Hearing Transcripts

1
1 Friday, 1st August 2003
2 (11.00 am)
3 Opening Statement by LORD HUTTON
4 LORD HUTTON: This Inquiry relates to a very tragic death.
5 Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I think it would be
6 fitting if we stood for a minute's silence in memory of
7 Dr Kelly.
8 As is generally known, I have been invited by
9 Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional
10 Affairs, to inquire into the death of Dr David Kelly.
11 My terms of reference are these:
12 "Urgently to conduct an investigation into the
13 circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly."
14 Lord Falconer has requested me to deliver my report
15 to him.
16 At the commencement of the Inquiry I wish to state
17 the objectives which it should seek to achieve.
18 First of all, my primary task is to investigate the
19 circumstances surrounding the death and that will
20 involve a detailed and careful examination of the
21 relevant facts.
22 Secondly, my terms of reference require me to
23 conduct the investigation urgently, and that means
24 I must proceed with expedition, and I have no doubt that
25 it is in the public interest that I should do so.

2
1 Thirdly, I must ensure that the procedures at
2 the Inquiry are fair to those who give evidence. It is
3 apparent that there could be some degree of tension
4 between these objectives, but they are not inconsistent
5 with each other, particularly when it is borne in mind
6 that, as was stated in a well known case in the Court of
7 Appeal:
8 "In the application of the concept of fair play,
9 there must be real flexibility, so that very different
10 situations may be met without producing procedures
11 unsuitable to the object in hand."
12 It is also important that I should emphasise that
13 this is an Inquiry to be conducted by me -- it is not
14 a trial conducted between interested parties who have
15 conflicting cases to advance. I do not sit to decide
16 between conflicting cases -- I sit to investigate the
17 circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death.
18 I would wish to adopt what was said by
19 Lord Justice Scarman, as he then was, at the start of
20 the Inquiry which he conducted in 1974 into the Red Lion
21 Square disorders. He said:
22 "This Inquiry is to be conducted -- and I stress
23 it -- by myself. This means that all the decisions have
24 to be taken by me. Let me indicate now, so that there
25 need to be no misunderstanding, what are the

3
1 implications of what I have just said. First of all, it
2 is I, and I alone, who will decide what witnesses will
3 be called. I also decide to what matters their evidence
4 will be directed. There is, in an Inquiry of this sort,
5 no legal right to cross-examination -- but I propose
6 within limits to allow cross-examination to the extent
7 that I think it helpful to the forwarding of the Inquiry
8 but no further."
9 I would also add that it will be for me to decide
10 the order in which the witnesses will be called.
11 I now turn to the course which I propose to follow.
12 At my request I have been sent a considerable quantity
13 of documents by the BBC, the Ministry of Defence and the
14 Cabinet Office and I have also been given information by
15 Dr Kelly's widow when I met her at her home on the
16 morning of Saturday 26th July. It is probable that more
17 documents will be sent to me in the next few days. From
18 the documents and the information given to me, the
19 following outline of events can be seen and I now state
20 that outline in very general terms without, at this
21 stage, attempting a comprehensive account or any degree
22 of precision. Many of the matters have already been
23 reported in the media.
24 1. Dr Kelly was a scientist who was an expert in
25 chemical and biological warfare and was employed by the

4
1 Government to advise it on weapons in such warfare.
2 2. On 24th September 2002 the Government issued
3 a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which
4 included a statement that Saddam Hussein's military
5 planning allowed for some of those weapons to be ready
6 within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
7 3. On 7th May 2003 Ms Susan Watts, the science
8 editor of BBC Newsnight, had a telephone conversation
9 with Dr Kelly in the course of which they discussed the
10 45 minutes reference in the September dossier.
11 4. On 22nd May 2003 Dr Kelly had a meeting with the
12 BBC reporter, Mr Andrew Gilligan.
13 5. On 29th May Mr Gilligan told Radio 4's Today
14 programme that he had been told by, and I quote "one of
15 the senior officials in charge of drawing up
16 the September dossier that the Government probably knew
17 that the 45 minute figure was wrong even before it
18 decided to put it in", and that "Downing Street ordered
19 a week before publication, ordered it to be sexed up, to
20 be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be
21 discovered".
22 The source told him that "the dossier, as it was
23 finally published, made the Intelligence Services
24 unhappy because ... there was unhappiness because it did
25 not reflect the considered view they were putting

