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