12th Feb. 2011
To: Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General, UK
Dear Mr Grieve,
Regarding the re-opening of the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly
I am writing to you with some concerns and I hope you will respond via email.
I have followed the case of Dr David Kelly since I heard of his death in July 2003. This is a long time ago, too long ago.
I am a professional social worker and post- graduate researcher who is well used to working within legal frameworks and following processes which flow from these frameworks. I have extensive experience in the Child Protection and other fields. I completed my Masters’ degree in a faculty of law and am currently working on my doctoral thesis.
In my view, there can be no possible dispute that there must be a new inquest into the death of David Kelly. To refuse this is to deny that due process exists. As noted in the doctors’ December 2010 Memorial: of the six criteria for the re-opening of an inquest into a death laid down in statute under British law, all six are met when only one has to exist.
As most lay people are now aware, Freedom of Information requests have established that: there were/are no fingerprints on the knife with which Dr Kelly is alleged to have deliberately and fatally cut himself; there were/are no fingerprints on the blister packs of co-proxamol which are said to have contributed to his death; there were/are no fingerprints on the water bottle, watch or mobile phone found adjacent to his body. These issues alone fatally undermine the verdict of suicide.
It is a travesty of justice that this information had to be sought and obtained by members of the public rather than revealed in the course of an inquest or the Hutton Inquiry. What are people paying their taxes for?
Incidentally, I am most surprised that an esteemed ‘expert’ such as Professor Hawton offered reasons as to why Dr Kelly would have taken his own life without checking this basic information for himself! I also note that he did not cite one piece of research evidence in support of his assessment that Dr Kelly’s experiences and mental state might precipitate suicide. This is most unusual as from around 2000 most (highly regarded) professionals were increasingly required to substantiate courtroom claims via reference to research evidence in the name of ‘evidence - based practice’.
I do not intend to comment further on the Memorial other than to say you have been provided with an authoritative case by the doctors and, if you have integrity, you must support their position. I believe that the doctors have been representing, without prejudice, the interests of thinking British Citizens on what is essentially a fundamental Human Rights matter- the Right to Life.   Dr Kelly’s life was taken from him (it seems) and the duty of the coroner is to “speak for the dead in order to protect the living”, as accurately described by the Canadians. For the sake of both Dr Kelly and us still ‘living’, a new inquest needs to be held.
There are two further issues that I would like to address and I would appreciate your comments.
Protecting the Kelly family
Firstly there is Lord Hutton’s assertion (and sporadic media argument) that the feelings of Dr Kelly’s family need to be ‘protected’. Although I am aware that the post-mortem report has been published, there are still a number of documents relating to this case which are covered by a secrecy act. Clear explanation around the reason for continued secrecy of some files connected with Dr Kelly’s death has never been given and a number of points need to be made:
1. I have every sympathy for any grieving family and especially for relatives of Dr Kelly as his death was also highly public and political because of his role as an eminent weapons inspector. On this matter however, I would remind you that the parents of Victoria Climbie had to sit through a very searching public inquiry into the horrific torture and murder of their young daughter. They had to listen to accounts of how key agencies failed to protect her. These parents graciously did so, because it was necessary for British Citizens to know what had happened to Victoria. From this searching inquiry, agencies could be better informed about child protection practice. Similarly, the death of Dr Kelly and the absence of WMD in Iraq have continuing implications for all British Citizens regarding the integrity of the UK justice system and UK government. Please comment.
2. You will be aware that in the case of the parents of children killed in the Dunblane tragedy that many of them objected to evidence relating to the circumstances of death being hidden by a public secrecy order. In my professional experience most loving families want to know the absolute truth about what happened to their loved ones at the time of death whether the death was expected or not. Please comment.
3. As a legal practitioner, you will be well aware that abuse and murder both occur within families. Much as we would like to believe all families operate in a loving and functional manner and in the best interests of their members, the law cannot and must not make this assumption for this reason. Even where abuse is perpetrated or murder committed by individuals outside of the family, there are often many reasons as to why family members may not honestly speak out; witness intimidation or fear of retribution may be at play. Please comment.
The Ditchley Foundation
My second point relates to your position as a governor of the Ditchley Foundation. I understand that this charity was set up to ‘promote Anglo-American understandings’ and has a fairly wide-ranging agenda. I understand that participation in its governance and conferences is by invitation only.
As an interested and active citizen, I took the time to examine some details. Stemming from your involvement in this Foundation I have a number of queries:
I note that Sir Kevin Tebbit, Sir David Omand, Sir Peter Ricketts and Rt Hon Jack Straw are all fellow governors of the Ditchley Foundation. Kevin Tebbit and David Omand were both key witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry. Peter Ricketts’ name appears in at least one Hutton document and Jack Straw was the Foreign Secretary (2001-2006) who, we since find, ignored expert legal advice that the proposed invasion of Iraq was, in fact, illegal.
In the event of a new inquest into the death of Dr Kelly, any of these people may be called to give evidence under oath and may eventually be more rigorously cross-examined as to their knowledge of circumstances surrounding his death. Under these conditions they may be required to, perhaps, state something new or different. In making the decision as to whether to apply yourself to the High Court for a new inquest into the death of Dr Kelly or to give leave to the doctors involved to seek leave to apply to the High Court for a re-opened inquest, can you honestly give all assurances that you would not be placed in any ‘conflict of interest’ situation with regard to your association with the above-named parties via governance of the Ditchley Foundation?
2. Secondly, I note that Judith “Jami” Miscik, is a member of the board of the American Ditchley Foundation. Apparently Ms Miscik served as the CIA’s Deputy Director for Intelligence between 2002 and 2005 during which time she was responsible for all CIA analysis and preparation for the Presidents Daily Brief. This means Ms Miscik was involved with the US administration throughout the whole phase which encompassed the preparation of the Iraq dossier and the invasion of Iraq. The intimate relationship between the UK and US administrations in this timeframe is well documented. These constitute two factors which are intimately associated with the Dr Kelly case as evidenced in the Hutton Inquiry. This in turn may indicate that Ms Miscik also had and/or has some connection with individuals who may be called to give evidence at a re-opened inquest. Through her position on the board of the American Ditchley Foundation it would certainly appear that Ms Miscik also has a connection with yourself.
In making the decision as to whether to apply yourself to the High Court for a new inquest into the death of Dr Kelly or to give leave to the doctors involved to apply to the High Court for a re-opened inquest, can you honestly provide all assurances that you would not be placed in any kind of ‘conflict of interest’ situation with regard to the above associations? Please comment.
In conclusion, there is much evidence to suggest that there was foul play in the case of the death of Dr David Kelly. He was an eminent weapons inspector at a critical time in world history. A catastrophic ‘miscarriage of justice’ has almost certainly taken place in returning a suicide verdict. This fact will not fade with time.
Mr Grieve, I was most heartened to see/hear your speech indicating your deep commitment to Human Rights. Please demonstrate this commitment via your wholehearted support for the re-opening of Dr Kelly’s inquest.
Miriam Stevenson, CQSW, BA (Hons), MA (Dist) Socio-Legal Studies.