The Death of David Kelly - Mr Justice Nicol refuses leave for Judicial Review of Attorney General's decision

The BBC and other media are reporting that on Monday 19th December 2011, at the High Court in London, Mr "Justice" Nicol refused Mr. David Halpin leave to proceed to judicial review of Dominic Grieve's decision which was announced on 9th June 2011. See for example Dr David Kelly inquest ruling challenge fails.

The BBC report states,

The court said there was "no impropriety" or procedural flaw in the way Mr Grieve had considered the evidence and concluded a new inquest was unnecessary.

,

which is an interesting position for Mr. Justice Nicol to adopt.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the shameful nature of Dominic Grieve's decision in my view. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - A shameful and appalling cover-up by a dishonest Attorney General.

According to the Matrix Law website David Halpin's case was deemed to be "unarguable" (Matrix Chambers):

19/12/11 High Court says that challenge to Attorney General's decision on Kelly Inquest is "unarguable"Mr Justice Nicol rejected a challenge by a retired surgeon who sought to challenge the Attorney General's decision not to apply for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Following a day's hearing, Mr Justice Nicol said that the claim against the Attorney General was "unarguable" and ordered the Claimant to pay the Attorney's costs. Jonathan Glasson acted for the Attorney General, led by Jonathan Swift QC, First Treasury Counsel. For more details, please see the BBC website.

Currently, I cannot locate any written judgement by Mr. Justice Nicol therefore cannot yet fairly assess whether or not Mr. Justice Nicol's contention of the case being "unarguable" is simply a reflection of his being a "safe pair of establishment hands".

Given that the establishment appointed Lord Hutton as a "safe pair of hands" with a track record of covering up murder by state agents (see, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Lord Hutton has "previous" in concealing murder which would be embarassing to the State ) it would not surprise me at all if Mr. "Justice" Nicol replaced Mr. Justice Parker for similar reasons.

The Death of David Kelly - Freedom of Information Requests about the Death of Dr. David Kelly

One of the growing problems in attempting to keep on top of what new information is available about the death of Dr. Kelly is that there is no single place where the responses to Freedom of Information requests are available.

I'm intending to produce a document that tabulates all the information that is publicly available.

I imagine that this will take quite some time to put together.

If you have asked any FOI questions I'd appreciate it if you would forward to me a copy of your question(s) and the response(s).

I hope progressively to add such responses to a document which collates all the FOI questions asked and the answers given.

I know, for example, that Norman Baker MP asked a significant number of FOI questions but those questions and the answers are not publicly visible, so far as I know. Which seems a pity.

Please email information about any FOI requests that you've made about the death of David Kelly to AndrewWattChilcot@gmail.com

The Death of David Kelly - Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

I was browsing today some of my earliest posts on this blog.

On 9th February 2010, Chilcot's Cheating Us: Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry, I wondered if internet technologies might enable a new quality of questioning of governments:

Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people

I think that a beginning has been made.

Much less has been achieved so far, perhaps, than I'd hoped back in February 2010.

But, equally, more cages have been rattled than I'd feared might be the case.

Will inquiry of the Government with respect to an illegal war and the suspicious death of David Kelly be more than pin-pricks?

Time will tell.

I can't imagine that Dominic Grieve or Sara Thornton are entirely comfortable with how things are developing.

The Iraq Inquiry: Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir John Chilcot

The stimulus to starting this blog was my being appalled at the psychopathic complacency of Tony Blair when he appeared before the Iraq Inquiry on 29th January 2010.

See Oral Evidence: 29 January 2010 for links to videos and a transcript of Tony Blair's evidence.

On 2nd February 2010 I wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry expressing my concerns that Tony Blair had committed criminal offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to Iraq.

In that letter to Sir John Chilcot, I mention a letter sent to Sir Paul Stephenson and the (then) Assistant Commissioner John Yates. I have posted the text of that letter on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates.

2nd February 2010

To:
Sir John Chilcot,
Chairman,
Iraq Inquiry

Iraq War: Multiple Serious Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000

Dear Sir John,

I write to draw to your attention an important issue relating to the legality of the Iraq War which, to the best of my knowledge, your Inquiry has failed to address.

The important issue to which I refer is whether or not individuals concerned in the planning and execution of the Iraq War committed criminal offences under UK law when carrying out the actions which are the subject of the Iraq Inquiry.

Briefly, the Inquiry seems to have concentrated when exploring the legality or otherwise of the Iraq War entirely on questions of international law. The Inquiry appears to have omitted to examine whether actions relating to the Iraq War involved criminal offences under UK law.

I suggest to you that this is a serious omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry which you require to rectify.

I enclose a copy of a letter I am sending today to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and the Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations informing them of my belief that serious offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000 were committed by a substantial number of UK citizens, a few of whom I list in my letter. The seriousness of some of these offences are such that Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicates that life imprisonment is the punishment on conviction.

Your Inquiry has interviewed a number of those individuals who can, I believe, be fairly termed “terrorists” following a careful reading of Sections 1 and 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who have, I believe, committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and, on conviction, would be liable to life imprisonment.

So far as I am aware your Inquiry has entirely failed to explore this matter of terrorism (as specified in the Terrorism Act 2000) carried out by those who planned and executed the Iraq War. It seems to me that this is a grave omission on the part of the Iraq Inquiry.

