the inquiry is being conducted by a very senior officer.’
A second development also casts doubt on the suicide verdict of the Hutton inquiry – which took the place of a formal inquest.

The Mail has established that Dr Kelly left an upbeat answerphone message to his friend Nigel Cox just days before his body was found on July 18, 2003. Dr Kelly said he was looking forward to joining him for a game of cards on July 23.

Mr Cox, who played in the same pub cribbage team as Dr Kelly, was on holiday at the time and only received the message after the scientist’s death.

The message said ‘Hi Nige, I will see you at crib next Wednesday’, said Mr Cox, adding that the tone convinced him his friend was not suicidal.

He contacted Thames Valley Police and suggested they listen to it because he believed it was an important indication of Dr Kelly’s state of mind and showed he had plans for the future. According to Mr Cox, police expressed interest in the message but it was never collected by investigating officers.

Dr Michael Powers QC, representing a group of doctors who have begun legal action to secure a full inquest on Dr Kelly, said: ‘Establishing evidence of intent to commit suicide is essential.

‘It is very surprising Thames Valley Police failed to follow up this important lead. Were there to be a coroner’s inquest this evidence would have to be investigated.’

Last night Thames Valley Police declined to comment on why they did not collect the answerphone message. A spokesman said: ‘There has been a thorough investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly and that investigation has been the subject of a major inquiry by Lord Hutton.’

Police confirmed they had received Dr Watt’s allegation that the scientist was murdered.

‘This will be considered by senior officers at the next meeting we have on David Kelly. We have not yet decided what to do about Dr Watt’s information,’ said a spokesman.

Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home shortly after he was unmasked as the source of a BBC report claiming the government ‘sexed up’ a dossier on Iraq’s weapons.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve is facing mounting demands for an inquest and has promised to make a decision on this shortly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329272/Drug-expert-claims-David-Kelly-murdered-taken-overdose.html

A letter to the Sunday Telegraph

2010-11-07T00:29:00.004Z

Who was Behind the Death of Dr. David Kelly? The Case is far from Closed

by Dr. Stephen Frost

Global Research, November 6, 2010

Global Research Editor's Note

Dr. Stephen Frost contacted Global Research and informed us regarding The British media coverup pertaining to the details of Dr. David Kelly's death. We are publishing below the letter which the Sunday Telegraph refused to publish. Who was behind the death of David Kelly? The case is far from closed. Read the report by Stephen Frost below.

Michel Chossudovsky, November 5, 2010

A letter (see below) was submitted to the Sunday Telegraph in response to Andrew Gilligan's article re Dr David Kelly published on 24 October 2010 in the same newspaper (see ANNEX 1). After much prompting and discussion, the Sunday Telegraph finally agreed to publish a decimated version of our letter (see ANNEX 2). This in our view constitutes refusal or neglect to publish a reasonable and accurate response to Andrew Gilligan's article. The right of reply, enshrined in editorial guidelines, has been denied to us.

Dr. Stephen Frost, November 5, 2010

Dear Sir,

Andrew Gilligan's article of 24 October has as its headline "David Kelly inquest: Case closed" followed by "The details of Dr David Kelly’s death, made public last week, should provide a final answer to the conspiracy theorists, says Andrew Gilligan"

The truth is that the case is far from closed, not least perhaps because no inquest has taken place. The continued refusal or neglect to hold an inquest into this important death, which is required by the laws of this country and of Europe, constitutes a blatant subversion of due process of the law.

In January of this year the well known London lawyers Leigh Day & Co., representing five doctors, formally requested that the Ministry of Justice allow the doctors and lawyers sight of all the medical and scientific documents/evidence relating to Dr David Kelly's death which had been secretly classified (at some time unknown in 2004/2005) for 70 years following the publication of the Hutton Report. Despite repeated questions, both before and after the General Election, the Ministry of Justice has been unable to tell us the exact date on which the documents were classified, nor indeed to enlighten us as to the legal basis for classifying the documents, nor for continuing to keep them secret. It is strongly suspected that no such legal basis exists.

On 22 October 2010 our lawyers finally received a reply from Ken Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice, in which he sought to justify not granting our request for sight of all the medical and scientific documents relating to the death. He also informed us that he intended to publish the post-mortem report and the toxicology report on the Internet that very same day. In a long rambling letter he attempted to justify his failure to comply with our lawyers' request by quoting exemptions to disclosure allowed under the Freedom of Information Act. But, we did not seek disclosure under the terms of that Act and that had been made very clear by our lawyers in January of this year. Further, it seemed extraordinary to us that medical in confidence documents should be published on the Internet for all to see, particularly the post mortem report and the toxicology report, especially in view of the previous government’s and this government's oft claimed desire to avoid unnecessary upset to the Kelly family.

It seems to us that this Government, by publishing these two highly sensitive reports, hoped to draw a line under the whole affair. However, it will do no such thing. Some weeks ago a 35 page legal document, known as the Memorial, was submitted to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by our lawyers outlining the formal legal reasons why we think an inquest should take place. Under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act the Attorney General can grant us permission to apply to the High Court (or he can apply himself) for an inquest to be ordered. In order to do this he has only to be satisfied that, were an inquest to take place, the verdict MIGHT be different NOT that it WOULD be different. Section 13 requires that any ONE of six reasons be satisfied for the Attorney General to allow a formal application to the High Court for an inquest into a death. The six reasons are:

1) insufficiency of inquiry

2) irregularity of proceedings

3) rejection of evidence

4) new facts or evidence

5) fraud (in this context deception)

6) refusal or neglect by a coroner to hold an inquest which ought to be held

We need to provide evidence to satisfy ONE reason but the Memorial contains convincing evidence for ALL SIX reasons.

Notwithstanding the extremely strong case for an inquest which has been submitted to the Attorney General in the form of the Memorial, we intend as a matter of urgency to set up a fund so that we are in a position to contest vigorously any refusal by the Attorney General for us to proceed to the High Court by judicially reviewing any such decision.

It is essential in any democracy that due process of law is followed with the utmost rigour.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Stephen Frost

ANNEX Part 1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8083520/David-Kelly-case-closed.html

David Kelly: case closed

The details of Dr David Kelly's death, made public last week, should provide a final answer to the conspiracy theorists

Andrew Gilligan

24 October 2010

There was, said the pathology report, a band of vomit running from Dr David Kelly's mouth, covering part of his head and staining his green waxed jacket. His body was soiled with dirt from the process of undressing it at the scene and moving it into a bag. And it seems that, contrary to most of what we have read in the past, there was a great deal of blood.

"There was bloodstaining and a pool of blood in an area running from the left arm of the deceased for a total distance in the order of two to three feet," said Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist. "There was heavy bloodstaining over the left arm." There was blood on the front right side of his shirt beneath the left hand, the palm of which was bloodstained.

There were bloodstains over the groin area and the tops of both thighs, the right knee, the right elbow, the right shoulder, the back of the right knee. There was blood on the left arm, the left elbow, the back of the left elbow, the back of the fingers and palm of the right hand, blood on the lining of his Barbour cap, blood on Dr Kelly's wristwatch, which he'd taken off, blood on the handles of the knife, blood smeared on the bottle of water with which he had taken 29 co-proxamol pills.

I, too, felt a bit soiled when I read the intimate details of Dr Kelly's death. There is no dignity in a pathology report. But all this, and a good deal more that I've spared you, was last week published officially online, for ever, for the whole world to see. Happy now, conspiracy theorists?

The other reason why this document makes unpleasant reading is precisely that it does say what happened. There were, it says, multiple knife wounds over a 40 sq cm area of Dr Kelly's left wrist, one of them up to a centimetre and a half deep. Some of them, it says, looked like "tentative or hesitation marks". There was "extensive reddening around the whole injury complex, indicating that they had been inflicted while the victim was alive". There was also a small abrasion "consistent with the biting of the lips".

I don't know about you, but when I read those words I wished I hadn't. An instant picture of Dr Kelly in his last moments sprang into my head. The only other wounds visible at all were superficial abrasions to the head and minor bruising to the limbs – consistent, says the report, with scraping against rough undergrowth (presumably as his body was removed).

The report describes the various, necessarily intrusive procedures performed on Dr Kelly's body to discover any less visible signs of foul play. None was found. The brain showed no knocks to the head. The lungs gave no sign of being "overpowered by a volatile chemical". No mysterious drugs were detected in the bloodstream. Subcutaneous dissection of the arms and legs showed no "restraint-type injury".

There was no evidence of "compression of the neck, such as by manual strangulation, ligature strangulation or the use of an arm hold". There was no evidence from the post-mortem, or observations at the scene, to "indicate that the deceased had been dragged or otherwise transported to the location at which his body was found". Another conspiracist claim dashed.

There was, said Dr Hunt, "a total lack of classical 'defence' wounds against a sharp weapon attack", such wounds being typically to the palms or forearms. When somebody is murdered with a knife, the bloodstains left on the ground and clothing are often jagged and jerky, and spread all over the place, because the victim has been fighting for his life. But at the scene of Dr Kelly's death, the blood, though extensive, was "relatively passive" in distribution. There was no obvious trampling to the undergrowth, no damage to his clothing.

The bloodstains on the removed wristwatch are significant, says the pathologist: "The fact that the watch appears to have been removed while blood was already flowing suggests that it has been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist." The water bottle and its top, also bloodstained, were placed neatly on the ground.

Dr Hunt spent seven and a quarter hours at the scene of death, then just under three hours carrying out the post-mortem. His conclusion is clear: the orientation and arrangement of the wounds on the left wrist "are typical of self-inflicted injury", as is the rest of the layout of the death scene, and there is no evidence whatever to support any other finding.

As this previously "secret" pathology report is released, I'm in an unusual position. Contrary to various claims, this report was never quite "suppressed". As one of those at the centre of the David Kelly affair, and a party to the Hutton Inquiry, it was shared with my lawyers back in 2003. I could have seen it if I'd wanted to – but I never wanted to.

Because even without the crushing detail supplied by Dr Hunt, I had very little doubt that Dr Kelly committed suicide. Even if you believe that the British government goes round bumping off its own employees in cold blood – which I do not – what motive could they possibly have had for killing Dr Kelly? How could it possibly have been in their interest to murder him?

By the time he died, Dr Kelly was no longer an obscure official. He had been at the centre of a national row. His death plunged the last government into the greatest crisis in its history, a crisis from which it never fully recovered. Killing him was guaranteed to create such a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known.

Yes, I was both appalled – and surprised – when I first heard he'd died. He hadn't struck me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing. He was well used to confrontation and pressure: he'd been a weapons inspector in Iraq, for goodness' sake. And by the day of his death, the worst of the pressure was essentially over: the battle between Downing Street and the BBC over my sexed-up dossier story, for which Dr Kelly was the source, had reached stalemate.

But on the day of his dying, I knew nothing of how badly Dr Kelly had been treated. After learning what he went through at the hands of his employers, it is easier to understand the road that led him to that Oxfordshire hillside.

Alastair Campbell's determination to use Dr Kelly to, in his words, "f---" me saw him placed under great pressure. Having come forward to his bosses under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, he was effectively surrendered to the world – after Campbell decided that "the biggest thing needed was the source out". Ministry of Defence press officers gave journalists a series of clues which enabled anyone with Google to guess who he was. They kindly confirmed Dr Kelly's name to anyone who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly's.

Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by Jack Straw. He was intensively interviewed, forced into televised interrogation, coached in what to say, then blurted an untruth in the blaze of publicity – an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate. Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing that work, and that reputation, must have been terrifying to him, even if it was almost certainly unfounded.

What this week's report does do, however, is show the murder theory to be even more absurd and fantastic than it already was. For Dr Kelly to be killed, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they sawed away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly's study, so they would also have had to burgle his house to get it.
This week's publication has also demolished several of the Kelly conspiracy theory's most treasured pillars: the "lack" of blood, the "movement" of the body, and the "suppression" of the report itself. Will it silence the conspiracy theorists? I rather doubt it. Several of them were still in full flow yesterday.

There are, to be fair, a number of questions the report does not address. Dr Hunt himself subsequently changed one of the conclusions shown in it. The cause of death was rare – Dr Kelly was reportedly the only person in England to die in that way the whole of that year. Operation Mason, the police investigation into his death, started nine hours before he was even reported missing.

Yet most of these facts, too, turn out to have seemingly plausible explanations. The pathologist did change his view of the precise cause of Dr Kelly's death, but still ruled out the possibility that foul play was involved. Thames Valley police have said that the start time of Op Mason was chosen in retrospect to reflect the period of interest.

The fact that a cause of death is rare does not mean that it is unheard of, or impossible. Various doctors have questioned whether Dr Kelly could have bled to death from cutting the ulnar, one of the smaller arteries. But the actual cause of death is the combination of the severed artery with two other things: Dr Kelly's long-standing heart condition of coronary artery atherosclerosis, and his swallowing of the tablets. There are just as many, if not more, experts who state that this cause is entirely plausible.

The conspiracy wants Dr Kelly to have been murdered – but the reality, his suicide, is more than scandal enough. And if you seek the hand of the British government in deliberate killing, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more to the point than the death of one scientist.

Too often, as perhaps last week, Dr Kelly has been used by those wanting to fit him into their cause. Could we all please now leave him in peace?

ANNEX Part 2 [the "abridged" version of Dr. Frost's letter published by the Sunday Telegraph

SIR –

The David Kelly case is far from closed (News Review, October 24), not least because no inquest has taken place.

The Government, by publishing the highly-sensitive post-mortem and toxicology reports, hoped to draw a line under the whole affair. It will do no such thing.

The continued refusal to hold an inquest into his death, which is required by the laws of this country and of Europe, constitutes a blatant subversion of due process of the law.

Dr Stephen Frost

Colwyn Bay, Conwy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21797

Overdose evidence disputed

2010-10-30T13:34:00.002+01:00

Kelly's death 'was NOT caused by an overdose': Drugs expert dismisses theory on weapons inspector

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 12:47 AM on 30th October 2010

A medical expert claims he has conclusive new evidence that Dr David Kelly’s death could not have been caused – or even hastened – by an overdose of painkillers.

The post mortem on the weapons expert said he had taken up to 29 tablets of co-proxamol, and the supposed overdose was listed as a contributory cause of death.

But Dr Andrew Watt, a clinical pharmacologist, said the evidence suggested Dr Kelly could not have taken more than two tablets.

Dr Watt said he had studied all available material, including the toxicology report published by the Government last week, and used a simple mathematical formula to work out how much co-proxamol had entered his body before death.

Based on his body weight, the amount of water his body is likely to have contained, and the strength of the tablets, Dr Watt said it was not ‘accurate or reliable’ to suggest Dr Kelly had absorbed more than a ‘therapeutic dose’ of the medicine – in this case about two pills.

Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in July 2003 shortly after he was unmasked as the source of a BBC report claiming the government ‘sexed up’ a dossier on Iraq’s weapons.

Three blister packs of co-proxamol, each capable of holding ten tablets, were found in his coat pocket. Only one tablet remained. The official toxicologist, Alexander Allan, was unable to specify how many pills Dr Kelly had taken but tests showed he had less than a fifth of one tablet in his stomach.

Lord Hutton, who chaired the public inquiry into his death, found that he killed himself after cutting his wrist and taking ‘an excess amount of co-proxamol tablets’. Co-proxamol ingestion is also listed as a cause of death on Dr Kelly’s death certificate.

Unusually, there has never been a full coroner’s inquest.

Dr Watt has written to the Oxfordshire coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, outlining his findings and urging him to ask an independent specialist to investigate his claims.

In the letter, seen by the Mail, Dr Watt said: ‘The hard data points which exist relating to the alleged “overdose” are consistent with Dr. Kelly absorbing approximately two tablets . . . the possibility of the co-proxamol “hastening death” is, in my view, not credible.’

Dr Watt, who was a senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, is the latest physician to question the official version of how Dr Kelly died.

A group of doctors have formally applied to Attorney General Dominic Grieve for a full inquest.

Dr Michael Powers QC, representing the group, said: ‘Dr Watt makes a very important point. The number of tablets ingested and what was measured in the blood has never been satisfactorily explained.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325024/Kellys-death-NOT-caused-overdose-Drugs-expert-dismisses-theory-weapons-inspector.html

Text of an open letter

2010-10-27T20:48:00.004+01:00

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly

Yesterday, I sent by Recorded Delivery a letter to Dominic Grieve QC, requesting that he apply to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

The text of that letter follows below, for reference.

25th October 2010

To:
Dominic Grieve QC,
Attorney General

Open Letter
The Death of Dr. David Kelly – information indicating that a Coroner-led inquest, taking evidence on oath, is needed

Dear Attorney General,

I write to you to request that you apply to the High Court for an order that a Coroner-led inquest be conducted with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003, as provided for on the grounds enumerated in Subsection 13(1)(b) of the Coroner’s Act 1988.

