Dear Dominic,
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
I write to you as a British citizen, with the best long-term interests of our country at heart.
There are now gathering suspicions that Dr David Kelly has been the victim of one of the gravest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. There is also compelling evidence that the elaborate Hutton Inquiry, which purported (wrongly) to obviate the need for a coroner's inquest, amounted to nothing less than a huge high-level conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If indeed there were such a conspiracy, it would surely be reasonable to ask the following question: what was so important to hide from public view that the taking of the enormous risk of conspiring to comprehensively subvert due process of law, in full public view, was deemed necessary?
I am one of the doctors who has been fighting for almost seven years to secure an inquest into Dr Kelly's death. You will remember that you and I met at the House of Commons some five years ago (my constituency MP, David Jones, arranged the meeting), and I showed you a copy of Dr Kelly's death certificate, as well as other documents. As you are aware, an inquest is required by the laws of our country and, indeed, those of Europe, in the circumstances in which Dr Kelly is alleged to have died. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about this; the law is the law and the law requires that there be an inquest. It is my opinion, and the opinion of others, that the invocation of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act by Lord Falconer (on 13 August 2003), the then Lord Chancellor and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, was inappropriate and that a statutory inquest should never have been replaced by the non-statutory judicial inquiry of Lord Hutton, not subject, as it was not, to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act 1921, which Act was itself repealed almost unnoticed in the dying days of the penultimate government and replaced by the odious Inquiries Act 2005. Section 17a was ostensibly intended to be used to avoid duplication of inquiry in mutiple death scenarios such as a train crash, where the cause of death to some extent can be assumed, or is clear. But, Dr Kelly allegedly died alone, so the invocation of Section 17a in the case of David Kelly was unique on two counts: it was the first time in English legal history that Section 17a had been invoked to replace an inquest (statutory) by a non-statutory judicial inquiry (as opposed to a statutory public inquiry), and it was the first time that it had been invoked to investigate a single death (as opposed to multiple deaths). The subterfuge was all the greater because the public was led to believe that Dr Kelly's death would be better investigated by Lord Hutton's inquiry than by a coroner's inquest, when the exact opposite was the case.
Amongst many further points one could raise as to the inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry as an instrument to investigate Dr Kelly's death was the clear insuffiency of inquiry over which Lord Hutton presided, the undoubted lack of rigour of Thames Valley Police, the Coroner and Lord Hutton in first ruling out foul play before even considering suicide, and the obvious inability of Lord Hutton to effectively reach a suicide verdict from the evidence which he heard and later cited. But, the law is clear on the last of these: that before a verdict of suicide can be returned, the Coroner must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (a very high standard of proof, in fact a criminal level of proof) that the deceased not only killed himself, but that he intended to kill himself. Now, if one examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton it is obvious that he could not be sufficiently satisfied, not least because the evidence which he heard was not heard under oath.
There have been five inquiries into the Iraq War, namely the Foreign Affairs Committe, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry (unfinished) but not a single word of evidence from any of the witnesses at any of these inquiries has been heard under oath. At an inquest into Dr Kelly's death the evidence would automatically be heard under oath, and the death would be required to be investigated in the context of the United Kingdom's reasons for waging agressive war on a sovereign state, Iraq.
Below, appears a link to the article (published last Saturday, 26 June 2010, in the Daily Mail) written by Miles Goslett (freelance journalist) and me, and I should be grateful if you would read the article and the 147 following comments, some attracting hundreds of recommendations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-damning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html
The link to Miles Goslett's story which appeared yesterday (Thursday, 1 July) as the "splash" headline in the Daily Mail appears below, and as you will see there are once again hundreds of following comments, many again attracting hundreds of recommendations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291019/Dr-Kelly-slit-wrist-weak.html
On the evidence of these two articles alone, Dr David Kelly's death is still (nearly seven years later) a matter of huge public interest and concern. You will no doubt have seen the Daily Mail editorial on Dr David Kelly which appeared yesterday.
As a British citizen, I implore you to take the steps necessary to order the necessary inquest into Dr Kelly's death, linked inextricably as this most important death was to the United Kingdom's alleged reasons for waging war on the sovereign state of Iraq. Such a move would not only meet with huge approval from the British public, but would also go a long way to restoring confidence in the political system and the rule of law. Perhaps, most importantly, such an order would go some way to restoring the severely tarnished reputation of this country around the world, deservedly damaged by the many appalling actions of the previous government.
Finally, and this is very important, it is my opinion that the police investigation into the death of Dr Kelly should be reopened immediately, the "finding" of suicide being patently unsafe.
This is a private communication, and I hope you will respect my wish that it remains private. That said, should you wish to show this email on a confidential basis to trusted colleagues, you have my permission to use it as you think fit. For my part, I will respect your position as Attorney General, and of course I would not wish anyway to compromise any future legal proceedings in any way.
I look forward to hearing from you. Should you require further information from me and/or my colleagues, for example sight of the medical report which we prepared and which we sent to the Coroner, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr) Stephen (Frost)
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
I write to you as a British citizen, with the best long-term interests of our country at heart.