5
1 forward and essentially the 45 minute point was, was
2 probably the most important thing that was added."
3 6. Later in the Today programme on 29th May
4 Mr Adam Ingram, the Arms Forces Minister, stated that
5 the allegation that a report went to No.10, and it was
6 then sent back to be sexed up a little was not true.
7 Mr Ingram said, "No, it is not true and you know No.10
8 has denied that".
9 7. Some time on 29th May Mr Gavin Hewitt, a BBC
10 reporter, had a telephone conversation with Dr Kelly.
11 8. On BBC Ten O'clock News on 29th May
12 Mr Gavin Hewitt said:
13 "I have spoken to one of those who was consulted on
14 the dossier. Six months' work was apparently involved.
15 But in the final week before publication some material
16 was taken out, some material put in. His judgment, some
17 spin from No.10 did come into play. Even so the
18 intelligence community remains convinced weapons of mass
19 destruction will be found in Iraq. Only then will all
20 the doubts go away."
21 9. On 30th May Ms Watts had a telephone
22 conversation with Dr Kelly in the course of which they
23 discussed the 45 minutes reference in the September
24 dossier.
25 10. On Sunday 1st June Mr Andrew Gilligan wrote an

6
1 article in the Mail on Sunday. In part of the article
2 he wrote:
3 "We had discussed the famous Blair dossier on Iraq's
4 weapons at our previous meetings, a few months before it
5 was published last September. 'It's really not very
6 exciting, you know', he told me. So what, I asked him
7 now, had changed?
8 "'Nothing changed', he said. 'Until the week
9 before, it was just like I told you. It was transformed
10 the week before publication, to make it sexier.'.
11 "'What do you mean? Can I take notes?'
12 "'The classic', he said 'was the statement that WMD
13 were ready for use in 45 minutes. One source said it
14 took 45 minutes to launch a missile and that was
15 misinterpreted to mean that WMD could be deployed in
16 45 minutes. There was no evidence that they had loaded
17 conventional missiles with WMD, or could do so anything
18 like that quickly.'
19 "I asked him how this transformation happened. The
20 answer was a single word. 'Campbell'.
21 "What? Campbell made it up? 'No, it was real
22 information. But it was included against our wishes
23 because it was not reliable.'"
24 11. On BBC Newsnight on 2nd June Ms Watts reported
25 that they had spoken to a senior official intimately

7
1 involved with the process of pulling together the
2 original September 2002 Blair weapons dossier. The
3 source had told her:
4 "It was a statement that was made and it just got
5 out of all proportion. They were desperate for
6 information, they were pushing hard for information that
7 could be released. That was one that popped up and it
8 was seized on, and it is unfortunate that it was. That
9 is why there is the argument between the Intelligence
10 Services and Cabinet Office, No.10, because they picked
11 up on it, and once they had picked up on it you cannot
12 pull it back from them."
13 12. On 4th June Ms Watts reported on Newsnight:
14 "Our source was not disputed that the 45 minute
15 assessment was included in the dossier by the
16 Intelligence Services although he did say he felt that
17 to have been a mistake. His point was that the emphasis
18 placed on that element of the intelligence in the
19 foreword to the dossier went too far. He felt this
20 emphasis turned a possible capability into an imminent
21 threat and a critical part of the Government's case for
22 war. Our source cannot be described as a rogue element.
23 On the contrary, he is exceptionally well placed to
24 judge the prevailing mood as the dossier of September
25 last year was put together."

8
1 13. On 19th June Mr Gilligan gave evidence in
2 relation to his claims to the Foreign Affairs Select
3 Committee of the House of Commons.
4 14. On 25th June Mr Alastair Campbell in his
5 evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the
6 House of Commons denied Mr Gilligan's claims.
7 15. On 30th June Dr Kelly wrote a letter to his
8 line manager in the Ministry of Defence. In the course
9 of the letter he stated:
10 "I met with Gilligan in London on May 22nd for
11 45 minutes in the evening to privately discuss his Iraq
12 experiences and definitely not to discuss the dossier."
13 A little later in the letter he stated that the
14 issue of 45 minutes arose in the course of the
15 discussion and he stated:
16 "I did not even consider that I was the 'source' of
17 Gilligan's information until a friend in RUSI said that
18 I should look at the 'Oral evidence provided to the
19 Foreign Affairs Committee' on 19th June because she
20 recognised that some comments were the sort that I would
21 make about Iraq's chemical and biological capacity. The
22 description of that meeting in small part matches my
23 interaction with him, especially my personal evaluation
24 of Iraq's capability, but the overall character is quite
25 different. I can only conclude one of three things.