Of the grounds mentioned in Subsection 13(1)(b) I consider the following grounds potentially to be of relevance in an application to the High Court with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly.

1. Rejection of evidence
2. Irregularity of proceedings
3. Insufficiency of inquiry
4. Discovery of new facts or evidence

As I read Subsection 13(1)(b) any one of these deficiencies is sufficient grounds on which to apply for an order from the High Court. Given persistent public concerns about how Dr. Kelly met his death I find it difficult to conceive how the High Court could conclude otherwise than such an inquest is in the interests of justice.

I will list some causes for concern under each of the four headings previously mentioned. In some situations it is not immediately clear whether a particular point of concern should most appropriately be considered under a single heading or multiple headings. To avoid unnecessary repetition I will attempt to list a cause for concern under the single heading that appears to me to be most relevant.

The following lists do not purport to be exhaustive. They simply represent causes for concern that I observed after only a few hours reading the Hutton Inquiry transcripts, the Report and other potentially relevant material, as they refer to matters relating to the cause of death of Dr. David Kelly.

Rejection of Evidence

Lord Hutton made it clear in his introductory statement that decisions about who to call to give evidence rested with him. It seems to me that a number of individuals who could potentially have given useful evidence regarding Dr. Kelly’s death were excluded from giving evidence. I can only assume that Lord Hutton rejected them as witnesses, hence my including them under the “Rejection of Evidence” heading. Lord Hutton’s approach to the evidence of these individuals might equally be classified under the “Insufficiency of Inquiry” heading.

1. A Detective Constable Shields was stated (by DC Graham Coe) to have been present when DC Coe first saw Dr. Kelly’s body. DC Shields was not asked to give evidence.

2. Dr. Eileen Hickey accompanied her colleague, the forensic biologist Mr Roy Green, and spent some 5 hours at the scene where Dr. Kelly’s body was found. Dr. Hickey was not asked to give evidence, nor so far as I can ascertain was her area(s) of expertise explored by Hutton.

3. Mr. Green testified that at least three Scenes of Crimes Officers were present at the scene. None was asked to give evidence about what they might have found or seen.

Irregularity of Proceedings

1. When evidence was taken from Mr Roy Green, forensic biologist, he stated in his testimony that his tests were ongoing. He was not asked to give further oral evidence and the results of his tests, so far as I am aware, are not known (at least I can find no public record of the results having been made available to the Hutton Inquiry or, alternatively, made publicly available by the Inquiry).

2. Supposedly, Assistant Chief Constable Page was to give evidence at his second appearance before Lord Hutton about the results of Mr. Green’s tests. He did not do so in any meaningful way and the absence of information about completed tests conducted by Mr. Green was ignored by both Assistant Chief Constable Page and by the Hutton Inquiry. In any case, it was in my view highly irregular that someone who is not a technical expert should be asked to give evidence on a technical subject about which he has negligible or no expertise. In addition, the technical detail of Mr. Green’s tests was not investigated in oral questioning which seems to me to be grossly irregular and insufficient.

Insufficiency of Inquiry

There are numerous individual points where, so it seems to me, Lord Hutton was negligent in terms of conducting a credible and diligent inquiry, equivalent to an inquest.

Each of the listed points which follow indicates, in my view, “insufficiency of inquiry” by Lord Hutton. Taken together they are more consistent with Lord Hutton jumping to a politically convenient conclusion of “suicide” rather than conducting a comprehensive and diligent inquiry as to how Dr. David Kelly died.

1. No evidence was taken on oath. This raises questions about the validity of some evidence and leaves open questions about discrepancies between the evidence given by different individuals. Evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is, in its entirety, of less evidential credibility than had it been taken on oath.

2. It appears that someone may have moved Dr. Kelly’s body between it being found by the volunteer searchers and it being seen (some hours later) by Dr. Hunt, the forensic pathologist. The body was stated by Paul Chapman to be sitting against a tree. The body was stated later to be lying flat on its back. If someone moved the body in the interim it needs to be established how that came about and an assessment made of its significance. The following is apparently a statement made subsequent to the Hutton Inquiry by one of the paramedics (who was at the scene some two hours before Dr. Hunt arrived at the scene) to the Daily Mail:

‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’

3. Only one of the “three” plain-clothes individuals seen by the volunteer searchers was questioned by Hutton, DC Coe. So far as I can ascertain he wasn’t asked if the other officer(s) present had touched or moved the body. He stated that he hadn’t personally approached the body.

4. Each of the two searchers state that they met “three” individuals, presumably not in uniform, shortly after they found Dr. Kelly’s body. DC Coe said that only he and the mysterious DC Shields were present. Counting to two or three is not complex. Someone is either mistaken or someone is not telling the truth. Lord Hutton failed either to identify the discrepancy in evidence or to take steps to resolve the discrepancy by further questioning of witnesses.

5. The possibility exists that the mysterious “third man”, if he existed, moved the body. Lord Hutton, so far as I can ascertain, made no attempt to identify or question the “third man”. Given that Assistant Chief Constable Page indicated that Special Branch had been informed at an early stage about Dr. Kelly’s disappearance, the possibility exists that the “third man” was a Special Branch individual.

6. The Police created a “common approach path” several feet wide. So far as I can ascertain no witness was asked if the creation of the “common approach path” could have obliterated evidence of Dr. Kelly having been carried to the scene where his body was found. Since Assistant Chief Constable Page asserts that an inquiry of the highest quality was carried out, this seems a fundamental omission in the Police inquiry, paralleled by a subsequent insufficiency by Hutton.

7. It seems to be widely assumed that Dr. Kelly used his own knife to kill himself. In testimony it became clear that Mrs Kelly was never shown the knife found beside Dr. Kelly’s body. How then can any reliable identification of the knife have supposedly been made?

8. It seems to be widely assumed that Dr. Kelly used his wife’s co-proxamol tablets to kill himself. At no point was it established that any of his wife’s tablets were missing. The Hutton Inquiry did not ask her and she did not volunteer any information on the subject.

9. As a result of the irregularities previously mentioned with respect to Mr. Green’s evidence there is no assurance that “blood” mentioned in the evidence of others is indeed blood. Nor that it is human blood. Nor that it is Dr. Kelly’s blood. At best this is a “loose end”, not identified or clarified with sufficient diligence by the Hutton Inquiry.

10. Dr. Hunt speculated that the observation that Dr. Kelly’s watch was not on his wrist indicated that Dr. Kelly had removed the watch in order more effectively to cut his wrist. However, the evidence of DC Coe is that the watch was “on top of” the knife when he first saw the body. If the watch was “on top of” the knife, it wasn’t removed to allow better access to cut the wrist, at least not with the knife that was underneath the watch. So far as I can see, Lord Hutton failed to observe the discrepancy or to take steps to inquire into how it might definitively be resolved.

11. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report (final paragraph) mention is made of “broken branches” close to Dr. Kelly’s body. Were those branches freshly broken (consistent with disturbance of the area by a third party)? So far as I can ascertain from the Hutton Inquiry documents this question was not explored. In my view, in order to adequately consider the possibility of a third party being involved, this question should have been thoroughly explored.

12. On page 5 of the Pathologist’s report (first new paragraph) Dr. Hunt states that there was a “pool of blood” extending for “2’ – 3’” i.e. for 2 to 3 feet! from the left arm of Dr. Kelly. The testimony of others is that the paramedics stood (and presumably knelt to apply the ECG electrodes) in this area (and laid what I assume to be a portable defibrillator on the ground) yet, if Dr. Hunt’s observations are correct, failed to observe a “pool of blood” some 2 to 3 feet long! I find it inexplicable that this discrepancy in the evidence was not explored in detail at the Hutton Inquiry. Having on many occasions applied ECG electrodes to the chest I cannot easily conceive of how the paramedics would have carried out the necessary actions of unbuttoning Dr. Kelly’s shirt etc and applying the electrodes without either seeing, kneeling in or standing in a “pool of blood” some 2 to 3 feet long.

13. In numbered paragraph 7 on page 13 of the Pathologist’s report Dr. Hunt uses the fact that Dr. Kelly’s spectacles were in his Barbour pocket to speculate that this was a supporting indicator that Dr. Kelly committed suicide. So far as I can ascertain Dr. Hunt did not inquire (or record) what sight defect(s) caused Dr. Kelly to possess spectacles. Nor did Lord Hutton, so far as I can ascertain. If Dr. Kelly’s spectacles were reading glasses and he wasn’t reading, is there any reason to assume that he would be wearing them? If Dr. Kelly had reading glasses and wasn’t reading (no reading material was recorded at the scene, so far as I can ascertain) it seems bizarre to use the finding as supposed evidence of suicide.

14. In numbered paragraph 8 on page 14 of the Pathologist’s report, Dr. Hunt asserts a “lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth” and speculates on that basis that this suggests self-harm. We know from testimony to Hutton that several people (the volunteer searchers, the paramedics, DC Coe and possibly others) had walked, stood or kneeled in or close to the area. But Dr. Hunt missed the signs of the recent presence of those individuals. I suggest that it can be assumed that Dr. Hunt would also have missed evidence of the hypothetical presence of a malevolently-minded third party (or parties) several hours earlier. Dr. Hunt’s assertion is, at best, of limited value and this should have been identified by Hutton, in my view and further targeted questioning have taken place.

15. The attribution in paragraph 11 on page 14 of clinical significance to anatomical coronary artery lesions is largely speculative. Lord Hutton should have explored with Dr. Hunt to what degree his assertion is speculative.

16. In numbered paragraph 13 on page 14 of the Pathologist’s report Dr. Hunt attributes cardiac toxicity to dextropropoxyphene (of which the concentration was measured) but did not consider the likely greater importance of the metabolite propoxyphene (whose concentration was not measured, I understand). The absence of information about the concentration of propoxyphene renders Dr. Hunt’s speculation significantly more uncertain than it purports to be.

17. The abrasions to the head mentioned in numbered paragraph 17 on page 15 of the Pathologist’s report might be consistent with the body having been moved by a third party. Dr. Hunt appears not to have considered that possible interpretation nor does Lord Hutton seem to have inquired about that possibility.

18. Dr. Hunt attributes death to blood loss. He, so far as I can ascertain, did not attempt to measure or estimate how much blood was lost. This renders his primary conclusion speculative, to a potentially significant degree. Lord Hutton failed to identify or explore the limitations of Dr. Hunt’s primary conclusion.

19. Professor Hawton repeated in his oral evidence, as if fact, the points about which I raise concern with respect to Dr. Kelly’s glasses, his watch and the evidence (or otherwise) of trampling at the scene. Essentially, in these matters Professor Hawton’s “evidence” amounts to little more than hearsay echoing Dr. Hunt’s evidence and amplifying the potentially erroneous observations and interpretation of Dr. Hunt. Lord Hutton failed to identify and inquire into such points of concern regarding Professor Hawton’s evidence.

20. There is a puzzling piece of toxicology evidence regarding the concentrations measured by Dr. Allen of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene. Assuming the likely formulation of co-proxamol the ratio of the two substances ingested is 10:1. In the serum concentrations measured the ratio was 97:1. Given the metabolism of the two substances I cannot immediately identify how such a ratio could have come about, given the underlying assumption that only co-proxamol was ingested. This may be no more than a pharmacokinetic curiosity but I do consider that the Hutton Inquiry should have explored whether the somewhat surprising ratio found in serum concentrations might have any significance.

New facts or evidence

1. One of the paramedics who attended the scene indicated to a national newspaper that that the body was moved. He was not informed about the position of the body as seen by the searchers so at the time of the Hutton Inquiry was in no position to indicate that it was different when he saw it.

2. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report recently released by the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Hunt states that the “left hand” was over the right side of Dr. Kelly’s shirt. Elsewhere in his report he states the “left hand” was to the left of the body. The discrepancy may be no more than a simple error but should be resolved.

3. On page 4 of the Pathologist’s report (third and second last paragraphs) Dr. Hunt indicates that the knife was “adjacent” to the watch. He seems entirely unaware of the evidence of DC Coe (who saw Dr. Kelly’s body some 3 hours earlier) that the watch was “on top of” the knife when he first saw the body (before the scene was potentially disturbed by the paramedics and others). This point is potentially of crucial importance. If the watch was initially “on top of” the knife Dr. Hunt’s speculation that the removal of the watch was for the purpose of inflicting a deeper wound with the knife is seriously undermined.

4. The matters discussed in the preceding numbered paragraph raise doubts about Dr. Hunt’s findings at numbered paragraph 7 on page 13 of the Pathologist’s report. Specifically, he was (so far as I can ascertain) unaware that the watch was initially “on top of” the knife. His conjecture that the watch was removed to allow better access to the wrist is seriously undermined, in my view, if DC Coe’s evidence is correct.

In light of my having commented on several technical aspects of the Pathologist’s finding and speculations I have noted my qualifications beside my name below.

In my opinion the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly killed himself is unsafe on the basis of the currently incomplete and/or contradictory evidence presented to the Hutton Inquiry, as discussed earlier in this letter. It is my view that in the interests of justice it is necessary that an inquest be held taking evidence on oath from all those who may have relevant information.

Thank you.

Your sincerely

Andrew H Watt BA, BMedBiol(Pathology), MBChB, MD(Hons), DipPharmMed, FRCP(Ed)

Addressee:

Dominic Grieve QC
Attorney General
Attorney General’s Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html

Inquest decision "not something you can rush"

2010-10-26T10:29:00.005+01:00

Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve: Inquest decision over Iraq UN weapons inspector not imminent

9:00am Tuesday 26th October 2010

A DECISION on whether to reopen the inquest into the death of UN weapons inspector Dr David Kelly is likely to be months away, the Attorney General says.

Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve, the top legal adviser to the Government, is reviewing documents to see if there is any evidence which “might cast proper doubt” on the previous enquiry - which concluded he committed suicide.

Conspiracy theories have abound since Dr Kelly’s death in 2003.

He died after being revealed as the source behind a controversial BBC story which accused the Government of ‘sexing up’ a dossier used as support for the Iraq War.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke released Post Mortem details last week, which were originally supposed to have been kept secret for 70 years.

Mr Clarke said it was to maintain confidence in the Hutton inquiry, which previously ruled Dr Kelly took his own life.

A group of doctors have called for the inquest to be reopened.

Mr Grieve told the Free Press: “The papers have been referred to me, there’s a submission from some doctors which have been in the media saying they have some concerns about the outcome of the inquiry.

"It’s now my task to review that.

“I can make an application to the High Court under certain circumstances to refer to ask for a fresh inquest or an inquest to be reopened or to take place where there’s been an enquiry.

“But that’s got to be on the basis that some evidence has come to light which might be cast proper doubt on the conclusions of whatever happened previously and that can happen in a number of circumstances.”

He added, though: “It’s not my decision to reopen the inquest it’s up to the High Court.”

The details released by Mr Clarke have already been seen by Mr Grieve along with other sensitive documents.

Mr Grieve, also MP for Marlow following the General Election, said: “I want to make quite clear at this stage we are nowhere near making the decision on that (the application to the High Court for an inquest).

“I would obviously want to do that as quick as I can but it’s not something you can rush in a few days.

“I don’t think I can put a strict timescale on it, obviously I don’t want it to drag but not something you should expect next week.

"I think it’s going to take a few months to sort out.”

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/8474170.
Dr_Kelly_inquest_decision__months__away/

The opinion of experts

2010-10-24T19:29:00.003+01:00

The experts are clear on how David Kelly died

Not a single forensic pathologist has challenged the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry

Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 October 2010 17.00 BST

And so it goes on. Despite the release on Friday of the postmortem and toxicology reports into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, the claims will continue.

The Hutton inquiry into the factors leading to Kelly's death heard expert evidence and then concluded the weapons inspector had committed suicide.

Not one single party to the inquiry, which was more thorough than any inquest would have been, offered any evidence to the contrary. The inquiry into the death in 2003 was vitriolic at times, and ended up with the BBC and Kelly family joining together in a savage battle against the government.

I sat through Hutton's inquiry, and have sat through many inquests.

Despite Hutton's baffling conclusion that the government bore no blame for pressurising Kelly, his was a more rigorous inquiry into the death than an inquest.

But none of this has satisfied those determined to suggest something more malign was behind Kelly's demise.

Over the years, as new claims have emerged, I have gone back to a group of experts who would be best placed to spot anything untoward, namely forensic pathologists. They are the experts in determining causes of death.

What is striking is their consistency in saying the scientific evidence points to Hutton's inquiry having reached the right conclusion.

The Hutton inquiry found that Kelly, 59, died after cutting an artery in his left wrist, had taken an overdose of Coproxamol painkillers and had heart disease which left his coronary arteries "significantly narrowed".

The doubters, who some call conspiracy theorists, have failed in all the years to produce one single fact to support their claims.

Experts in forensic pathology say that the doubts raised, including those by doctors, were based on partial knowledge or misconceptions.

The critics have claimed that bleeding to death after cutting the ulnar artery was unlikely, and that evidence of large-scale blood loss at the scene was absent.

