Wednesday, 30 March 2011

The Death of Dr. David Kelly - Did Lord Hutton deliberately conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly?

Sometime in, hopefully, the next few weeks the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, will have to make a decision on whether or not to apply to the High Court for an order that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

His decision won't be an easy one, in my view.

There are compelling legal and medical reasons necessitating an inquest. But, if David Kelly was murdered (as the evidence suggests) and the murder was carried out by a "friendly" intelligence service ("officially" or as a rogue operation) there are powerful political pressures on Dominic Grieve pointing him towards refusing to go to the High Court.

The Attorney General won't want to expose to public scrutiny the question of whether an organisation such as the CIA, MI5 or MI6 may have murdered a British Civil Servant. Dominic Grieve was a politician before he was a Law Officer.

The potential political pressures on Dominic Grieve don't only relate to whether or not a "friendly" intelligence service carried out the murder of David Kelly. They also relate to the integrity of the legal system in the United Kingdom at the highest level.

There are serious questions to be asked and answered about the integrity of a former Law Lord, Lord Hutton, and about the integrity of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer.

Lord Hutton was either incompetent or dishonest.

If he knew about the absence of fingerprints on the knife and other objects then he, in effect, perverted the course of justice by suppressing that evidence in the oral hearings and in his report.

In other words the Hutton Report is not merely a "whitewash", it's a fraud.

And, worse, it's a fraud intended to pervert the course of justice, by concealing a murder which was, in all likelihood, carried out by agents of a "friendly" state.

If Lord Hutton was unaware of the absence of fingerprint evidence and failed to identify its absence and the consequent significance then he was astonishingly incompetent.

As I have stated before I believe Lord Hutton's deficiency in his examination of the death of David Kelly is a deficiency of integrity rather than a deficiency of intelligence.

In other words my opinion is that Lord Hutton premeditatedly perverted the course of justice, by concealing evidence of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

And Dominic Grieve must know that.

And, knowing what he knows, Dominic Grieve has a startling conflict between his loyalty to the Law (and to Justice) and his political loyalties to the State.

In my view, Dominic Grieve's decision on the possible application to the High Court will be a career defining decision for him.

Sadly, I think it's more likely than not that Dominic Grieve will refuse to go to the High Court. In other words, political pressures will push him towards concealing a murder.

Already, Dominic Grieve has put politics above Law in the matter of Libya. See Open Letter to Dominic Grieve, Attorney General, regarding David Cameron's misleading of the House of Commons.

If, as I believe, Dominic Grieve has allowed the UK to carry out "terrorism" (as defined in UK Law) in Libya, it's a small matter for him to conceal a single murder carried out 8 years or so ago.

1 comment:

  1. Rightly or wrongly the UK government has acquired a degree of perceived legitimacy in its actions in Libya because of the discussions in the UN and the Security Council resolution.

    The situation regarding Dr Kelly's death seems to me to be something that will be viewed very differently. If Dominic Grieve were to say "No" he would have to voice some very strong reasons for this and risk problems with the doctors going for a judicial review.

    Whatever Mr Grieve decides the ramifications for his decision will be colossal I believe.