9
1 Gilligan has considerably embellished my meeting with
2 him; he has met with other individuals who truly were
3 intimately associated with the dossier; or he has
4 assembled comments from both multiple direct and
5 indirect sources for his articles."
6 16. I have been provided with a large quantity of
7 material by the Government which shows that after
8 Dr Kelly's letter of 30th June detailed discussions took
9 place between officials and Ministers in the Ministry of
10 Defence and in other departments of Government in
11 relation to his acknowledgment that he had had a meeting
12 with Mr Gilligan. As I state later, I intend to hear
13 detailed evidence in relation to those discussions. In
14 addition, on 4th July and 7th July Dr Kelly was
15 interviewed by the Personnel Director of the Ministry of
16 Defence and by his line manager.
17 17. On 8th July Mr Geoff Hoon MP, the Secretary of
18 State for Defence, wrote to Mr Gavyn Davies, the
19 chairman of the board of governors of the BBC, enclosing
20 a statement which the Ministry of Defence were going to
21 issue that day stating that an individual working in the
22 Ministry of Defence had come forward to volunteer that
23 he had met Mr Gilligan on 22nd May. The letter then
24 stated:
25 "You will see that we have not named the official

10
1 within the MOD who has come forward. We would, however,
2 be prepared to disclose his name to you in confidence,
3 on the basis that you would then immediately confirm or
4 deny that this is indeed Mr Gilligan's source, in the
5 interests of resolving what has become a management
6 problem for both our organisations.
7 "I am sure you will understand that this is not the
8 same as divulging a source since the individual has come
9 forward."
10 18. Later on 8th July the Ministry of Defence
11 issued a statement that an individual working in the
12 Ministry of Defence had come forward to volunteer that
13 he had met Mr Gilligan on 22nd May.
14 19. Later on 8th July Mr Davies wrote to Mr Hoon
15 stating:
16 "I have to stay that the offer in your letter seems
17 to be an attempt to force the BBC news division to
18 reveal the name or names of the source or sources used
19 by Andrew Gilligan on Today and Susan Watts on
20 Newsnight. You will recognise that it is a cardinal
21 principle of good journalism that sources should never
22 be revealed, no matter how intense the pressure may be.
23 As chairman of the BBC, I support this principle.
24 "In line with this principle, I do not myself know
25 the identity of the source or sources mentioned above,

11
1 so I am unable to accept your offer of confirming
2 whether their name or names match the person who has
3 come forward at the Ministry of Defence."
4 20. On 9th July Dr Kelly's name came out into the
5 public domain and became known to many journalists. It
6 is my intention to hear evidence as to how and why this
7 came about.
8 21. On 9th July the Personnel Director of the
9 Ministry of Defence wrote to Dr Kelly stating that he
10 had concluded that although his behaviour had fallen
11 well short of the standard that he would have expected
12 from a civil servant of his standing and experience, it
13 would not be appropriate to initiate formal disciplinary
14 proceedings.
15 22. On 9th July Mr Geoff Hoon wrote to Mr Davies
16 stating:
17 "This is not about the divulging of sources.
18 "So that you can establish whether the name of the
19 person who has come forward is the same as the name
20 given to BBC management by Andrew Gilligan, I am now
21 prepared to tell you that his name is David Kelly,
22 adviser to the Proliferation and Arms Control
23 Secretariat in the MOD.
24 "I trust that the BBC internal inquiry into
25 Mr Gilligan's dealings with the MOD press office will be

12
1 broadened to include this matter."
2 23. On the evening of 9th July Dr Kelly rang his
3 line manager in the Ministry of Defence to say that he
4 was travelling to the West Country.
5 24. On 10th July a number of newspapers stated that
6 Dr Kelly was the official behind Mr Gilligan's story.
7 25. On 10th July Dr Kelly telephoned his line
8 manager in the Ministry of Defence to say that he was in
9 Weston-Super-Mare and was travelling into Cornwall.
10 26. On 10th July Mr Davies replied to Mr Hoon's
11 letter and stated:
12 "I have discussed the matter with Greg Dyke as
13 editor-in-chief. Although I did not originally show him
14 the name contained in your letter, I am sure he will now
15 have seen the name in most of this morning's newspapers.
16 "The BBC will not be making any more comments about,
17 or responding to any claims concerning the identity of
18 Andrew Gilligan's source for his story on the Today
19 programme on 29th May, or the identity of Susan Watts'
20 source for her story on Newsnight on 2nd June."
21 27. On 10th July the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs
22 Select Committee of the House of Commons wrote to
23 Dr Kelly stating that the Committee wished to hear oral
24 evidence from him in public at 3 pm on Tuesday 15th July
25 to answer questions directly relevant to the Committee's

13
1 report published earlier that week, arising from the
2 Ministry of Defence statement of 9th July.
3 28. On 10th July the chairman of that Committee,
4 Mr Donald Anderson MP, wrote to Mr Hoon informing him
5 that the Clerk was writing to Dr Kelly inviting him to
6 appear before the Committee to give oral evidence in
7 public on Tuesday 15th July.
8 29. On 10th July the Clerk to the Intelligence and
9 Security Committee conveyed orally to the Ministry of
10 Defence a request that Dr Kelly should give evidence
11 before that Committee also on 15th July.
12 30. On 10th July Dr Kelly confirmed that he would
13 be prepared to appear before both Committees.
14 31. Some time between 10th and 14th July Dr Kelly
15 returned from Cornwall and stayed with one of his
16 daughters in Oxford.
17 32. On 15th July Dr Kelly arrived in London to give
18 evidence before the Intelligence and Security Committee
19 on that morning but the Ministry of Defence was informed
20 that his session before that Committee was postponed.
21 33. On the afternoon of 15th July Dr Kelly gave
22 evidence, which was televised before the Foreign Affairs
23 Committee.
24 34. On 16th July Dr Kelly gave evidence in
25 a private session to the Intelligence and Security

