Dear Eddie,

I have listened twice to your interview with Dominic Grieve.

He misled you and the listening public.  From memory:

1) Grieve said that there was no evidence to support holding an inquest.  Not true.  I can supply you with the evidence which we have sent to the Attorney General.

2) Grieve said that Lord Hutton heard evidence which satisfied him (Lord Hutton) beyond reasonable doubt that Dr Kelly killed himself and that he intended to kill himself.  What he did not say was that the evidence heard by Lord Hutton was not heard under oath, that many key witnesses (including DC Shields, Superintendent Young and the "third man", all of Thames Valley Police) were not called to give evidence and that DC Coe and Assistant Chief Constable Page (no less) of Thames Valley Police lied to Lord Hutton.  A coroner would automatically hear evidence under oath, could subpoena witnesses, could have evidence tested by aggressive cross examination and could call a full jury.  Hutton was denied all of those powers by one Lord Falconer (in his role as Minister for Constitutional Affairs), but the fact that a statutory inquest was replaced by a non-statutory ad hoc (ie not covered by the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act 1921) public inquiry by the same Lord Falconer (this time in his role as Lord Chancellor) was kept very quiet and was completely missed by almost everybody.  Crucially, if the evidence is not heard under oath and it cannot be tested by cross-examination nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Further, Grieve did not volunteer the vital information that Lord Hutton had no experience whatsoever of acting as a coroner.

3) Grieve said that there was no possibility that the verdict of suicide would be different if an inquest were held.  I submit that it was not for the Attorney General to hold his own secret mini-inquest to reach this conclusion, and anyway he could not be so certain of the outcome of any future inquest.  If he felt it was necessary to do that, then it was necessary for him to apply to the High Court for an inquest, or to allow us to do so.  What was his job however was to observe due process and to fulfil his duties to us, the five memorialists or litigants (who happen to be doctors), who had made a formal application for an inquest as outlined under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroner's Act and to weigh whether the verdict MIGHT be different NOT that it WOULD be different.  We supplied him with

1) evidence of insufficiency of inquiry

2) evidence of irregularity of proceedings

3) new facts or evidence

4) evidence of rejection of evidence

5) evidence of fraud

6) evidence of failure or neglect to hold an inquest when one ought to be held

when only one of those would have been sufficient.  What Grieve kept hidden from all today was that he was required to determine a legal process ie a formal Section 13 application submitted in the proper way by our lawyers Leigh Day & Co.  He did not answer our lawyers or us in the proper manner.  Instead he failed to observe due process and went to the House of Commons to announce his decision.  The BBC knew last Friday that Grieve would make a decision today, Sky News knew two days ago but we doctors and our lawyers were not even informed when the decision would be made.  Why not?

I apologise for this having become rather long.

If you have any questions, I would be pleased to assist you.

Have you considered interviewing Lord Falconer?!

Yours sincerely,

(Dr) Stephen Frost