As part of his hearing on 16 March 2004 the coroner, Mr Gardiner, heard representations from those he regarded as "properly interested persons" as to whether he should resume the inquest into Dr Kelly's death. It has to be recognised that the representations couldn't be determinant, however if one of the parties had requested resumption then I think Mr Gardiner would have had grave difficulty in ignoring such a request.
This is what happened as recorded in the transcript of the hearing:
An inquest is essentially a fact finding exercise and there can be no parties to it, this I take to be the justification for the Coroner's Rule 20, which defines the various categories of properly interested persons. The public at large is clearly not included in those provisions. The discretion under Rule 20(2)(h) being only applicable to persons of the like nature to those previously listed in the Rules.
I understand that Mr. D. Pearson represents the various interested Departments and Mr. Gompertz represents Mrs. Kelly. I have indicated the basis of these Proceedings, do either of you have any representations to make?
by Mr. Gompertz:
I submit, on behalf of the family of Dr. David Kelly, that there is no exceptional reason justifying the resumption of the Inquest pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A Subsection 4 of 1988. I am instructed that the family accepts Lord Hutton's findings as to the mode and proximate cause of Dr. Kelly's death. The family, however, is disappointed that Lord Hutton did not consider more fully the extent to which the state of mind in which Dr. Kelly chose to take his own life was induced by the failings of the Ministry of Defence in the exercise of the duty of care owed to him as his employer. I am not suggesting that that disappointment constitutes an exceptional reason.
by Mr. Pearson:
I have no representations.
H.M.Coroner:
I did indicate I would be prepared to consider whether there are any other interested persons. This would be the time to come forward.
(None did.)
It's worth noting that very substantial written representations dated 7 October and 16 October 2003 had been made by the family and sent to Lord Hutton. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/fsb/fsb_3.pdf
Showing posts with label Lord Hutton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lord Hutton. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 July 2012
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Mr Gardiner's practical problems on 16 March
On 28 January 2004 Lord Hutton delivered his report. One outcome of this was the fact that Mr Gardiner had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances for him to reconvene the inquest. The very fact that Hutton hadn't heard evidence under oath was an exceptional reason I suggest. I made the point in my last post that Mr Gardiner had a couple of practical problems to deal with if he decided to reconvene and these I will now discuss.
The first of these was the fact that Lord Falconer and Tony Blair stated that they were satisfied with the report ... it was hardly likely that they wouldn't be of course! So the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister were content with the report resulting from an inquiry carried out by a very senior judge. If Mr Gardiner had reconvened it would suggest that he disagreed with these very big guns. The point is though so far as David Kelly's death was concerned the coroner was still king. He should not have let himself be overawed by them.
It wasn't just possible timidity on Gardiner's part though. His second practical problem was of his own making - I'm not aware of anyone really discussing it before now. On 14 August Mr Gardiner formally accepted the final report of Dr Hunt and the first report of Dr Allan at the resumed hearing of that date. From these reports he provided information for the registrar to register Dr Kelly's death four days later (two of those days were the weekend). Of course Mr Gardiner couldn't declare at the same time whether his conclusion was one of "suicide", "unlawful killing" or an "open verdict". This was before the advent of narrative verdicts by the way.
At a renewed hearing he would have to contemplate the possibility that some of the previously registered details were incorrect. Suppose that he did conclude that the verdict was suicide then "Found dead at Harrowdown Hill" would not be satisfactory, bearing in mind dead men don't walk. What would happen if some significant detail was expressed differently when evidence was heard under oath. He had already accepted Dr Hunt's explanation about the mode of death without question. "The Doctors", had already expressed disquiet about Dr Hunt's conclusions and the ambulance crew in both commenting at the Inquiry about the lack of blood had poured more cold water on whether death could be from haemorrhage.
It can be seen then that if Mr Gardiner pressed ahead, as he should have done, he would have faced a range of uncertainties, allied to the fact that he might have appeared unwise even incompetent in registering the death when all he should have done to comply with Section 17A was to provide an interim certificate confirming the identity of the deceased.
Mr Gardiner found himself in an invidious position on 16 March. He decided to take the easy option.
The first of these was the fact that Lord Falconer and Tony Blair stated that they were satisfied with the report ... it was hardly likely that they wouldn't be of course! So the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister were content with the report resulting from an inquiry carried out by a very senior judge. If Mr Gardiner had reconvened it would suggest that he disagreed with these very big guns. The point is though so far as David Kelly's death was concerned the coroner was still king. He should not have let himself be overawed by them.
It wasn't just possible timidity on Gardiner's part though. His second practical problem was of his own making - I'm not aware of anyone really discussing it before now. On 14 August Mr Gardiner formally accepted the final report of Dr Hunt and the first report of Dr Allan at the resumed hearing of that date. From these reports he provided information for the registrar to register Dr Kelly's death four days later (two of those days were the weekend). Of course Mr Gardiner couldn't declare at the same time whether his conclusion was one of "suicide", "unlawful killing" or an "open verdict". This was before the advent of narrative verdicts by the way.
At a renewed hearing he would have to contemplate the possibility that some of the previously registered details were incorrect. Suppose that he did conclude that the verdict was suicide then "Found dead at Harrowdown Hill" would not be satisfactory, bearing in mind dead men don't walk. What would happen if some significant detail was expressed differently when evidence was heard under oath. He had already accepted Dr Hunt's explanation about the mode of death without question. "The Doctors", had already expressed disquiet about Dr Hunt's conclusions and the ambulance crew in both commenting at the Inquiry about the lack of blood had poured more cold water on whether death could be from haemorrhage.
It can be seen then that if Mr Gardiner pressed ahead, as he should have done, he would have faced a range of uncertainties, allied to the fact that he might have appeared unwise even incompetent in registering the death when all he should have done to comply with Section 17A was to provide an interim certificate confirming the identity of the deceased.
Mr Gardiner found himself in an invidious position on 16 March. He decided to take the easy option.
Monday, 9 July 2012
"No knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened
This is from Hansard on 30 January 2007:
The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): The Oxfordshire coroner briefly resumed the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly on 14 August 2003 to admit post mortem evidence. He then adjourned the inquest, in accordance with the provisions of section 17(a) of the Coroners Act 1988, having been informed by the Lord Chancellor that Dr. Kelly’s death was likely to be adequately investigated by the Hutton inquiry.
Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know my view that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way and contrary to the 1988 Act in resuming the inquiry after Lord Hutton had been appointed. In a letter that I received from Lord Hutton last week, he tells me that he had “no knowledge” of the inquest being reconvened, and no knowledge of the meeting with her officials, which she was aware of, that took place at the Oxfordshire coroner’s request, in August 2003. Is this not an extraordinary situation, and does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful if the Oxfordshire coroner agreed to a meeting with the Minister and me, at which we could discuss these matters in more detail? It is clear that there are a great many loose ends.
