Friday, 2 September 2011

David Kelly Judicial Review - Statement of Case Draft 1

In this post I put in the public domain Draft 1 of my Statement of Case in the possible Judicial Review of Dominic Grieve's decision announced to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

The purpose of sending this document to the Attorney General and Treasury Solicitors is to ensure that I can demonstrate that I took reasonable steps in all the circumstances to allow Mr. Grieve to rescind his decision without having to lodge papers seeking leave for a Judicial Review of his decision.

Given Mr. Grieve's intransigence thus far I'm not optimistic that he will reverse his decision.

Perhaps Mr. Grieve should consider the wisdom of the phrase, "When you're in a hole, stop digging."?

The full text of Draft 1 of the Statement of Case follows below:

[temporary place-holder]


  1. Andrew

    As I understand it a Judicial review could rule against the AG if they found his decision Wedensbury Unreasonable.

    I have no legal training but I think the case has to based on the unreasonableness of the legal basis for his decision and not the unreasonableness (dishonesty) of his verbal and written statements to Parliament.

    Grieve based his legal case of rejecting an application under section 13 of the Corners Act on two prongs;

    1)Section 13 (1) b, did not apply and he could not use it as a basis of an application to the High Court because an inquest had not taken place.

    2)He could not use section 13 (1) a, (case law) because there was no possibility that a Coroner would reach a different “verdict” to Hutton.

    Both these arguments display Wedesbury Unreasonableness because the logic displayed in (1) is fundamentally flawed and in (2) this is simply dishonest.

    Grieve is prepared to pay millions of tax payers pounds to prevent an inquest that in all probability would cost a few thousand pounds. His henchmen have indicated that the government through the Treasury Solicitors will bleed anyone dry who dares to challenge the AG’s objectionable decision.

    But the JR would be a simple process; was the AG Wednesbury Unreasonable in his two prong rejection of the application under section 13? Lord Diplock might have said regarding Grieve’s decision;

    “So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”

  2. LL,

    I'm hoping to post a copy of Draft 1 of the Statement of Case later this afternoon.

    Mr. Grieve tried to dodge the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) by claiming that there had been no inquest, so 13(1)(b) couldn't apply.

    Slippery stuff, indeed.

    But bizarre, too.

    For example, Lord Falconer thought there was an inquest.

    He sent a Section 17A letter on 12th August 2003 telling Nicholas Gardiner to adjourn the "inquest".

    It's difficult to adjourn an inquest if there has been no inquest.

    And Nicholas Gardiner thought there had been an inquest - he quoted when it occurred on the Death Certificate. (Strictly, the Registrar did.)

    And on 16th March 2004 Nicholas Gardiner sat to consider whether he should resume the "inquest".

    Again, that would be difficult to do if there had been no inquest.

  3. If you believe in "quantum physics" you will know it is possible to influence some-ones thoughts and ideas remotely from their physical presence. This is knowledge obtained by study of advanced witchcraft or occult (hidden) knowledge. it can be used for good or ill, and it is definitely used by spooks the world over. To track the individual who may-have affected the thinking of Dr Kelly takes an equally skilled occult sleuth to the external observer Dr Kelly chose to take his own life of his own free will but at the point he took his life he could have been experiencing remote interference and so be of diminished responsibility. Exactly how free was his will I hope this clarifies things. No comments please - Occult Master Guardian