There are now gathering suspicions that Dr David Kelly has been the victim of one of the gravest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. There is also compelling evidence that the elaborate Hutton Inquiry, which purported (wrongly) to obviate the need for a coroner's inquest, amounted to nothing less than a huge high-level conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If indeed there were such a conspiracy, it would surely be reasonable to ask the following question: what was so important to hide from public view that the taking of the enormous risk of conspiring to comprehensively subvert due process of law, in full public view, was deemed necessary?
I am one of the doctors who has been fighting for almost seven years to secure an inquest into Dr Kelly's death. You will remember that you and I met at the House of Commons some five years ago (my constituency MP, David Jones, arranged the meeting), and I showed you a copy of Dr Kelly's death certificate, as well as other documents. As you are aware, an inquest is required by the laws of our country and, indeed, those of Europe, in the circumstances in which Dr Kelly is alleged to have died. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about this; the law is the law and the law requires that there be an inquest. It is my opinion, and the opinion of others, that the invocation of Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act by Lord Falconer (on 13 August 2003), the then Lord Chancellor and Minister for Constitutional Affairs, was inappropriate and that a statutory inquest should never have been replaced by the non-statutory judicial inquiry of Lord Hutton, not subject, as it was not, to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act 1921, which Act was itself repealed almost unnoticed in the dying days of the penultimate government and replaced by the odious Inquiries Act 2005. Section 17a was ostensibly intended to be used to avoid duplication of inquiry in mutiple death scenarios such as a train crash, where the cause of death to some extent can be assumed, or is clear. But, Dr Kelly allegedly died alone, so the invocation of Section 17a in the case of David Kelly was unique on two counts: it was the first time in English legal history that Section 17a had been invoked to replace an inquest (statutory) by a non-statutory judicial inquiry (as opposed to a statutory public inquiry), and it was the first time that it had been invoked to investigate a single death (as opposed to multiple deaths). The subterfuge was all the greater because the public was led to believe that Dr Kelly's death would be better investigated by Lord Hutton's inquiry than by a coroner's inquest, when the exact opposite was the case.
Amongst many further points one could raise as to the inadequacy of the Hutton Inquiry as an instrument to investigate Dr Kelly's death was the clear insuffiency of inquiry over which Lord Hutton presided, the undoubted lack of rigour of Thames Valley Police, the Coroner and Lord Hutton in first ruling out foul play before even considering suicide, and the obvious inability of Lord Hutton to effectively reach a suicide verdict from the evidence which he heard and later cited. But, the law is clear on the last of these: that before a verdict of suicide can be returned, the Coroner must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (a very high standard of proof, in fact a criminal level of proof) that the deceased not only killed himself, but that he intended to kill himself. Now, if one examines the transcripts of the evidence heard by Lord Hutton it is obvious that he could not be sufficiently satisfied, not least because the evidence which he heard was not heard under oath.
There have been five inquiries into the Iraq War, namely the Foreign Affairs Committe, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry (unfinished) but not a single word of evidence from any of the witnesses at any of these inquiries has been heard under oath. At an inquest into Dr Kelly's death the evidence would automatically be heard under oath, and the death would be required to be investigated in the context of the United Kingdom's reasons for waging agressive war on a sovereign state, Iraq.
Below, appears a link to the article (published last Saturday, 26 June 2010, in the Daily Mail) written by Miles Goslett (freelance journalist) and me, and I should be grateful if you would read the article and the 147 following comments, some attracting hundreds of recommendations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289692/Dr-David-Kelly-The-damning-new-evidence-points-cover-Tony-Blairs-government.html
The link to Miles Goslett's story which appeared yesterday (Thursday, 1 July) as the "splash" headline in the Daily Mail appears below, and as you will see there are once again hundreds of following comments, many again attracting hundreds of recommendations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291019/Dr-Kelly-slit-wrist-weak.html
On the evidence of these two articles alone, Dr David Kelly's death is still (nearly seven years later) a matter of huge public interest and concern. You will no doubt have seen the Daily Mail editorial on Dr David Kelly which appeared yesterday.
As a British citizen, I implore you to take the steps necessary to order the necessary inquest into Dr Kelly's death, linked inextricably as this most important death was to the United Kingdom's alleged reasons for waging war on the sovereign state of Iraq. Such a move would not only meet with huge approval from the British public, but would also go a long way to restoring confidence in the political system and the rule of law. Perhaps, most importantly, such an order would go some way to restoring the severely tarnished reputation of this country around the world, deservedly damaged by the many appalling actions of the previous government.
Finally, and this is very important, it is my opinion that the police investigation into the death of Dr Kelly should be reopened immediately, the "finding" of suicide being patently unsafe.
This is a private communication, and I hope you will respect my wish that it remains private. That said, should you wish to show this email on a confidential basis to trusted colleagues, you have my permission to use it as you think fit. For my part, I will respect your position as Attorney General, and of course I would not wish anyway to compromise any future legal proceedings in any way.
I look forward to hearing from you. Should you require further information from me and/or my colleagues, for example sight of the medical report which we prepared and which we sent to the Coroner, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr) Stephen (Frost)
No comments:
Post a Comment