Ms Harman: I do not agree that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way. I have looked into this issue with great care and in great detail, and I do not think it
30 Jan 2007 : Column 85
necessarily odd that Lord Hutton had no knowledge of, or information about, the meeting that the coroner held with officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I know that the hon. Gentleman remains suspicious and thinks that something underhand has gone on regarding the meeting between the Oxfordshire coroner and officials from the Lord Chancellor’s Department, but I do not
30 Jan 2007 : Column 86
think that that is the case. I have so far been unable to reassure the hon. Gentleman through very detailed letters and parliamentary answers, but perhaps he should meet the officials who were involved in that meeting, who I am sure can reassure him of its propriety. Obviously, I cannot offer a meeting with the Oxfordshire coroner, who is an independent judicial official.
So, in a recent letter to Norman Baker, Hutton avers that he had "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened! Compare that with the list of documents sent by the coroner to the Inquiry, which was the subject of my last post. On the face of it Hutton is being dishonest.
Unfortunately Mr Baker links the "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened with no knowledge of the meeting with her officials. Ms Harman gives an unusually detailed response to the question of the meeting between the coroner and her officials thereby giving the impression that she has given Mr Baker a very full answer. This is a prime example of the deviousness of politicians because she has disguised the fact that the question of Lord Hutton having "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened is totally ignored.
I do not believe that Hutton had "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened on 14 August.
David Kelly
24. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): If she will make a statement on the actions of the Oxfordshire coroner in August 2003 in respect of the death of David Kelly. [112044]The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): The Oxfordshire coroner briefly resumed the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly on 14 August 2003 to admit post mortem evidence. He then adjourned the inquest, in accordance with the provisions of section 17(a) of the Coroners Act 1988, having been informed by the Lord Chancellor that Dr. Kelly’s death was likely to be adequately investigated by the Hutton inquiry.
Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know my view that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way and contrary to the 1988 Act in resuming the inquiry after Lord Hutton had been appointed. In a letter that I received from Lord Hutton last week, he tells me that he had “no knowledge” of the inquest being reconvened, and no knowledge of the meeting with her officials, which she was aware of, that took place at the Oxfordshire coroner’s request, in August 2003. Is this not an extraordinary situation, and does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful if the Oxfordshire coroner agreed to a meeting with the Minister and me, at which we could discuss these matters in more detail? It is clear that there are a great many loose ends.
Ms Harman: I do not agree that the coroner acted in a most peculiar way. I have looked into this issue with great care and in great detail, and I do not think it
30 Jan 2007 : Column 85
necessarily odd that Lord Hutton had no knowledge of, or information about, the meeting that the coroner held with officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I know that the hon. Gentleman remains suspicious and thinks that something underhand has gone on regarding the meeting between the Oxfordshire coroner and officials from the Lord Chancellor’s Department, but I do not
30 Jan 2007 : Column 86
think that that is the case. I have so far been unable to reassure the hon. Gentleman through very detailed letters and parliamentary answers, but perhaps he should meet the officials who were involved in that meeting, who I am sure can reassure him of its propriety. Obviously, I cannot offer a meeting with the Oxfordshire coroner, who is an independent judicial official.
So, in a recent letter to Norman Baker, Hutton avers that he had "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened! Compare that with the list of documents sent by the coroner to the Inquiry, which was the subject of my last post. On the face of it Hutton is being dishonest.
Unfortunately Mr Baker links the "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened with no knowledge of the meeting with her officials. Ms Harman gives an unusually detailed response to the question of the meeting between the coroner and her officials thereby giving the impression that she has given Mr Baker a very full answer. This is a prime example of the deviousness of politicians because she has disguised the fact that the question of Lord Hutton having "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened is totally ignored.
I do not believe that Hutton had "no knowledge" of the inquest being reconvened on 14 August.
Sunday, 8 July 2012
Coroner on the sidelines - thanks to Falconer (1)
The coroner Nicholas Gardiner would, one imagines, have become aware of the Inquiry on the date it was set up ... the day of the discovery of the body (18 July 2003). He must have been bemused, even concerned, about this. How was his process going to dovetail into an Inquiry if at all?
I suggest that two things would have become apparent to Mr Gardiner quite quickly: firstly that this was going to be an ad hoc inquiry without the sort of statutory provisions that an inquest has to have. Secondly that Hutton was a person in a hurry: it looked as if he would be taking evidence long before Mr Gardiner would be overseeing his resumed inquest. On that second point, the coroner has stated that he had anticipated carrying out the inquest in September. Even by the first of that month Hutton had listened to about three dozen witnesses.
It looks as if it was on the 4th of August that the coroner had the first formal indication that the Lord Chancellor was invoking Section 17A (I'm not sure if this date was when the letter was written or received). So, about ten days before the inquest was indefinitely adjourned Mr Gardiner was aware that Section 17A would be invoked whether he liked it or not. Lord Hutton would have been kept in the loop on this.
In Blair's first government in 1997 Falconer became Solicitor General. It was followed by a stint as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and he took over the responsibility for the Millenium Dome after the first resignation of Peter Mandelson (Somebody had to do it I suppose!). The possibility exists that Falconer had some input into the mammoth Access to Justice Act 1999 with its 110 sections and 15 schedules. This act was the origin of our Section 17A and it's not impossible that Falconer had some part in producing the act, even the content of section 71 which was to become 17A in the Coroners Act.
An intriguing question now is whether, when Falconer set up the Hutton Inquiry, he was aware of the availability of Section 17A ... which he could use to stop the inquest in its tracks. If he wasn't at that moment then I'm sure it didn't take him long to find out.
Hutton and Dingemans visited Mrs Kelly and the family on 26 July. One of the objectives it seems was to get Mrs Kelly to give evidence at the Inquiry. At that time she might well have expressed concern about going to the Inquiry if she was aware that she would almost certainly be giving evidence to an inquest. But what if Hutton could have assured her that there wouldn't be an inquest, then the trauma of going to the Inquiry would be lessened I would think, particularly if Hutton was able to tell her that her testimony could be delivered by an audio link. Before going to Southmoor it would certainly have been useful from Hutton's perspective if he could inform Mrs Kelly: 'Don't worry, there won't be an inquest'.
My belief is that the decision to sideline the coroner was taken either on the 18th July or shortly thereafter.
I suggest that two things would have become apparent to Mr Gardiner quite quickly: firstly that this was going to be an ad hoc inquiry without the sort of statutory provisions that an inquest has to have. Secondly that Hutton was a person in a hurry: it looked as if he would be taking evidence long before Mr Gardiner would be overseeing his resumed inquest. On that second point, the coroner has stated that he had anticipated carrying out the inquest in September. Even by the first of that month Hutton had listened to about three dozen witnesses.
It looks as if it was on the 4th of August that the coroner had the first formal indication that the Lord Chancellor was invoking Section 17A (I'm not sure if this date was when the letter was written or received). So, about ten days before the inquest was indefinitely adjourned Mr Gardiner was aware that Section 17A would be invoked whether he liked it or not. Lord Hutton would have been kept in the loop on this.