Dr Andrew Falzon, a consultant forensic pathologist with the Forensic Science Service, said Kelly's heart disease and overdose of Coproxamol meant a smaller loss of blood could kill him than that required to kill a healthy person: "You are going to succumb to a smaller volume of blood loss than if you were a 20-year-old with a healthy heart.

"The heart vessel is already deprived of oxygen because of the blockage of the vessels. With the loss of blood [caused by cutting the ulnar artery], there is less oxygen to the heart. Throw in the toxic level of drug, that makes the heart more sensitive to cardiac arrhythmia [an electrical disturbance] which causes sudden death.

"I'm sure bleeding from the ulnar artery can kill you."

Falzon also said the views of those not trained in forensic pathology, even if they are medically trained, needed to be treated with caution: "People who are not trained to look at causes of death will perceive things differently. It's hard for them to believe certain things can happen."

Professor Peter Vanezis, senior consultant in forensic medicine to the armed forces, said: "These people are more clinicians and are obviously surprised that a person can kill themselves like that." Vanezis said the lack of large amounts of blood in the wood where Kelly was discovered could also be easily explained: "It was outside – it could have gone into the soil."

Dr Andrew Davison, a forensic pathologist at Cardiff University, agreed: "You only have so much blood going around. If you have a heart condition you can't afford to lose as much blood as a healthy person."

Professor Derrick Pounder, head of forensic medicine and forensic pathologist at the University of Dundee, said: "It may be that there are several factors in a death. In this case, we know he had taken more than a therapeutic dose of drugs, and that he had some pre-existing heart disease. We have three factors in the death that are known to the public. The cause of death is likely an interplay between the three."

Professor Chris Milroy, now working in Canada, was a pathology professor at Sheffield University. He said: "I've seen nothing yet that proves anything other than Dr Kelly took his own life in the way the Hutton inquiry concluded, by cutting his wrists and taking an overdose."

Kelly's heart condition made him unable to withstand loss of blood to the extent that a fit person could. The death was "multifactoral": due to the cut to his wrist, a toxic dose of drugs and heart disease. The Dextropropoxyphene he took was itself toxic to the heart.

Milroy added: "It is difficult to estimate blood loss from looking at the scene."

Paramedics have claimed there was a lack of blood at the scene where Kelly's body was discovered. Professor Guy Rutty, of Leicester University, said: "The blood could have gone straight into the ground."

Both said paramedics were trained in saving lives, not in the forensic examination of scenes of death, which required a wholly different set of skills and expertise.

The forensic pathologist who examined Kelly's body, Dr Nicholas Hunt, gave the formal cause of death as: "Haemorrhage due to incised wounds of the left wrist", in conjunction with "Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis".

No expert in the field of forensic pathology has to date come forward to doubt that claim. Not one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/experts-david-kelly-death-clear

Doctors 'not satisfied by medical documents'

2010-10-23T20:56:00.002+01:00

David Kelly campaigners say suicide 'still not proved beyond doubt' despite release of secret files

By Michael Seamark

Last updated at 10:59 AM on 23rd October 2010

Doctors pushing for a full inquest into the death of David Kelly have not been satisfied by secret medical documents which insist he committed suicide.

Post-mortem records for the Iraq weapons inspector, which were originally ordered by the Hutton Inquiry to be kept under wraps for 70 years, were released yesterday.

They concluded he bled to death in a case 'typical of self-inflicted injury' but experts still have questions about how much blood was at the scene.

Ministers had hoped that releasing the reports might put an end to the controversy surrounding Dr Kelly’s death, which has led some to claim he was murdered.

But Dr Michael Powers QC, one of several experts calling for an inquest, described the decision to release the medical records as like ‘some sort of sticking plaster’.

Fellow campaigner Dr Christopher Burns-Cox said: ‘This suicide has not been proved beyond any doubt.’

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke decided to release the documents in an attempt to stifle conspiracy theories surrounding the scientist’s death in 2003.

The two detailed reports appeared to confirm Lord Hutton’s conclusion that Dr Kelly took his own life.

His body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home shortly after he was identified as the source of a BBC story that Tony Blair’s government had ‘sexed up’ its dossier on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

No coroner’s inquest has been held because the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, used an obscure law to appoint Lord Hutton to chair a public inquiry into the death.

Law lord Lord Hutton accepted the findings of Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt that Dr Kelly died after severing an artery in his wrist and swallowing an overdose of drugs.

Lord Hutton initially ruled that the post-mortem examination and toxicology reports be kept secret for 70 years, but Mr Clarke intervened and ordered their release yesterday.

Dr Hunt’s report said the weapons inspector died from a combination of bleeding from his wrist, an overdose of co-proxamol tablets and ‘clinically silent coronary artery disease’.

But Dr Powers, who is campaigning to overturn Lord Hutton’s findings, said there was nothing new in the documents and there was still conflict over how much blood was at the scene.

He said Dr Kelly could also have taken ‘far less than 29 tablets’ and, if he had taken only six or eight ‘one might draw completely different conclusions’.

‘It is extraordinary that it has taken somewhere in the region of nine months for the Ministry of Justice to decide which information should be made public,’ he said.

‘This is some sort of sticking plaster to address the inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry. These matters need to be dealt with at a coroner’s court.

‘This may cause distress to the family but there has been distress to them over the years because there has not been an adequate inquiry where all the issues are addressed.’

Mr Clarke said he was releasing the documents ‘in the interests of maintaining public confidence’ in Lord Hutton’s inquiry but added that he was ‘mindful that the contents may be distressing’.

Dr Kelly’s family does not want an inquest and yesterday their solicitor, Peter Jacobsen, said they would be making no comment on the release of the documents.

Lord Hutton denied claims that the reports had been concealed.

He said: ‘There was no secrecy surrounding the post-mortem report because it had always been available for examination and questioning by counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry.’

The release of the documents came as former Cabinet minister Clare Short accused Tony Blair of having ‘blood on his hands’ over Dr Kelly.

She told Radio 5 the former prime minister and his spin doctor Alastair Campbell ‘bear a guilt’ for driving the scientist to his death.

Miss Short said the weapons inspector came under ‘enormous strain’ when the Labour government outed him as the source of the sexed-up dossier story.

Bloodstains, a drugs overdose and a 'silent' heart disease

The 15-page post-mortem report and six-page toxicology document contain highly intimate details of the discovery and conditions of Dr Kelly's body. Here Michael Seamark lists some of the questions surrounding his death and analyses whether the new documents provide credible answers

1. THE DEATH SCENE

Was this where Dr Kelly actually died? His death certificate says, ‘Found dead at Harrowdown Hill, Longworth, Oxon,’ but normally the document would not say ‘found at’. Could this imply – as some have claimed – that his body had been moved?

Shortly after 2pm on July 18, 2003, pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt entered a hastily erected police tent to find Dr Kelly, dressed in a green Barbour waxed jacket, lying dead on his back, his left arm flexed at the elbow and right fist clenched over his chest.

His mobile phone, bifocal spectacles and three packs of ten co-proxamol painkiller tablets were found in a jacket pocket – with only one tablet remaining in its blister pack.

Neatly propped against branches was an open bottle of Evian water with smeared blood on both bottle and nearby bottle top.

To his left was a Barbour cap, with blood over the lining and its peak, and his wristwatch, lying face down and showing some blood staining.

Next to this was a Sandvik gardener’s pruning knife, its blade extended, with bloodstaining over the handle and the blade and a pool of blood beneath ‘approximately 8-10 by 4-5cm’.

The pathologist said there were no obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth or damage to clothing and said the location was of interest as ‘it is clearly a very pleasant yet relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes chosen by people intent upon self-harm’.

He added: ‘The fact that the watch appears to have been removed whilst blood was already flowing suggests that it has been removed deliberately in order to facilitate access to the wrist.

‘The removal of the watch in this way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are features pointing towards this being an act of self-harm.’

There was no pathological evidence to suggest Dr Kelly had been restrained or subjected to ‘sustained, violent assault prior to his death’ or ‘manual strangulation, ligature strangulation or the use of an arm hold’.

Nor was there any evidence that he ‘had been dragged or otherwise transported to the location at which his body was found’.

2. THE BLOOD

Much of the controversy surrounding the death has centred on eyewitness accounts highlighting a lack of blood around the body. Detective Constable Graham Coe, one of those who attended the scene, said: ‘I certainly didn’t see a lot of blood anywhere. There was some on his left wrist but it wasn’t on his clothes.’ This reinforced suspicions he might have been killed elsewhere.

After the preliminary observations, Dr Kelly’s body was undressed and minutely examined for ‘bloodstaining and contamination’.

On clothing, Dr Hunt said he found bloodstaining: over the front of the right side of his shirt, under the blood-stained palm of Dr Kelly’s left hand; over the right groin and tops of both his thighs; a heavier patch over the right knee; over the right elbow and right shoulder; a light patch inside the right knee; heavy bloodstaining over the left arm, including the part inside the jacket sleeve; and over the back of the left elbow.

On the body he found: heavy bloodstaining over the left arm; lighter bloodstaining over the back of the fingers and palm of the right hand; several small blood spots on the neck, cheek and ear.

Dr Hunt said there was also bloodstaining and a pool of blood running from the scientist’s left arm for a distance of two or three inches. There was also evidence at the scene that Dr Kelly had vomited.

3. THE INJURIES

The group of doctors pressing for a full inquest say blood from the small artery severed by Dr Kelly would have clotted before he could bleed to death. In addition, a close friend, Dr Mai Pedersen, says an injury to his right hand had left the weapons inspector unable even to cut meat with it, calling into question whether he could have cut his wrist in the way described by the Hutton Report.

Dr Kelly’s corpse was subsequently taken to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford for a full post-mortem examination.

Under the heading ‘signs of sharp force injury’, Dr Hunt recorded a series of incised wounds across the front of the left wrist extending 8cm from side to side and 5cm from top to bottom.

The largest wound was 6cm long and between 1cm and 1.5cm deep and had completely severed the ulnar artery and partially severed the ulnar nerve. Two deep wounds around 2cm long were at the crease of the wrist.

He also found multiple fine, superficial incisions. He said: ‘The complex of incised wounds over the left wrist are entirely consistent with having been inflicted by a bladed weapon. The knife present at the scene would be a suitable candidate.’

Dr Hunt said many of the injuries suggested they had been inflicted over a ‘reasonable amount of time – minutes rather than seconds or hours before death.’

He added that the arrangement of the wounds over the left wrist were typical of self-inflicted injury. Also typical of this were small so-called ‘tentative’ or ‘hesitation’ marks. He said there was a total lack of classical ‘defence’ wounds against a sharp weapon attack.

4. THE SECRET HEART DISEASE

While much has been made of the alleged lack of blood at the scene, and questions raised about how many tablets Dr Kelly had taken, little weight has been placed on his ‘clinically silent’ heart disease.

Examination of his heart revealed he had ‘a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death, but not the major part in the cause of death’.

The post-mortem report found some arteries were between 60 and 70 per cent narrower than normal and forensic examination of the organ ‘raised the possibility of previous ischaemia/infarction’ – so-called ‘silent heart attacks’.

5. THE DRUGS OVERDOSE

Only a small amount of the drug co-proxamol was found in Dr Kelly’s body, leading doctors to argue that the dose doesn’t correspond with the volume of opened packs of tablets found with his body.

Forensic scientist Alexander Allan analysed blood, urine and bodily fluid samples taken from the weapons inspector’s heart, stomach and liver.

He found traces of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene – the active ingredients of the prescription-only drug co-proxamol.

The amount of dextropropoxyphene in the blood was ‘consistent with the ingestion of a large amount of co-proxamol’ but although it could represent a fatal overdose in certain circumstances, it was significantly lower than the average level in recorded overdoses.

The level of paracetamol found in the stomach was unlikely to be fatal but because of vomiting, Dr Allan said some of the drug contents might have been lost and it was likely that the bulk of the tablets ingested had passed into Dr Kelly’s circulatory system.

The forensic scientist concluded that the ‘blood paracetamol and blood dextropropoxyphene levels indicate the consumption of a considerable co-proxamol overdose’ but Dr Kelly had died before all the paracetamol had been absorbed into his system.

Dr Hunt’s report said the toxicology findings indicate Dr Kelly ‘consumed a significant quantity of these tablets either on the way to or at the scene itself’.

While the blood/drug levels were not particularly high and ‘may not ordinarily have caused death in their own right,’ co-proxamol may cause fatally abnormal heart rhythms – particularly if there is low blood pressure as a result of bleeding and underlying narrowing of the coronary arteries.

6.CONCLUSIONS

Dr Hunt’s conclusions were unequivocal – that Dr Kelly killed himself at the place he was found. However, this will not silence the calls for a full inquest.

Dr Hunt said: ‘The main factor involved in bringing about the death of David Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist. Had this not occurred he may well not have died at this time.

‘On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322992/Dr-David-Kelly-verdict-fails-stop-doctors-demanding-inquest.html

Lord Hutton - "There was no secrecy"

2010-10-22T11:19:00.002+01:00

22 October 2010 Last updated at 10:18

Dr Kelly evidence: Lord Hutton statement in full

Lord Hutton, the law lord who conducted the inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death, has insisted there was no secrecy surrounding the post-mortem examination report.

In a statement, he said: "There appears to be widespread misunderstanding about the availability of the post-mortem report on Dr David Kelly prepared by Dr Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office pathologist, who gave evidence to the inquiry into his death which I conducted.

"I wish to make it clear that when a group of doctors made a request to see the post-mortem report, I issued a statement in January that I would not object to its disclosure to the doctors and their legal advisers for the purposes of legal proceedings.

"However, whether or not the report should be disclosed is a matter for the Lord Chancellor to decide.

"The inquiry which I conducted was open and public. It was very widely reported in the media and all the evidence appeared on the inquiry website which is still available to view.

"At the inquiry Dr Kelly's family, the government and the BBC were represented by leading counsel, none of whom asked for leave to question or challenge by cross examination the evidence of Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist, Professor Keith Hawton, the director of the centre for suicide research in the University of Oxford and a leading expert on the subject of suicide, and other witnesses, whose evidence led to the conclusion that Dr Kelly had committed suicide and had not been murdered.

"The post-mortem report was available for inspection by those counsel.

"At the conclusion of the inquiry I requested (not 'ordered') that the post-mortem report should not be disclosed for 70 years.

"I made this request solely in order to protect Dr Kelly's widow and daughters for the remainder of their lives (the daughters being in their 20s at that time) from the distress which they would suffer from further discussion of the details of Dr Kelly's death in the media.

"My request was not a concealment of evidence because every matter of relevance had been examined or was available for examination during the public inquiry.

"There was no secrecy surrounding the post-mortem report because it had always been available for examination and questioning by counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11605918

Post-mortem and toxicology reports released

2010-10-22T11:04:00.002+01:00

22 October 2010 Last updated at 10:32

Kelly death due to 'self-inflicted injury,' says report

Previously secret evidence about the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly has suggested that he died as a result of a "self-inflicted injury".

The post-mortem report into his 2003 death, published on Friday, said the main cause was bleeding from a wound to his wrist "entirely consistent with being inflicted with a bladed weapon".

The wound was "typical of a self-inflicted injury", it added.

Lord Hutton's 2004 inquiry concluded the scientist had committed suicide.

But a group of doctors have called for the case to be reopened, arguing that the suicide verdict was unsafe.

Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, after it was revealed he had provided the information for a BBC News story casting doubt on the government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.

That claim was a key part of the government's justification for launching the war in Iraq.

'No secrecy'

Instead of a coroner's inquest, then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an investigation, which found Dr Kelly had died from blood loss after slashing his wrist with a knife.

Lord Hutton requested that the medical evidence which led him to that verdict should be kept secret for the sake of the scientist's family.

Details of the post-mortem examination and toxicology tests had been classified for 70 years but the Ministry of Justice said it was now publishing the details "in the interests of maintaining public confidence" in the Hutton inquiry's conclusions.

In the post-mortem, Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt said there was "no evidence" that "natural disease" had caused Dr Kelly's death and identified a "significant" wound to his left wrist which resulted in a "the loss of a significant volume of blood as noted at the scene".

"The complex of incised wounds over the left wrist are entirely consistent with having been inflicted with a bladed weapon," he concluded.

As to the nature of the wound, he added that its "orientation and arrangement...are typical of self-inflicted injury".

Key signs

In his report, Dr Hunt sets out in detail the factors he believes indicated suicide.

He says the removal of Dr Kelly's watch and spectacles are "features pointing towards this being an act of self-harm," as is the "relatively passive distribution of blood, the neat way in which the water bottle and its top were placed, the lack of obvious signs of trampling of the undergrowth or damage to clothing".

There was also a "total lack of classical defence wounds against a sharp weapon attack," he adds, and no "pathological evidence that this man had been subjected to a sustained, violent assault prior to his death".

