Difference between revisions of "File:DrFrostMemorial.pdf"

A challenge to the Hutton Inquiry's report by a team of doctors demanding a full inquest in light of new evidence.

 report  by Stephen Frost, David Halpin, Christopher Burns-Cox, Martin Birnstingl, Andrew Rouse dated 2010-09-14

---

Subjects: David Kelly/Death, Hutton Inquiry
Source: Unknown


Author's Note

---

The author was acting as lead representative of a group of four other eminent doctors: Dr David Halpin; Dr Christopher Burns-Cox; Dr Martin Birnstingl; and Dr Andrew Rouse.

★ Start a Discussion about this document

Central premise:

1. a failure to pursue available lines of inquiry at the inquiry and the existence now of new evidence means that a full inquest is “necessary or desirable in the interests of justice”;
2. the non-statutory Hutton Inquiry established by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and commended to the Coroner by the Lord Chancellor (in reality, the same person) as an adequate means to satisfy the requirements of a Coronial inquest under s17A Coroners Act 1988 was not in fact an adequate inquiry;
3. the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry, which were accepted by the Coroner without a substantive hearing, were not the result of a “full, frank and fearless” investigation. Had the inquiry been so, much of the evidence now available could have been put before and taken into consideration by Lord Hutton...