Dr. David Kelly - Attorney General concealing information that a senior policeman lied at the Hutton Inquiry

The request was partially successful.

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

This is a Freedom of Information Request.

First, I show that there is a serious purpose to the questions I ask. I believe that this Request is not "vexatious" in the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Wikely judgement is, I believe, relevant.

Briefly, my concern is that the Attorney General failed to disclose to the House of Commons or the public on 9th June 2011 that he had been informed that a senior Thames Valley Police officer had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

It was largely on the basis of that same officer's evidence that Lord Hutton reached his conclusion that no third party was present at Harrowdown Hill.

The "suicide" conclusion by Lord Hutton is founded in significant measure on the supposed exclusion of the presence of a third party.

The untrue evidence by the Police officer on one point casts doubt on ALL his evidence. See Lord Lane's judgement on the Guildford Four to appreciate the potential importance of a Police officer lying in evidence.

I have asked a Freedom of Information Request on a similar topic previously. In my view the Attorney General's Office failed to give a full and honest reply. Hence my being forced to ask again.

1. Is it correct that the Attorney General's Office received correspondence to the effect that former Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry regarding fingerprint evidence at the surgery of Dr. Kelly's dentist?

2. On what date did the Attorney General's Office receive that correspondence?

3. On what date was that piece of correspondence shown to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP?

4. On what date was that piece of correspondence shown to the then Solicitor General, (now Sir) Edward Garnier QC MP?

5. What steps did Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier take to establish whether or not the claim that former ACC Page had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry was correct?

6. I ask for copies of all internal and external documentation relating to Question 5. If no investigation of the matter took place, please state that clearly.

7. Is it correct that Dominic Grieve QC MP did not disclose to the House of Commons that the former ACC Page had been alleged not to have given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry? If the AGO believes that he did disclose the matter, please draw my attention to the disclosure in Hansard or in Mr. Grieve's written statement.

8. Whose decision was it not to disclose to the House of Commons this serious doubt about the integrity of Police evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

9. On what date, if any, was the material relating to ACC Page's alleged untrue evidence shown to external, independent counsel? If counsel was shown this material, I ask for a copy of all correspondence relating to that matter.

10. I ask for all documentation relating to the internal consideration inside the Attorney General's Office of the allegation that ACC Page had given untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

11. On what date was the decision made that the Attorney General would make a statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 2011?

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

In the absence of an acknowledgement from the AGO I wish to append the following questions to my Freedom of Information Request made earlier today.

12. On what date was a submission of the nature of Mr. Wooler's submission to the Attorney General here: ( http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/r... ) made with respect to the Second Section 13 application re Dr. Kelly's death?

13. Did that submission contain information about the allegation about the former ACC Page giving untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

14. If not, was a supplementary submission made to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Garnier drawing their attention to the evidence that the former ACC Page gave untrue evidence to the Hutton Inquiry?

If you refuse to accept these supplementary questions as part of my Freedom of Informaton Request sent earlier today please inform me of that by return. In that event I will submit a new FOIR.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

(Dr) Andrew Watt

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Dr Watt

Thank you for your emails to the Attorney General's Office making various requests under the Freedom of Information Act on the death of Dr David Kelly.

We are currently considering your request and will reply to you within twenty working days.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

3 Attachments

Dear Dr Watt

Please find attached a copy of our response to your recent Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Dear Dr Watt

The similarities between the Dr Kelly Inquiry and the conviction of Dobson and Norris for killing Stephen Lawrence are possibly just emerging.

Obviously both procedures relied on forensics scientist Roy Green.

But both seem to feature police evidence that brings Green into exclusive conclusion play.

In the Lawrence case there is an obvious question, "Could blood spatter have occurred at an earlier fight ? What evidence is there to isolate spatter to the murder scene ?"

The presence of other people concealed (Kelly) the evidence for earlier fights, if Met Police had it, was not disclosed (Lawrence).

There was information to the murder inquiry processed through the property arm of a high street building society. It was sourced from the former Richardson crime family and it was about a drugs turf struggle, drugs pushing at school gates and fights on the estate. I don't think prosecution disclosed this.

I now know that there was other evidence about a fight at that very same bus stop.

Was Lawrence involved ? Had police visited his home when he was a juvenile ?

Kent Police conducted independent Lawrence Inquiry and yet no one is asking how it was they failed to pick up corruption that has been exposed now by Leveson Inquiry and Mark Ellison QC review.

It is a fact that Kent Police conducted Lawrence Inquiry while refusing to comply with inquiry called for by their own police authority.

From your perspective this yields questions about why they nil actioned calls for inquiry

(1) Mercenaries attacking Mandela regime .. Desmond Tutu Commission of Inquiry 1994. Were they prepared in East Kent ?

(2) Middle Easterners training with uzis at a Thanet Gun Range 1990s and reasons Kent nil actioned this and later did not report this to Scotland Yard post 9 11 inquiry re Yetgoch and Mark Yates. Reasons Straw suppressed the Kent Police Authority call for inquiry March 99 two years before 9 11?

(3) Thor Chemicals Margate. Alan Kidger murder. Unidentified military style landrovers making flying visits to the factory at night.

(4) A Thanet murder case of a man involved in a diamond import scam from South Africa.

(5) Wouter Basson Special Training Services Ltd and the odd James Shortt (By the way was he source of moonlight bodyguard work to Det sgt John Davidson of Lawrence Inquiry for which Davidson was disciplined 1995 ? and did Shortt's colleague work for the PI company that allegedly had Davidson on wages for supplying police information to Murdoch press)

In the Norris and Dobson conviction Roy Green's team could not be second guessed as they destroyed the DNA sample in their testing. Oh dear.

You may know that Mark Yates (Post 9 11 inquiry Yetgoch) had previously 1990s been with Shortt's International Bodyguard Assn ?

And Shortt reputedly worked for Clifford Norris associate Charlie Kray.

Heck of a lot Kent Police didn't investigate in their Lawrence Inquiry. That is the problem with ubiquitous people Kent Plod. If you don't want to investigate them for paramilitary training activity in Kent Six years pre 9 11) you pretty much cannot investigate them for anything else !

Kind regards Richard