Sunday, 23 January 2011

The Memorial

Something I don't think I've done as yet is to provide a link to The Memorial - the mighty document presented to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the group of concerned doctors detailing an unanswerable case for an inquest into Dr Kelly's death.  As I'm not a legal eagle the term "Memorial" was a new one to me but please do read it - it is powerful stuff!  It was presented to Mr Grieve last September and put into the public domain towards the end of December.  I had seen it originally as a series of scanned images of the individual pages which required a certain amount of navigation but now here it is as a PDF file with good size print - very user friendly:

Since writing the first paragraph I have had something of a memory recall and in fact find that I did provide a link in another post, this displayed the Memorial as separate pages as I described above.  The post with that particular link is here:  Maybe it was because the earlier format was not user friendly (for me) that made me forget it for a moment.  Anyway you now have a choice!

Some background can be found here:


  1. Having just read the start of the memorial, it seems that by Nick Gardiner opening the Inquest on Monday 21st before Mr Hunt's final conclusions were available, it allowed the Inquest to be adjourned (and the Hutton Inquiry take over). The question then becomes why Gardiner had to open the inquest on that Monday, especially when all the information was available on the 21st and Mr Hunt's re-written report (with not much extra in it) was just around the corner. No wonder that Hutton could only refer to the 19th July preliminary report by Hunt. Crafty.

  2. Brian, I hope this wasn't the final document sent to Dominic Grieve. It is an excellent piece of work, but there are some glaring typographical errors in it.

    page 3 line 3 do they mean the Kelly family?

    page 7 para 11 - coroner , not refused.

    page 16 para 31 does not make sense. was for whilst. It is obviously another construct that Lord Hutton should have retired just before reporting.

    Page 22 line 2 - there is a to missing.

    Just a couple more comments:

    page 24 para 27- the word astonishingly is extraordinary and I think well chosen.
    So, it seems reasonable to assume that the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was created specifically for the (impending) death of Dr Kelly ,the Hutton Inquiry and its aftermath.

  3. Clearly the delay in holding an inquest is a political matter not a legal one. The Memorial makes crystal clear why an application should go to the High Court.

    The Attorney General could have sent an application to the High Court months ago, for them to look at the evidence and decide if an inquest should take place but Mr Grieve has decided not to do that.

    Instead Mr Grieve has decided to do the High Court's job for them. Mr Grieve is trawling through the evidence with the assistance of medical and legal experts in a blatant display of prejudging the High Court’s response to any potential application.

    I've explained to the Attorney General that it's not his job to balance the evidence, all he has to do is endorse an application going to the High Court and let them get on with their job; Mr Grieve remains undeterred.

    The Memorial sets out the legal case for an application going before the High Court, Mr Grieve is still working out the political case as to why this might not happen.

  4. PS My proofreader has suggested I mean page 14 para 27 for the use of the word Astonishing.

  5. LancashireLad,

    I agree with you that the case that the Attorney General should apply to the High Court is compelling.

    The delay isn't necessarily "political" as you suggest.

    For example, in a recent post, The death of David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder I quote a communication I sent to the Attorney General.

    In that communication I drew to the Attorney General's attention new evidence arising from the postmortem report suggesting that the death of David Kelly was murder. Neither the Attorney General nor his legal colleagues are qualified to consider that evidence (beyond a certain point) so they quite rightly chose to seek expert help.

    I know that I am not the only person who has written to the Attorney General. As he receives additional information it seems to me almost inevitable that delays will follow.

    If Dominic Grieve decides to go to the High Court he will need to be able to handle any of a multiplicity of awkward questions from a potentially very excited media. He will want to have all his ducks in a row before making any announcement in my view.

  6. Andrew

    I agree with you the available evidence suggests Dr Kelly was, indeed, murdered and whilst this is a terrible crime it pales not quite into insignificance against the enormity and ramifications of an exposed cover up.

    If it was murder; politicians, police and civil servants conspired to pervert the course of justice in a despicable display of contempt for the law.

    Does the Attorney General want to put people in the dock for following orders and bring about an unparalleled loss of public confidence in our political and legal systems?

    This is what I mean by the delay being more political than legal. The legal implications are easily dealt with; the political outcome from an inquest could be devastating for individuals and administrative institutions.