In Blair's first government in 1997 Falconer became Solicitor General. It was followed by a stint as Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and he took over the responsibility for the Millenium Dome after the first resignation of Peter Mandelson (Somebody had to do it I suppose!). The possibility exists that Falconer had some input into the mammoth Access to Justice Act 1999 with its 110 sections and 15 schedules. This act was the origin of our Section 17A and it's not impossible that Falconer had some part in producing the act, even the content of section 71 which was to become 17A in the Coroners Act.
An intriguing question now is whether, when Falconer set up the Hutton Inquiry, he was aware of the availability of Section 17A ... which he could use to stop the inquest in its tracks. If he wasn't at that moment then I'm sure it didn't take him long to find out.
Hutton and Dingemans visited Mrs Kelly and the family on 26 July. One of the objectives it seems was to get Mrs Kelly to give evidence at the Inquiry. At that time she might well have expressed concern about going to the Inquiry if she was aware that she would almost certainly be giving evidence to an inquest. But what if Hutton could have assured her that there wouldn't be an inquest, then the trauma of going to the Inquiry would be lessened I would think, particularly if Hutton was able to tell her that her testimony could be delivered by an audio link. Before going to Southmoor it would certainly have been useful from Hutton's perspective if he could inform Mrs Kelly: 'Don't worry, there won't be an inquest'.
My belief is that the decision to sideline the coroner was taken either on the 18th July or shortly thereafter.
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Keeping quiet about Section 17A
It was a letter from the office of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, on 12 August 2003 that brought Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 into play. This letter was addressed to the Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas Gardiner with a copy sent to Lord Hutton. It might be thought that this was the first intimation Mr Gardiner had that Section 17A would be invoked but this wasn't the case as I shall explain in a separate post.
Although, in strictly legal terms, the Inquiry didn't become the Inquest, it took over that role. In fact Hutton, in a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 September 2010, stated:
Under section 17A of the Coroner's Act 1988 the public inquiry took the place of an inquest and carried out the functions of an inquest.
I think that although the Inquiry remained an inquiry its legal status took on a new dimension when 17A was invoked. As such surely Hutton would make some reference to the fact. One way of doing this would have been via a press notice on the Hutton website ... there are 18 notices but no mention of Section 17A. Perhaps, having received a copy of the letter sent to Mr Gardiner, he would mention the fact in open court. No, he didn't. The last chance then was to bring the fact to our attention in his report on the 28 January 2004 or in his accompanying statement. Once again a search draws a blank.
So Hutton on 28 January delivers an opinion on the death of Dr Kelly without once explaining that Section 17A had been invoked. Why the reticence? It is absolutely incredible that at the time he makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that the Inquiry was supposedly carrying out 'the functions of an inquest'.
An answer though could lie in the fact that his was an "ad hoc" inquiry, an inquiry not hemmed in by the statutory requirements required of any inquest.
During the course of 2004 the Public Administration Select Committee was taking evidence about inquiries. The use of Section 17A was very rare but bearing in mind it had been invoked for the Hutton Inquiry then you would think that it would be discussed when Lord Hutton and then Lord Falconer appeared as witnesses in front of the committee.
Hutton was examined on 13 May 2004 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/606/4051301.htm His very gentle "grilling" was spread over 170 questions ... there is though absolutely no mention of the fact that Section 17A was invoked.
How about Lord Falconer then, the person who both set up the Inquiry and invoked 17A. Surely he would be quizzed about using Section 17A. He appeared before the committee on 25 May. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/606/4052510.htm None of the 100 questions that came his way looked at Section 17A.
Two separate examinations and a total of 270 questions. The question of invoking Section 17A isn't raised. Didn't at least one of the committee have an interest in the subject? Were they muzzled? Or, and I think that this is quite believable, maybe none of them had an awareness or understanding of 17A and that it had been used in the Hutton Inquiry.
Although, in strictly legal terms, the Inquiry didn't become the Inquest, it took over that role. In fact Hutton, in a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 September 2010, stated:
Under section 17A of the Coroner's Act 1988 the public inquiry took the place of an inquest and carried out the functions of an inquest.
I think that although the Inquiry remained an inquiry its legal status took on a new dimension when 17A was invoked. As such surely Hutton would make some reference to the fact. One way of doing this would have been via a press notice on the Hutton website ... there are 18 notices but no mention of Section 17A. Perhaps, having received a copy of the letter sent to Mr Gardiner, he would mention the fact in open court. No, he didn't. The last chance then was to bring the fact to our attention in his report on the 28 January 2004 or in his accompanying statement. Once again a search draws a blank.
So Hutton on 28 January delivers an opinion on the death of Dr Kelly without once explaining that Section 17A had been invoked. Why the reticence? It is absolutely incredible that at the time he makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that the Inquiry was supposedly carrying out 'the functions of an inquest'.
An answer though could lie in the fact that his was an "ad hoc" inquiry, an inquiry not hemmed in by the statutory requirements required of any inquest.
During the course of 2004 the Public Administration Select Committee was taking evidence about inquiries. The use of Section 17A was very rare but bearing in mind it had been invoked for the Hutton Inquiry then you would think that it would be discussed when Lord Hutton and then Lord Falconer appeared as witnesses in front of the committee.
Hutton was examined on 13 May 2004 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/606/4051301.htm His very gentle "grilling" was spread over 170 questions ... there is though absolutely no mention of the fact that Section 17A was invoked.
How about Lord Falconer then, the person who both set up the Inquiry and invoked 17A. Surely he would be quizzed about using Section 17A. He appeared before the committee on 25 May. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/606/4052510.htm None of the 100 questions that came his way looked at Section 17A.
Two separate examinations and a total of 270 questions. The question of invoking Section 17A isn't raised. Didn't at least one of the committee have an interest in the subject? Were they muzzled? Or, and I think that this is quite believable, maybe none of them had an awareness or understanding of 17A and that it had been used in the Hutton Inquiry.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
David Kelly laid to rest
This is the report on the BBC News website regarding Dr David Kelly's funeral on the afternoon of Wednesday 6 August: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127605.stm
I added a comment to my last post but one in which I pondered about the presence of Lord Hutton and his senior counsel James Dingemans at the funeral. Why did they turn up? They didn't know David Kelly personally. Surely, aged 72 at the time, Hutton would have realised that it wasn't the done thing to turn up at what was essentially a private gathering of mourners.
However, as his employer, it was right that the government were represented. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon had a long standing arrangement to be on holiday in the US according to this article and so John Prescott appeared instead: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-190956/Holidaying-Hoon-miss-Kelly-funeral.html Under the circumstances described I don't have a problem with Hoon's decision in this instance and it sounds as if he discussed the situation with Mrs Kelly. However his earlier decision not to cancel going to the British Grand Prix, a couple of days after the body discovery, was crass and insensitive.
There was a report, briefly alluded to in this article, that Dr Kelly's colleagues had been 'warned off' going to the funeral: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-damning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html It looks as if Dr Kelly had rubbed shoulders with various spooks. Perhaps there were people who might have turned up who had a little too much knowledge of Kelly, more than was good for them.
I added a comment to my last post but one in which I pondered about the presence of Lord Hutton and his senior counsel James Dingemans at the funeral. Why did they turn up? They didn't know David Kelly personally. Surely, aged 72 at the time, Hutton would have realised that it wasn't the done thing to turn up at what was essentially a private gathering of mourners.
