|
Unanswered Questions
Due process and Dr Kelly
By David S Halpin
04/14/05 "ICH" - - Mistrust in the present UK government is not exclusively due to the lies, distortions and distractions surrounding the Iraq WMD claims, and the legal advice about going to war with Iraq.
Government deceit extends also to the clearly inadequate investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly. Crucially, why did Lord Falconer choose a method of inquiry which was specifically designed to be invoked in multiple death scenarios, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiry, as in a rail disaster? Dr Kelly's death was a solitary unnatural death requiring rigorous investigation at a coroner's inquest. Invoking Section 17a, as Lord Falconer did, was not appropriate.
Lord Hutton judged that Dr Kelly had committed suicide. There is a statutory legal requirement, pertaining to the investigation of "sudden, unexpected, and violent" deaths occurring in this country, which by definition must be observed. The requirement is that, before a verdict of suicide can be returned, suicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, intent to commit suicide must be proven, again beyond reasonable doubt. It is not perhaps common knowledge, but proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is a very high standard of proof. It is a fact that Lord Hutton was not equipped to attain that level of proof since he lacked the statutory powers necessary to achieve it. Those powers, which are automatically available to the Coroner, are: power to subpoena witnesses, power to hear evidence under oath, power to call a jury and power to have witnesses cross-examined.
The British public assumed, and were encouraged to believe, that the replacement of the Coroner's Inquest by the Hutton Inquiry would lead to Dr Kelly's death being more thoroughly investigated, when the exact opposite was the truth.
Lord Falconer, Lord Hutton and the Coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, may protest all they like. The fact is that due process has not been followed in the investigation of one of the most important unnatural deaths to occur in this country in our lifetimes, inextricably linked as Dr Kelly's death was to Britain's highly dubious reasons for launching illegal war on Iraq.
Finally, if Lord Falconer, Lord Hutton and the Coroner have so failed in their legal duties, as it appears they have, is it not reasonable to ask why it was thought necessary to subvert due process in the first place?
The undersigned are medical specialists who have publicly stated their view, in a series of six letters published by The Guardian during 2004, that it is highly improbable that Dr Kelly could have died by the method claimed by Lord Hutton.
We note with mounting concern that the serious and legitimate questions which we have raised remain unanswered, and that there have been no demands from the media, MPs or others that they be answered. Why not?
Yours faithfully
Christopher Burns-Cox Specialist in internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost Specialist in diagnostic radiology
David S Halpin Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery William McQuillan Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery
Andrew Rouse Specialist in public health
John H Scurr Specialist in vascular surgery
Searle Sennett Specialist in anaesthesiology
Contact e-mail dhalpin@infoaction.org.uk
Copyright © Information
Clearing House. All rights reserved. You may republish under
the following conditions: An active link to the original
publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove
any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