14
1 Committee. Dr Kelly then returned to his home in
2 Oxfordshire.
3 35. On the afternoon of 17th July Dr Kelly left his
4 home, telling his wife that he was going out for a walk
5 but he did not return.
6 36. On 18th July at 9.20 am a police search team
7 found the body of a male person at Harrowdown Hill,
8 a few miles away from Dr Kelly's home. The body was
9 formally identified as the body of Dr Kelly on the next
10 morning.
11 37. A post-mortem examination was carried out by
12 Dr Nicholas Hunt, a Home Office accredited forensic
13 pathologist and his post-mortem report dated 19th July
14 has been sent to me by the coroner. A toxicology report
15 has also been sent to me by the coroner. The
16 post-mortem report will be referred to in greater detail
17 at a later stage in this Inquiry. However, it is
18 relevant to state at this stage that it is the opinion
19 of Dr Hunt that the main factor involved in bringing
20 about the death of Dr Kelly was the bleeding from
21 incised wounds to his left wrist. Dr Hunt also states:
22 "The fact that the watch appears to have been
23 removed whilst blood was already flowing suggests that
24 it has been removed deliberately in order to facilitate
25 access to the wrist. The removal of the watch in this

15
1 way and indeed the removal of the spectacles are
2 features pointing towards this being an act of self
3 harm."
4 Dr Hunt also states:
5 "It is noted that [Dr Kelly] has a significant
6 degree of coronary artery disease and this may have
7 played some small part in the rapidity of death but not
8 the major part in the cause of death."
9 The report also states that four electrocardiogram
10 electrode pads were found on his chest, two over each
11 side of the upper chest area and two over each side of
12 the lower chest area.
13 38. On 20th July the BBC stated that Dr Kelly was
14 its main source of its report that Downing Street had
15 "sexed up" the dossier.
16 It is clearly important that I and the public should
17 have a very much more detailed and fuller picture of the
18 facts than the outline which I have just given.
19 Therefore the first task in this Inquiry will be to
20 flesh out that outline. This is what will be done at
21 the next stage of the Inquiry and I propose to sit again
22 on Monday 11th August. It is not my present intention
23 that Mr Dingemans QC, the Senior Counsel to the Inquiry,
24 should make an opening statement but I intend
25 straightaway to invite witnesses to give evidence in

16
1 chronological order as to the sequence of events insofar
2 as that is possible. I have no power to swear witnesses
3 and the witnesses will not be sworn. I propose to ask
4 first a witness from a Government department to give
5 evidence of Dr Kelly's expertise in chemical and
6 biological warfare and of his employment in the
7 Government and of his knowledge of the September dossier
8 and of any part which he played in the preparation of
9 that dossier. When I say "I propose to ask" or "I will
10 ask" I mean that Counsel to the Inquiry will put the
11 question to the witness on my behalf. I will then ask
12 Mr Andrew Gilligan to describe:
13 (i) his meeting with Dr Kelly on 22nd May 2003 and
14 any earlier meetings and discussions which he had had
15 with Dr Kelly;
16 (ii) how his report on the BBC Today programme on
17 29th May was prepared and broadcast;
18 (iii) the nature of the editorial supervision in
19 respect of that broadcast;
20 (iv) whether the Government was given any prior
21 notice of the report and of its contents;
22 (v) the publication of his article in the Mail on
23 Sunday on 1st June.
24 I will also ask Ms Susan Watts and Mr Gavin Hewitt
25 to deal with similar matters in respect of their

17
1 meetings and conversations with Dr Kelly and their radio
2 and television reports. I will then ask a witness or
3 witnesses from the BBC to give the reasons why the BBC
4 declined to say that Dr Kelly was the source or a source
5 of those reports until after his death.
6 I will then ask witnesses from the Ministry of
7 Defence and other Government departments (both officials
8 and the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and
9 Strategy, Mr Alastair Campbell, and Ministers) to give
10 details of:
11 (i) The discussions which took place between
12 Dr Kelly and other officials in the Ministry of Defence
13 or any other officials or persons in or connected with
14 the Government from the time when Dr Kelly told the
15 Ministry of Defence that he had had a meeting with
16 Mr Gilligan on 22nd May.
17 (ii) The discussions which took place between
18 officials in the Ministry of Defence and any other
19 persons in the Government relating to Dr Kelly and the
20 meeting he had had with Mr Gilligan and between
21 officials and Ministers and ministerial advisers.
22 I will also wish to see produced at the Inquiry copies
23 of the letters, memoranda, reports and other documents
24 which passed between the Ministry of Defence and other
25 Government officials and minutes of meetings which in