It seems to me that you require to re-interview Lord Goldsmith in his role as the Government’s “expert” on matters of law. As far as I can ascertain your Inquiry did not explore the issues of criminal actions under UK law in respect of the actions proposed in Iraq from March 2003. If Lord Goldsmith, in issuing his advice, gave no consideration to the matter of criminality under UK law that seems to me to have been gross negligence on the part of Lord Goldsmith. I believe that you should explore his seeming omission in detail.

Similarly, so far as I can gather, your Inquiry entirely omitted to explore this important issue when you recently had a conversation with Mr. Blair. Your Inquiry further omitted to explore with Mr. Blair whether he knew that the action he proposed in Iraq was “terrorism” as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 and whether or not he was aware that he might be committing an offence as specified in Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and causing others to commit the same criminal offence and a range of other offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

You might also specifically wish to explore with Mr. Blair his level of awareness that for many years now the influencing by violence or overthrowing of the government of another state is an “act of terrorism” (see for example subsection 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993), a notion carried forward in the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In addition to the narrow (but extremely important) matters of law that I mention above I suggest that the Inquiry also has a duty to explore with Mr. Blair (and probably others including Lord Goldsmith) the effect of the reality that the generality of those participating in the Iraq War are “terrorists” as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That reality will, I surmise, be disturbing to the relatives of the dead terrorists from the British Armed Forces and the living terrorists from those forces who, perhaps unwittingly, committed criminal offences of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.

In sending this letter I hereby give you permission to enter this letter and a copy of the letter to Sir Paul Stephenson into the public record of the Iraq War Enquiry. If possible, I would be grateful if you would obscure my home address in any copies made available for public viewing.

I note that in your Opening Statement a few weeks ago you claimed that the Iraq Inquiry would be “thorough” and “rigorous”. I look forward to learning of your Inquiry’s diligent public examination of these important issues.

Thank you.

Your sincerely



Andrew H Watt

cc. Sir Paul Stephenson

Addressee:

Sir John Chilcot,
Iraq Inquiry
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BG.

The Death of David Kelly - A coy Cabinet Office on COBRA

On 16th May I posted briefly on this blog about the Government emergency procedures sometimes known as COBRA, wondering if COBRA was activated in relation to the disappearance and death of David Kelly: The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 were ministers and civil servants seeing something like this?.

In parallel I sent a Freedom of Information request on the same day to the Cabinet Office asking if the COBRA mechanisms had been activated on 17th and 18th July 2003. See FOI Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 20th September 2011 I was sent an FOI Response which I viewed as being wholly inadequate and evasive. See FOI Response from the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

On 22nd September 2011 I sent a request to the Cabinet Office asking for internal review of the FOI Response. See FOI Review Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

Given the "non-answer" of 20th September 2011 from the Cabinet Office one could be forgiven for thinking that there is something here that the Cabinet Office wishes to hide.

The Death of David Kelly - Limitations of Mr. Green's report

In this post I want to highlight one implication of the limitations of the forensic biology report of 27th September 2003 from Mr. Roy Green, Roy Green forensic statement 27 September 2003.

Of course, given that the report wasn't produced until 27th September 2003 counsel to the Hutton Inquiry (and other counsel) had no opportunity to consider the written report during the period when oral evidence was being taken.

On page 5 of Mr. Green's report is a list of the laboratory tests that Mr. Green was asked to carry out.

I can identify no mention of Mr. Green having been asked to examine the clothing of Dr. Kelly for evidence of contact with a second party or parties.

Unless there is some other report which is not yet in the public domain it seems to me that there is no evidence that any forensic testing was done to look for recent contact between Dr. Kelly and another person or persons.

How then is it possible supposedly to "exclude" the presence of other people at Harrowdown Hill?

The simple answer is that it isn't possible to do that. The relevant tests were, so far as I can establish, never carried out.

So much for ACC Page supposedly excluding the presence of "third parties" at Harrowdown Hill.

The Death of David Kelly - An award for Terry Williams

Terry Williams was the Thames Valley Police IT specialist who examined David Kelly's computers on 18th July 2003.

The Hutton Inquiry site is currently down so I can't add a working link. The document reference I wanted to link to is TVP/3/0035.

Terry Williams now works for LGC Forensics.

On his bio page, Terry Williams we read the following:

During his time with Thames Valley Police Terry received three commendations: two were from the Chief Constable for his analysis work in convicting pedophiles and the other from the Assistant Chief Constable for his computer forensics work into the investigation of death of a high profile figure.

Was the "high profile figure" David Kelly?

Was the "assistant chief constable" ACC Michael Page, of doubtful fingerprint evidence fame? See The Death of David Kelly - Did ACC Page pervert the course of justice?.

What did Terry Williams do that deserved a commendation?

It's far from obvious to me. Mr. Williams' investigation left many questions in my mind.

Thanks to Felix, here, for a very good spot.

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 4 - Lord Hutton "has previous" in concealing murder embarrassing to the British State

This morning I sent to the Attorney General and the Treasury Solicitors Module 4 of my Pre-Action Protocol with respect to possibly seeking Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011.

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.
See http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/04/death-of-david-kelly-lord-hutton-has.html

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.

Thank you

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

The Death of David Kelly - The secret helicopter flight - Who got on or off?

This post relates to a new piece of information relating to the (formerly) secret helicopter landing at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

If you look at the Thames Valley Police Freedom of Information Response, Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly - RFI2011000421, it seems clear that four people were on board.

I've quoted the question and answer below:

Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly

29 June 2011, 3:49 pm

Introduction

This request, reference RFI2011000421, was received on Tuesday 07 June 2011, 3:49pm.

