Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Fourth submission (of 5) by Dr David Halpin to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve

Office of the Attorney General                                                                        16  February 2011
Mr Kevin McGinty
20, Victoria Street
From:­  David Halpin FRCS
Insufficiency of inquiry:  Evidence from Rachel Kelly:  Deportation of Dr Kelly – Kuwait
This is an extract from Wikipedia on Dr David Kelly­Kelly_article­9
(The limitations of Wikipedia are acknowledged but the cited references have been checked.)
“Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained some biological weapons after the end of
After the end of the ground war, he was invited to join the inspection team attempting to find any
trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes, and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming
his work there. He made two attempted trips to Iraq. The first was on 19 May 2003, when he was
prevented from entering Iraq from Kuwait because he did not have the proper documentation.
The second trip was from 5 June 2003 ­ 11 June 2003, when Kelly went to view and photograph two
alleged mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team. Kelly was unhappy with
the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer, which, on 15 June 2003,
quoted "a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq."
The expert said: They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for
making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis
said they were ­ facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. [11]
It was confirmed in the Hutton Inquiry that Kelly was the source of this quote.”[12]  ***
***  Quote from Hutton.  Evidence of Peter Stuart Beaumont  journalist.
5 yes, yes, something like that. When I pressed him on,
6 you know, what he meant, he said: well, the facilities
7 are as the Iraqis describe them.122
6 name associated with it but he did not have a problem
7 with the information being in the public domain.
(NB  Please use the Wikipedia excerpt to obtain references by hyperlink)
Evidence given by Rachel Kelly at the Hutton inquiry
15 Q. On 19th May we have heard about your father's visit to
16 Kuwait ­­
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. ­­ and the fact that he came back very shortly having
19 arrived in Kuwait. How was he after that?
20 A. The first I knew was Dad flew to Kuwait from Heathrow
21 Airport and on departure he discovered his visa was
22 incorrect but he was still allowed to board the plane.
23 When he arrived into Kuwait he was refused entry and
24 physically searched, I believe he was physically
25 restrained ­­ they are not particularly dignified
1 there ­­ and he was then kept overnight in a hotel and
2 his phone was taken from him. He was then deported back
3 to the UK. Dad phoned me at work to ask me to organise
4 a taxi for him. I could see he sounded quite upset by
5 it.
6 When he got home I could just see he felt so let
7 down and embarrassed by it because it was a key time for
8 him to go out there and he was very keen to go out
9 there, and he felt left out at a very important time for
10 him.
8 Q. We have heard that in early June your father went, in
9 fact, to Iraq. Were you aware of that?
10 A. Yes, I was. We were actually both out of the country at
11 the same time and I was aware that Dad was away.
12 Q. And did you speak to him before he went away about the
13 trip?14 A. No, I spoke to him when he got back from his trip.
15 Again, I went to see him on that Saturday after and he
16 had got his photographs back by that time and he took
17 great pleasure in showing me his photographs and showing
18 me the conditions he had experienced out there.
19 He did tell me quite a lot about how much Iraq had
20 changed. Obviously he had not been out there since 1998
21 and although he had followed the progress of the war the
22 actual reality of going to Iraq made quite an impact on
23 him, and he was disappointed he did not see any actual
24 real Iraqis, as he put it. He was very fond of the
25 Iraqi people and he was actually ­­­  all the personnel
1 there had to stay on the airfield, I think, for security
2 reasons.
The Inquiry must surely have regarded the treatment of Dr Kelly in Kuwait as having been
extraordinary, especially his deportation the day after his arrival by plane according to his daughter.
And yet no questions arose at the inquiry from this treatment of the UK's most senior  biological
and chemical weapons scientist who had the highest security clearance assigned to him.
Were these questions asked of some of the MOD and other professional witnesses who might have
known why Dr Kelly was treated in such a humiliating manner?
1.What was the basis for  his arrest, confinement to an hotel, the confiscation of his mobile phone
and his deportation from a region which he had visited to do with arms control 36 times at least?
Which force was responsible?  Was it a Kuwaiti force, military or otherwise?  Or was it a 'western
force' – US/UK/Polish/Australian?
2.Dr Kelly was accompanied on his many UNSCOM details by an ex­RAF navigator (personal
communication) who acted as minder.  Was this man with Dr Kelly on these dates?  Was he arrested
too and deported?
3.Did the basis for  his execrable treatment arise from a political strategy back in the UK to
humiliate him and thus encourage a picture to develop of a dejected, burned out man?
4.Given there could have been no rational explanation for deportation of this good man, could it be
that the people in charge of Operation Iraqi Freedom did not want Dr Kelly applying his keen
powers of observation and very expert knowledge at the scenes of bombardment and invasion?
5.I have very strong evidence that proscribed weapons were used in the massive assault on Iraq.  It
is highly likely Dr Kelly would have known of such if that was the case.  It is likely he received
reports from the war zones and from different services.  Were there very specific reasons for
keeping him out of Iraq at a time when there was still widespread opposition to the war and
increasing suspicion there were no WMDs? 6.I have referred previously to the obliquity of the instruction given by Lord Falconer to Lord
Hutton – “urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr
Kelly” and hold that this was obviously far short of the duties of a coroner towards an unnatural
death in this jurisdiction.  However, this above example of 'insufficiency of evidence' shows that the
Hutton inquiry could not rise even to the lax requirements of Lord Falconer.  The fact is that this
abhorrent arrest and deportation of Dr Kelly was a likely sign
he was being 'done over' because his expertise and probity were unwelcome in some corridor of
power.  He was being isolated and demeaned.  I believe this was the first evidence the inquiry heard
of inexplicably poor  treatment of this man.  Given its remit, the inquiry completely failed in its duty
to examine this important evidence.          
I will submit one more topic for  the Attorney General's consideration but this will attempt to
demonstrate subversion of due process, instead of 'insufficiency of inquiry', based on
correspondence that I hold.
Yours sincerely
David Halpin FRCS

No comments:

Post a Comment