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
No comments:
Post a Comment