However, as his employer, it was right that the government were represented. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon had a long standing arrangement to be on holiday in the US according to this article and so John Prescott appeared instead: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-190956/Holidaying-Hoon-miss-Kelly-funeral.html Under the circumstances described I don't have a problem with Hoon's decision in this instance and it sounds as if he discussed the situation with Mrs Kelly. However his earlier decision not to cancel going to the British Grand Prix, a couple of days after the body discovery, was crass and insensitive.
There was a report, briefly alluded to in this article, that Dr Kelly's colleagues had been 'warned off' going to the funeral: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-damning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html It looks as if Dr Kelly had rubbed shoulders with various spooks. Perhaps there were people who might have turned up who had a little too much knowledge of Kelly, more than was good for them.
Hutton's Opening Statement at the Inquiry
Lord Hutton's Opening Statement on the morning of 1st August 2003 can be read here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans01.htm
At the time Lord Falconer set up the Inquiry he was wearing two hats - not only was he Lord Chancellor but he was Secretary of State of the newly formed Department of Constitutional Affairs. Following the obligatory one minute's silence in memory of Dr Kelly Hutton makes it clear that Falconer was acting as Secretary of State in asking him to chair the Inquiry. Hutton stated his terms of reference: Urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly. Almost immediately Hutton points out that he has to proceed with expedition and that he is in no doubt that it is in the public interest for him to do so.
This urgency would be seen I think to serve two useful purposes:
So on 1st August Hutton marked out the territory. Clearly he was already associating the death with the September 2002 dossier, the 45 minute claim and the broadcasts of some journalists. All these things are interesting in their own way but how could he be sure at the outset that Dr Kelly's death was the sad culmination of these various events?
Regarding medical evidence Hutton displays some puzzlement about the electrodes that were on Dr Kelly's chest: this a subject for a later post.
The fact that Hutton seems to have believed in the suicide hypothesis from the word go is evidenced by him referring to part of Dr Hunt's wild speculation on this. This piece of speculation stands out like a sore thumb in the Opening Statement, a statement which should adhere to the known evidence. My take on this can be read here: http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/lord-hutton-repeats-speculation-of-dr.html
Following the statement from Lord Hutton Geoffrey Robertson QC made a submission on behalf of several broadcasting organisations for there to be limited TV coverage of some of the witnesses giving their testimony. Hutton gave a ruling on this on 5 August which was in the negative, the details of the ruling are here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings/ruling01.htm
At the time Lord Falconer set up the Inquiry he was wearing two hats - not only was he Lord Chancellor but he was Secretary of State of the newly formed Department of Constitutional Affairs. Following the obligatory one minute's silence in memory of Dr Kelly Hutton makes it clear that Falconer was acting as Secretary of State in asking him to chair the Inquiry. Hutton stated his terms of reference: Urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly. Almost immediately Hutton points out that he has to proceed with expedition and that he is in no doubt that it is in the public interest for him to do so.
This urgency would be seen I think to serve two useful purposes:
- It would take some of the heat off Blair. It would demonstrate that he was concerned about, and proactive in, getting to the bottom of the reason why Dr Kelly "committed suicide".
- There would have been some concern I suggest about the possibility of an inquest taking evidence under oath before the Inquiry got to the point of witness examination. As it turned out a little known clause in the Coroners Act 1988 was used to kick the inquest into the long grass and this gave Hutton a clear run with his inquiry.
So on 1st August Hutton marked out the territory. Clearly he was already associating the death with the September 2002 dossier, the 45 minute claim and the broadcasts of some journalists. All these things are interesting in their own way but how could he be sure at the outset that Dr Kelly's death was the sad culmination of these various events?
Regarding medical evidence Hutton displays some puzzlement about the electrodes that were on Dr Kelly's chest: this a subject for a later post.
The fact that Hutton seems to have believed in the suicide hypothesis from the word go is evidenced by him referring to part of Dr Hunt's wild speculation on this. This piece of speculation stands out like a sore thumb in the Opening Statement, a statement which should adhere to the known evidence. My take on this can be read here: http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/lord-hutton-repeats-speculation-of-dr.html
Following the statement from Lord Hutton Geoffrey Robertson QC made a submission on behalf of several broadcasting organisations for there to be limited TV coverage of some of the witnesses giving their testimony. Hutton gave a ruling on this on 5 August which was in the negative, the details of the ruling are here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings/ruling01.htm
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Hutton and Dingemans visit Mrs Kelly
Lord Hutton and Mr Dingemans visited Mrs Kelly on the morning of Saturday 26 July 2003. This was at the instigation of Hutton. At the Inquiry Hutton didn't reveal what was said between them. The failure to do this was a matter raised by "The Doctors" when they applied to the Attorney General asking him to go to the High Court with the object of an inquest being granted. Their application was by way of a "Memorial" which can be read via this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_01_11davidkelly1.pdf It is paragraph 50 on page 22 which is particularly relevant to this discussion.
In a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 November 2010 Hutton replies to this criticism:
17. Paragraph 50 claims that I committed an irregularity because "during his investigations, Lord Hutton visited Mrs Kelly at home". Together with Mr James Dingemans QC I visited Mrs Kelly and her daughters at their home a few days after I was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The sole purpose of my visit was to express my sympathy to her and her daughters and to assure them that I intended to investigate Dr Kelly's death fully and carefully. I took no evidence from her. The visit was well publicised and would have been well known to all the parties represented at my inquiry. No objection was made, or could have been made, to the visit at the inquiry. The only evidence which I took from Mrs Kelly was the evidence which I heard when she gave evidence over a radio link to my inquiry.
In a press notice dated 28 July 2003 on the Hutton website the first paragraph says:
Lord Hutton had a meeting with Mrs Kelly, the widow of Dr David Kelly, in her home on Saturday morning, 26th July. The meeting took place at Lord Hutton's request. At the meeting he told Mrs Kelly that the Inquiry would meet any legal costs which she might incur in relation to it.
Number 37 in the schedule of responses to issues raised on the Attorney General's website is clearly a precis of the statement in Hutton's letter of 3 November above.
The retort by Hutton in his letter is at variance with what he himself told the Inquiry. These are his own words in his opening statement on 1 August:
In a letter to the Attorney General dated 3 November 2010 Hutton replies to this criticism:
17. Paragraph 50 claims that I committed an irregularity because "during his investigations, Lord Hutton visited Mrs Kelly at home". Together with Mr James Dingemans QC I visited Mrs Kelly and her daughters at their home a few days after I was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The sole purpose of my visit was to express my sympathy to her and her daughters and to assure them that I intended to investigate Dr Kelly's death fully and carefully. I took no evidence from her. The visit was well publicised and would have been well known to all the parties represented at my inquiry. No objection was made, or could have been made, to the visit at the inquiry. The only evidence which I took from Mrs Kelly was the evidence which I heard when she gave evidence over a radio link to my inquiry.