18
1 any way related to Dr Kelly.
2 (iii) The circumstances in which Dr Kelly's name
3 became known to the press and media and the decisions
4 taken within Government in relation to that matter.
5 (iv) How and why the decision was taken within
6 Government that Dr Kelly should give evidence to the
7 Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons
8 and to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the
9 arrangements which were made within the Ministry of
10 Defence for his appearance before those Committees and
11 any arrangements which were made for his health and
12 well-being.
13 At some stage in the course of the Inquiry I propose
14 to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for
15 Defence, Mr Geoff Hoon, to give evidence of their
16 knowledge of the discussions which took place and the
17 decisions which were taken in relation to Dr Kelly.
18 At some stage in the course of the Inquiry I also
19 propose to ask Mr Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the
20 board of governors of the BBC, to give evidence in
21 relation to his correspondence with Mr Hoon.
22 I propose to ask Mr Donald Anderson MP, the chairman
23 of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of
24 Commons, and Mrs Ann Taylor MP, the chairman of the
25 Intelligence and Security Committee, how Dr Kelly came

19
1 to give evidence before those Committees. Mr Anderson
2 has written to me to say that he is anxious to cooperate
3 with me as closely as possible. From a letter which
4 I have received from the Clerk to the House of Commons
5 in a reply to a letter from me, it appears that the
6 hearing of evidence by me relating to the proceedings of
7 the two Committees would not constitute a breach of the
8 privileges of Parliament, although this is subject to
9 any submissions which I may hear from counsel.
10 I also propose to ask members of the press and media
11 to give evidence as to how the name of Dr Kelly came
12 into the public domain and to describe discussions or
13 interviews which they had with him about the time when
14 his name became known.
15 Mrs Kelly, Dr Kelly's widow, has told me that she is
16 willing to give evidence to the Inquiry. I am most
17 grateful to her for agreeing to do this, and I will ask
18 her to give her evidence at some stage in the Inquiry.
19 I may also ask one or more of Dr Kelly's daughters to
20 give evidence.
21 I will ask the Thames Valley Police to give evidence
22 of the finding of Dr Kelly's body and of the steps which
23 they took thereafter.
24 I propose to call medical evidence to deal with the
25 state of Dr Kelly's physical health and to explain why

20
1 he had electrocardiogram electrode pads on his chest
2 when his body was discovered.
3 I also propose to call a psychiatrist to state his
4 opinion, insofar as it may be possible to do so, as to
5 Dr Kelly's state of mind at the time of his death.
6 I may also call friends and colleagues of Dr Kelly
7 who may be able to give relevant evidence as to his
8 state of mind.
9 I may also call a member of the Baha'i faith to
10 explain the beliefs of that faith and how they may have
11 influenced Dr Kelly.
12 What I have stated is only an outline of the
13 evidence which I propose to hear. I may well decide to
14 call other persons to describe their part in the matters
15 to which I have referred and to deal with other matters.
16 In deciding on whom I will ask to give evidence,
17 I will have regard to the matters which I have requested
18 relevant organisations and persons to provide to me and
19 which they have already provided. In addition, I will
20 take into account further material which will be
21 provided to me before the next stage of the Inquiry.
22 The witnesses whom I will ask to attend at the next
23 session of the Inquiry will be examined on my behalf by
24 Mr Dingemans and Mr Knox, senior and junior counsel to
25 the Inquiry, in a neutral way to elicit those witnesses'

21
1 knowledge and understanding of the facts. I do not
2 propose that they should be examined at that stage by
3 any counsel who may be permitted to represent them or
4 cross-examined by counsel who may be permitted to
5 represent any other person or organisation.
6 I wish to emphasise that the hearing of evidence
7 will take place in two quite separate and distinct
8 stages, with a period of adjournment between them. The
9 first stage will be devoted to obtaining in a neutral
10 way, by counsel to the Inquiry, an account of the events
11 which took place from those who took part in them.
12 After the first stage there will clearly be
13 particular issues relating to the death of Dr Kelly
14 which I will have to consider with particular care, and
15 in the course of the evidence which is given in the
16 first stage various discrepancies and unanswered
17 questions will no doubt arise which I will also have to
18 examine very carefully. In addition, evidence may be
19 given of decisions and conduct on the part of
20 individuals which may subject them to criticism.
21 After the first stage of the Inquiry has been
22 completed in the way which I have described and the
23 transcript of the evidence is available to everyone,
24 I will adjourn to consider what points and issues should
25 be subject to closer and more rigorous scrutiny and