Furthermore, Dr Hunt's report adds, there was no evidence at the scene or from the post-mortem that Dr Kelly's body had been "dragged or otherwise transported" to the scene where he was found. Some campaigners have suggested that Dr Kelly's body was moved after his death.

The toxicology report by forensic scientist Alexander Allan showed a high concentration of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in Dr Kelly's blood. The two make up co-proxamol - a prescription-only drug for the treatment of mild to moderate pain.

'Considerable' overdose

Campaigners have questioned whether the painkillers in Dr Kelly's system were enough to cause death - and Dr Hunt says in his report that "the levels of paracetemol and dextropropoxyphene in the blood are not particularly high and may not ordinarily have caused death in their own right".

But he adds that dextropropoxyphene can cause fatal heart rhythm abnormalities in people with low blood pressure as a result of bleeding and "underlying narrowing of the coronary arteries" - both factors which he said applied in Dr Kelly's case.

The toxicology report concluded Dr Kelly had taken a "considerable" overdose of the drug although he had died before all the paracetamol had been absorbed into his system. The impact of the overdose was lessened because of a lack of other depressants such as alcohol.

The report said: "The concentration of dextropropoxyhene in the blood is consistent with the ingestion of a large amount of co-proxamol and although it could represent a fatal overdose in certain circumstances, for example with other substances ... it is significantly lower than the average level in reported in fatal overdose cases."

Dr Hunt gives the cause of death as haemorrhage, wounds to the left wrist, co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery damage.

Responding to the post-mortem's release, Lord Hutton denied that it had been concealed.

"There was no secrecy surrounding the post-mortem report because it had always been available for examination and questioning by counsel representing the interested parties during the inquiry," he said in a statement.

Dr Kelly's family are not expected to make a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11603539

Kelly papers to be reviewed

2010-09-24T13:01:00.003+01:00

Law chief orders probe into secret files on death of Dr David Kelly

By James Slack and Miles Goslett

Last updated at 8:42 AM on 24th September 2010

Secret files on the death of Dr David Kelly will be handed over to medical experts to see if the suicide verdict can be challenged.

Ministers want independent advice on whether there are any discrepancies or unanswered questions in the post mortem examination report.

Home Office pathologist Nicholas Hunt concluded the weapons inspector died after cutting a small artery in his wrist. But a group of doctors campaigning for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death claim he would not have lost enough blood to end his life.

Attorney General Dominic Grieve wants to establish whether they have a solid case.

The Mail can reveal the doctors have now begun legal action, calling on Mr Grieve to petition the High Court for an inquest.

Through their lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, the doctors have listed their reasons in a petition document known as a ‘memorial’.

It argues that Dr Kelly’s death was not sufficiently investigated and claims there are a large number of irregularities surrounding it. The decision to call in independent medical experts represents a breakthrough in their campaign.

It shows how seriously the Attorney General is treating their concerns about the official verdict, recorded by the Hutton Inquiry, that Dr Kelly committed suicide.

Last month, the Mail revealed how Mr Grieve had requested Dr Kelly’s post-mortem examination report from Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke.

Lord Hutton had instructed the papers should remain secret for 70 years. But Mr Grieve used special powers he holds to take control of the files – which campaigners believe could hold the key to the case.

He wants a group of entirely independent experts – likely to include doctors and a coroner – to study the documentation for any discrepancies which would justify the holding of an inquest.

The law states the High Court can only agree to hold the inquiry if there is ‘new evidence’ to challenge Lord Hutton’s verdict.

The process of studying the evidence is likely to take several months. In the meantime, Mr Clarke is considering a separate application for the post-mortem examination files to be made available to the public.

Dr Kelly’s family, including his widow Janice, have made it known they are opposed to the release of the files and the holding of an inquest.

Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods near his house in Oxfordshire in July 2003 shortly after he was unmasked as the key source of a BBC report suggesting the government lied to justify Britain’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Unusually, no coroner’s inquest has ever been held. Instead, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, used an obscure law to appoint Lord Hutton to chair a public inquiry into his death.

In contrast to an inquest witnesses could not be compelled to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Mr Grieve has said ‘people who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point’. But he said he could not order a new probe ‘on a hunch’.

Lord Falconer said it was ‘a matter for others to decide’ if there should be an inquest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314751/Dr-David-Kelly-Law-chief-orders-probe-secret-files.html

Harrowdown paramedic interviewed

2010-09-12T11:12:00.005+01:00

Kelly's body Dr David 'had obviously been moved': Paramedic at death scene reveals concerns over Hutton Inquiry

By Matt Sandy

Last updated at 1:41 AM on 12th September 2010

The paramedic who confirmed the death of Government scientist Dr David Kelly has claimed his body had ‘obviously been moved’ in the minutes after it was found.

David Bartlett was one of two medics called after the corpse of the weapons expert was discovered in woods near his Oxfordshire home seven years ago. They were among the first on the scene.

The testimony by the experienced paramedics once again brings into doubt the thoroughness of the Hutton Inquiry – in particular raising questions about why police officers were not asked whether they had touched or moved the body.

The former weapons inspector was found dead a week after he was outed as the source of BBC claims that the Government had ‘sexed up’ a document claiming Saddam Hussein’s Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.

In his interview, 59-year-old Mr Bartlett discloses a further series of irregularities about that day’s events, putting yet more pressure on the Government to agree to a full inquest into the scientist’s death.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Dominic Grieve requested to see the report of Dr Kelly’s post-mortem. He said he would need to see ‘new evidence’ before applying for a full inquest.

Like many of the witnesses expressing doubts about the Kelly case, Oxfordshire-born Mr Bartlett is far from a conspiracy theorist. A father of three, he has been a dedicated paramedic for 24 years.

His testimony – the first time he has talked in such detail – is crucial, as the civilian volunteer searchers who first found the body said it was leaning against a tree. He said: ‘If earlier witnesses said that, then the body had obviously been moved’ by the time he got there.

Mr Bartlett backs up claims made by DC Graham Coe – the first policeman on the scene – about how little blood there was around the body. The paramedic said: ‘I’ve seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.’

However, the Hutton Inquiry said that Dr Kelly had bled to death after cutting a small artery in his wrist.

A bizarre meeting with Kelly 'friend'

Mr Bartlett also said that after the body was found the police threw a ‘blackout’ around the scene – even banning him from speaking to his control room by radio. He says this is the only time it has happened in his long career.

The paramedic also reveals that, a year after the death, he was approached by a stranger in Oxford, who said he was a close friend of Dr Kelly. The man said he recognised Mr Bartlett from media coverage.

Mr Bartlett said: ‘He said to me he’d known David Kelly since he was a boy. There was nothing to doubt about him. He told me how Dr Kelly had been a member of the Baha’i faith, and that suicide was against their religion.

‘He said, “I’m telling you now, there’s no way in the world that guy committed suicide.” ’

Mr Bartlett refuses to elaborate any further or reveal the man’s identity but says he has no doubt he was genuine.

The paramedic gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, but said: ‘I thought they’d already decided the outcome and wanted someone to confirm it for them. They’d decided it was going to be suicide and that was all cut and dried.

‘I wasn’t impressed with how it was conducted. It should have been under oath, the photographs of the scene should have been released and they shouldn’t have sealed the documents for 70 years.’

Dr Kelly, 59, who was one of the world’s leading experts on biological and chemical weapons, left his home in the village of Southmoor, Oxfordshire, on the afternoon of July 17, 2003, saying he was going for a walk. The next morning his body was found by volunteer Louise Holmes and a search dog, in nearby Harrowdown Hill woods.

Mr Bartlett and his professional partner, Vanessa Hunt, also a paramedic for many years, had just started their shift at Abingdon ambulance station when they got the emergency call at 9.40am on July 18.

As they arrived they found the area swarming with police – some in blue combats and others in plain clothes. ‘You could tell immediately it was something high profile,’ he said.

They were met at the scene by Sergeant Alan Dadd and several other officers.
He led them up a bridle path towards the woods, as they carried heavy oxygen cylinders and the equipment needed to treat cardiac arrest.

Eventually, the police led them off the path and into the woods, constructing a ‘common approach path’ with posts and blue police tape as they accompanied the paramedics.

'I asked the police if he'd fallen out of a tree'

Mr Bartlett said: ‘As we approached the scene, it was obvious he was dead. He was lying flat out in the clearing with his bottle of water, knife and watch in line right next to his left arm.

‘His left sleeve was rolled up and you could see a wound with some dried blood around it.’

The paramedics checked for a pulse and shone a light into his eyes to check for any pupil reaction. Then – as the police took photos – they unbuttoned his shirt and placed four electrodes on his chest to check his heart.

Having pronounced him dead at 10.07am, they made their way back to their ambulance. But in just a few minutes at the scene Mr Bartlett noted many things that have troubled him ever since.

He said: ‘He was lying flat out some distance from the tree. He definitely wasn’t leaning against it. I remember saying to the copper, “Are you sure he hasn’t fallen out of the tree?”

‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there. If the earlier witnesses are saying that, then the body has obviously been moved.’

Ms Holmes told the Hutton Inquiry: ‘He was at the base of the tree with almost his head on his shoulders, just slumped back against the tree.’

Paul Chapman, who was searching with Ms Holmes, also said: ‘He was sitting with his back up against a tree.’

The next man on the scene – DC Coe – told the inquiry: ‘The body was laying on its back by a large tree, the head towards the trunk of the tree.’

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday last month, DC Coe added that he thought the head and part of the shoulders were leaning against the tree.

However, the next two police officers, PC Andrew Franklin and PC Martyn Sawyer, both said that when they arrived – just before the paramedics and after DC Coe had guarded the body alone for 25 minutes – Dr Kelly was on his back.

This was also the view given by Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who examined the body at the scene.

How did Kelly's upright bottle of water remain upright?

Despite the discrepancies, none of the three police officers were asked at the inquiry whether they touched or moved the body, although DC Coe has since denied doing so.

Lord Hutton made no mention of the contradictory evidence in his report’s conclusions.

PC Franklin and PC Sawyer would not comment when approached by The Mail on Sunday.
Mr Bartlett has another concern. The Evian water bottle was standing upright no more than six inches from Dr Kelly’s left upper arm, and he is amazed that he would have not knocked it over while dying.

He said: ‘I said to the copper at the time, “Who stood the bottle of water up or has it been moved?” They said it hadn’t been moved. ‘For someone lying like that on leaf mould with a bottle of water there, he would have knocked it over while dying, I would have thought. It seemed very odd to me.’

Another point – and one that the two paramedics tried to raise at the Hutton Inquiry – was the lack of blood. Some experts have said for someone to die in the way Dr Kelly is said to have done, they would have to lose several pints of blood, which would most probably spray in all directions.

Mr Bartlett said: ‘I’ve been to loads of slashed wrists and you always get loads of blood. I would have thought he would have got more blood over him. If he’s going to bleed to death, you’ll get a fair old bit.

‘To me, people rarely commit suicide by slitting their wrists. They’ll usually do it and end up in hospital.’ But that was not the scene they found. He said: ‘There was some [blood] on his left wrist, a few specks on his shirt and a spot the size of a 10p on his trousers. There was a bit on the nettles and grass but not a lot at all.

‘We said at the time we doubted very much he would have died from that wound we saw. When it came out that the autopsy was from blood loss, we were really surprised. I’ve seen more blood at a nosebleed than I saw there.

‘I’m not saying he didn’t commit suicide. But there was very little blood for someone who allegedly bled to death.’

Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem, broke his silence last month to claim there were clots of blood inside the sleeves of his jacket and that much blood soaked into the ground.

Mr Bartlett says he is not in a position to question those claims but said in the case of a slit wrist – even when the victim does not die – there tends to be blood ‘everywhere’.

After leaving the woods, the paramedics found the police had implemented a ‘news blackout’ – meaning they were not even allowed to radio their control room for fear it would be intercepted.

In addition, they were told that as they had been near the body, they would have to wait for a machine to arrive that was able to take their boot prints so they could be ruled out of any future inquiry.

He was later surprised to hear at the inquiry that no footprints at all had been found at the scene.

Mr Bartlett said: ‘It was only when we were walking back to the ambulance that we were told who the body was. One of the coppers told us it was going to be front-page news once it got out.

‘We were there for an hour under a news blackout. We weren’t able to radio our control or anything. That was the only time that happened to me in my 24-year career as a paramedic.’

Mr Bartlett has no doubts there should be a full inquest. He said: ‘There are more than enough doubts surrounding the case. It would be interesting to see the photographs from the scene. If they had been shown at the inquiry it would have answered a lot of questions.

‘It would have shown there was no blood on the top of him. It would have shown the position of him. It would have shown the distance of the tree from him.’

Kelly: vital report ‘is lost’

EXCLUSIVE

By CHRIS HASTINGS

The controversy over the death of Government scientist Dr David Kelly has deepened after ambulance chiefs admitted that a vital medical record relating to the case has vanished.

The South Central Ambulance NHS Trust has lost the Patient Report Form (PRF) completed by paramedic Vanessa Hunt, who attended the scene of the former weapons inspector’s death in 2003.

The disclosure will inevitably fuel demands for a full inquest into his death.

A leading coroner yesterday said that the form is one of the key documents at an inquest as it provides a record of any incident, as recorded at the time. Ambulance crews called upon to give evidence would normally rely only on the information contained in the document.

Dr Michael Powers QC, who is leading the group of doctors campaigning for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death, described the loss of the paperwork as ‘quite frankly astonishing’.

He said: ‘The fact that such an important document has gone missing simply strengthens the case for an inquest.

‘It was clear to everyone at the time that Dr Kelly’s death was a very significant event and the value of all contemporaneous documents should have been recognised. All documents should have been carefully copied.’

However, the trust says it can’t find either the original document or a copy scanned into its computer system, even though it has a policy of storing such documents for ten years.

And Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has long maintained that Dr Kelly was murdered, last night described the loss of the file as ‘unfortunate to say the least’.

At the Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, Ms Hunt and her colleague David Bartlett confirmed that they examined Dr Kelly’s body. They said they lifted his eyelids, felt his neck for a pulse and applied a heart monitor to his chest.

All ambulance crews have to fill out the form for every call-out, irrespective of whether a patient is alive or dead. They record a wide range of medical information including pulse rates, blood pressure and any skin condition.

At the time, the paramedics worked for the Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, which has since merged with three others to form the South Central Ambulance NHS Trust. A spokeswoman for the trust yesterday confirmed that a form was completed for Dr Kelly, but subsequently lost.

The admission follows a year-long wrangle over a Freedom of Information request for documents concerning Dr Kelly’s death.

They included communications between the trust and the paramedics, minutes of any relevant meetings, and all correspondence with the coroner.

After waiting more than the statutory 20 working days deadline for replies, the trust eventually claimed it held no relevant information. A complaint was then lodged with the Information Commissioner. During the course of these follow-up inquiries the trust admitted it had mislaid the PRF.

In his ruling, which will be made public this week, the commissioner states: ‘[The trust] explained that it would have expected to have had a PRF. It explained that this form would only include clinical assessment information about Dr Kelly and would not contain any other information. It explained that this form had been mislaid.

It explained that the information was usually digitised and held electronically by date in its PRF archives.

‘However, having checked its system for all the entries on the date of the incident, and the dates one day either side to ensure it was not misfiled, it could not find the relevant form. It was supposed to keep this form for ten years in line with its policy. The Commissioner has checked what this form would contain and is satisfied that it would only contain clinical assessment information.’

The loss of the documents will increase pressure for an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death. This week, campaigners will make a formal application to the Attorney General to go to the High Court and demand such an inquest.

The PRF was not listed in the register of evidence supplied to the Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death. The 2004 report, which concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by slitting his wrists, was immediately branded a whitewash.

Unanswered concerns include the lack of blood at the scene, even though the inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death after slashing his wrists. It also recently emerged that Lord Hutton asked the Ministry of Justice to ensure documents relating to the case – including a post-mortem report – stay secret for 70 years.

A spokeswoman for the South Central Ambulance Trust said a PRF for Dr Kelly had been completed but she was under the impression it had been handed to Thames Valley Police. If that was the case the trust should still have kept a copy.

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police was unable to comment last night.

The ambulance spokeswoman said about 500,000 PRFs were completed each year, but it was impossible to say how many went missing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311255/Dr-David-Kellys-body-obviously-moved-Paramedic-death-scene-reveals-concerns-Hutton-Inquiry.html

Justice Secretary considers Kelly case

2010-09-09T10:48:00.009+01:00

8 September 2010 Last updated at 14:21

Ministers consider case for David Kelly death inquest

Ministers have met to discuss whether to release information about the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly and to hold a formal inquest.

It is understood Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is considering whether to release papers on Dr Kelly's autopsy.

The weapons expert's body was found in 2003 near his Oxfordshire home after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story on the grounds for war in Iraq.

In his 2004 inquiry, Lord Hutton found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide.

