First submission (of 12) by me to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve

From: STEPHEN FROST <stephen.frost@>
Subject: FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DOMINIC GRIEVE QC
To: privateoffice@attorneygeneral
Cc: grieved@parliament, "david halpin" <dsh@>, chris.burns-cox@,monafay@, birnstin@, "Michael Powers Q.C." <powers@>,fswaine@leighday
Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 1:35

FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DOMINIC GRIEVE QC

Dear Attorney General,

It is with regret that I feel it necessary to write this email.  

I am one of the doctors formally seeking an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

I realise that you may be under intense pressure from certain quarters to reach a certain decision but there is really only one decision which will succeed in quelling the growing and entirely justified public disquiet over the investigation thus far of this most important death.

I should like to bring to your attention important information contained in the two attachments to this email and in the two attachments to the immmediately following email.  I doubt that you will require commentary from me as to why these documents are important, but should you require clarification please do let me know. 

Further, and completely separately, I would like to let you know that I can supply you with information and documents which demonstrate that Dr David Kelly was NOT Andrew Gilligan's prime source, which is surely important given that the BBC's statement of 20 July 2003 had the effect of misleading the world into believing the exact opposite.  This raises serious questions as to who Gilligan's prime source was and highlights the fact that the BBC's lamentable failure to correct the almost universal misapprehension of their statement had the effect of prematurely killing the search for Gilligan's source only two days after Kelly's body had been "found", when he could no longer argue back.  The implications of all this are obviously very important indeed, not least because the alleged motive for suicide is fatally undermined.  Please do let me know if you would like me to outline the relevant details.

It seems now that due process of the law in the investigation into Dr Kelly's death has been incontrovertibly and comprehensively subverted and that the consequent "finding" of suicide by Lord Hutton, and Lord Falconer's and the Coroner's subsequent perfunctory rubber stamping of that finding, may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice ever to occur in this country, particularly when the context of the death (ie the waging of illegal, according to the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter, aggressive war against the sovereign state of Iraq; the Geneva Conventions further state that the waging of aggressive war against a sovereign state constitutes "the supreme international war crime") is taken into account.

I should like to make a number of points:

1) The doctors who have provided you with the Memorial wish to make it clear that we are seeking your permission (fiat) to proceed to the High Court ourselves, so that we can be absolutely sure that the proper arguments for holding an inquest are made.  

2) Were you to refuse us that permission we will vigorously challenge your decision through judicial review, and to allow us to do that a fund has been established and if necessary the existence of that fund will be advertised extensively.  

3) The case for an inquest as outlined in the Memorial is surely unanswerable, outlining as it does evidence of all six reasons (when one reason only would be sufficient) for granting an inquest as outlined in Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act.

The reasons are as you know:

a) insufficiency of inquiry

b) irregularity of proceedings

c) rejection of evidence

d) new facts or evidence

e) fraud (in this context deception)

f) refusal or neglect to hold an inquest when one ought to be held

I repeat that all six criteria for the granting of an inquest under Section 13 have been fulfilled.

Further, we are fully aware that you have only to satisfy yourself that Lord Hutton's "finding" of suicide might change, not that it would change.  And, there is surely nobody left who could reasonably argue that it might not change?

Finally, we wish to make it clear that we reserve the right to publish the Memorial (and more) at any time and without warning.  We regret that we are unable to comply with Mr McGinty's request in the concluding paragraph of his last letter asking our lawyers and by implication us (the doctors) to keep things quiet or similar.  We cannot comply with Mr McGinty's wish for secrecy for it would not be in the public interest, nor indeed in the interests of justice, for us so to do.

This email and the immediately following email are copied to Dr David Halpin, Dr Christopher Burns-Cox, Dr Andrew Rouse, Dr Martin Birnstingl, Dr Michael Powers QC and Frances Swaine, the last of Leigh Day & Co.

Given the importance of the contents of this email, I should be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt of it, the immediately following email and all four attachments at your earliest convenience.   

Yours faithfully,

(Dr) Stephen Frost