In a press notice dated 28 July 2003 on the Hutton website the first paragraph says:
Lord Hutton had a meeting with Mrs Kelly, the widow of Dr David Kelly, in her home on Saturday morning, 26th July. The meeting took place at Lord Hutton's request. At the meeting he told Mrs Kelly that the Inquiry would meet any legal costs which she might incur in relation to it.
Number 37 in the schedule of responses to issues raised on the Attorney General's website is clearly a precis of the statement in Hutton's letter of 3 November above.
The retort by Hutton in his letter is at variance with what he himself told the Inquiry. These are his own words in his opening statement on 1 August:
At my request I have been sent a considerable quantity of documents by the BBC, the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office and I have also been given information by
Dr Kelly's widow when I met her at her home on the morning of Saturday 26th July. It is probable that more documents will be sent to me in the next few days. From the documents and the information given to me, the following outline of events can be seen and I now state
that outline in very general terms without, at this stage, attempting a comprehensive account or any degree of precision. Many of the matters have already been reported in the media.
Dr Kelly's widow when I met her at her home on the morning of Saturday 26th July. It is probable that more documents will be sent to me in the next few days. From the documents and the information given to me, the following outline of events can be seen and I now state
that outline in very general terms without, at this stage, attempting a comprehensive account or any degree of precision. Many of the matters have already been reported in the media.
I view Lord Hutton's statement in his letter as a piece of deliberate deception. I don't doubt that he expressed sympathy, he might well have assured her that he would investigate the death fully and carefully and, in the strictly legal sense of the term, he may not have taken "evidence" from Mrs Kelly. However, by his own admission, she gave him information and goes on to say 'From the documents and information given to me ..'. It is surely abundantly clear that his duty at the Inquiry was to state the information given to him by Mrs Kelly.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Lord Hutton should NOT have been chosen
It wasn't only, in my view, totally wrong to have set up an Inquiry on 18 July 2003 it was also wrong to have chosen Lord Hutton to chair it. This post will be concerned with the selection of Hutton.
The choice of Hutton was down to Lord Falconer, close friend and former flatmate of Tony Blair. On the 18th July Falconer was Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for the Department of Community Affairs. Thanks to the industry of Dr Watt investigating this matter it now seems that the newly created Department wasn't yet a legal entity on that date. However there seems no doubt about Falconer being the Lord Chancellor!
During 2004 the whole matter of inquiries was being investigated by the "Select Committee on Public Administration". With Hutton having published his report on 28 January it comes as no surprise that both he and Falconer appeared as witnesses in front of the committee. Falconer had his say on the 25th of May and here he explains his choice of Hutton as Chairman:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: ...... After some thought and discussion, Lord Hutton was a name that emerged quite quickly as a suitable person to do it. Lord Hutton's particular qualities that made him suitable were that he was a senior judge of unimpeachable standing, he had been a successful Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, he looked completely beyond reproach and he had the right skills to investigate—the skills coming from being a senior judge—a series of facts leading up to somebody's death.
The choice of Hutton was down to Lord Falconer, close friend and former flatmate of Tony Blair. On the 18th July Falconer was Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for the Department of Community Affairs. Thanks to the industry of Dr Watt investigating this matter it now seems that the newly created Department wasn't yet a legal entity on that date. However there seems no doubt about Falconer being the Lord Chancellor!
During 2004 the whole matter of inquiries was being investigated by the "Select Committee on Public Administration". With Hutton having published his report on 28 January it comes as no surprise that both he and Falconer appeared as witnesses in front of the committee. Falconer had his say on the 25th of May and here he explains his choice of Hutton as Chairman:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: ...... After some thought and discussion, Lord Hutton was a name that emerged quite quickly as a suitable person to do it. Lord Hutton's particular qualities that made him suitable were that he was a senior judge of unimpeachable standing, he had been a successful Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, he looked completely beyond reproach and he had the right skills to investigate—the skills coming from being a senior judge—a series of facts leading up to somebody's death.
Q174 Chairman: You are not suggesting,
by the way, that there are some judges of impeachable standing,
are you?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No.
Q175 Chairman: I thought not!
Falconer's justification here is typical political spin ... he is trying to suggest I think that Hutton had particular qualities to set him apart whereas there were other senior judges who could have been equally suitable. But it's Falconer's economy with the truth that is particularly bothersome. The following are reasons which I suggest should have debarred Hutton from chairing the Inquiry:
- Lord Hutton was a judge in Northern Ireland at the time of "The Troubles". In coming to many controversial decisions it can fairly be seen that he needed constant protection. Even now that he is retired he might still require protection although I don't know whether that is so. What it meant in simplistic language is that somebody had to be prepared to take a bullet on his behalf. Regarding the death of Dr Kelly I think he might have been reluctant to look at any possible involvement or negligence by MI5, MI6 or Special Branch.
- Following the shootings on "Bloody Sunday" (30 January 1972) there were inquests on the dead (no avoiding inquests back then!). Representing the Ministry of Defence was one Brian Hutton. The behaviour of personnel in the Ministry of Defence prior to Dr Kelly's death was obviously going to be at the forefront of the Inquiry. It's difficult to see that there wasn't a potential conflict of interest with Hutton in effect having been previously employed by the MoD.
- The Widgery Tribunal, like the Hutton Inquiry, set up in double quick time, largely exonerated the British soldiers. At the subsequent inquests the coroner, Major Hubert O'Neill, had said there had been no justification for the soldiers to open fire. He said:
'These people may have been taking part in a parade that was banned but I do not think that justifies the firing of live rounds indiscriminately.' Hutton didn't mince his words in responding to the coroner: "It is not for you or the jury to express such wide-ranging views, particularly when a most eminent judge has spent 20 days hearing evidence and come to a very different conclusion," When it came to respect, for coroners, or rather lack of it, Hutton certainly had previous!
Lord Hutton makes a statement to the media
On the 21 July 2003 Nicholas Gardiner opened the inquest into he death of Dr David Kelly. Five minutes later it was adjourned to an undefined date.
On the same day and fifty odd miles from Oxford Lord Hutton was taking somewhat less than five minutes to read out a statement to the cameras. He took no questions from reporters. This press notice includes the text of his statement:
On the same day and fifty odd miles from Oxford Lord Hutton was taking somewhat less than five minutes to read out a statement to the cameras. He took no questions from reporters. This press notice includes the text of his statement:
Press Notices
21 July 2003
INVESTIGATION INTO CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING DR KELLY'S DEATH
STATEMENT BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD HUTTON (Issued through
the Department for Constitutional Affairs Press Office)
The Government has invited me to conduct an investigation into the tragic
death of Dr David Kelly which has brought such great sorrow to his wife
and children.
My terms of reference are these:
"urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding
the death of Dr Kelly."
The Government has further stated that it will provide me with the fullest
cooperation and that it expects all other authorities and parties to do
the same.
I make it clear that it will be for me to decide as I think right within
my terms of reference the matters which will be the subject of my investigation.
I intend to sit in public in the near future to state how I intend to
conduct the Inquiry and to consider the extent to which interested parties
and bodies should be represented by counsel or solicitors. In deciding
on the date when I will sit I will obviously wish to take into account
the date of Dr Kelly''s funeral and the timing of the inquest into his
death.