22
1 I will notify the relevant persons of possible
2 criticisms which I consider might be made of them.
3 After an appropriate period of adjournment, the
4 second stage of taking evidence will begin. I will ask
5 the persons whom I have notified of possible criticisms
6 to come back to the Inquiry so that they may be examined
7 further by counsel to the Inquiry, and I then propose to
8 give counsel who may represent them the opportunity to
9 examine them and may allow counsel for persons or bodies
10 who have an opposing view to that expressed by a witness
11 to cross-examine that witness, but the extent of that
12 examination and cross-examination will be confined to
13 what I think is helpful to the Inquiry. I consider that
14 this procedure will protect witnesses who may be subject
15 to criticism and will ensure fairness, whilst ensuring
16 that the Inquiry proceeds with the necessary expedition.
17 I will also consider before the commencement of the
18 second stage whether I should call witnesses additional
19 to those whom I had previously indicated I intended to
20 call. I make it clear that in the second stage I may
21 call witnesses who had not been called in the first
22 stage and against whom there may be no criticism.
23 It is my intention that documents which are put into
24 evidence will be speedily available to other parties.
25 But as this is not a trial between opposing parties I do

23
1 not propose to disclose in advance documents or witness
2 statements given by one party to the Inquiry to other
3 parties.
4 I will of course be ready to consider any
5 submissions made to me in the course of the Inquiry and
6 I will keep the procedure under review to ensure
7 fairness.
8 As has already been stated in a press release from
9 the Secretary to the Inquiry, it is my intention to
10 conduct this Inquiry in public unless considerations
11 such as those of national security require me to sit in
12 private. Unless such considerations arise, it is
13 important that the public should know every word of
14 evidence which is spoken at this Inquiry and should know
15 the full contents of every document which is referred to
16 in evidence. The press will be able to report to the
17 public everything which takes place, every word which is
18 spoken by a witness, every question put to a witness by
19 counsel and the contents of every document. A full
20 transcript of what takes place will be available to the
21 public and there will be a website to which everyone
22 will have access for the transcript of the day's
23 hearing. I have also decided that this opening
24 statement by me will be televised and the addresses of
25 counsel will be televised. I will hear an application

24
1 later this morning as to whether witnesses giving
2 evidence should be televised.
3 Ladies and gentlemen, I propose to rise now for
4 a short time and then I will sit again and will hear
5 applications for representation and also I think an
6 application from you, Mr Robertson.
7 MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
8 (11.35 am)
9 (Short Break)
10 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
11 MR DINGEMANS: Lord Hutton, I appear with my learned friend
12 Mr Knox as counsel to the Inquiry. My learned friends
13 Mr Gompertz and Mr Beer appear for the Kelly family. My
14 learned friend Mr Sales appears for the Government. My
15 learned friends Mr Caldecott and Ms Palin appear for the
16 BBC. My learned friend Ms Campbell appears for
17 Ms Watts. And my learned friend Mr Pleming appears for
18 the authorities of the House of Commons. My learned
19 friend Mr Robertson appears for ITN, and my learned
20 friend Mr Robertson has an application.
21 LORD HUTTON: Mr Robertson, just before I hear you I think
22 I would like to tell counsel the way in which I intend
23 to proceed and I very much welcome your assistance,
24 Ms Campbell and gentlemen.
25 As I have stated, I propose to sit again on Monday

25
1 11th August. As I also stated, I propose that the first
2 witness will be a Government official who will be able
3 to give evidence on Dr Kelly's expertise on chemical and
4 biological warfare, of the nature of his employment in
5 the Government, as to whether he was employed by the
6 Foreign and Commonwealth Office or by the Ministry of
7 Defence, and also of his knowledge of and any part which
8 he may have played in the preparation of the September
9 dossier.
10 Then I would propose to call Mr Andrew Gilligan,
11 then Ms Watts of the BBC and Mr Gavin Hewitt of the BBC.
12 Then I would like to hear a witness from the BBC to
13 state the reasons why the BBC declined to say that
14 Dr Kelly was the source of the reports until after his
15 death. Then I would propose to hear witnesses from the
16 Ministry of Defence and other Government departments as
17 to the discussions which took place and the decisions
18 that were taken when it became known that Dr Kelly had
19 had a meeting with Mr Gilligan.
20 I would propose to sit from 10.30 am until 1 pm and
21 then in the afternoon from 2 pm to 4.15 pm on Monday to
22 Thursday. I do not propose to sit on Friday because
23 I think that day will be necessary for reading written
24 material and for preparation for the next week's work.
25 I should also say, Ms Campbell and gentlemen, having