Question

Who was on the helicopter that landed at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003?

Response

The following personnel were on board:

1 x Pilot

2 x Observers

1 x Thames Valley Police employee on day attachment.

So far, so banal.

But it becomes more interesting if you compare that "four" with another Freedom of Information Response to a question I asked in October 2010.

I'm pasting part of the helicopter log here:




Notice the three pieces of black redaction, each of which refers to s40 i.e. Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 40 relates to personal information. In other words, the redacted material relates to three names.

The PDF file comes from here: Investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly - RFI2010000727. Scroll to the bottom of the page to click on the PDF file. The relevant information is at the top of page 5.

However, how does one explain the discrepancy between "three" and "four"?

My hypothesis is that someone got on the helicopter when it landed at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003 or someone got off the helicopter when it landed at Harrowdown Hill at 10.55 on 18th July 2003.

It's almost enough to make you imagine that Thames Valley Police didn't want us to know about it.

Who got on the helicopter?

Who got off the helicopter?

Perhaps one day Thames Valley Police will be honest enough to tell us.

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]

David Kelly Judicial Review - Treasury Solicitors to see papers

Yesterday, 1st September, I received from Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office an email which informed me of the following:

1. The papers I requested on 21st August and then again on 31st August, David Kelly Judicial Review - Request for URGENT disclosure of documents are not to be released to me in response to my request of 31st August.


2. The Pre-Action Protocol papers are being passed to the Treasury Solicitors for their attention

So far as I can ascertain, the second eventuality is fairly routine in the legal jockeying for position in the preliminaries before a formal application for Judicial Review is begun.

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 3 - Conclusion contrary to logic and the evidence with respect to the supposed absence of third parties

This post consists largely of Module 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

It's an important issue since careful consideration of the supposed "logic" of ACC Page and Lord Hutton shows it to be seriously flawed and, additionally, contrary to the facts.

The title of the email being sent to the Attorney General today is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 3 - Flawed logic/evidence re third parties

The content of the email to the Attorney General 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: Flawed logic and evidence supposedly (but not actually) excluding the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill

Lord Hutton based his conclusion of suicide, in part, on the supposed exclusion of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Lord Hutton's conclusion is seriously flawed on two grounds:

1. His logic is seriously flawed.

2. His conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented to him.

The Attorney General based his decision announced on 9th June 2011 on Lord Hutton's conclusion and in doing so acted irrationally.

The flaw in the logic

ACC Page made statements to Lord Hutton to the effect that Thames Valley Police had excluded the presence of third parties at Harrowdown Hill.

Lord Hutton adopted that false understanding / logic in his conclusion.

ACC Page made an untrue statement (whether or not he "lied" is immaterial in the immediate context of this Module).

ACC Page's logic was seriously flawed.

ACC Page failed to distinguish two concepts:

1. A failure to find evidence of third parties

2. Finding sufficient evidence to exclude third parties

If ACC Page had genuinely found evidence to exclude third parties then his conclusion might reliably support the "suicide hypothesis".

However a more precise restatement of ACC Page's evidence is that he found no evidence of the presence of third parties, which is a different thing.

At no point did he or any of the forensic scientists conduct any tests or investigations with the capacity to exclude the presence of third parties.

As a result of that seriously flawed process of logic, ACC Page's conclusion was irrational.

Lord Hutton adopted ACC Page's flawed logic. As a result his concluson of sucide is irrational.

The Attorney General also adopted the flawed logic. As a result the Attorney General's absolutist exclusion of the possibility of a different verdict is irrational.

A conclusion contrary to the facts

ACC Page referred (without disclosing detail) to tests that supposedly excluded third parties at the scene.

However, his assertion was contrary to the facts.

The tests and investigations carried out can be demonsrated to be inadequate.

ACC Page and Lord Hutton had the evidence before them to realise this.

As, of course, did the Attorney General.

It is known (and Lord Hutton knew) that at least SEVEN "third parties" had been present at the scene before the relevant tests and investigations were carried out viz Louise Holmes, Paul Chapman, DC Graham Coe, Vanessa Hunt, Dave Bartlett, PC Sawyer and PC Franklin.

Moreover at least two of those people (Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett) had HANDLED the body, according to their oral evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry.

ACC Page's tests failed to detect those SEVEN third parties at the scene.

In other words, third parties were KNOWN to be present at the scene and the Thames Valley Police investigations and tests were insufficient to detect their recent presence.

Those tests can, therefore, be reasonably considered as being inadequate reliably to detect the presence of other possibly malevolent third parties hours before.

I conclude that Lord Hutton acted irrationally in concluding that the presence of "third parties" had been excluded.

The Attorney General acted irrationally in adopting an irrational conclusion.

Attorney General's actions

It seems to me that the Attorney General's failures in this regard arguably meet at least two of the criteria in the Diplock triad:

1. The Attorney General was aware (or ought to have been aware) that the Law at an inquest requires suicide to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In stating in the House of Commons, "There is no possibility that, at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be returned." the Attorney General acted irrrationally.

2. The Attorney General failed adequately to inquire into the matter. Given the absolutist nature of his statement quoted in the preceding paragraph he had a duty to do so. The Attorney General failed to do something he ought to have done.


