I posted about this issue of Lord Hutton's integrity some time ago: The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State.
The title of today's email is:
Module 4 - Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder
The content of the email is:
Dear Mr. Grieve and Mr. Philips,
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 Mr. Grieve's 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: Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murders embarrassing to the British State
On 1st June 2011, I wrote to the Attorney General. The email was entitled, "The David Kelly Cover-up - Overview". The email is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-cover-up-overview.html
In that email I informed the Attorney General that I anticipated sending him the following series of emails:
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Falconer
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Hutton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Nicholas Gardiner QC
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2003
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2010/2011
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Nicholas Hunt
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Professor Keith Hawton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Malcolm Warner
On 9th June, Mr. Grieve confidently told the House of Commons, "Further, nothing that I have seen supports any allegation that Dr Kelly was murdered or that his death was the subject of any kind of conspiracy or cover-up."
Strictly speaking, Mr. Grieve's statement is not a lie. He had not seen the listed anticipated emails since he had rushed ahead to an announcement, knowing that further possibly relevant information might shortly be on its way. But the Attorney General's Office had been told they would be coming.
This seems to me to be, at least arguably, "procedural impropriety" in the Diplock triad.
In the circumstances, where Mr. Grieve had no rational basis for deciding what the anticipated evidence of a cover-up might be, his decision to rush ahead in a precipitate manner to a judgement expressed in absolutist terms, "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned.", is at least arguably "irrational".
The Attorney General knew, or had occasion to know, that evidence relating to the cover-up of the suspicious death of David Kelly was soon to be sent to him. Instead of waiting to receive and give fair consideration to such evidence Mr. Grieve rushed to a dishonest decision and statement.
Let me briefly mention here one issue - the past conduct of Lord Hutton.
Expressed colloquially, Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder embarrassing to the British State.
In 1971 Brian Hutton was counsel for the Ministry of Defence at the Widgery Tribunal.
Brian Hutton successfully (at least before a corrupt Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery) concealed the murder of more than a dozen unarmed civilians by members of the First Battalion of the Parachute Regiment on "Bloody Sunday".
Of course, the Widgery conclusions have now been visibly discredited.
But Brian Hutton's role in that cover-up has received little public attention .... to date.
Not only did Brian Hutton show himself capable of concealing murder, he also showed himself to be antithetical to the honest assessment of those murders by the coroner in the case.
Brian Hutton said publicly 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," See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/21/newsid_2500000/2500321.stm
I would agree with the Attorney General that Lord Falconer may have chosen Lord Hutton because of his track record.
Where I would take a view contrary to the Attorney General is that, in my view, Lord Falconer chose Lord Hutton given his past record of concealing murder embarrassing to the state.
Adding concealment of another murder in 2003 to those concealed in 1971 would be a minor thing for Brian Hutton, I suggest.
Mr. Grieve failed utterly to consider such a fundamental question about the integrity of Lord Hutton.
His "irrational" decision and the associated "procedural impropriety" did not relate to minor considerations.
They related to the fundamental question of the integrity, or lack of it, of the Hutton Inquiry.
Mr. Grieve's impropriety of procedure is not merely a procedural nicety. It served to conceal questions of great public moment.
In my view, Mr. Grieve's procedural impropriety served to conceal the murder of Dr. David Kelly.
It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is defective and that the only identifiable civil remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.
In the interests of transparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/09/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-4.html
I ask you both 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 and to consider whether he can, credibly, continue in the post of Attorney General.
I am again copying this email to David Cameron MP. He may wish to review Mr. Grieve's fitness for the post he currently occupies. Mr. Cameron was, some would say, loyal to Andy Coulson for too long. It seems entirely possible that Mr. Cameron has already repeated such misjudgement with respect to Mr. Grieve's occupying the post of Attorney General.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
BMedBiol MBChB MD(Hons) FRCP(Ed) DipPharmMed BA