Wednesday, 31 August 2011

David Kelly Judicial Review - Request for URGENT disclosure of documents

This morning I am writing to Dominic Grieve and Kevin McGinty seeking urgent disclosure of documents relating to Mr. Grieve's dishonest decision announced to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

Twenty four hours ago I fully expected not to be part of any process to seek Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's decision.

Circumstances have changed.

The email is, I hope, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:
David Kelly: Judicial Review - request for URGENT disclosure of documents

The text of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

When I wrote to you on 21st August I had no thought that I might, personally, seek Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's dishonest statement to the House of Commons of 9th June 2011 and the underlying dishonest decision. I had assumed that others might undertake the task of seeking Judicial Review.

Circumstances have changed. I now intend to lodge papers with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

I now ask that the Attorney General URGENTLY release the documents I requested in my email of 21st August in order not visibly to obstruct me in the process of lodging papers seeking a Judicial Review.

Should the Attorney General refuse to disclose the requested documents I anticipate seeking full disclosure of these, and other, documents during the Judicial Review process.

The list of documents sought follows my signature in this email in the full text of my email of 21st August.

I therefore ask for full disclosure of the documents specified in my email of 21st August no later than 17.00 on Friday 2nd September 2011.

In response to my request of 21st August, Mr. McGinty informed me that my request would be treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Given the 20 working days allowed for response to an FOI Request, the Attorney General's Office would be given until around 16th September to respond.

Conveniently, for Mr. Grieve, around a week too late to be used in papers seeking a Judicial Review.

I view Mr. McGinty's response as a shameful procedural manoeuvre intended to protect a shameful decision from legitimate Judicial Review.

That procedural manoeuve is part of a pattern of obstruction by the Attorney General's Office. I understand that other doctors have sought such documents from the Attorney General, without success.

I now repeat, as a matter of urgency, my request for full disclosure of the documents requested on 21st August.

I anticipate writing again in the very near future seeking disclosure of further documents, given my intention to seek Judicial Review.

In the interests of transparency I am placing a copy of this email on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:

I look forward to your early reply. I reserve the right to include that reply in papers to be lodged with the High Court.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt


Mr McGinty,

In the context of the Third Application to the Attorney General re the need for an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I wish to request disclosure of the following documents.

1. A list of all photographs taken at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003, together with a brief description and the time that each photograph was taken. I should mention that I understand there were at least three sets of photographs (those by PC Sawyer, Mr McGee and Dr. Eileen Hickey).

2. A copy of all correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and Thames Valley Police with respect to the Annexes disclosed by the Attorney General on or around 9th June 2011 and to the report to which the annexes related. The Attorney General disclosed correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan. Why not comparably disclose correspondence with Thames Valley Police? Assuming, of course, that such correspondence would bear public scrutiny.

3. A copy of the report to the Attorney General by Thames Valley Police (six annexes of which were put in the public domain by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011 or thereby).

4. A copy of the complete version of Dr. Green's report. The version published on 9th June 2011 had had Appendix 2 removed. Can you please confirm whether Appendix 2 in that version of the report was removed by the Attorney General's Office or by Thames Valley Police? If so, why did the Attorney General's Office remove the Appendix? I would also point out that the version of the report on the Attorney General's website refers to matters in 2005 and therefore cannot have been a copy of the original report.

5. A copy of the report by Anne Franc. Dr. Green's report states that his report should be read with that of Anne Franc.

6. A copy of the report to Nicholas Gardiner QC by Alan Young of Thames Valley Police which, supposedly, was "excellent".

7. A copy of the written statement(s) made in 2003 to Thames Valley Police by Mai Pederson. It is my understanding that Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page may have lied to Lord Hutton regarding the content of those statements. I understand that Mark Zaid (Ms Pederson's lawyer) wrote to Mr Grieve in or around June 2010 expressing his concern about related matters.

8. A copy of the report by Professor Gudjonsen.

9. A copy of the medical report on Dr. Kelly on or around 8th July 2003.

10. Copies of the medical reports from the 1990's on the fracture and operation on Dr. Kelly's right elbow.

11. A copy of the letter from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth (of 30th October 2010) on the disability to Dr. Kelly's right arm consequent on the fracture/operation of the right elbow.

12. A copy of the laboratory report commissioned by the Attorney General in response to Dr. Shepherd's comment on page 14 of his report ( ). Dr. Shepherd stated, "The pathologist must rely upon assessments made by expert forensic scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.". What did that examination under laboratory conditions show? If the Attorney General failed to have such a test carried out I ask for an explanation of that failure by Mr. Grieve and how he can have made his statement to the House of Commons when, as might be the case, it is unknown whether the knife found at the scene was or was not sharp enough to produce the wounds described by Dr. Hunt.

13. A copy of Professor Hawton's written report on Dr. Kelly's state of mind etc.

14. A copy of the report reviewing Professor Hawton's evidence. If, in response to my communication to the Attorney General ( )raising concerns about Professor Hawton's evidence the Attorney General decided not to seek expert review of Professor Hawton's evidence I seek an explanation of that failure on the part of the Attorney General.

15. A copy of each of the photographs referred to in numbered item 1.

In the interests of transparency I am placing the text of this email online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here:

If it is the decision of the Attorney General's Office to continue to conceal these documents I would be grateful for an explanation of why they were concealed by the Attorney General with respect to the Second Application (by Dr. Frost et al) and why they continue to be concealed now.

If the Attorney General wishes to allay public and medical concerns regarding the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly I will say straightforwardly that full disclosure will be required in the light of lies told in 2003 and 2011.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

No comments:

Post a Comment