It seems to me that, at least arguably, on this ground alone the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 is materially defective and that the only identifiable 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-3.html

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

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 http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html

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: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-david-kelly-unreliability-of.html 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: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-module-2.html

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

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - The sharpness of the knife has never been tested

In Module 1 of the Pre-Action Protocol I ask the Attorney General to consider whether it is rational to exclude the possibility of an inquest returning a different verdict when the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

In my view the Attorney General's stated view is irrational.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 1 - Sharpness of the knife

The content of the email 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 sharpness of the knife

I described the issue on 13th June 2011 here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html and drew it to the attention of the Attorney General on that date.

To the best of my knowledge, the sharpness of the knife found at Harrowdown Hill has never been tested.

The inability of a forensic pathologist to give an authoritative view on the issue, together with the need for specific laboratory testing is expressed to the Attorney General in Dr. Shepherd's report of 16th March 2011 on page 14:

""It does not lie within the remit of the forensic pathologist to make a final assessment of the sharpness of an object at the scene. ... The pathologist must rely on assessments made by forensic expert scientists in controlled laboratory conditions.""

In other words, neither Dr. Shepherd (nor his predecessor forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt) can say whether or not the knife was sharp enough to inflict the observed wounds.

This seems to me to raise at least the following important points:

1. In the absence of laboratory testing, it is unknown whether or not the knife is sufficiently sharp to inflict the observed wounds. 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, given that the sharpness of the knife has never been tested.

2. In failing to ensure that the sharpness of the knife has been tested it seems to me that the Attorney General has failed to take an action which, in context, he ought to have taken.

If we don't know that the knife is sharp enough to inflict the wounds we cannot logically conclude that the knife did inflict the wounds. The possibility remains open that another knife inflicted at least some of the wounds.

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 remedy for me is to seek Judicial Review of the Attorney General's decision.

In the interests of tranparency this Module of the Pre-Action Protocol will be placed online on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-what-evidence-is.html

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 June 2011.

Thank you

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

David Kelly Judicial Review - Pre-action Protocol - Preliminaries

Today I am sending to Dominic Grieve a document formally asking him to consider whether he should withdraw the decision announced on 9th June 2011.

If Mr. Grieve withdraws his dishonest decision now it avoids unnecessary use of the time of the High Court in considering an application for Judicial Review.

I very much believe that, at a minimum, an inquest is required into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

A thorough and publicly-accessible inquest is an important step towards eliciting a truth that has been covered up for 8 years with considerable ingenuity and energy.

The email is hopefully self-explanatory but discussion in the Comments is welcome, particularly if some aspect of the document is unclear.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly Judicial Review: Pre-action protocol - Preliminaries

The content of the email is:

Mr. Grieve / Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you to seek to determine whether or not it may be possible for the Attorney General to withdraw his decision announced on 9th June 2011 without my having to have recourse to seeking Judicial Review of the decision.

That decision relates to an application in terms of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 with a view to seeking an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

Correspondence from myself and others in that context invited the Attorney General carefully to consider the grounds expressed in subsections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988:

(1)This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner (“the coroner concerned”) either—(a)that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held; or(b)where an inquest has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held.

It is my considered view that the decision of the Attorney General is seriously defective and therefore potentially subject to Judicial Review.

I am unable to identify any mechanism that allows me, and potential co-appellants, to appeal the Attorney General's decision announced on 9th June 2011 otherwise than by seeking Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's decision.

Given the applicable time limits I would be grateful if the Attorney General would give his URGENT attention to this matter, with a view to avoiding unnecessary use of the time of the High Court.

I understand that, broadly, the High Court prefers that the Appellant seeking Judicial Review of a decision should communicate in some manner with the decision maker indicating to the person or body whose decision may be judicially reviewed that the Appellant is sufficiently concerned by the decision in question so as to be contemplating Judicial Review.

It is the purpose of this email formally to do so.

Further, the decision maker should be invited to reconsider or withdraw his decision. In this email, I again invite Dominic Grieve to give careful consideration to the possibility that withdrawing now the decision announced on 9th June 2011 is the least damaging way forward.

Withdrawal of the decision will, no doubt, reflect negatively on Mr. Grieve personally.

However a willful persistence by Mr. Grieve in defending an irrational and dishonest decision can, in my view, only cause serious long-lasting harm to the credibility of the office of Attorney General.

In my view, the decision of the Attorney General announced on 9th June is materially defective. Such defects, in my assessment, are apparent in each of the three elements of what I term the "Diplock triad" - broadly those are "illegality", "irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".

I would be grateful if you would consider this email together with other relevant correspondence from me since 9th June as constituting what I understand to be termed a Pre-action Protocol. My email of 12th June 2011 may be a useful starting point.

My email of 12th June is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html

As you may recall, I copied my email of 12th June to David Cameron (as well as Craig Oliver and Steve Field at Number 10). Mr. Cameron seems to have displayed inactivity in relation to this matter similar to his response to concerns about Andy Coulson.

However, the primary purpose of this email is not to highlight the deficencies of David Cameron's judgement. One might say, however, that an important purpose of this email is to begin to draw attention to serious errors of judgement by the Attorney General.

It seems to me that Dominic Grieve has taken the "never mind the quality feel the width" approach when considering the application made to him under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 by myself and others, not least Dr. Stephen Frost, Mr. David Halpin and other medical colleagues who I understand to have submitted a Memorial to the Attorney General via Leigh Day & Co, solicitors, in or around September 2010.