But several legal and medical experts have questioned the official cause of death, given as a haemorrhage, and called for an official inquest to take place.

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an investigation into Dr Kelly's death instead of an inquest.

'Under consideration'

Mr Clarke met Lord Hutton on Tuesday and Attorney General Dominic Grieve on Wednesday to discuss the case.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said it was understood that no decision has been reached on whether to release medical papers or to ask the High Court to order a fresh inquest, and that further discussions were required.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said a request for the release of medical papers was "currently under consideration".

Lord Hutton's inquiry found 59-year-old Dr Kelly died from blood loss after slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

But several legal and medical professionals have questioned the verdict as "extremely unlikely" in the light of new evidence.

In a letter to the Times earlier this year, former coroner Michael Powers, a former deputy coroner Margaret Bloom, and Julian Bion, a professor of intensive care medicine, claimed Lord Hutton's conclusion was unsafe.

They argued the wound to Dr Kelly's wrist was unlikely to be life-threatening unless an individual had a blood-clotting deficiency as "insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life".

But the pathologist who performed the post-mortem examination on Dr Kelly's body has insisted that his was a "textbook case" of suicide.

In August, Nicholas Hunt said the scientist's death was a "classic case of self-inflicted injury" and he believed an official inquest would confirm this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11229365

Ministers consider releasing Kelly details

Sep 9 2010 by Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail

SENIOR government ministers met last night to discuss the possible release of information about the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly in 2003.

The weapons expert’s body was found near his Oxfordshire home after he was exposed as the source of BBC reports on a Government’s dossier on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Although an inquiry into the affair by Lord Hutton concluded that Llwynypia-born Dr Kelly committed suicide, there having been growing calls for an inquest into his death.

Lord Hutton, who met Justice Secretary Ken Clarke earlier this week, ruled at the time that his inquiry superseded an inquest.

Mr Clarke is considering whether to release papers on Dr Kelly’s autopsy, and whether to ask the High Court to order an inquest. Mr Clarke met Attorney General Dominic Grieve yesterday, but it is understood no decisions had yet been reached.

Lord Hutton’s inquiry found 59-year-old Dr Kelly died from blood loss after slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

A group of former coroners claimed earlier this year that there were question marks over that conclusion, although the pathologist who performed the post-mortem on Dr Kelly’s body has insisted it was a “textbook case” of suicide.

In August, Nicholas Hunt said the scientist’s death was a “classic case of self-inflicted injury” and he believed an official inquest would confirm this.

Barrister Michael Powers QC, who is acting for the former coroners in their bid to force an inquest, said: “We can’t wait indefinitely for the Government to make a decision. The doctors’ argument is that there has been insufficient inquiry into the death.

“It has been insufficient because so many people without axes to grind but wanting to see the system of justice operate recognise that it has not provided answers to perfectly proper questions which were never asked, challenged or cross-examined at the Hutton Inquiry.”

Dr Kelly’s body was found in July 2003 after he was identified as the source of a BBC story claiming the Government “sexed up” its now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Hutton concluded Dr Kelly took his own life and that the principal cause of death was “bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body”.

He also found the scientist took an overdose of co-proxamol tablets – a painkiller commonly used for arthritis – and that he was suffering from an undiagnosed heart condition.

But there have been a number of calls for another examination of the case and earlier this month Mr Grieve said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.

“People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”

But he said he could not apply to the High Court for an inquest on a “hunch” and would have to take account of the feelings of the scientist’s close family, who have not asked for a new investigation into his death.

“I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death,” Mr Grieve said.

In his memoir, published last week, former prime minister Tony Blair wrote: “I will never know precisely what made Dr Kelly take his own life. Who can ever know the reason behind these things? It was so sad, unnecessary and terrible. He had given such good and loyal service over so many years.

“Probably, unused to the intensity of the pressure which the [BBC] broadcast generated, he felt hemmed in and possibly vulnerable to internal discipline if his role emerged.”

He added: “The awful irony was that for all the controversy caused, Dr Kelly himself had long been advocate of getting rid of Saddam.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/09/09/ministers-consider-releasing-details-about-kelly-s-death-91466-27231812/

High Court inquest judgement sought

2010-09-04T10:57:00.005+01:00

Doctors demand David Kelly inquest

A group of leading doctors will go to the high court next week in an attempt to force an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

By Nick Collins

Published: 8:20AM BST 04 Sep 2010

The six doctors claim it is not possible to prove that Dr Kelly committed suicide based on the medical information available.

They want to obtain a court ruling that would require Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, to seek a new inquest. Mr Grieve's request would also need High Court approval.

The doctors, who began their legal action last December, argue an inquest should take place because the medical evidence into the government weapons inspector's death has never been discussed publicly. Although an inquest was opened, it was adjourned due to the Hutton inquiry and has never resumed. Lord Falconer, then the Lord Chancellor, decided not to resume it, arguing that the Hutton Inquiry was sufficient.

Hopes an inquest would finally take place were raised after Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, asked to review medical documents relating to the death of Dr Kelly.

Mr Grieve said an inquest would only be allowed to take place in the event that new evidence is found.

The doctors appealing for an inquest, all experts in trauma and vascular surgery, are Dr Stephen Frost; Dr Martin Birnstingl; Dr David Halpin; Dr Andrew Rouse; Dr Christopher Burns-Cox; and Dr Michael Powers QC.

Frances Swaine, a solicitor representing all of the doctors except Dr Powers, insisted they were motivated by "professional integrity" and that the Hutton inquiry's verdict that Dr Kelly bled to death after cutting his wrist was not sufficiently proved.

The inquiry, commissioned by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and led by Lord Hutton, found that Dr Kelly committed suicide in woods near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003.

His death followed the disclosure that he was the source behind claims that the Government "sexed up" a dossier on potential weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Ms Swaine said: "They think it outrageous that this view has simply been accepted without examination.

"We have not seen any evidence that Dr Kelly bled to death in the way Lord Hutton thought likely."

In a separate move, the doctors have also requested permission to examine medical documentation related to Dr Kelly's death.

Lord Hutton initially ruled that medical documents relating to the death would be kept secret for 70 years, but has indicated he will not block their publication.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is expected to give the doctors an answer next week.

Ms Swaine claimed the arrival at a verdict of suicide without proper examination of the medical evidence was uncommon, adding: "The post-mortem report was seen by Lord Hutton but so far as we know, never considered, at least not at the inquiry."

Last month a separate group of nine doctors voiced concerns that Dr Kelly could not have died from cutting the small ulnar artery in his wrist.

The Attorney General's spokesman confirmed legal papers had been submitted to the Ministry of Justice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7981395/Doctors-demand-David-Kelly-inquest.html

Reading the papers

2010-09-02T00:07:00.003+01:00

Send me the secret files on Dr Kelly: Attorney General WILL study papers that could finally lead to an inquest

By James Slack

Last updated at 10:29 PM on 1st September 2010

Attorney General Dominic Grieve has made a dramatic U-turn and taken possession of secret files which could trigger an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

The Mail can reveal that Mr Grieve and his officials will shortly begin poring over post-mortem reports which Lord Hutton controversially ruled should be kept under lock and key for 70 years.

It is a highly unusual step which means that, for the first time, Mr Grieve is actively seeking the evidence required to hold a new inquiry into the weapons inspector's death.

He previously insisted he had no 'investigative function' and that he could only view the documents if they were released to the public by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

Whitehall sources say the fact that Mr Grieve has requested the files does not mean an inquest will definitely take place.

However, it will speed up the decision-making process, they said.

Campaigners say Dr Kelly could not have taken his life by cutting a small artery in his wrist - the verdict reached by the Hutton Inquiry.

Tony Blair appointed Lord Hutton in 2003 to head a public inquiry into his death.

But, unusually, no inquest was held because the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer ruled the inquiry would suffice.

Sceptics hope the opening of the previously secret medical reports - including a controversial postmortem by the pathologist Nicholas Hunt - will unearth sufficient concerns to justify holding a fresh investigation.

Mr Grieve has said 'people who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point'.

But he said he could not order a new probe 'on a hunch', and that he must first gain access to the secret papers.

After repeatedly saying it was down to Mr Clarke to release the documents, Government sources say he changed his mind last week and asked the Ministry of Justice if they could be sent to his department.

He took possession of the files earlier this week, according to Whitehall insiders. The Mail revealed last month that, as Attorney General, he was entitled to see the papers, regardless of whether Mr Clarke rules they are suitable for public release.

The Justice Secretary has yet to reach a decision on whether they should be made available to anyone other than Mr Grieve.

Lord Hutton instructed they should be kept hidden for 70 years to protect the Kelly family - who do not want a new investigation - from further distress.

Mr Grieve will wish to establish whether there are any discrepancies between the post-mortem report and Lord Hutton's official verdict of how Dr Kelly died.

The weapons expert's body was found in a wood near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, shortly after he had been exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the government had exaggerated the grounds for going to war in Iraq.

Lord Hutton concluded that he had taken his own life by severing the small ulnar artery in his wrist with a blunt garden knife.

But nine doctors have written an open letter casting grave doubt that Dr Kelly could have died from loss of blood in the way described.

Mr Grieve has also been sent a medical report by a group of eminent doctors suggesting it would have been 'impossible' for Dr Kelly to lose sufficient blood through the artery to kill him.

The Attorney General will also wish to check whether there are any differences between the pathology reports and recent public remarks made by Dr Hunt.

The pathologist insisted Dr Kelly's death was a 'textbook' case of suicide and that he had found nothing to indicate the weapons expert was murdered, despite an eight-hour examination of the body.

Dr Hunt contradicted claims that there was not enough blood and added that there was 'nothing to suggest' the body had been moved, another claim from critics of the investigation.

The doctors campaigning for an inquest have written to Mr Clarke saying Dr Hunt was wrong to publish confidential evidence that the Government is still refusing to release and that has not been placed before a coroner.

In their letter, they say Dr Hunt's comments appear to be part of an officially sanctioned attempt to silence the clamour for an inquest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308156/Attorney-General-WILL-study-Dr-Kelly-papers-finally-lead-inquest.html

Tony Blair's Journey

2010-09-01T13:16:00.002+01:00

Tony Blair on Andrew Gilligan, Dr Kelly and WMDs

1 September 2010

By Dominic Ponsford

Tony Blair blames former Radio 4 Today journalist Andrew Gilligan for dealing a permanent blow to his own integrity with his infamous report about the “sexing-up” of the dossier making the case for war with Iraq.

In his memoirs published today, former Prime Minister Blair talks in detail about the BBC’s reporting of the “45-minute” claim on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the creation of the September 2002 dossier.

He admits that the intelligence on WMD was wrong, and that this was a “real story”. But he denies Gilligan’s implication of deceit which turned a “difficult situation” into one which “remains an ugly one” and "set the pattern for interaction between ourselves and the media in the years that followed".

Blair quotes at length from one of Gilligan’s Radio 4 Today Programme reports on 29 May, 2003.

In it Gilligan said: “What we’ve been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that actually the government probably knew that that 45-minute figure was wrong even before it decided to put it in…Downing Street, our source says, a week before publication ordered it to be sexed up, to be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be discovered.”

Blair writes: “There could hardly have been a more inflammatory or severe charge. Mistaken intelligence is one thing. Intelligence know to be mistaken but nonetheless still published as accurate is a wholly different matter. That is not a mistake but misconduct.”

Blair says that as a result of the story “the division over the war became not a disagreement but a rather vicious dispute about the honesty of those involved. A difficult situation became and remains an ugly one.”

Blair says: “The intelligence was wrong. We admitted it. We apologised for it. We explained it, even. But it was never enough, in today’s media, for there to have been a mistake.

“The mistake is serious; but it is an error. Humans make errors. And, given Saddam’s history, it was an understandable error. But it leads to a headline that doesn’t satisfy today’s craving for scandal.

“A mistake doesn’t hit the register high enough. So the search goes on for a lie, a deception, an act not of error but of malfeasance. And the problem is, if one can’t be found, one is contrived or even invented.”

Blair says that the 45-minute claim was put in the dossier by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

He adds that Gilligan made the situation worse by claiming in a Mail on Sunday story that Alastair Campbell was the author of the 45-minute claim.

The death of Dr David Kelly

Blair says: “It was never clear if Dr Kelly, who though he admitted talking to Gilligan denied making the allegation, really did brief him in terms that justify the story.

“But what followed set the pattern for the interaction between ourselves and the media in the years that followed. Relations between myself and the BBC never really recovered; and parts of the media were pretty off limits after it."

Blair says that the public naming of government advisor Dr David Kelly as Gilligan’s source was “the subject of brutal media allegations, particularly against Alastair”.

“It was suggested that he had leaked the name in breach of instructions from the Ministry of Defence. He hadn’t. It was simply that once we knew it was Dr Kelly, and since the Foreign Affairs Committee was engaged in investigating the 45-minutes claim and broadcast, we would have been at risk of a charge of concealment from them had we known the source of the leak and refused to say."

Blair said the “whole thing was handled by Dr Kelly’s line management” leading to the release of Kelly’s name on 10 July.

Noting that the BBC then refused to say whether Kelly was their source, Blair writes: “It was all very well for them to hold to the traditional journalistic practice of not revealing their source, but this was patently an exceptional case. Here was someone being described as the source. They could confirm or deny his involvement.”

Blair describes being woken in the middle of the night after addressing Congress in the United States 17 July to be told the news that Dr Kelly had apparently taken his own life.

“Of course in the rational world, it would be a personal tragedy. It would be explained by the pressure on him. It would be treated as an isolated event. I knew there was not the slightest chance of that happening in our media climate.

“It would be treated as a Watergate-style killing. It would provoke every manner of conspiracy theory. It would give permission for any and every fabrication of context, background and narrative. The media would declare it was a scandal. They were absolutely capable of ensuring there was one.”

Talking in general about the reporting of the Dr Kelly affair and the subsequent Hutton Report, Blair says: “The Gilligan broadcast led the news because it alleged misconduct, a lie, in effect. He thought he had a source, but an allegation that serious should at least, you would have thought, be put to the people against whom it was made.

“We were never even contacted before it was broadcast. In any event, a mere mistake was never going to lead the news.

“Now, in actual fact, it should do. The intelligence was wrong and we should have, and I have, apologised for it. So the real story is a story and a true one. But in today’s environment, it doesn’t have that sensational, outrage-producing ‘wow’ factor of scandal. Hence the error is made into a deception.

“And is this relationship between politics and media which then defines the political debate.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45933&c=1

Perspectives

2010-08-27T01:52:00.002+01:00

Home > Opinion > Letters

Letters: Perspectives on David Kelly's death

Friday, 27 August 2010

This is far from 'a textbook case'

The pathologist who examined Dr David Kelly has been widely reported as saying that his death was a "textbook" case of suicide. This depends very much on the textbook.

In a textbook of physical pathology, Dr Kelly's injuries might well provide an exemplar of a suicide by wrist-cutting. But from a psychiatric epidemiological perspective, a different picture presents itself.

Wrist-cutting is such an unusual form of suicide that it is not recorded separately in national statistics, but is lumped together with other uncommon suicide methods involving self-stabbing.

In men of Dr Kelly's age in the UK who kill themselves, less than 3 per cent do so by using any sort of sharp implement. A much smaller number will therefore have actually cut their wrists. So, the physical pathological findings might be typical, but typical of a rare event.

Of course, Dr Kelly's death may still indeed have been a suicide. But, compared with most suicides, his case is neither representative nor characteristic. It is so unusual that it surely justifies a full and open public inquiry.

Dr Philip Timms FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust

Inquest is a legal right

Paul Vallely (21 August) gives a generally tranquillising overview of the unnatural death of David Kelly. The main concerns of medical doctors must be not about murder theories but the following. First, there is grave doubt that he could have died as decided by Hutton and as recorded on the death certificate. Second, the diagnosis of suicide is not proven in law; there is no evidence of intent.

And third, the system of inquiry used by Lord Falconer to investigate the death was not the proper way legally to investigate a single unnatural death. The proper procedure is a coroner's inquest, with or without a jury, with witnesses subpoenaed, giving evidence under oath and being fully interrogated.

Paul Vallely shows a very poor undertanding of and respect for the vital importance of the rule of law in suggesting that the decision about a coroner's inquest be left to the family and not to correct due legal process. John Locke stated, "Where law ends, tyranny begins". Just so.

Dr C J Burns-Cox, Consultant Physician, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-perspectives-on-david-kellys-death-2063199.html

Pathologist 'trying to stop inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 11:49 PM on 26th August 20

Ministers faced renewed calls for an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly last night.

A group of five doctors accused the pathologist who carried out the post mortem examination on Dr Kelly of trying to prevent further investigation.

Dr Nicholas Hunt insists the death of weapons expert Dr Kelly was a 'textbook case' of suicide.

The five doctors have written to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke saying Dr Hunt was wrong to publish confidential evidence that the Government is still refusing to release.

