Document:Medical Challenge to the David Kelly Suicide Verdict

Document Provenance

This page consolidates a series of posts By 'Dr David Halpin FRCS to his website between 2005 and Summer 2011. It concerns his challenge, in company with several medically qualified colleagues, to the verdict of suicide which was reached by the Hutton Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly in July 2005 and which, in lieu of a full legal inquest, has been allowed to stand. It also challenges the legality of the verdict in that it does not satisfy the clear and unambiguous legal requirement for a Coroner's inquest to be held in ALL cases of individual "sudden, unexpected and violent death".

Medical Challenge to the David Kelly Suicide Verdict

I Doubt That Dr David Kelly Committed Suicide

Monday, 14 March 2005

The German word for suicide is more direct than the English: Selbstmord - self-murder.

Did Dr David Kelly - husband, father of three daughters and a leading world expert in chemical and germ warfare - murder himself, or was he murdered by others?

When his violent death was first reported I felt he was likely a victim of a wicked system that had used him and spat him out. I was very sceptical that he could have bled to death from one cut wrist.

At first, the media spoke of 'alleged suicide', but by last November I became aware that reporters were speaking of Dr Kelly's 'suicide' without qualification. Objecting to this, on 15 December I wrote a letter to the Morning Star - key extracts follow: I write to enquire as to the status of the Coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. I hope that it has not been subsumed within the Hutton enquiry.

He had been put through the psychological mincing machine… and it is easy to imagine his sense of failure as well as betrayal in both directions. We have been told that he died from a cut wrist and that he had non-lethal levels of an analgesic in his blood.

As a past trauma and orthopaedic surgeon I cannot easily accept that even the deepest cut into one wrist would cause such exsanguination that death resulted. The two arteries are of matchstick size and would have quickly shut down and clotted. Furthermore we have a man who was expert in lethal substances and who apparently chose a most uncertain method of suicide.

I then joined a group of two doctors and two lay people who had been studying Dr Kelly's death from the start. One doctor is a retired anaesthesiologist of some academic distinction, Dr Searle Sennett FFARCS; the other, Dr Stephen Frost MB ChB BSc, is a diagnostic radiologist. Rowena Thursby has acted as writer, editor and liaison officer and Garrett Cooke is a computer consultant. None of us have met but we have spoken on the phone and exchanged dozens of e-mails. All letters/publications have been the result of meticulous study.

Martin Birnstingl MS FRCS, retired vascular surgeon, Dr Andrew Rouse, consultant in public health, and Dr Peter Fletcher, pathologist have recently joined us.

The group has most recently expressed its doubt about Dr Kelly's 'suicide' in the Guardian. Other articles appeared last month in the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. On 21 January we sent an eleven-page letter to coroner, Nicholas Gardiner. Here we set out the medical/scientific reasons why we could not accept a suicide verdict without a proper inquest, where witnesses can be subpoenaed and evidence given on oath before a jury. Our main point was the clean division of one small artery in this man's left wrist (the ulnar artery) could not have caused such bleeding that death resulted. An adult needs to lose about 5 pints of blood to die. This little artery would have drawn back from the wound, constricted and then clotted off. To lose even a pint of blood in this way would have been unlikely. Very disturbing inconsistencies in the evidence regarding how the corpse was positioned and who was present at the death scene were also highlighted for the coroner in our letter.

Lord Hutton reported two weeks ago and his verdict was (predictably, in view of the unchallenged pathology and toxicology reports) - suicide.

His reasoning:

• Firstly - bleeding from multiple small cuts or scratches to the left wrist. To this I say that the multiplicity has no bearing; only one small artery was divided.
• Secondly - overdose of co-proxamol. But I note that the toxicologist found that the levels of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene were a third or less than the levels which he knew to be toxic.
• Thirdly - 'silent coronary disease'. However, Dr Kelly is bound to have had such disease, in common with all men of the same age. No evidence was produced by the pathologist, Dr Nicholas Hunt, that he had suffered a 'coronary'. Lord Hutton might as well have included the presence of the common cold and an in-growing toenail as further contributors to death.

Dr David Kelly was treated shamefully by some of those in or on the fringes of government. The least that should happen for this man and his family is for the inquest to be re-opened, a jury called and the most rigorous cross-examination then be carried out.

Due process and the Kelly inquest

Saturday, 30 April 2005

Further to John Pilger (25 April) , mistrust in the present government is not exclusively owing to the lies, distortions and distractions surrounding the Iraq WMD claims and the legal advice. Government deceit extends also to the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly. Why did Lord Falconer choose a method of inquiry which was specifically designed to be invoked for multiple deaths, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiry, as in a rail disaster? Kelly's death was a solitary unnatural death, requiring rigorous investigation at a coroner's inquest.