I do not repeat here the extensive correspondence in this context from myself to the Attorney General beginning with my Open Letter of 25th October 2010 which is online here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html

Unusually, given the time limitations, the Pre-Action Protocol to be sent to the Attorney General will be modular. Further modules are to be sent to the Attorney General for his consideration as soon as each component is expressed with what I hope to be sufficient clarity.

By doing so I think I can give the Attorney General the maximum opportunity in the circumstances to consider whether he ought publicly to announce that he is withdrawing his decision announced on 9th June 2011. This approach facilitates him forwarding a module specifically to, say, Dr. Richard Shepherd for his assessment of a specific issue relevant to his area of expertise.

Withdrawal of the decision will not, I imagine, be a congenial possibility. However, it may be the way to do least lasting harm to the office of Attorney General. That latter matter is, of course, for Mr. Grieve and Mr. Cameron to consider.

Mr. Grieve may recall that I expressed one of the many aspects of my concerns in an email on 12th June 2011 in somewhat forceful but, in my view, fully justified terms.

It remains my view that Mr. Grieve's decision is contrary to the totality of the evidence.

Of course, whether or not the Attorney General continues in his post depends primarily on the continuing confidence of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, I am copying this and associated emails to David Cameron MP.

I am also copying this email for information to my MP, Malcolm Bruce.

For the avoidance of doubt my part in this correspondence will be put, as time allows, into the public domain. Typically I plan to do so by posting copies of the modules of the Pre-Action Protocol on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/

Readers of my blog and recipients of blind copies of each email should feel free to distribute their content as they see fit. I view this correspondence as public.

The text of this email is being placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-pre-action.html

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

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: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-kelly-judicial-review-request-for.html

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 ( http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf ). 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 ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-david-kelly-need-for-expert.html )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: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-request-for.html

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

The Death of David Kelly - On 18th July 2003 Lord Falconer had no powers as "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs"

In this post I draw attention to a fundamental flaw, in Law, in Dominic Grieve's decision and statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011.

I believe that the issue may be sufficiently important as to satisfy, at Judicial Review, the "illegality" test in what I'll the "Diplock triad". See http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf for what I understand to be the original expression of the "Diplock triad".

"Illegality" in that context is not the same as saying that Dominic Grieve committed a criminal offence in that respect.

He stated something that was incorrect in Law, and based his decision on a false understanding of the Law.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Dominic Grieve QC MP has committed the offences of Misconduct in Public Office and Perverting the Course of Justice. But that is not the immediate focus of this post.

Dominic Grieve knew on 9th June (or had opportunity to know) that what he was saying to the House of Commons was untrue.

The following quote comes from here: Attorney General Dr Kelly written statement 9 June 2011 and is from page 8.

The then Secretary of State (and Lord Chancellor), Lord Falconer, acted entirely reasonably in exercising his powers to set up an inquiry ...

What Dominic Grieve says is untrue.

On 18th July 2003, in Law, there was no Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and consequently Lord Falconer had no powers which he could exercise (reasonably or otherwise) as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

Lord Falconer did not acquire his powers as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs until about a month later, on 19th August 2003.

And Dominic Grieve had been informed of that (by me) on 6th June 2011.

Let me set out the basis for those assertions.

The following email was sent on 6th June 2011 to the Attorney General's Office:

Mr McGinty,

This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional matters but a consideration has come to my attention which appears to me potentially to have foundational importance with regard to the consideration by the Attorney General of the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Expressed directly, and perhaps overly simplistically, it seems at least arguable that Lord Falconer was not, in Law, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 when he verbally asked Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry nor was he Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 24th July 2003 when he wrote formally to Lord Hutton to confirm that request.

I hope to be able to substantiate later in this communication what might, at first sight, appear to be a bizarre suggestion.

First I'll briefly outline that Lord Falconer made the request in his role as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and then I'll briefly consider the basis in Law for casting doubt on Lord Falconer's status in Law on the dates in question.

In his report, Lord Hutton states:

On 18 July 2003 I was requested by the Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to conduct an Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly

See Paragraph 1 in Chapter 1 of the Hutton Report here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter01.htm.

Lord Hutton goes on to state:

My terms of reference were:
"urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly."

If Lord Falconer was not, on 18th July 2003, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and/or did not, in Law, have the capacity of a Secretary of State then it is, I suggest, questionable whether he had lawful authority to invite Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry or authority to define the terms of reference of such a supposed inquiry.

On 24th July 2003 Lord Falconer wrote to Lord Hutton on headed paper conveying the notion that he was "Secretary of State" (for Constitutional Affairs).

See http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/cf240703.pdf on the Hutton Inquiry web site for the letter of appointment of 24th July 2003.

If my concerns are sound in Law then Lord Falconer's letter of 24th July 2003 is fraudulent since he purports on that date to be one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State when the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs may not have existed in Law in the date in question at least in the sense that it appears to have lacked any functions or powers of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State.

To my mind, if that interpretation is correct, the question arises as to whether Lord Falconer as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs had the power, on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003, to ask Lord Hutton to conduct a judicial inquiry.

Consequentially, it seems to me that it comes into question whether, in Law, the Hutton Inquiry can properly be considered to be an "inquiry" in the meaning of Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988.

I will now explain the basis in Law on which my concerns found.

To the best of my knowledge the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional affairs did not exist prior to the announcement in June 2003 of the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 appears to require that the creation of a new post of Secretary of State and the acquiring of functions, powers etc by such a new Secretary of State depend on an Order of Her Majesty in Council.

