Sunday, 21 August 2011

The Death of David Kelly - Asking the Attorney General to ask the key question in Law

One of the things that has struck me about the Attorney General's approach to his consultation of experts such as Dr. Shepherd is his failure to ask the key question, "Is it possible for an inquest to return a conclusion other than suicide?".

Given that failure on the part of the Attorney General during the Second Application, I have now written to Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office to ask that the correct question be put to the experts consulted.

The title of the email I sent earlier today was, "David Kelly (3rd Appln): Asking the experts the correct question".

The content of the email was as follows:

Mr McGinty,

This communication relates to the Third Application for a request by the Attorney General that the High Court order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Having reviewed the correspondence to Dr. Shepherd and Professor Flanagan and others it seems to me that the Attorney General's Office visibly and consistently failed to ask the experts consulted the correct question.

The question in Law that the Attorney General is required to consider, as I understand the situation, is whether it is POSSIBLE that a new inquest might return a different conclusion from the Hutton Inquiry.

You asked the experts several questions but, so far as I can see, studiously avoided asking the experts and others that key question.

There are, for example, in the letter of 12th November 2010 to Dr. Shepherd ( ) five questions expressed as bullet points. None of those questions is the key one - "Is it possible that a conclusion other than suicide might be drawn?". The other questions may be of general interest but none, so far as I can see, is THE question that the Attorney General is required by Law to answer.

In view of that failure on the part of the Attorney General I request that as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General that this key question is put in writing to the experts and with public disclosure of all correspondence to and from the experts consulted.

Specifically, I would also again request that an expert forensice psychiatrist (or similarly qualified expert) is consulted in order to review Professor Hawton's fragile speculations. See, for example, my communication to the Attorney General here:

In passing, I might mention that if I were one of the doctors who, according to the Telegraph of Saturday 20th August 2011 (see ) was contemplating Judicial Review of the Attorney General's dishonest decision announced on 9th June 2011 I would be minded to include the Attorney General's failure to ask the KEY question of the experts he consulted as an issue in the possible Judicial Review.

It seems to me that the one key question that the Attorney General is required in Law to address he singularly fails to ask about.

In the interests of transparency a copy of the content of this email is being placed online here:

I look forward to learning whether and when the Attorney General intends to ask the relevant experts (including a psychiatric expert) the key question.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

One has to ask why the Attorney General didn't ask this key question of Dr. Shepherd and others.

Could it be that honestly asking the question required by Law risked receiving an answer contrary to the dishonest answer that the Attorney General wished to announce to Parliament?

No comments:

Post a Comment