Lord Hutton judged that Kelly had committed suicide. There is a statutory legal requirement, pertaining to the investigation of "sudden, unexpected, and violent" deaths, that, before a verdict of suicide can be returned, suicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Intent to commit suicide must also be proven, again beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard of proof. Lord Hutton was not equipped to attain it. He lacked the necessary statutory powers: to subpoena witnesses, to hear evidence under oath, to call a jury and to have witnesses cross-examined. These are all available to the coroner. The public was encouraged to believe that the replacement of the coroner's inquest by the Hutton inquiry would lead to Kelly's death being more thoroughly investigated. The exact opposite was the truth. Falconer, Hutton and the coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, may protest all they like. Due process has not been followed in the investigation of one of the most important unnatural deaths to occur here in our lifetimes.

As medical specialists, we stated our view, in letters published by the Guardian in 2004, that it is highly improbable that Dr Kelly could have died by the method claimed by Lord Hutton. The serious and legitimate questions we raised remain unanswered, and there have been no demands from the media, MPs or others that they be answered. Why not?

Statement on the Refusal by the Attorney General of Our Plea

Tuesday, 07 June 2011

Dr Kelly's death, whether caused by his hand or by someone else, was all about the 'war' on Iraq.

Our plea for a second inquest, based on a mountain of incontrovertible evidence, has been refused by the Rt Honorable Dominic Grieve QC, this government's foremost law officer.

He voted 'very strongly' for the 'war' on Iraq – Public Whip

It is abundantly clear, given the obvious conflict of interest, that he should have disqualified himself from judging this plea on legal, constitutional and moral grounds.

"We will persist and truth will out. Our great country is mired in mendacity. Its people yearn for the triumph of principle."

Press Release - The Attorney General Rufuses to Facilitate a New Inquest

Thursday, 09 June 2011

The Attorney General, The Right Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP, refuses to facilitate a new inquest into the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly 17/18 July 2003.

We doctors are perplexed and outraged that the Attorney General has refused our plea for the High Court to be asked to quash the inquest that was concluded by the Oxfordshire Coroner and for a fresh and complete inquest to follow.

A Memorial was drawn up by Dr Stephen Frost, the lead doctor, and by Leigh Day & Co. These 34 pages of evidence and explanation were given to the Attorney General in September 2010. The central thrust was that there was an 'insufficiency of inquiry' into the unnatural death of Dr Kelly at the Hutton inquiry. The evidence is compelling and provides all six reasons under Section 13 A of the 1988 Coroner's act for the quashing when only one reason is sufficient. Furthermore, the test is generous; it is only necessary for the court to accept that the verdict of a new inquest might be different and not that it would be different to allow our plea. It is both necessary and desirable that a fresh inquest be held in the interests of justice.

An Addendum of 15 pages was provided 28 February for the Attorney General at the request of Mr Kevin McGinty, senior lawyer in that office. This gave ample, additional evidence and showed very serious omissions which raised some questions as to the honesty of some witnesses.

It is to be noted that Mr Dominic Grieve replied thus to the barrister representing our case, Dr Michael Powers QC BSc (Hons) MB BS (London) DA (RCS), FFFLM, LLD (Hon) on 16 March 2010.

“I am aware of the work of the doctors' group on challenging Lord Hutton's findings. It seems to me that they have been able to make an impressive and cogent case. In the absence of being in Government, it is impossible to make judgment on the reasons for withholding medical and scientific evidence. However , this is something I would review if in Government as I am conscious this is a matter where the public have not been reassured that the Hutton Inquiry satisfactorily resolved the matter.”

We have spent many thousands of hours on this case. Our interest in it comes neither from obsession nor prurience. Instead we insist on the due process of the law being upheld. That is, every unnatural death must be brought to a coroner's inquest. Instead, in this case, the abbreviated and slipshod inquiry within the Hutton inquiry was thrust upon Mr Nicholas Gardiner, the Oxfordshire coroner. Dr Michael Powers QC has calculated that only half of one day was given over in Hutton to the forensic evidence compared with 23 days of other evidence.

To put it simply, why has Dr Kelly's death, uniquely, not been the subject of a proper inquest?

We have had good support from both expert and lay fellow citizens. We know from personal correspondence and comment columns that there are many in this country who demand an inquest as alluded to by Mr Grieve above.

We will take stock with Leigh Day & Co and Dr Michael Powers QC. These matters are of such juridical and constitutional importance that the campaign will continue unabated. We will be looking for help from the public. We thank Leigh Day and Dr Michael Powers for their very hard work, knowledge and time, all of which have been given without charge.

• Dr Michael Powers QC Chambers 0845 0833000 01823 442671 M 07803 721100
• Leigh Day & Co Frances Swaine and Merry Varney 020 7650 1200
• Mr David Halpin 01364 661115 M 07980 588525 david@infoaction.org.uk
• Dr Stephen Frost 01492 532352 M 07825 799275 stephen.frost@btinternet.com
• Dr Chris Burns-Cox 01453 842243 Dr Andrew Rouse 0121 4540745

Our good colleague, Mr Martin Birnstingl FRCS, has been with us for these eight years. He died recently. We remember him with respect and affection.