The text of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 is available online here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/26/contents

To create the new post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs it seems to me that the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 requires Her Majesty to create the new post and give to it any powers and functions that might be appropriate by an Order in Council.

It appears that the Government also recognised that requirement imposed by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 since by an Order in Council, expressed in The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003, the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was created and given functions and powers.

The problem for Lord Falconer's actions of 18th July 2003 and 24th July 2003 arises from the following text in the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003:

Made - - - - 17th July 2003
Laid before Parliament 29th July 2003
Coming into force 19th August 2003

Taken at face value the Order in Council did not come into force until 19th August 2003.

It seems to me, therefore, to be at least arguable that Lord Falconer had no powers or functions of a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on 18th July 2003 or 24th July 2003 to set up a judicial inquiry (or, in fact, to carry out any function of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State).

Arguably, I suggest, the setting up of a judicial inquiry by a "Secretary of State" with no powers or functions may render the inquiry void.

If the validity of the judicial inquiry is in question, the question also arises as to whether Section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 was applied by Lord Falconer acting as Lord Chancellor in circumstances to which it did not apply.

If, on the grounds suggested, there was no Section 17A inquiry the actions and/or failures to act of Nicholas Gardiner QC in early 2004 also come into further question.

If, as may be the case, the Hutton Inquiry is void and the stump "inquest" failed to carry out basic requirements of the Coroners Act 1988 (and the associated Coroners' Rules) then it seems to me that the requirements of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 are met. In other words, an inquest is required into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

If it is already the view of the Attorney General that he should apply to the High Court for an Order that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly, this matter need not detain him.

If however, it were the provisional view of the Attorney General that he need not apply to the High Court for an Order, I suggest that this is a further issue which will require detailed consideration, in view of the possibility of Judicial Review of a decision in the negative by the Attorney General.

As is my custom, blind copies of this communication have also been sent to potentially interested individuals.

I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.

Thank you.

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Well-intentioned but futile e-petition

Today I stumbled across an e-petition to the Attorney General: Make Dr. David Kelly's autopsy results public.

Regular readers of this blog will know that the postmortem results are already public.

One version was released by the Attorney General on 9th June 2011: Post mortem report by Dr Hunt 25 July 2003.

That is the official version for 25th July 2003.

The most easily searchable, but unofficial, version is here: David Kelly: pathologist's report to the coroner - text version.

Tim Wilkinson of the Surely Some Mistake blog created it from the official version released on 22nd October 2010 by the Ministry of Justice: See Dr Kelly post mortem and toxicology reports.

Dr. Allan's toxicology report of 23rd July 2003 is also available for download from that link.

Simon James, the creator of the e-petition, and the signatories presumably are unaware of the release of the documents just mentioned.

Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with the creator or signatories of the e-petition.

The Death of David Kelly - Scotsman article on possible Judicial Review

The Scotsman has a brief article about the cover-up of the death of David Kelly and the need for Judicial Review.

See Doctors say David Kelly death 'a cover-up'.

The Death of David Kelly - Oxford Times article about the need for funds for a Judicial Review

There is a short article on the Oxford Times website about the need for funds for Judicial Review regarding Dominic Grieve's decision announced on 9th June 2011.

See Race to fight David Kelly inquest ruling.

The Death of David Kelly - Letter to Keith Vaz MP

Today I am sending a letter to Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressing my concerns regarding the conduct of a number of Police officers, including Sara Thornton.

I sent an advance copy of the letter to Mr. Vaz by email and that is online on my The Police Are Cheating Us blog here: Letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee re John Yates, Paul Stephenson, Sara Thornton and others.

The Death of David Kelly - Perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

Today I am reporting to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistent Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police my belief that Mrs. Janice Kelly and three other named individuals may have perverted the course of justice with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

On 28th October 2010 I reported to Thames Valley Police my suspicion that Dr. David Kelly had been murdered (Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers).

It reamins my considered view that Dr. Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The email to Thames Valley Police is, I think, self-explanatory.

The title of the email is:

David Kelly - Perversion of the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others

The content of the email is:

Chief Constable Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Ball,

I write formally to report to you as constables of Thames Valley Police what I believe to be the criminal offences of perverting the course of justice by Janice Kelly and others with respect to the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in Oxfordshire in 2003.

I believe that you individually and collectively have a duty as constables to record and investigate this matter promptly and in a competent and diligent manner.

I make this report of suspected crime on the basis of the elements of the crime of perverting the course of justice as published by the Crown Prosecution Service, as I consequently understand them.

I request and require you to record these suspected seroius crimes in accordance with the National Crime Recording Standard.

Thames Valley Police is aware that I believe the suspicious death of Dr. Kelly to have been murder. Thames Valley Police Unique Reference Number 514 of 28/10/10 refers.

Having subsequently carefully considered the many documents released by the Attorney General in June 2011 it remains my view that Dr. David Kelly was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The individuals who I believe to have perverted the course of justice and whose conduct I report herein as suspected crimes are as follows.

1. Janice Kelly
2. Rachel Kelly
3. Dr. Sarah Pape
4. Dr. Malcolm Warner

It is the conduct of Mrs. Janice Kelly which I believe to be the most extensive and serious.

First I will briefly summarise conduct that, broadly speaking, is common to the four named individuals

Then I will briefly outline what I believe to be the more serious conduct of Janice Kelly.

Concealment of Evidence

The "suicide hypothesis" as it applies to David Kelly, in its essentials, is that he held a knife in his right hand.and bled to death after cutting his left wrist.