After that preliminary sitting I intend to conduct the Inquiry with expedition
and to report as soon as possible. It is also my intention to conduct
the inquiry mostly in public.
I have appointed Mr James Dingemans QC to act as Counsel to the Inquiry
and Mr Lee Hughes of the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be
the Secretary to the Inquiry.
There isn't much I want to add. Hutton made his opening statement at the Inquiry on 1 August and then waited until after the funeral before he started taking testimony on Monday 11 August. I stand to be corrected but I believe this is the only time he makes reference to the inquest. Lord Hutton was very quickly appointed to chair the Inquiry on the 18th and he acted with a similar turn of speed by asking James Dingemans QC to be his Senior Counsel on the same day. Peter Knox had to wait a little longer ... his appointment as Junior Counsel was announced on the 24th July.
Some biographical details of Hutton, Dingemans, Knox and the Secretary to the Inquiry, Lee Hughes, can be found here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/biog.htm
I will be adding a little more to the biography of Hutton, information that the Blair government wouldn't have been keen to publicise I think.
There isn't much I want to add. Hutton made his opening statement at the Inquiry on 1 August and then waited until after the funeral before he started taking testimony on Monday 11 August. I stand to be corrected but I believe this is the only time he makes reference to the inquest. Lord Hutton was very quickly appointed to chair the Inquiry on the 18th and he acted with a similar turn of speed by asking James Dingemans QC to be his Senior Counsel on the same day. Peter Knox had to wait a little longer ... his appointment as Junior Counsel was announced on the 24th July.
Some biographical details of Hutton, Dingemans, Knox and the Secretary to the Inquiry, Lee Hughes, can be found here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/biog.htm
I will be adding a little more to the biography of Hutton, information that the Blair government wouldn't have been keen to publicise I think.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
The co-proxamol (3)
The two substances that make up co-proxamol, paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene, were found in Dr Kelly's body. Three blister packs of co-proxamol, originally ten in each pack but with just one tablet remaining were found in a pocket of the Barbour jacket Dr Kelly was wearing when the forensic specialists were at the scene. So originally 30 tablets available, one left, that means Dr Kelly swallowed 29 tablets. Yes? No, not necessarily.
That the constituents of co-proxamol were found in the body is clear I believe. At the end of his testimony at the Inquiry there is this exchange between Dr Allan and Lord Hutton:
LORD HUTTON: Mr Allan, if a third party had wanted paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene to be found in Dr Kelly's blood is there any way that the third party could have brought that about by either persuading or forcing Dr Kelly to take tablets containing those two substances?
A. It is possible, but I think it would be --
LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances could be found in the blood, by taking tablets containing them?
A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
Why did Hutton stop Dr Allan answering his first question? Then Dr Allan finishes up by telling an untruth: The components of co-proxamol could have been injected into the body. Alternatively the tablets could have been crushed and fed by a tube. Dr Hunt reporting on the mouth writes: There was a small abrasion consistent with contact against the teeth or biting of the lips on the lower lip on the lipline. This was approximately 0.6 x 0.3 cms. There was no significant vital reaction. Later, at conclusion 16, is this: The minor injury to the inner aspect of the lip is not associated with bruising nor damage to teeth and does not appear to have any well-developed vital reaction. This sort of injury may be caused if the tissues of the mouth are bitten. His deduction may be correct but would this injury to the lip also match the insertion of a tube in his mouth, particularly if Dr Kelly had been incapacitated.
If Dr Allan's last answer in the quoted extract above really had been correct that would have strongly enhanced the suicide hypothesis in my opinion. Was the "suicide" faked? If so a lot of trouble was taken over it.
That the constituents of co-proxamol were found in the body is clear I believe. At the end of his testimony at the Inquiry there is this exchange between Dr Allan and Lord Hutton:
LORD HUTTON: Mr Allan, if a third party had wanted paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene to be found in Dr Kelly's blood is there any way that the third party could have brought that about by either persuading or forcing Dr Kelly to take tablets containing those two substances?
A. It is possible, but I think it would be --
LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances could be found in the blood, by taking tablets containing them?
A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
Why did Hutton stop Dr Allan answering his first question? Then Dr Allan finishes up by telling an untruth: The components of co-proxamol could have been injected into the body. Alternatively the tablets could have been crushed and fed by a tube. Dr Hunt reporting on the mouth writes: There was a small abrasion consistent with contact against the teeth or biting of the lips on the lower lip on the lipline. This was approximately 0.6 x 0.3 cms. There was no significant vital reaction. Later, at conclusion 16, is this: The minor injury to the inner aspect of the lip is not associated with bruising nor damage to teeth and does not appear to have any well-developed vital reaction. This sort of injury may be caused if the tissues of the mouth are bitten. His deduction may be correct but would this injury to the lip also match the insertion of a tube in his mouth, particularly if Dr Kelly had been incapacitated.
If Dr Allan's last answer in the quoted extract above really had been correct that would have strongly enhanced the suicide hypothesis in my opinion. Was the "suicide" faked? If so a lot of trouble was taken over it.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Roy Green's statement was available to the Inquiry
Number 56 in the "Schedule of responses to issues raised" on the Attorney General's website is short and sweet but makes interesting reading nonetheless http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Schedule%20of%20responses%20to%20issues%20raised.pdf
The stated concern reads: 'Roy Green's final report was not before Lord Hutton'
This is the response: 'Roy Green's statement of 27th September 2003 was available to the Inquiry'
I haven't been able to find any record of the report having been sent to the Inquiry. Roy Green of course was a key witness and in normal circumstances one would have thought that the police would have forwarded the statement to the Inquiry automatically. The way I read the response above is that Hutton would had to have asked for it, we don't know though whether he did so. Certainly he made no reference to it in writing his report.
In an attachment to a letter to Mr Grieve dated 3 September 2010 Hutton says:
The inquiry was as full and thorough as an inquest, and was probably more so because a considerable number of expert witnesses gave detailed evidence including a Home Office Pathologist, a forensic biologist and a forensic toxicologist.
I have previously pointed out that a coroner could have readily called the same witnesses.
Mr Green appeared at the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September 2003, more than three weeks before making his police witness statement. His testimony at the Inquiry was sparse in detail and he told Hutton that his tests were still ongoing at that time. So why wasn't he recalled for further questioning and why apparently wasn't his report sent to Hutton?
One clue as to why the police might not have been too enthusiastic about sending his report can be found in the very last sentence he wrote before Appendix (1):
My findings provide no support for an assertion that Dr Kelly died at the hands of another person (although it is not possible to completely eliminate this as a possibility).
Compare and contrast this with what Mr Grieve said to MPs on 9 June 2011:
There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.
Mr Grieve quite clearly misled the House of Commons on 9 June 2011.
The stated concern reads: 'Roy Green's final report was not before Lord Hutton'
This is the response: 'Roy Green's statement of 27th September 2003 was available to the Inquiry'
I haven't been able to find any record of the report having been sent to the Inquiry. Roy Green of course was a key witness and in normal circumstances one would have thought that the police would have forwarded the statement to the Inquiry automatically. The way I read the response above is that Hutton would had to have asked for it, we don't know though whether he did so. Certainly he made no reference to it in writing his report.