26
1 indicated that in the first stage of the Inquiry the
2 witnesses will be examined only by Mr Dingemans and
3 Mr Knox, I appreciate that some of you may not wish to
4 be present all of the time. Certainly I have no
5 objection whatever to that. It is entirely a matter for
6 counsel as to the times when they wish to be present.
7 Unless there is any other matter that counsel wishes
8 to raise, Mr Robertson I gather you have an application
9 to make.
10 Application by MR ROBERTSON
11 MR ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed. Good morning, sir.
12 This application is made on behalf of several
13 broadcasting organisations who wish to televise portions
14 of your Public Inquiry. But may I make clear at the
15 outset that they do not wish to televise all of it.
16 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
17 MR ROBERTSON: They understand and utterly respect the
18 wishes of Dr Kelly's family and friends and do not seek
19 to cover their evidence, nor the testimony of anyone
20 else who may regard the presence of cameras as an
21 intrusion into private grief or as imposing an unwanted
22 burden of stress. What I might call, sir, the coronial
23 aspects of your Inquiry they do not seek to cover. That
24 will include, of course, you mentioned calling Thames
25 Valley Police officers and doctors who had examined the

27
1 body. That entire coronial area, if I may describe it,
2 is not sought to be covered.
3 There is however a class of witnesses, I will
4 endeavour to define the class a little more closely
5 later on, who may accept and indeed may even welcome the
6 television coverage of their evidence. It is a class
7 who have already spoken on television about these events
8 or who are otherwise familiar with the medium through
9 their role in public life or indeed in broadcast
10 journalism, and in respect of whose evidence television
11 coverage we believe will be beneficial for the Inquiry
12 itself, will assist fairness, which you so rightly
13 stress, and will assist this Inquiry to deliver on the
14 purpose for which it was established. It is in respect
15 of that class of witness and in respect of certain
16 applications which we believe are likely to be made that
17 we respectfully seek to persuade you today not to shut
18 out at least the prospect of television coverage.
19 Sir, may I begin by identifying the parties that
20 I represent?
21 LORD HUTTON: Yes. I am very grateful to you for giving me
22 a sight of your argument in written form. That is very
23 helpful to me.
24 MR ROBERTSON: It will prevent me from repeating it,
25 certainly prevent me from citing any legal authority

28
1 because I know you have read Dame Janet Smith's decision
2 in the Shipman Inquiry, which is perhaps the closest
3 precedent. I think you have it in a blue file.
4 LORD HUTTON: Yes, I have it, yes.
5 MR ROBERTSON: The application begins with the skeleton
6 argument. Then if I can just identify for you the
7 parties.
8 The first party that I represent -- I represent two
9 major parties: ITN, Independent Television Network; and
10 Sky Television. But the ITN network comprises, first of
11 all, ITV News, and there is a statement by Mr Mannion,
12 who is the editor of ITV News, at tab 2. He explains
13 that ITN News is watched by some 10 million people in
14 this country. It is at tab 2. Interestingly enough,
15 and this is the second and very important aspect of the
16 application, ITV has a news channel that has the
17 opportunity of very comprehensive coverage. At
18 paragraph 8 of Mr Mannion's witness statement, page 2 at
19 tab 2, he says that on the news channel we would
20 broadcast the proceedings live for considerable periods.
21 "Live" I will put in inverted commas because
22 obviously there will be a protocol that will provide for
23 delay if your Lordship would accede to my application.
24 But in short we give a commitment that if proceedings
25 are open to the cameras, the public will be able to see

29
1 a significant part of the proceedings. If the Prime
2 Minister gives evidence, no doubt that channel will show
3 it all and not interrupt it or cut it in any way
4 Sir, so those are the two -- there is the major news
5 channel with 10 million viewers and there is, as it
6 were, the round the clock news channel that offers to
7 put the entire evidence of a witness on television.
8 Then, the next part of ITN is Channel 4 News. That
9 is tab 3, Mr Gray. There is a supplementary statement
10 from Miss Burn. That is an hour long news at 7 o'clock
11 in the evening. It has 1 million viewers.
12 Interestingly, your Lordship will know of course that
13 Mr Campbell, whom your Lordship is going to call, chose
14 that to speak about these matters rather than to write
15 the article for which his professional training would
16 obviously qualify him to write. He chose television.
17 That with very good reason, as I hope to explain.
18 Channel Five News is the fourth aspect of ITN.
19 Mr Rogers, at tab 4, explains that they have round the
20 clock news bulletins.
21 There is, although it is not covered by a witness
22 statement, I can tell your Lordship it as an
23 interesting, as it were, variant on my application,
24 I act for IRN Radio. Lord Phillips in his Inquiry was
25 minded to allow certain radio but not television