Each of the four named individuals failed to disclose in their oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that Dr. Kelly had sustained a fracture of his right elbow in a riding accident late in 1991 that, if I understand the situation correctly, had required operation.

That injury is variously documented on the Hutton Inquiry site (but in a largely concealed way) here:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm
and, more openly, in Dr. Richard Shepherd's report to the Attorney General of 16th March 2011 here: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Forensic%20medical%20report%20by%20Dr%20Shepherd%2016%20March%202011.pdf

Consequent on that serious injury of the right elbow and the subsequent operation Dr. Kelly had pain and significant functional limitation of his right arm. See, for example, the information from Dr. Andrew Shuttleworth referred to in Dr. Shepherd's report.

According to evidence from Mai Pederson that is in the public domain Dr. Kelly, in early 2003, had significant difficulty using a knife to cut steak. I interpret Ms. Pederson's evidence to be highly suggestive of post-traumatic arthritis.

If in 2003 Dr. Kelly had difficulty cutting steak, the credibility of whether or not Dr. Kelly could cut his own left wrist with the results documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt comes seriously into question.

Each of the four named individuals concealed from the Hutton Inquiry information that I believe must have been in their possession about Dr. Kelly's elbow fracture and the consequent pain and functional limitations.

The effect, I believe, of concealing such information about the injury and its effects is to pervert the course of justice.

Hence my writing to Thames Valley Police to report these suspected crimes.

Had the named individuals disclosed the information about Dr. Kelly's elbow injury it would have been possible for the Hutton Inquiry to make an honest, public assessment of the degree of Dr. Kelly's functional limitations and whether or not it was credible that he (supposedly) held a knife in his right hand and produced the injuries of the left wrist documented by Dr. Nicholas Hunt in his postmortem report of 25th July 2003.

In addition to the preceding matter Janice Kelly acted so as to conceal other matters which I mention briefly in the section which follows.

Untrue statements by Janice Kelly

On 12th June 2011 I wrote to Peter Jacobsen, lawyer for the Kelly family, asking the Kelly family to consider whether they ought to "come clean" about a deception to which I believe the family has been party since 2003.

The content of that communication of 12th June 2011 is online here:
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-peter-jacobsen.html

A sample list of what I believe to have been untrue statements by Janice Kelly in her oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry is to be seen in that communication to Mr. Jacobsen.

Mrs. Kelly has, to the best of my knowledge, failed publicly to remedy the situation which I expressed on 12th June hence my now writing to Thames Valley Police to report these serious concerns.

One might speculate about why Janice Kelly would wish to conceal certain information from the Hutton Inquiry. I believe I understand some of her reasons. However, if my assessment of the situation is correct, a wish for privacy is not a foundation that justifies perverting the course of justice.

Everything stated by me in this communication and in the communication of 12th June 2011 is correct to the best of my belief, having spent many tens of hours studying the publicly available information relating to what I believe to have been the murder of Dr. David Kelly.

I wish to make a formal statement to the Police on this matter. That would most conveniently be done, in the first instance, at Grampian Police HQ. Perhaps Thames Valley Police would be good enough to make contact with Grampian Police to the end that I may make a formal statement at a mutually convenient time. I gave my full contact information to Thames Valley Police in the context of URN 514 of 28/10/10.

In the interests of transparency I am copying this email to Dr. Malcolm Warner, Dr. Sarah Pape and to Mr. Peter Jacobsen who I understand to be the solicitor for the Kelly family.

If any of the four named individuals believes that my concerns are without foundation no doubt they will wish to communicate on the matter with Thames Valley Police.

I am also copying this email to the Attorney General's Office in light of the ongoing public interest in the cover-up of the murder of Dr. Kelly.

I again ask the Attorney General to consider whether he should, ex proprio motu, retract his dishonest statement of 9th June 2011 to the House of Commons before the High Court potentially quashes his dishonest decision.

This email is additionally copied to Professor Keith Hawton for information, given that the "suicide hypothesis" with respect to Dr. Kelly's death is based significantly on Professor Hawton's credulous acceptance of Janice Kelly's uncorroborated evidence of the period around lunchtime on 17th July 2003.

A copy of this email will be placed on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-perverting-course.html

I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter of great public interest.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

The Death of David Kelly - Alerting the Attorney General to Mr. Green's evidence being unsafe

As a follow-up to my post The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain I have now written to the Attorney General's Office asking for an urgent review of Mr. Green's written and oral evidence.

The title of today's email to the Attorney General's Office was,

David Kelly(3rd appln): Simulating "aterial rain" - need for urgent expert review

The text of the email was as follows:

Mr. McGinty,

I am writing to you as part of the Third Application to the Attorney General seeking, in the context of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an inquest into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.

I write to draw to the attention of the Attorney General's Office important new evidence casting doubt on the credibility of the evidence of the forensic biologist Mr. Roy Green. This new evidence demonstrates, in my view, serious "insufficiency of inquiry" with respect to a pivotal part of the evidence supporting the "suicide hypothesis".

I ask you to draw this matter urgently to the attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in view of its fundamental implications for the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion of January 2004.

As you are aware the report of Mr. Green was kept secret, at the request of Lord Hutton, from 2003 until 9th June 2011. Thus it is only now that it is possible to subject Mr. Green's report to independent scrutiny.

Taken at face value (and Lord Hutton failed to looked deeper) Mr. Green's evidence seemed to create a seemingly indisputable scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill.