In an attachment to a letter to Mr Grieve dated 3 September 2010 Hutton says:
The inquiry was as full and thorough as an inquest, and was probably more so because a considerable number of expert witnesses gave detailed evidence including a Home Office Pathologist, a forensic biologist and a forensic toxicologist.
I have previously pointed out that a coroner could have readily called the same witnesses.
Mr Green appeared at the Hutton Inquiry on 3 September 2003, more than three weeks before making his police witness statement. His testimony at the Inquiry was sparse in detail and he told Hutton that his tests were still ongoing at that time. So why wasn't he recalled for further questioning and why apparently wasn't his report sent to Hutton?
One clue as to why the police might not have been too enthusiastic about sending his report can be found in the very last sentence he wrote before Appendix (1):
My findings provide no support for an assertion that Dr Kelly died at the hands of another person (although it is not possible to completely eliminate this as a possibility).
Compare and contrast this with what Mr Grieve said to MPs on 9 June 2011:
There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.
Mr Grieve quite clearly misled the House of Commons on 9 June 2011.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Lord Hutton repeats a speculation of Dr Hunt
On the morning of 1 August 2003 Lord Hutton made his opening statement at the Inquiry. In such a statement one expects the chairman to outline the relevant chronology so far as it's known and to give some pointers as to the evidence that he will be taking. This process is followed by Hutton for much of his opening statement.
However he decides to repeat a speculative conclusion reached by Dr Hunt as can be seen:
37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist. Dr Hunt also states:
"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."
What on earth is Hutton doing inserting a piece of Dr Hunt's speculation into the middle of a list of facts? It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1. Hutton wasn't experienced at running public inquiries and was totally out of his depth here. Having said that I would have thought there would have been an element of commonsense and that he would have realised that you don't record a speculative comment when setting out a list of facts, insofar as you know them.
2. Hutton had already made up his mind that Dr Kelly had killed himself and that repeating that particular piece of speculation from Dr Hunt acknowledged this.
I think that "2" is the more likely explanation.
Whatever the reason it really isn't acceptable for Hutton to have done this.
It looks as if Hutton had yet to receive Dr Hunt's final report of 25 July. We do know though from what Hutton said that Dr Hunt had already arrived at his speculative conclusion regarding removal of watch and spectacles when he wrote his 19 July report.
However he decides to repeat a speculative conclusion reached by Dr Hunt as can be seen:
37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report has also been sent to me by the coroner. The post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist. Dr Hunt also states:
"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."
What on earth is Hutton doing inserting a piece of Dr Hunt's speculation into the middle of a list of facts? It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1. Hutton wasn't experienced at running public inquiries and was totally out of his depth here. Having said that I would have thought there would have been an element of commonsense and that he would have realised that you don't record a speculative comment when setting out a list of facts, insofar as you know them.
2. Hutton had already made up his mind that Dr Kelly had killed himself and that repeating that particular piece of speculation from Dr Hunt acknowledged this.
I think that "2" is the more likely explanation.
Whatever the reason it really isn't acceptable for Hutton to have done this.
It looks as if Hutton had yet to receive Dr Hunt's final report of 25 July. We do know though from what Hutton said that Dr Hunt had already arrived at his speculative conclusion regarding removal of watch and spectacles when he wrote his 19 July report.
Dr Hunt speculates
A forensic pathologist is not permitted to state for instance that someone has committed suicide. That is the job of the coroner (or a coroner's jury if called). The pathologist or any expert giving evidence can voice an opinion though, indeed many people would expect him to I think.
Our forensic expert would obviously report on the examination he has made and record the results of any relevant tests. It might be that he could usefully give an opinion but the problem then is that the coroner or the person chairing an inquiry might receive that opinion without submitting it to critical appraisal. In the case of Dr Kelly's death it seems that both Mr Gardiner and Lord Hutton accepted what Dr Hunt said - there is no evidence at all that they scrutinised his report with a view to raising questions about it.
I particularly want to draw attention to conclusions 7 and 8 in Dr Hunt's final report dated 25 July 2003. They are reproduced below:
7. 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.
8. Other features at the scene which would tend to support this impression include 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. The location of death is also of interest in this respect as it is clearly a very pleasant yet relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes chosen by people intent upon self-harm.
These conclusions are totally speculative. If there had been a murder and it was decided that the murder scene be made to look like suicide then Dr Hunt's observations would similarly apply I suggest. There is no evidence that Dr Hunt considered the possibility that here was a murder dressed up as suicide.
If carried out with a degree of professionalism then it can be readily understood that, with no witnesses to the death, a murder could be made to look like suicide. It is the case of course that a coroner isn't depending solely on "forensic" evidence if he is considering a verdict of suicide ... he MUST also see proof of intent. All of the proof, forensic and evidence of intent has to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
The possibility that Dr Kelly could have been incapacitated and carried to the spot where he was found cannot be ignored.
Dr Hunt refers to 'the neat way in which the water bottle and its top were placed'. In a later post I shall explain why this is highly suggestive of third party involvement.
Dr Hunt had written a preliminary (unpublished) report on 19 July 2003 and a final report on 25 July, this latter one was the one published on the internet on 22 October 2010. As I shall explain in my next post we know at least that he had arrived at conclusion 7 on the 19th.
It is quite extraordinary that Dr Hunt was able to come so definitively to conclusions 7 and 8 and to be seemingly convinced that this was an act of self-harm.
Our forensic expert would obviously report on the examination he has made and record the results of any relevant tests. It might be that he could usefully give an opinion but the problem then is that the coroner or the person chairing an inquiry might receive that opinion without submitting it to critical appraisal. In the case of Dr Kelly's death it seems that both Mr Gardiner and Lord Hutton accepted what Dr Hunt said - there is no evidence at all that they scrutinised his report with a view to raising questions about it.
I particularly want to draw attention to conclusions 7 and 8 in Dr Hunt's final report dated 25 July 2003. They are reproduced below:
7. 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.
8. Other features at the scene which would tend to support this impression include 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. The location of death is also of interest in this respect as it is clearly a very pleasant yet relatively private spot of the type that is sometimes chosen by people intent upon self-harm.
These conclusions are totally speculative. If there had been a murder and it was decided that the murder scene be made to look like suicide then Dr Hunt's observations would similarly apply I suggest. There is no evidence that Dr Hunt considered the possibility that here was a murder dressed up as suicide.
If carried out with a degree of professionalism then it can be readily understood that, with no witnesses to the death, a murder could be made to look like suicide. It is the case of course that a coroner isn't depending solely on "forensic" evidence if he is considering a verdict of suicide ... he MUST also see proof of intent. All of the proof, forensic and evidence of intent has to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
The possibility that Dr Kelly could have been incapacitated and carried to the spot where he was found cannot be ignored.
Dr Hunt refers to 'the neat way in which the water bottle and its top were placed'. In a later post I shall explain why this is highly suggestive of third party involvement.