Trauma surgeon David Halpin, radiologist Stephen Frost, vascular surgeon Martin Birnstingl, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, and internal medicine specialist Christopher Burns-Cox have been calling for an inquest for more than five years.

They said it was 'highly irregular' for Dr Hunt to have discussed autopsy details which have not been placed before a coroner.

In their letter to Mr Clarke they say Dr Hunt's comments appear to be part of an officially sanctioned attempt to silence the clamour for a full inquest.

Dr Kelly was found dead in 2003, shortly after he was named as the source of stories the Government had 'sexed up' its report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The doctors say he could not have killed himself by slitting his wrist as claimed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306524/Dr-David-Kelly-inquiry-Doctors-accuse-pathologist-preventing-investigation.html

No decision yet - but according to a 'senior source'...

2010-08-23T21:49:00.004+01:00

Ministers try to avert Kelly inquest and end speculation by calling for post mortem details to be published on the internet

By Tim Shipman

Last updated at 6:46 PM on 23rd August 2010

Ministers want to publish details of Dr David Kelly’s post mortem examination on the internet to end speculation about the weapons inspector’s death.

Downing Street today welcomed the disclosure that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is to review calls for a full inquest following calls for a hearing to clear the air from the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly’s body.

But the Mail has learned that ministers would prefer to release documents on Dr Kelly’s demise without the need for a full inquest because they are concerned about the reaction of the scientist’s family.

Government officials say Mr Grieve is determined to find a way to ‘draw a line’ under the affair that avoids upsetting Dr Kelly’s widow Janice.

In an interview at the weekend pathologist Nicholas Hunt said he would welcome an inquest, claiming the death of Dr Kelly was a ‘textbook case’ of suicide.

Mr Grieve’s officials described that intervention as ‘important new evidence’ that could help him decide whether to call for a new hearing.

Another government source told the Mail that Dr Hunt’s intervention could give ministers ‘a dignified way out’ of the simmering controversy, which has seen doctors and lawyers question the official findings about Dr Kelly’s death by the Hutton Report.

Dr Kelly, 59, was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003 a week after he was identified as the source of a BBC story claiming the Government 'sexed up' its dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Hutton, whose inquiry took the place of an inquest, controversially placed a 70-year ban on the publication of secret files relating to Dr Kelly’s death, which has driven some to claim the suicide verdict was a cover up.

But a senior source said: ‘It is clear from what Nicholas Hunt has said that there is nothing to hide and it may be that it is better to publish the papers, including the post mortem.

‘It is clear that the Kelly family are not in favour of a full inquest but publication, which would allow those interested in the case to see that there is nothing to hide, might be in everyone’s interests.’

Officials stress that they have not reached a decision and that it would be ‘unusual’ to publish details of the post mortem, which are usually only released to the family of the dead.

The power to release the papers resides with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, though Mr Grieve has the legal right to demand access to them.

Another minister today urged the two ministers to resolve the issue. ‘I wish Ken and Dominic would just sort it out amongst themselves. If we’re trying to protect the Kelly family from further pain, letting the issue drag on all summer is not the answer.’

A decision is likely to be made after MPs return from their summer break next month.
David Cameron’s official spokesman said: ‘The position is that if the Attorney General feels there is material new evidence, he can apply to the High Court for an inquest.

‘I understand he is thinking about that. It’s very much a matter for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a particular legal role here and it is a matter for him.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305490/Ministers-try-avert-Kelly-inquest-end-speculation-calling-post-mortem-details-published-internet.html

Peter Hitchins - now and from 2003

2010-08-23T20:31:00.005+01:00

23 August 2010 6:09 PM

The David Kelly Conundrum

Although Norman Baker MP seems to think, in his book on the subject, that I am among those who doubt that David Kelly committed suicide, I never have doubted that Dr Kelly killed himself. I still don't. Back in July 2003, I wrote an article for the Mail on Sunday, under the headline " Who were the 'dark actors' threatening David Kelly? And will Lord Hutton ever be able to identify them?"

I began: "We know of no good reason why Dr David Kelly should have killed himself. This is the most worrying fact that has emerged from the events of the past week."

What I hoped to suggest was that the true reason for his suicide was not known - not that he hadn't killed himself. I've never had any doubts about that. His death was a great embarrassment to the government and served nobody's purpose. I believed - and believe - that he was put under some sort of unbearable strain. I still want to know what that strain was, and it was one of the many failures of the Hutton report that this subject was not pursued until a satisfactory answer could be found. Did someone threaten him? What did they threaten him with? Who was that person? On whose authority was he or she acting? Those are the questions that still need answers.

I reproduce the 2003 article here because it still seems to me to be a fair summary of the position.

"A man who is devoted to his work and was good at it, in excellent health, with a loving family and much to look forward to, does not slit open an artery because an MP is rude to him.

A man who has dealt face-to-face with officials of the Saddam regime does not take his life because he receives a mild reprimand.

A man who has been dealing competently with the media since 1991 does not do away with himself because he is suddenly all over the TV.

A piece is missing from the equation, an unbearable choice between doing something appalling or doing something atrocious, a pressure which he could not resist but which he also could not surrender to.

We know only that Dr Kelly wrote, in one of his last-known communications before his death, that there were 'dark actors' playing games somewhere in his life.

It is a pity that the person who received this email, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, will not discuss it.

We think we know that Dr Kelly felt he had been 'put through the wringer'. We do know that his own employers had deliberately allowed his name to become public. But what else had happened?

There have been suggestions that Dr Kelly was threatened with prosecution and the loss of his pension. It has been said that at some point he was hustled away to a 'safe house' with minders. The MoD had been giving off-the-record briefings saying this was not true.

Unconvinced by these assurances, I asked the MoD on Tuesday to give me an on-the-record denial.

On Friday, they finally said: 'In the light of continuing inaccurate media speculation, we wish to reiterate the following points: The MoD did not threaten Dr Kelly's pension, nor did it threaten him with action under the Official Secrets Act. Dr Kelly was interviewed twice. On each occasion the interview was conducted by MoD officials from the direct-line management-and-personnel chain. Dr Kelly did not spend time in a Government safe house.'

With all Governments, but especially with this one, you need to read such things very carefully. Now, on Tuesday, July 15, Dr Kelly said a very odd thing to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He explained he could not consult his diaries 'because at the moment I am pursued by the Press and I do not have access to my home'. This is the origin of the theory that he had been in a 'safe house'. So, where on earth was he when he was unable to go home?

And then it is said that the MoD did not threaten Dr Kelly's pension, nor did it threaten him with action under the Official Secrets Act. But this leaves open the possibility that these threats were made by some other part of the Government machine.

Even if no such threat was made, the authorities had other ways of pressuring him. He may have been threatened with the loss of his very high security clearance, which would have stopped him working in the only field where he had expertise.

Dr Kelly is thought to have hoped to go to the USA to work as a consultant after his impending retirement. He is also said by friends to have loved and lived for his work. He is said to have wanted to raise money for medical treatment for his wife, who has been unwell. The British state would certainly have had the power to make it very difficult for him to work as a consultant in a field which is almost entirely controlled by governments.

We can only hope that the Judicial Inquiry examines this part of the story very carefully indeed. But just how far will it be allowed to go? Its terms of reference have already expanded and contracted like a concertina. A plan to have the proceedings televised has also been vetoed, so greatly reducing the impact and the tension of the hearings.

Even so, as various members of the Blair inner circle prepare to fall on their swords to save Mr Blair, it is clear that Downing Street knows that something pretty bad is going to come out. What is it? Who are the dark actors and what games were they playing?

The row is about the fact that the Government lied to persuade this country to go to war with Iraq. There is now no doubt of this. Saddam was no threat to this country. Even if he did have gas and germ weapons, everyone in the defence world knows that they were not for use against Britain or America, but against Iraq's main enemy, Iran. The allegations that he had revived his nuclear bomb programme are now utterly discredited.

So why the enormous row over one brief radio item, Andrew Gilligan's original report on the Today programme, and his article in The Mail on Sunday which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for distorting the evidence on Iraq's weapons?

As it happens, we know from Mr Campbell's own mouth that he was involved - as he should not have been - in the making and drafting of suggestions to the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

This amazing revelation, in Mr Campbell's memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee, was spotted and seized upon by Sir John Stanley during the committee's hearing on June 25. It cuts to ribbons Mr Blair's assertions that neutral civil servants were responsible for the documents about the Iraqi threat. If the highly political Mr Campbell was involved, then the JIC was no more neutral than the Downing Street Press Office.

We also know, from Dr Kelly's evidence to the committee, that Mr Campbell's name was mentioned in his conversation with Mr Gilligan. And Mr Campbell's name comes up in a tape of a parallel interview with Dr Kelly, by Susan Watts of the BBC Newsnight programme.

As for Mr Campbell's supposed rage about Mr Gilligan's report, it seems to have appeared from nowhere during Mr Campbell's committee hearing. Two weeks after the supposedly outrageous item was broadcast, BBC chiefs went to Downing Street for a lengthy meeting with Mr Blair and Mr Campbell. But nothing at all was said about Mr Gilligan. Not a word. yet within a fortnight, Mr Campbell was boiling with indignation about it in front of MPs and then later when he stormed on to the set of Channel Four News, jabbing his finger and giving a good impression of a man at the end of his tether.

But those who were there claim that Mr Campbell ended his performance with a huge stage wink, once the cameras turned away.

As all Fleet Street knows, Mr Campbell has a well tried technique for trying to stamp out inconvenient true stories. He finds a tiny fault in them, concentrates on that to the exclusion of all else, and hopes to discredit the story and its author by doing so. It often works.

Did Mr Campbell hope to undermine the true story that the Government had lied, by finding and magnifying a small and unimportant flaw in the Gilligan report? It would fit with his past performance.

But if so, the operation seems to have gone wrong. Dr Kelly, first exposed to the Press and then put up in front of MPs, was obviously supposed to say, quite clearly, that Andrew Gilligan had grossly exaggerated his briefing.

Dr Kelly did not perform as expected. His whole appearance was a strange, unconvincing mess, which left the MPs with the false impression that Mr Gilligan had another main source. We know that Dr Kelly told at least one untruth, saying that he had not spoken to the BBC reporter Gavin Hewitt when in fact he had.

And Dr Kelly, a man who had every reason to be confident if he told the truth, spoke so softly during the hearing that the air conditioning fans had to be turned off to make him audible - a clear sign of a man unhappy with what he was saying.

What if Dr Kelly had been promised forgiveness in return for destroying Andrew Gilligan, and then found he couldn't do it because the Gilligan report was in all important respects accurate?

Some in the BBC suspect that Gilligan had embellished his own report, and perhaps he had, but what if Dr Kelly knew that those embellishments were nothing like as important as the essential truth? What if, afterwards, the pressure on him was renewed? What if he was faced with a choice between professional ruin or telling a public lie? That could drive a man to bring about his own death in a ditch.

And if you doubt this, consider the way that, following the death of Dr Kelly, the Government looked so guilty. Did Mr Blair appear so old, deflated and ashen last Saturday because he was upset at the death of a man he didn't know, or because he knew his own agents had gone too far?

And then see how, with Dr Kelly dead and beyond the reach of the unnamed 'dark actors' playing games with his life, somebody else immediately came under savage pressure. That somebody was the entire BBC, which for the past week has faced the wrath of the semi official Murdoch Press, absurdly trying to blame it for Dr Kelly's death.

On Friday, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell blatantly threatened the Corporation with a review of its Charter which would ultimately destroy its independence and its existence.

Is Downing Street publicly doing to the BBC what it privately sought to do to Dr Kelly, crudely menacing it into acting as the Government wishes? Let us hope Lord Hutton finds out."

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/08/-the-david-kelly-conundrum.html

Pathologist Nicholas Hunt speaks out

2010-08-23T07:33:00.000+01:00

Reported in the Times (paywall):

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

The pathologist who did the autopsy on David Kelly has broken his silence to reveal how the scientist died and says it was a “textbook case” of suicide.

Nicholas Hunt says he was horrified at the way the Labour government treated the 59-year-old weapons inspector and set out to look for evidence of murder. After eight hours examining the body he found none.

Hunt has spoken out for the first time in seven years to quash rumours of foul play and to challenge doctors who have questioned his findings. The Home Office pathologist has also disclosed details from his post-mortem report, which the official inquiry into Kelly’s death banned from publication for 70 years.

• Claims that there was little blood at the scene were inaccurate. Hunt found “big clots” on the inside of Kelly’s Barbour jacket and soaked into the ground.

• Kelly had about a dozen cuts on his left wrist of varying sizes, including “hesitation” cuts — shallow cuts that he made as he tried to summon the resolve to kill himself.

• Two of Kelly’s main coronary arteries were 70%-80% narrower than normal. His heart disease was so severe that he could have “dropped dead” at any moment.

• A millimetre by millimetre examination of his body and DNA testing found no evidence of the involvement of a third party.

• Kelly’s death was caused by bleeding from the cuts to his wrist, severe heart disease and an overdose of painkillers.

Hunt added that he would welcome a full inquest if it meant putting the conspiracy theories to rest.

“I felt very, very sorry for David Kelly and was horrified by the way he had been treated by the government … I had every reason to look for something untoward and would dearly love to have found something,” he said.

“It was an absolute classic case of self-inflicted injury. You could illustrate a textbook with it. If it were anyone else and you were to suggest there’s something foul about it, you would be referred for additional training. I would welcome an inquest, I’ve nothing to hide.”

Via: http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/08/22/david-kellys-textbook-suicide/

A theoretical conspiracy?

2010-08-21T09:37:00.005+01:00

The Kelly Affair: Anatomy of a conspiracy theory

Claims that we have not been told the full truth about the death of Dr David Kelly have been circulating for years. This week, the fog of rumour thickened. Paul Vallely reports

Saturday, 21 August 2010

Who killed Dr David Kelly? He was supposed to have died by his own hand when his body was found in an Oxfordshire wood in 2003, after he had been caught up in the tangle between the Government and the BBC over the allegation that No 10 "sexed up" the intelligence claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The claims that Britain's senior expert on germ warfare had been killed by "dark actors" from some foreign government – or even by members of our own security services – were supposed to have been laid to rest by the 2004 Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly's death. It concluded that the scientist had died from a haemorrhage caused by a severed wrist artery with two contributory factors: poisoning by 29 co-proxamol pain-killing tablets and undiagnosed coronary artery atherosclerosis.

It was a suicide verdict some people did not accept. Some of those sceptics were wild conspiracy theorists, but other more respectable voices have raised questions.

In January this year, Lord Hutton ordered that all files relating to Dr Kelly's post-mortem – including the autopsy report, unpublished medical and scientific records and photographs of the body – should remain secret for 70 years. The judge suggested that his intention was to avoid further distress to the family. But the move fuelled the conviction of sceptics that something was being hidden.

And in the last two months, a rash of disbelieving newspaper articles, predominantly in the Daily Mail, but also picked up by The Times, have ratcheted up pressure on the Government to re-open investigations into David Kelly's death.

In June, Richard Spertzel, the former head of the UN Biological Section, who worked with Dr Kelly in Iraq in the 1990s, wrote to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, claiming that Dr Kelly had been told he was on a "hitlist" in the final years of his life. Then Graham Coe, the detective who found Dr Kelly's body, claimed in an interview (with the Mail on Sunday) that there was less blood found at the scene than was recorded by the Hutton inquiry. He also revealed that, contrary to the evidence he had given Hutton, a third man (a member of the security services, in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists) was with him and his partner when they found the body. (Coe did conclude: "In my view he [Kelly] took his own life. Only he will know why he did that.")

Earlier this month, nine doctors wrote an open letter calling for "a detailed investigation of all the medical circumstances" and alleging that the Hutton Inquiry's procedures and conclusions were "unsatisfactory". The doctors wrote that it was "extremely unlikely that the primary cause of death would or could have been haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery in one wrist without any evidence of a blood-clotting deficiency."

They called for a "proper inquest", and were supported by a retired pathologist, Jennifer Dyson, who insisted that, had there been normal inquest, a coroner would probably have recorded an open verdict in the absence of absolute proof that suicide was intended.

Then the former Conservative Party leader Lord Howard called for a full inquest into Dr Kelly's death, and the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke – the only minister who could overturn Lord Hutton's decision to impose a 70-year secrecy order – met the Attorney General to discuss the issue.

Mr Grieve appears to have little desire to reopen the case. His spokesman said yesterday: "The Attorney General has no investigative function. Whilst he could ask for the papers [impounded under Hutton's 70-year secrecy order] it would be extremely unusual for him to take a proactive step of that kind." Yet the pressure for a new investigation continues. Below, we weigh up the evidence under consideration.

Claim: "Dr Kelly could not have bled to death"

David Kelly's death certificate states that he died from loss of blood. But the nine letter-writing doctors, who included some with expertise in vascular surgery and forensic medicine, challenge that verdict. The blood vessel served was the ulnar artery, the second in the wrist, which one of them described as the width of a matchstick. To die from a haemorrhage Dr Kelly would have had to lose 2,700ml (almost five pints) of blood. "It was impossible for 2,700ml of blood to have been lost through this small artery," the doctors wrote. Moreover, they added, the artery would probably have retracted on being severed and clotting would have ceased the flow.

The other factor raised by the nine doctors was the lack of blood where the body was found. The two paramedics called to Dr Kelly's body have said there was not enough blood at the spot to justify the belief that he died from blood loss.

The suppressed post-mortem documents mean there is no answer to why the blood-stained leaf litter and soil was not collected. However the doctors were challenged by Dr Andrew Davison, a forensic pathologist at Cardiff University, who accused the nine of a lack of relevant autopsy or forensic pathology expertise: "At an outdoor scene, where blood can seep into the ground, I would not expect to be able to make an accurate estimate of blood lost, and there is no way of measuring the blood remaining in the great vessels post-mortem."

Other parts of their science are also disputed. A surgeon specialising in wrist injuries complained that the doctors made mistakes in their letter. "The ulnar artery is not a minor artery, but the main artery supplying the hand and is substantially bigger than a matchstick," Dr LC Bainbridge, a consultant hand surgeon, wrote to The Times. Arteries' ability to retract, constrict and close is affected by age, and "even a small amount of hardening of the arteries can be sufficient to prevent enough constriction to stop the bleeding". Constriction also relied on there being a clean cut to the artery, not a ragged one as in Dr Kelly's case.

Claim: "Kelly's dose of painkillers was non-fatal"

Lord Hutton concluded: "It is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case."

Some doctors disagree, saying that the number of pills that Dr Kelly had consumed was not enough to cause death. Co-proxamol is a combination of two drugs, dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol, both of which are highly toxic in overdose. In Dr Kelly's blood the concentration of dextropropoxyphene was at the lower end of the range that has been measured in people who have used co-proxamol successfully to commit suicide.

Jennifer Dyson, the retired pathologist, suggested that the combination of stress, blood loss and overdose could have produced a heart attack; the autopsy showed Dr Kelly was suffering from cardiovascular problems he did not know about. Another forensic pathologist, Chris Milroy of Sheffield University, suggests that Dr Kelly's heart condition may have made it hard for him to survive any significant degree of blood loss. And Professor Robert Forrest, a toxicologist and the former President of the Forensic Science Society, concludes: "I've no doubt that the cause of David Kelly's death was a combination of blood loss, heart disease and an overdose of co-proxamol... it is important that all of them interacted to lead to the death."

Claim: "A suicide verdict didn't make sense from a psychiatric point of view"

Lord Hutton's verdict of suicide was largely based on evidence by Professor Keith Hawton, director of the Centre for Suicide Research at Oxford University's Department of Psychiatry. Professor Hawton spoke to Dr Kelly's widow and daughters, read his last emails and watched a recording of his interrogation by a committee of MPs. Dr Kelly, he said was not "mentally ill", a factor often linked to suicide, but there were very significant pressures upon him.

But another leading expert on suicide, Colin Pritchard, emeritus professor at the University of Southampton, last week expressed concern about how fully Prof Hawton was questioned by Lord Hutton. Insufficient weight had been placed on Dr Kelly's arrangement to see his daughter Rachel on the evening of his death, Prof Pritchard claimed, and given the quality of the relationship between father and daughter, Dr Kelly would have left an apologetic note.

Crucially, Prof Pritchard said, there was no evidence of "intent to die" by Dr Kelly, which is essential for any suicide verdict. "No coroner in the land would say anything other than 'Open verdict'."

However, the BBC journalist Tom Mangold, a friend of Kelly's, is firmly of the opinion that he killed himself, and that the conspiracy theorists have yet to identify motive, perpetrators or opportunity. Mr Mangold says for the conspiracy theories to be correct, David Kelly was somehow kidnapped unseen from his house in a small village while his wife was present, frog-marched into the woods, released (a friend saw him walking alone) and re-captured, before having his wrist cut and 29 tablets forced down his throat without leaving a mark; there would have to subsequently be a cover-up between local police, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 and some central government employees.

Mr Mangold's conclusion: "I believe that David killed himself because he learned, a few hours before he took this fatal step, that lies he had told to MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on 15 July would be exposed. He had, foolishly, denied having contact with the BBC Newsnight journalist Susan Watts. She had taped the interview and the BBC was about to reveal this. I believe David learned of this impending disaster on the morning of his death... With that knowledge came an instant awareness that his honour and integrity would be besmirched... His world collapsed."

Claim: Oddities and inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts

Why did Graham Coe, the detective who found Dr Kelly's body, not tell Hutton that there was a third suited man with him and his partner DC Colin Shields when the body was discovered, as some eyewitnesses had suggested. Why has he subsequently admitted this? And why does he refuse to name him?

How did Dr Kelly cut his left wrist if, as friends said, he had damaged his right arm to such a degree that he struggled cutting steak?

Why was the ulnar artery severed rather than the radial, which is how the cut would "naturally" have been made, from left to right, with the right hand? Could this suggest the cut was made by a third person?

Why were there no fingerprints on the knife when Dr Kelly was not wearing gloves? Nor on the bottle from which he supposedly drank to swallow the tablets? Why was that fact not disclosed to Hutton, but only later through a Freedom of Information request?

Why did the helicopter which passed over the scene with heat-seeking equipment not detect the body soon after death – a piece of information obtained using the Freedom of Information Act five years after the Hutton Inquiry ended?

What explains the discrepancy between the account of the position of the body given by the dog handler who discovered it and the paramedics when they arrived? Did someone move the body? Did Dr Kelly die where his body was found?

Why did the head of the investigation into Dr Kelly's death, Superintendent Alan Young of Thames Valley Police, not give evidence to Hutton?

Did the police and three officers from MI5's Technical Assessment Unit strip the wallpaper at Dr Kelly's home in the hours after he was reported missing – but before his body was found? Had Dr Kelly written 40,000 words of a book on Iraq and biological warfare which they took away? Where are his computers now?

Why did Lord Hutton place a 70-year embargo on release of the post-mortem documents?

*****

The answers to many of those questions could be mundane and inconsequential. Those who insist that Dr Kelly was murdered by the Iraqis – or by MI5 to prevent him from disclosing that Britain helped Saddam develop biological weapons in the 1980s – or who have developed some other far-fetched conspiratorial fantasy, could well be disappointed. The question remains as to whether a normal inquest would have recorded a more enigmatic Open Verdict.

What ministers must now consider is whether a full-blown inquest would achieve much. Politically, it would provide another stick with which to beat Tony Blair. Would it sate the sceptics?

Britain has a history of long, expensive public hearings – from the Hillsborough Disaster inquiry to the inquest into the death of Princess Diana and the Saville investigation into Bloody Sunday – which do little but confirm most people in their pre-existing views and prejudices. What political catharsis would be achieved by raking over the detail of Dr Kelly's death and coming to more exhaustive but almost certainly equally inconclusive findings?

Dr Kelly's family has no interest in pushing for a formal inquest. It would undoubtedly cause his daughters and his wife further, unnecessary distress. Perhaps we should be guided by them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-kelly-affair-anatomy-of-a-conspiracy-theory-2058065.html

Series: Simon Hoggart's week

When Kelly conspiracy theorists met, it was murder

David Kelly's death shows our infinite ability to place significance on any data that may help our case while ignoring the rest

Simon Hoggart

The Guardian, Saturday 21 August 2010

• Dr David Kelly's wrists were slit and he had swallowed 29 co-proxamol tablets. No wonder he died. Of course it is possible that he was previously killed by a mystery poison, after which his murderers cut his wrists and forced the tablets down his mouth to make it look as if he had killed himself. His wife reported that he was seriously depressed, but this is ignored by the conspiracy theorist who prefer the word of people he met in the pub.

But even if he was murdered, as David Aaranovitch asks in his demolition of the conspiracy theory (in Voodoo Histories, Cape £8.99), cui bono? (to whose benefit?). Not Tony Blair and his colleagues, who were accused of hounding Kelly to his grave. A shadowy band of Iraqi exiles who were vengeful because he had exposed the feeble case for war against Saddam Hussein? If so around half the witnesses at the Chilcot inquiry must be expecting the assassin's knock any day soon.

You can prove almost anything when there is enough data, as there is in the Kelly case. You place immense significance on anything that might help your case, and simply ignore the rest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/aug/21/simon-hoggart-week-david-kelly

A letter to the Guardian

2010-08-19T09:27:00.003+01:00

Letters

Lack of Kelly inquest is a national disgrace

The Guardian, Thursday 19 August 2010

It is not a question of whether there should or should not be a proper inquest into Dr David Kelly's death (Editorial, 17 August). This is not a matter for debate. The laws of this country state very clearly that there must be an inquest into any death occurring in the manner in which Dr Kelly is said to have died.

Further, before a suicide verdict can be returned, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to kill himself. In the absence of a suicide note, it is extremely difficult to achieve this level of proof. Anyone who examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton can see that the required level of proof was not attained, even if Lord Hutton had heard evidence under oath, which he crucially did not.

Further, Lord Falconer inappropriately invoked Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act, "ordering" the coroner Nicholas Gardiner to "adjourn indefinitely" his inquest into Dr Kelly's death on 13 August 2003. This intervention by the then lord chancellor surely constituted a blatant subversion of due process of the law.

In the case of Dr Kelly, the suicide verdict of Lord Hutton is clearly unsafe and may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this country. A suicide verdict effectively closes the case for ever, and if the deceased was in fact murdered stops the search for the murderer(s). A suicide verdict should not be reached lightly, and if there is any doubt the coroner should return an open verdict.

The fact that no inquest has been held into Dr David Kelly's death is nothing less than a national disgrace, particularly when one recalls the context in which his death took place.

Dr Stephen Frost

Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/19/david-kelly-inquest-disgrace

Dominic Grieve interviewed

2010-08-19T09:20:00.002+01:00

Attorney General will step in to end speculation over David Kelly death

The Attorney General has signalled that he is prepared to intervene in the controversy over the death of Dr David Kelly, admitting that those who doubted his suicide “may have a valid point”.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

Published: 11:14PM BST 18 Aug 2010

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dominic Grieve said he hoped to settle any concerns about the government scientist’s death to “give the public reassurance”.

His remarks raise the prospect that a full inquest, which could see Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and other senior Labour figures questioned in public, could finally be held. But the Attorney General said that before he applied for such a hearing he would need convincing evidence that the weapons expert had not committed suicide.

Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003, shortly after he had been exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the government had exaggerated the grounds for the war in Iraq.

Rather than the usual inquest, his death led to an inquiry by Lord Hutton which concluded that he had killed himself, using a knife to cut his wrist and taking an overdose of painkillers.

But conspiracy theorists have suggested there may be more to his death, particularly as Lord Hutton ordered that the results of the post mortem examination remain secret for 70 years.

Senior politicians and doctors have now called for a full inquest to examine in public how the scientist came to die.

Mr Grieve said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.”

He added: “People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”

Concerns over Dr Kelly’s death intensified last week, when a group of doctors signed a letter stating that the official explanation was “extremely unlikely”.

The principal cause was given as bleeding from a severed ulnar artery, a finding which the group argued was unsafe.

Det Con Graham Coe, who found the body, also said earlier this month that there had not been much blood at the scene. Calls for an inquest have come from the former Labour defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker. At the weekend, Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Conservative leader, added his voice.

Dr Andrew Davison, a Home Office pathologist, responded by saying that the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death were “not a game of Cluedo” and should be left to the experts.

Because a full inquest was never carried out, Mr Grieve is able to apply to the High Court for one as the most senior legal officer in England and Wales, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act. Normally, this is done on behalf of the deceased’s family.

However, Mr Grieve said he could not apply on a “hunch” and had to take account of the feelings of Dr Kelly’s close family, who have not called for a fresh investigation.

A High Court judge would only agree to order an inquest if Mr Grieve could prove such a course was in the interests of justice.

“I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death,” Mr Grieve said.

“If new evidence is put to me I can consider if an application should be made to the High Court that a fresh inquest goes ahead.” Mr Grieve said he was unable to take any action until Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release a number of key documents from an archive used by Lord Hutton for his report.

Their release was requested by the doctors who raised their concerns last week.

The archive includes Dr Kelly’s post mortem examination report, which Lord Hutton ordered sealed “in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters”.

The request was under consideration, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7953161/Attorney-General-will-step-in-to-end-speculation-over-David-Kelly-death.html

The scales of justice?

2010-08-17T00:10:00.006+01:00

Dr David Kelly's unquiet grave

Editorial

The Guardian, Tuesday 17 August 2010

"This is the lowest point," Lord Mandelson records Tony Blair as saying after the death of Dr David Kelly. Even those who cannot bring themselves to commend Mr Blair for giving his book income to charity yesterday will find it hard to argue with his grim comment in 2003. Dr Kelly's death, after the weapons expert had been outed and hounded over the "sexing up" allegation against the Iraq dossier, was one of the most abject moments in recent history. The death, the intensely political context, and the much criticised Hutton report into the case together explain why, to this day, so many feel so certain that the truth has not been told. And they explain why, whether the doubters are right or not, it remains so absolutely important that the full facts must be public, which at present they are not, and be above suspicion.

Last week a group of senior doctors called for a full inquest to be held into Dr Kelly's death. They charged that the official verdict – bleeding from self-inflicted incised wounds to his left wrist – recorded by Lord Hutton (whose inquiry in effect replaced the normal inquest procedure) was "extremely unlikely". Most of the doctors' claims have in fact been made before. Most of them have been challenged before too, as they were once again yesterday in a letter to the Times by a pathologist who cast doubt both on the doctors' pathology expertise and their theory that there was not enough loss of blood to support the Hutton verdict.

The difference this time is less in the substance of the campaigners' arguments than in their context. In spite of the continuing outrage over the Kelly case no new evidence has actually been produced to support any alternative to Hutton's verdict. The Kelly family, moreover, have not so far lent their support to the new inquest campaign. But there is a new government now, which might be more inclined to act on the call than Labour was. And the cause is being more ardently promoted than ever by the Daily Mail group, which first asked Mr Blair back in 2003 whether he had blood on his hands.

It is reasonable to ask whether, at a time of huge public spending cuts, a fresh inquest with attendant lawyers' fees would be justifiable. The more so when a significantly different verdict, let alone one which would satisfy those who believe Dr Kelly was murdered, is extremely unlikely. Some people, it is obvious, will never be satisfied. Against that, however, there is the ineradicable importance of these events and the highly unusual denial of a proper inquest in this case. The need remains to get to the bottom of a great public and private agony. A full inquest should be sympathetically considered. But there can be few illusions that it will ever finally lay Dr Kelly's case to rest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/17/dr-david-kelly

Andrew Gilligan

2010-08-16T10:41:00.003+01:00

David Kelly was not murdered

Suspicious factors surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the weapons inspector, have led the Attorney General to review his case. Andrew Gilligan, who broke the 'sexed up' dossier story, argues that he probably took his own life.

By Andrew Gilligan

Published: 7:12AM BST 16 Aug 2010

Every few months comes the same little media brush fire, the same apologetic calls from the television news people. And just as a lawyer at a dinner table will usually be asked for free legal advice, there is one question I can predict will come up when dining among strangers. With varying emphasis, and varying degrees of subtlety, what my questioners always ask is whether David Kelly was murdered. My answer – no – is seldom popular. I remember giving it to a young colleague of the Parliament Square peace camper, Brian Haw, as we talked in front of what Hello! magazine would call Mr Haw's lovely tent. She instantly produced a megaphone and denounced me to the passing traffic as a despicable Establishment sell-out.

Last week saw a slightly larger brush fire than usual. A new group of doctors echoed what some other medics have said: that the principal cause of death given by the Hutton inquiry, haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery, was "unsafe". This has put new wind in the murder party's sails – though the doctors themselves, significantly, are careful to avoid direct challenge to the finding of suicide. As the man at the heart of the story, and one of the only people in this debate who has actually met David Kelly, let me explain why I think that David probably did take his own life, and why that finding was one of the few things which Lord Hutton – probably – got right.

I should start, though, by admitting that as well as being horrified at David's death, I was very, very surprised. He didn't strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing. He was well used to confrontation and pressure: he'd been a weapons inspector in Iraq, for goodness' sake. By the day he died, the worst of the pressure was essentially over: Parliament was about to break for the summer, I and the BBC, which I was reporting for at the time, had refused to confirm whether David was my source for the Iraq "dodgy dossier" story, and the battle between Downing Street and the Corporation had reached stalemate.

As well as the doctors' point that David could not have bled to death from cutting an ulnar artery – a small artery which retracts if severed – there were several other apparently suspicious factors about the case. The paramedics who found his body noticed little blood. The pathologist who pronounced the cause of death later had a change of heart. The police found no fingerprints on the knife that David supposedly used to kill himself. The cause of death was rare – David was reportedly the only person in England to die in that way the whole of that year. Operation Mason, the police investigation into his death, started nine hours before he was even reported missing. There was no full inquest, almost unheard of in cases of this kind, and the papers on the death have been sealed for 70 years.