Importantly, Mr. Green failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is possible and, moreover, failed to disclose that simulation of arterial rain is a fairly straightforward task.

In other words Mr. Green failed to disclose that it would be possible for a "Scene Setter" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ) to fabricate a seemingly credible scenario of bleeding at Harrowdown Hill when no such bleeding had taken place.

Simulation of arterial rain is so straightforward that, in at least some centres, forensic science trainees routinely use simulation of arterial rain during their training. See the references in my blog post entitled, "The Death of David Kelly - Simulating arterial rain" located at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-simulating.html.

I do not attempt here to elucidate whether Mr. Green's failure to disclose the possibility of simulation is due to dishonesty, ignorance, oversight or some other factor. The most material issue is the implication of that failure with respect to the safety of Lord Hutton's conclusion.

The technically fairly straightforward task of simulating arterial rain casts fundamental doubt on the safety of Mr. Green's evidence with respect to the supposed bleeding taking place at Harrowdown Hill.

In turn that calls into question the safety of Lord Hutton's "suicide" conclusion.

I do not expect any member of the Attorney General's Office to have detailed technical knowledge of this matter. Having seen the visible inadequacies of the correspondence from the Attorney General's Office to, for example, Dr. Richard Shepherd I am taking the liberty to formulate some relevant questions - for Mr. Green, for an independent forensic expert and for Lord Hutton.

It seems to me that an honest Attorney General would wish to take steps similar to seeking such clarification.

In the interests of transparency I suggest that all such correspondence from the Attorney General's Office be disclosed publicly. The replies should similarly be publicly disclosed, I believe.

Questions for Mr. Green

1. Can you confirm that you did not disclose the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in your written and oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Prior to compiling your statement of 27th September 2003 did you consider the possibility of the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill having been simulated?

3. On 18th July 2003 and 27th July 2003 were you aware of the concept of simulation of arterial rain?

4. Did you disclose to or discuss with the forensic pathologist Dr. Nicholas Hunt the possibility that the supposed "arterial rain" had been simulated?

5. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

6. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain?

7. What steps, if any, did you carry out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

8. On reflection, can you now state whether you believe that beyond reasonable doubt the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion.

Many other possible questions exist. The foregoing should be capable of casting useful light on the matter, assuming honest answers to the questions.

Questions for an independent forensic expert

The following questions assume that all relevant forensic evidence is disclosed to the chosen expert.

It may also be worth disclosing explicitly to the expert that the possibility of Judicial Review may be in prospect.

1. Are you able to identify any evidence to suggest that Mr. Green disclosed the possibility of simulation of "arterial rain" in his written or oral evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Do you accept, in principle, that it is possible to simulate arterial rain?

3. What is your assessment of the technical difficulty (or ease) of simulating arterial rain? Please answer with respect to the general case and the specific circumstances found at Harrowdown Hill.

4. Do you believe that it was possible to differentiate the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill from simulated arterial rain? If so, please provide a detailed account of how you believe that could reliably be done.

5. What steps, if any, could Mr. Green have carried out to distinguish whether the supposed "arterial rain" at Harrowdown Hill was genuine or simulated?

6. Did he carry out any such investigations? What is your assessment of the adequacy of any such investigations?

7. On the available evidence is it possible that the supposed "arterial rain" on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill was simulated?

8. Can you state, beyond reasonable doubt, that the blood on the nettles at Harrowdown Hill could only have been caused by bleeding at the scene? If you believe so, then please provide a detailed account of the evidence and logic which you consider to justify such an opinion and thereby exclude the possibility of simulated arterial rain.


Questions for Lord Hutton

I suggest that Lord Hutton is best approached on this matter following receipt of answers from the independent forensic expert.

If the supposed "arterial rain" may have been simulated it seems to me that the "suicide hypothesis" is fatally holed below the waterline.

1. In light of the new information from Mr. Green and an independent forensic expert do you accept that your conclusion of January 2004 that Dr. David Kelly committed suicide is now unsafe?

2. If the answer to question 1. is in the negative, please provide a justification or explanation for that assessment.



Mr. McGinty, you may be aware that today's Daily Mail contains an article indicating the prospect of Judicial Review of Mr. Grieve's (in my mind dishonest) decision of 9th June 2011. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030663/Doctors-unleash-legal-challenge-inquest-Dr-David-Kelly-had.html

It seems to me likely that matters such as this which further demonstrate "insufficiency of inquiry" on the part of Lord Hutton (and, indeed, on the part of the Attorney General) may be of interest to those contemplating Judicial Review.

The Duggan case seems to indicate that the Attorney General may ex proprio motu decide to review his own decision. I urge Mr. Grieve to consider whether now is the time to throw in the towel with respect to his dishonest decision and statement of 9th June 2011. It was nonsense on 9th June and increasing evidence is emerging to demonstrate that it was nonsense.

On 12th June 2011 I invited Dominic Grieve QC MP and Edward Garnier QC MP to resign in view of the dishonest decision and statement to the House of Commons. See "The Death of David Kelly - I invite the Attorney General and Solicitor General to resign" ( http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-i-invite-attorney.html )

I repeat here the invitation to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier to resign in view of the demonstrably unsound decision announced on 9th June 2011.

In the interests of transparency a copy of this email is to be found on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog at
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-david-kelly-alerting-attorney.html

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that it will be considered as part of a future assessment of this matter by the Attorney General of the time.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt