Beith and Brake quiz Grieve about the death of Dr Kelly (Twickenham & Richmond Liberal Democrats)

Beith and Brake quiz Grieve about the death of Dr Kelly

June 11, 2011 11:30 AM

Alan Beith speaking in Parliament • [Jun 09] Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat): WILL the Attorney-General note that when, along with my Intelligence and Security Committee colleagues, I questioned Dr Kelly two days before he died, I formed the view that a very distinguished public servant was deeply distressed by the situation in which he had placed himself? Although I am wholly unpersuaded by any of the theories that have been put forward as an alternative to suicide, will the Attorney-General spell out what he thinks will be lost by allowing the process of inquiry to be completed by an inquest?

306)

Dominic Grieve (Attorney General; Beaconsfield, Conservative): The first problem is that there is no basis on which the High Court could possibly order an inquest. In my judgment, if I were to go to the Court and make such an application, it would be dismissed, and dismissed with-I assume, on the basis of my reasoning-a certain amount of irritation, because such an application must be made on an evidential basis.

We have also held an inquiry. I make the point in the schedule that the suggestion that the inquiry was in some way inferior to an inquest, in the sense that it was unable to look at some of the things that an inquest could have looked at, really does not bear any reasoned-either logical or legal-examination. Therefore, in practical terms, the inquest-or something tantamount or equivalent to it-has already taken place. On top of that, a review has been carried out in the knowledge of public anxiety by eminent professionals, who have looked specifically at the anxieties that have been raised, either by the memorialists or others. In each case, they have said that the original findings were correct.

I should just make the point that there was one exception: the timing of death was reviewed, because the conclusion was reached that the tables that were used by the pathologist at the time-through no fault of that pathologist-were in fact not accurate. That is a question of the development of medical science. With that exception, nothing calls into question any of the detailed findings or comments that were made originally.

• . . Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat): Does the Attorney-General understand why, given that key witnesses were not called during the Hutton inquiry,

that the inquiry did not have legal standing and that further evidence has come to light since, some-including Dr Stephen Frost-consider that inquiry to have been inadequate? Does the Attorney-General also understand why doubts will remain about the process followed, if not necessarily about the cause of death?

308)

Dominic Grieve (Attorney General; Beaconsfield, Conservative): I am aware that doubts were expressed about the process. I have reviewed the process, but above all I have reviewed the evidential conclusions based on the process and the evidence. The conclusion that I have reached is that the process came to the correct conclusion. On that basis, it seems to me that it achieved what it set out to do and did it properly.

• Full Debate in Parliament

• DEP2011-0946 [Commons 09/06/2011 Attorney General]: Statement on the Review of the cause of death of Dr David Kelly: supporting documents for Attorney General's refusal of inquest. Incl. annexes with evidence, copies of independent reports and responses of Lord Hutton and others. 32 docs.