Yet most of these facts turn out to have seemingly plausible explanations.

The pathologist did change his view as to the precise cause of David's death, but still ruled out the possibility that foul play was involved. Thames Valley police have said that the start time of Operation Mason was chosen in retrospect to reflect the period of interest. The absence of fingerprints on the knife may be explained by the fact that the knife handle was reportedly covered in gaffer tape, which does not easily hold fingerprints, or by the fact that it spent the night in the open. Importantly, the knife itself was one that David kept in his study and which had belonged to him from boyhood.

The fact that a cause of death is rare does not mean that it is unheard-of, or impossible. The severing of the ulnar artery, as the doctors concede in their letter, was in fact only one cause of death. The full stated cause of death is actually the combination of the severed artery with two other things: David's long-standing heart condition of coronary artery atherosclerosis, and his swallowing 29 co-proxamol tablets.

There are just as many, if not more, experts who state that this cause is entirely plausible, including, for instance, Professor Robert Forrest, a toxicologist and former president of the Forensic Science Society, who stresses that it was the "interaction" of the three factors that led to the death. Even if the latest set of doctors are right, and the ulnar artery explanation is wrong, it is, as they implicitly concede, a narrow point which does not necessarily cast fresh doubt on the suicide verdict.

Over Iraq, I was shocked, even as an un-illusioned journalist, at the behaviour of which the British Government showed itself capable. And I have made a successful career, including winning the top award in the profession, from being sceptical of official explanations. But the central reason why I accept these particular official explanations, and do not believe that all who make them are engaged in an Establishment cover-up, is this. Even if you believe that the British Government murders its own staff in cold blood – which I don't – what motive could they possibly have had for killing David Kelly? In whose interest could it possibly have been to murder him?

By the time he died, David was no longer an obscure official. He had been at the centre of a national row. His death plunged the last government into its greatest crisis from which it never fully recovered. Killing him was guaranteed to create such a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known.

Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP, has proposed alternative candidates for the murderers: the groups run by the Iraqi exiles Ahmed Chalabi and Ayad Allawi, main peddlers of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nonsense to Western governments, keen not to have their fantasies exposed before they could consolidate their control of Iraq. But David believed there were some WMD in Iraq, and was keen to find them.

The idea that Chalabi or Allawi, fighting far more urgent battles in postwar Baghdad, would have bothered about a British political row is just silly. In any case, neither man can run a bath, let alone a sophisticated hit in a foreign country. Why do it in such a complicated, melodramatic way – the knife from the desk drawer drawn across the wrist, the 29 pills stuffed down his throat? And could they really have managed to rope in the entire British state – pathologists, police forces and the rest – to their grand design? Even as I type, it is clearly beyond preposterous.

Though I'd initially doubted the suicide verdict, that was before I knew quite how badly David had been treated. After learning what he went through at the hands of his employers, it is easier to understand the road that led him to that Oxfordshire hillside. David was placed under great pressure by senior government figures. He was intensively interviewed, forced into televised interrogation, coached in what to say, and then found himself caught in an untruth amid the blaze of publicity – an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.

David defined himself by his work, and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing that work, and that reputation, must have been terrifying to him, even if it was unfounded. Nor had I known (why should I?) of his relationship with his wife – who, we discovered, was not even told he had taken up the Baha'i faith until nearly two years afterwards. All this points to suicide – with only one faint alternative possibility. Not murder, just perhaps a kind of misadventure – a "cry for help" that went wrong.

I'm often surprised at the enduring interest in this one man's death. If you seek government culpability, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more the point. David's was a mainly personal tragedy – and the reason Lord Hutton circumvented the inquest, and sealed the evidence, was not some conspiracy, but because his family wanted it. Among those calling for an inquest, David's widow and daughters have been notable by their absence.

Now, however, I believe that more harm and distress may be being caused by the endless tide of junk speculation than by holding a proper inquest. We should have one, if only to stop the nonsense once and for all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7947544/David-Kelly-was-not-murdered.html

Michael Howard and Michael Powers

2010-08-15T14:17:00.005+01:00

Michael Howard leads MPs' call for full inquest into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly

By Simon Walters and Glen Owen

Last updated at 10:38 AM on 15th August 2010

Former Tory leader Michael Howard tonight put himself at the head of a powerful all-party campaign to force a full inquest into the death of Ministry of Defence weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

Mr Howard, Conservative leader when the Hutton Report found Dr Kelly took his own life, said: ‘In view of the growing number of relevant questions that have arisen and cast doubt on the conclusions reached by Lord Hutton, I believe it would now be entirely appropriate for a full inquest to be held.

‘Recent evidence by the first police officer on the scene, together with new statements by doctors, raise serious questions which should be considered. This has been on my mind for quite a while and recent events have crystallised my view.’

Mr Howard, now a leading Tory peer, was backed by Labour leadership challenger Diane Abbott, two former Labour Defence Ministers who served in Tony Blair’s Government and a number of senior Tory, Lib Dem and Labour MPs.

They spoke out amid signs that the Government is prepared to act in response to the growing demands to resolve questions over the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death.

It emerged yesterday that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is ready to meet the group of senior doctors who last week claimed Dr Kelly could not have committed suicide in the way described in Lord Hutton’s report.

Mr Grieve has already indicated he is ready to ask the High Court to order a full inquest if he believes there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on Lord Hutton’s verdict.

And Justice Minister Ken Clarke was yesterday urged by a Cabinet colleague to scrap Labour’s unprecedented 70-year embargo on releasing Dr Kelly’s medical records, including the results of the post-mortem examination.

‘If we are going to find out how Kelly died, the first requirement is to allow his medical details to be scrutinised,’ said the Cabinet Minister, who asked not to be named.

In tomorrow's Mail on Sunday, Dr Michael J. Powers QC, a doctor and barrister behind the latest demand by medical experts for a full inquiry, delivers a fresh challenge to Lord Hutton’s account of the way Dr Kelly is said to have slashed his wrists.

‘A fatal haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery is so improbable that more evidence was essential before such a conclusion could be reached,’ says Dr Powers.

Dr Kelly’s body was discovered in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning Tony Blair’s grounds for war in Iraq.

Unusually, no coroner’s inquest was held into his death. The only official verdict has come from the Hutton Inquiry, commissioned by Mr Blair, which concluded that Dr Kelly, 59, died from loss of blood after cutting his left wrist with a blunt gardening knife and taking an overdose of co-proxamol, a painkiller commonly used for arthritis.

Critics regarded the report as a ‘whitewash’, crippled by an assumption from the outset that suicide was the only possible conclusion – and a desire by the report’s author, Lord Hutton, to spare Dr Kelly’s family additional distress.

The Mail on Sunday has led the way in reporting experts’ doubts over the Hutton verdict. We revealed that a close female confidante of Dr Kelly believed it was impossible for him to have killed himself by slashing his wrist because his right cutting hand was too weak to slice into steak. The woman, Mai Pederson, has confirmed this to Mr Grieve.

We also disclosed last year that 13 doctors had mounted a legal challenge to the finding of suicide on the grounds that a cut to the ulnar artery, which is small and difficult to access, could not have caused death. Their 12-page dossier is also now in Mr Grieve’s hands.

And last week, the first interview with the policeman who found Dr Kelly’s body cast further doubt on the verdict that he died of blood loss. Detective Constable Graham Coe revealed he had not seen ‘much blood’ around the body. DC Coe, 63, also said police searched Dr Kelly’s home the day after his death for papers ‘of a sensitive nature’ about Iraq.

Significantly, the demands for a full inquest now command support from all sides in Parliament, not just those who opposed the war.

Mr Howard gave full support to the conflict, though later accused Mr Blair of lying over the reasons for it.

Labour leadership contender Miss Abbott said: ‘When so many doctors have expressed genuine concerns, I think it would be a good idea to have a full inquest so we can set this matter to rest once and for all.’

Lord Gilbert, a Defence Minister in the Blair Government, said: ‘If serious medical people are agitated about the cause of Dr Kelly’s death, I see no reason why there should not be an inquest to resolve these doubts.’

Fellow former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle said: ‘Politicians who know nothing about medicine have no right to gainsay senior physicians who say the cause of death in the Hutton Report does not stack up. An inquest must be approved.’

Senior Labour MP Ann Clwyd, an ardent Labour advocate of the Iraq War, said: ‘If serious people with no political motive are not satisfied with the official account, it is fair enough to have an inquest. But we must take account of the family’s views.’

Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said: ‘Dr Kelly was treated appallingly by the last Government. His death was written off as suicide too hastily and the circumstances of his death were never fully investigated. If any criminal element was involved we need to know.’

Tory MP Adam Holloway, an Army captain in the Gulf War, said: ‘We need to establish the true cause of Dr Kelly’s death.’

However, there is likely to be opposition from Labour figures involved in the war and its aftermath. They include former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, a close Blair ally. It was he who chose Lord Hutton to investigate Dr Kelly’s death and who put the 70-year embargo on releasing his medical records.

A source close to Lord Falconer said: ‘The idea that a coroner’s inquest could be better than an inquiry led by someone as experienced and as distinguished as Lord Hutton is not plausible.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘The request for the release of Dr Kelly’s medical papers is currently under consideration.’

David would never have committed suicide in that spot

Conspiracy theory: Nikolai Tolstoy believes Dr Kelly was killed

A distinguished historian and neighbour of Dr David Kelly has added to the growing clamour for an inquest by declaring he does not believe Dr Kelly committed suicide.

Count Nikolai Tolstoy said last night that the scientist’s ‘considerate’ character meant he would never have chosen to die in a place where passers-by were likely to be shocked – particularly when he could easily have deployed more discreet and effective means of killing himself.

Tolstoy, who is an expert on Celtic mythology and the Second World War, lives in the Oxfordshire village of Southmoor where the scientist shared an old farmhouse with his wife, Janice Kelly. Dr Kelly died on nearby Harrowdown Hill, on a walking route that is widely used by locals.

‘I remember the night of his death very well,’ Tolstoy said last night. ‘There were helicopters flying overhead for hours after the body was found.

‘The general view in the village is that suicide is extremely unlikely. He used to drink in our local pub and he was a very friendly and considerate man.

‘I frequently walk past the spot where he died, and he would not have done something like that in a place where an old lady could have found him.

‘It just seems wholly implausible that he should have chosen to saw away at his wrist with a blunt knife when there were other means available to him at home, where his wife kept various drugs for her medical conditions.’

Tolstoy, who stood as a UKIP candidate against David Cameron at the last Election, believes that Dr Kelly died because he had annoyed Tony Blair’s Government.

The historian, who is a distant cousin of War And Peace author Leo Tolstoy, had his own battle with the Establishment in the Eighties when he was ordered to pay £1.5 million damages to Lord Aldington, after making claims in a pamphlet accusing the peer of complicity in war crimes.

Tolstoy’s defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case – while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.

‘I was in a similar position when I was attacked by the Establishment and it didn’t make me feel that way [suicidal],’ Tolstoy added.

‘As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with what happened.

‘Presumably the British Government was behind it all. I don’t believe the theory that Iraqi agents murdered him – how would they have the means and the opportunity to come into the country?

‘I wouldn’t put anything past the Government, as I know from personal experience. When the Establishment is threatened, it closes ranks.’

Dr Kelly was a brilliant man who did his best for his country. We owe it to him and ourselves to discover the true cause of his death

In this powerfully argued article, doctor and barrister Dr Michael Powers QC explains why justice demands an inquest is held

Doubts: Dr Michael Powers QC says key questions were not asked about Dr Kelly

Since his untimely death in July 2003, questions have continued to be raised about the circumstances of Dr David Kelly’s death. Many wonder whether he really killed himself and speculate that he was murdered. His sudden death shocked the nation – how could it have happened?

As a specialist practitioner in law and medicine, I feel a responsibility to the two professions to air my doubts about a case that bridges both worlds.

Any question of suicide or murder has to follow the determination of the cause of death. To do otherwise risks putting the cart before the horse. It would, for example, be scientifically and logically unsound to assume suicide and then to set about finding evidence to prove it.

Before asking whether a deceased himself or a third party put the bullet in the head, it is necessary to determine first that there was a hole in the head and secondly that the deceased died because of it.

For 1,000 years, coroners have been investigating sudden, violent and unnatural deaths. They have got good at it. Suicide used to be a crime and a finding of self-murder is an unhappy reflection on the victim and his family and friends.

That is why suicide has to be proved to the same high standard as murder. It has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased did the act which killed him with that intention in mind.

The normal inquest process in the case of David Kelly was interrupted by the order of the Government. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor at the time, exercised a rarely used power to require the Oxfordshire coroner to adjourn his investigation and to give that responsibility to Lord Hutton.

The coroner had the power to compel witnesses to attend and to give evidence on oath. The Government which took our country to war with Iraq chose not to give these considerable powers to Lord Hutton.

Although there were 24 days of evidence taken over two-and-a-half months, the whole of the medical evidence took no more than a half day. The evidence of the pathologist, toxicologist and forensic biologist can be read in 30 minutes. No one could say this was a detailed investigation into the death.

I was trained as a doctor and during my years in medical practice I often had to pass fine catheters into the radial artery in the wrist. This is where medics usually feel the pulse. It can even be seen pulsating in many people. Dr Kelly’s wrists were not slit. Neither radial artery was cut. This alone is a strange finding in someone who intends suicide by this method.

Deeper in the wrist on the side of the little finger lies the ulnar artery. It is not used for catheterisation because it is too small. Yet Lord Hutton, on the unchallenged evidence of a single pathologist, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from the severance of this single small artery in the left hand.

No courtroom drama would be complete without critical witnesses being challenged through the cross-examination process. Like all barristers, I received a rigorous training in advocacy and, because of its enormous importance, I take time from my practice to train barristers in this art. A skilful cross-examination is often the key to ascertaining the truth.

None of this happened in Lord Hutton’s inquiry and witnesses were simply led through prepared evidence. Reading the transcripts, far from providing any sense of satisfaction, leaves me with feelings of frustration. Opportunity after opportunity was lost to pursue answers until every avenue had been thoroughly explored and every ‘escape route’ closed.

At the very end of his evidence, Dr Nicholas Hunt, the pathologist who had conducted the post-mortem, was asked: ‘Is there anything else you would like to say concerning the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly’s death?’

Such a question gives the witness who is favourably disposed to the questioner an open opportunity to go further than his witness statement. It is NOT a question ever asked in cross-examination as it provides a free pass to an escape route.

Dr Hunt answered: ‘Nothing I could say as a pathologist, no.’ He is an experienced expert witness. What on earth did that answer mean? He was there to give evidence as a pathologist. He knew that. Everyone knew that. So why did he give that answer? It begged the question whether there was anything else he knew. Was he concerned about any other forensic or factual evidence? These questions were never asked.

Hutton focused on the so-called dodgy dossier and the conflict between the Government and the BBC which, at that time, was more in the public eye. Because it was taken for granted that Dr Kelly had killed himself, the medical evidence was insufficiently explored.

In the absence of any bleeding tendency from a clotting deficiency (and there was no evidence of this) fatal haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery is so improbable that more evidence was essential before such a conclusion could be reached.

If you want to know how much beer has gone from a full pint glass, it is easy. You can either measure how much has been poured out or measure how much remains. To be confident, you would measure both. The same approach should have been adopted in this case.

As it was not, there is no evidence as to whether there was sufficient haemorrhage from the ulnar artery to cause death. The inquiry fell into the trap of the circular argument: Dr Kelly died, therefore he must have lost sufficient blood.

In my work as a barrister I meet many medics, but I have never met a single doctor who has disagreed with the proposition that it is extremely improbable that haemorrhage from a single, severed ulnar artery would ever be a primary cause of death.

Yet this extreme unlikelihood was never explored with Dr Hunt. Whatever the reason, this was a serious failure of the Hutton Inquiry. It has understandably led to a suspicion of cover-up. This could not have been the cause of death, the argument goes. If it were not the cause, then what did cause his death? Was it something Dr Kelly did to himself, intending to cause his own death, which has not yet been discovered? Was it part of some elaborate plan by others to end his life?

The only way to stop the many theories which abound is for there now to be a thorough and open investigation by way of a fresh inquest. Surely the Government realises that the way to foster conspiracy theories is to be secretive and to resist calls to disclose all the medical evidence. We should pay tribute to Dr Kelly. He was a brilliant man who did his best in the service of this country. He deserves our gratitude and respect. We owe it to him and ourselves to ensure the true cause of his death is ascertained.

* Dr Michael J. Powers QC is a barrister specialising in medical causation and a Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians to which he is an appointed examiner.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303190/Michael-Howard-leads-MPs-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest.html