Dr Hunt had written a preliminary (unpublished) report on 19 July 2003 and a final report on 25 July, this latter one was the one published on the internet on 22 October 2010. As I shall explain in my next post we know at least that he had arrived at conclusion 7 on the 19th.
It is quite extraordinary that Dr Hunt was able to come so definitively to conclusions 7 and 8 and to be seemingly convinced that this was an act of self-harm.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
Bowing to the knowledge of the forensic "experts"
This post is a development of the theme outlined on 7 May when I briefly discussed the question of whether the expert witnesses were competent and honest http://drkellysdeath-timeforthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/were-expert-witnesses-competent-and.html I'm not going to consider the point regarding honesty at the moment.
It seems to me that it is far too easy to be overawed by the testimony given by medical specialists, particularly forensic pathologists. Some coroners come to the profession with a medical background, unfortunately the Oxfordshire coroner at the time, Nicholas Gardiner, didn't. There is no indication that Lord Hutton had any meaningful medical knowledge to bring to his Inquiry either.
Mr Gardiner, on 14 August 2003, briefly resumed the inquest in order to to able to complete the death certificate. I shall explain in another post why he was wrong to do this. The point here though is that he appears to have accepted the reports provided by the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt and the forensic toxicologist Dr Allan without demur. Similarly Lord Hutton, in producing his report on the 28th January 2004, fails to critically analyse what the forensic experts had to say. In other words the experts have spoken, who am I to criticise their procedures and conclusions seems to have been the unspoken refrain.
So why did both Gardiner and Hutton just accept what they had been told? As a non expert I have deduced just how bad Dr Hunt's work in the Dr Kelly case has been. In some instances I have admittedly been pointed in the right direction by other concerned individuals. There are also some aspects of the conclusions reached by the various experts that I have seen as inadequate without assistance from anybody else, it has been simply down to forceful logic.
The forensic pathologist Freddy Patel it now seems got it wrong when he conducted the Ian Tomlinson post mortem. His professional ability was already suspect. His case is an example surely of the "expert" being wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson#Freddy_Patel There are other pathologists that haven't been up to the mark. Did Gardiner and Hutton have some other imperative that stopped them making any critical appraisal of the evidence supplied by the "experts"? Perhaps they did!
It seems to me that it is far too easy to be overawed by the testimony given by medical specialists, particularly forensic pathologists. Some coroners come to the profession with a medical background, unfortunately the Oxfordshire coroner at the time, Nicholas Gardiner, didn't. There is no indication that Lord Hutton had any meaningful medical knowledge to bring to his Inquiry either.
Mr Gardiner, on 14 August 2003, briefly resumed the inquest in order to to able to complete the death certificate. I shall explain in another post why he was wrong to do this. The point here though is that he appears to have accepted the reports provided by the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt and the forensic toxicologist Dr Allan without demur. Similarly Lord Hutton, in producing his report on the 28th January 2004, fails to critically analyse what the forensic experts had to say. In other words the experts have spoken, who am I to criticise their procedures and conclusions seems to have been the unspoken refrain.
So why did both Gardiner and Hutton just accept what they had been told? As a non expert I have deduced just how bad Dr Hunt's work in the Dr Kelly case has been. In some instances I have admittedly been pointed in the right direction by other concerned individuals. There are also some aspects of the conclusions reached by the various experts that I have seen as inadequate without assistance from anybody else, it has been simply down to forceful logic.
The forensic pathologist Freddy Patel it now seems got it wrong when he conducted the Ian Tomlinson post mortem. His professional ability was already suspect. His case is an example surely of the "expert" being wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson#Freddy_Patel There are other pathologists that haven't been up to the mark. Did Gardiner and Hutton have some other imperative that stopped them making any critical appraisal of the evidence supplied by the "experts"? Perhaps they did!
Monday, 7 May 2012
Were the "expert" witnesses competent and honest?
When Lord Hutton conducted his Inquiry he quite reasonably called a number of witnesses who one would expect to be expert in their specialisms. We imagine these individuals are both competent and honest. A person who is supposedly a forensic expert can pull the wool over one's eyes because most of us don't have the knowledge to immediately refute the expert's argument nor do we have the time to dissect what they have said or written. The expert has had his say, and with a number of qualifications and in most cases years of experience who are we to say they are wrong?
I am not an expert but, as with certain other folk, I can pull an argument apart and am prepared to do so where necessary. The following have all been found wanting: Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, Forensic Pathologist Nicholas Hunt, Forensic Toxicologist Alexander Allan, Forensic Scientist Roy Green, Consultant Psychiatrist Keith Hawton and we musn't overlook Lord Hutton himself. An expose of at least some of their failures will be a key feature of this blog.
It's worth noting at this point what Hutton was saying about expert witnesses and his Inquiry on 3 September 2010. On this date he wrote to the Attorney General with an attached report, what he described as "a note" that he intended giving to the Lord Chancellor. In response to criticisms he states at 1(b):
The inquiry was as full and thorough as an inquest, and was probably more so because a considerable number of expert witnesses gave detailed evidence including a Home Office pathologist, a forensic biologist and a forensic toxicologist. The leading expert on suicide in England, Professor Keith Hawton of Oxford University, was also called to give evidence.
This paragraph by Lord Hutton is absolute nonsense! It would have been open to the coroner to call all of these people including Hawton. There would have been nothing at all to stop the Oxfordshire coroner doing this, whether he would have done so is a different argument, the point is he could have done. Moreover, because they would have had to give evidence under oath at an inquest then it would be more likely if anything for the inquest to be better than an inquiry (or at least the casual sort of inquiry that happenned here).
The example just given of Hutton's musings demonstrates how poor his arguments can be.
I am not an expert but, as with certain other folk, I can pull an argument apart and am prepared to do so where necessary. The following have all been found wanting: Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page, Forensic Pathologist Nicholas Hunt, Forensic Toxicologist Alexander Allan, Forensic Scientist Roy Green, Consultant Psychiatrist Keith Hawton and we musn't overlook Lord Hutton himself. An expose of at least some of their failures will be a key feature of this blog.
It's worth noting at this point what Hutton was saying about expert witnesses and his Inquiry on 3 September 2010. On this date he wrote to the Attorney General with an attached report, what he described as "a note" that he intended giving to the Lord Chancellor. In response to criticisms he states at 1(b):
The inquiry was as full and thorough as an inquest, and was probably more so because a considerable number of expert witnesses gave detailed evidence including a Home Office pathologist, a forensic biologist and a forensic toxicologist. The leading expert on suicide in England, Professor Keith Hawton of Oxford University, was also called to give evidence.
This paragraph by Lord Hutton is absolute nonsense! It would have been open to the coroner to call all of these people including Hawton. There would have been nothing at all to stop the Oxfordshire coroner doing this, whether he would have done so is a different argument, the point is he could have done. Moreover, because they would have had to give evidence under oath at an inquest then it would be more likely if anything for the inquest to be better than an inquiry (or at least the casual sort of inquiry that happenned here).
The example just given of Hutton's musings demonstrates how poor his arguments can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)