Wednesday, 31 August 2011

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists largely of the text of Module 2 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

In Module 2 I raise the issue of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appearing to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with respect to fingerprint evidence.

The title of my email to the Attorney General is:
David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 2 - ACC Page lied to the Hutton Inquiry

The text of the email of Module 2 is:

Dear Mr. Grieve,

This email is one in a series of Modules in an unusually extensive Pre-Action Protocol with a view to avoiding the need for Judicial Review of your decision, announced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2011, refusing an application made by myself and other individuals in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 seeking that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Each module attempts to be a self-contained preliminary examination of a specific issue which arises in relation to your decision with respect to the Section 13 application.

Each issue is raised with you with a view to affording you the opportunity to re-consider the matter so, hopefully, avoiding the need to proceed to seek Judicial Review of your decision.

The issue discussed in an individual module relates to an issue which I provisionally consider displays one of what I term the "Diplock Triad": "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

If the matter proceeds to Judicial Review I anticipate that I will seek to argue that one or more of the "Diplock Triad" applies with respect to this matter.

As you are aware, the Attorney General's Office continues to conceal a substantial number of relevant documents. If those are not voluntarily disclosed I anticipate that I will seek disclosure of such documents by legal process.

For the moment, continued non-disclosure of documents seems to me to inhibit my ability fully to develop potential legal arguments on this issue.

The subject of this module is: The false evidence of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page to the Hutton Inquiry

On 13th May 2011 I wrote to the Attorney General informing him that it appeared that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page had lied to the Hutton Inquiry. See

ACC Page told the Hutton Inquiry that there were no "extraneous fingerprints" on Dr. Kelly's dental records.

The true position as revealed by a Freedom of Information Request in 2011 was that there were six unidentified fingerprints. The full text of the Thames Valley Police FOI Response is included towards of this link: and, for convenience, is repeated after my signature in this email.

ACC Page's false evidence misled the Hutton Inquiry since it appeared to exclude the presence of a third party (or parties) at the dental surgery (where the dental records had disappeared and myseriously re-appeared) when, in fact, the presence of unidentified fingerprints indicated the opposite. In other words, the presence of unidentified fingerprints on Dr. Kelly's dental records indicated that an unknown person (or persons) had handled Dr. Kelly's dental records and had, potentially, had the opportunity to tamper with the dental records.

I intend to return to the issue of dental records in a later Module relating to the uncertainties of the identification of the body found at Harrowdown Hill.

The "suicide hypothesis" rests on a process of "logic" which excludes the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Given that ACC Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry with the effect of falsely excluding the presence of third parties at the dental surgery there is a very real possibility that he may also have lied with respect to the suppposed exclusion of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

At a minimum a careful evaluation of the previously assumed reliability of Assistant Chief Constable Page's evidence is required, I suggest.

In all the circumstances I provisionally conclude:

1. Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page appears to have lied to the Hutton Inquiry about forensic evidence as it relates to Dr. Kelly's dental records. Inevitably that calls into question all other aspects of the extensive body of evidence that ACC Page gave to the Hutton Inquiry. It seems to me, therefore, that the Attorney General's statement "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." is irrational.

2. The Attorney General failed to investigate the false evidence of ACC Page and the implications for the totality of ACC Page's evidence despite the matter having been drawn to the Attorney General's attention on 13th May 2011. In my view the Attorney General failed to do something that he ought to have done before reaching a decision.

3. The Attorney General appears to have failed to draw to Lord Hutton's attention the information about the unreliability of ACC Page's evidence in my email of 13th May 2011. Given that Lord Hutton disclosed to the Attorney General several pre-meetings with ACC Page the potential for pervasive effect on the integrity of the Hutton Inquiry of dishonesty by ACC Page is obvious. The Attorney General failed to do something that I believe, in context, he ought to have done.

4. It appears to me that the Attorney General premeditatedly misled the House of Commons on 9th June 2011 since he failed to disclose that this serious issue had been raised with him about four weeks prior to his statement. I find the conclusion unavodable that the Attorney General acted dishonestly, lied to the House of Commons and committed a Contempt of Parliament.

[In the context of point 4. this email is copied to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow and the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Kevin Barron.]

It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground (i.e. ACC Page's evidence) alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

Arguably, when considered with other actions and failures to act, the Attorney General may have committed the criminal offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perversion of the Course of Justice, given the evidence that Dr. David Kelly may have been murdered. Viewed narrowly, that is not a matter to be decided by any Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:

I ask you to give this matter your URGENT attention, in view of the short time available to resolve this issue without lodging papers seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

I again urge the Attorney General to consider whether the least bad way forward is promptly publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision of 9th June 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA

Reference No: RFI2011000301

I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th April 2011 which I have repeated below with our response to each point.

1. Were Dr David Kelly's dental records ever reported to Thames Valley Police as being missing and, if so, on what date?

Our records show that at 22.21hrs on Sunday 20th July 2003 the dental surgery reported that they had been unable to locate the notes on Friday (18/07/03) but that they were present that day (Sunday). The notes were therefore in the possession of the dentist before the Police were made aware.

2. On what date was it officially established by Thames Valley Police that Dr. David Kelly's dental records had been found?

As above

3. Were the folder containing Dr Kelly's records, and the records themselves, ever checked by Thames Valley Police (or, to your knowledge, any other organisation) for fingerprints and/or DNA?

The dental records of Dr Kelly were examined for fingerprints as were the covers for the records either side of his. DNA was an inappropriate method for this type of item.

4. If so, on what date did this happen, and were any fingerprints and/or DNA found on the folder or on the records?

This is a staged process spanning from 15th – 18th August 2003. A total of 15 marks were revealed for photography. Two marks were revealed on the outside cover of an adjacent set of patient records, neither of these marks was of a usable quality. No marks were revealed on the adjacent cover. The remaining thirteen marks all came from Dr Kelly’s record’s folder and contents. Five of these were unusable and two were eliminated to a member of staff.

The remaining six marks were of sufficient quality to be checked against elimination prints. These were all negative. None of the six marks were of sufficient quality to be permanently loaded on to the national database. All six marks were filed.

5. Was it possible positively to identify any of the fingerprints or DNA?

As above

6. If so, whose fingerprints or DNA was found?

As above

Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Hopgood | Information Compliance Officer | Telephone 01865 846321 | Internal 700 6321 | Address Thames Valley Police HQ, Oxford Road, Kidlington, Oxon OX5 2NX

No comments:

Post a Comment