30
1 coverage. So there is, as it were, a supplementary
2 application by radio to have radio coverage or radio
3 tapes.
4 My Lord, the other applicant is Sky News. That is
5 in the statement of Mr Pollard at tab 5. He too
6 explains that Sky has two services that would be
7 concerned to broadcast. One is their regular 24-hour
8 news channel, at paragraph 2, available unencrypted
9 via satellite cable and digital terrestrial television
10 and available unencrypted in over 80 countries
11 throughout the world. Your Lordship will know this
12 Inquiry has, for legitimate reasons, interested many
13 countries beside the citizens of Great Britain, and Sky
14 is there in a perfect position to provide the
15 information.
16 In paragraph 5 he says that as Sky is a 24-hour news
17 channel:
18 "...we would intend to broadcast the evidence of key
19 witnesses live as part of our daily programming. In
20 addition, we would seek to make available the coverage
21 of the entire Inquiry [subject of course to what I have
22 said] available to satellite viewers via the Sky News
23 Active channel. This would enable those viewers with
24 a particular interest in the issues to follow the whole
25 of these important proceedings ..."

31
1 So that both ITN in its ITV News channel and
2 Sky News through its Sky News Active channel can provide
3 comprehensive coverage of a witness, in other words the
4 whole of a witness' evidence can be covered and can be
5 transmitted.
6 Sir, they are the parties that I represent. On
7 their behalf could I begin by expressing their gratitude
8 for your invitation to make these submissions. That
9 invitation contained in your letter of 28th July to
10 Mr Wood, who is the chief executive of ITN. I shall not
11 repeat in these submissions those points he made to you
12 in his letter of 25th July.
13 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
14 MR ROBERTSON: Or indeed press upon you Dame Janet Smith's
15 decision in the Shipman case, which I know you have
16 considered.
17 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
18 MR ROBERTSON: That, of course, was an Inquiry under the
19 1921 Act and it was into a very different kind of
20 tragedy, a form of mass murder, one which had
21 implications for police and for the medical profession,
22 as well as the tragic dimension for the families whose
23 relatives had been killed. And although Dame Janet's
24 decision to allow television coverage was, it would
25 seem, perfectly acceptable and Dame Janet, in another

32
1 capacity, was perfectly satisfied that television had
2 conducted itself well, the implications of that Inquiry
3 were of a very different dimension to your Inquiry,
4 because you are charged with looking into the pain and
5 suffering of a human tragedy but, at the same time, with
6 considering implications which may have very wide
7 ranging constitutional and political consequences.
8 Where those two dimensions can be separated out, as
9 it were the coronial dimension and the constitutional
10 dimension, we seek to persuade you that televising the
11 evidence and applications relating to the constitutional
12 dimension is appropriate. Not to intrude or intensify
13 the sorrow of the family and friends and of all of us
14 but to provide a true and accurate record of the
15 important political issues that concern everyone in this
16 democracy and no doubt many people abroad.
17 LORD HUTTON: Of course, there will be a true and accurate
18 record in the press reporting and the transcript and the
19 website which will be available to everyone.
20 MR ROBERTSON: Of course. I address you on the assumption,
21 of course, as you have said, sir, that there will be
22 available to the press the opportunity of transcribing
23 every word; and what I seek to persuade you is that that
24 will not be sufficient to convey to the public the full
25 purport of your Inquiry.

33
1 I know your Lordship has taken a provisional view --
2 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
3 MR ROBERTSON: -- that television would be inappropriate,
4 and I seek to persuade you to change that provisional
5 view by mentioning and explaining some 10 matters which
6 may not have been present to your mind when you took
7 that view, at least collectively, because they are
8 matters that are not always appreciated about the
9 difference between the print medium and the television
10 medium, and television and radio. They are not always
11 fully understood, how broadcast medium works to convey
12 information far more accurately and without distortion.
13 I shall be addressing you in order to seek to
14 persuade you that the broadcast medium in fact offers
15 a far truer and more accurate picture than the print
16 medium is capable of, even if it were minded to behave
17 fairly and present matters fairly and without
18 distortion.
19 There are three matters that I take as read.
20 Firstly, that you would accept, sir, that the
21 presence of television cameras will not cause any
22 disruption to your proceedings. I am sure you will
23 accept that; you have had the camera in court this
24 morning.
25 LORD HUTTON: Yes.

34
1 MR ROBERTSON: And that has been the general view of those
2 who have television coverage, that the physical presence
3 of television cameras will not cause disruption.
4 Secondly, that what is sought is not live coverage,
5 but would be subject inevitably to protocols of the sort
6 that the Scottish Court of Appeal in the Lockerbie
7 appeal and Dame Janet in the Shipman Inquiry imposed.
8 Sir, can I simply refer you to -- I think it is at
9 tab 7 -- Mr Wood's letter.
10 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
11 MR ROBERTSON: Then at the end of the four page letter there
12 is the broadcasting protocol. The first is the pilot,
13 which worked very well and was repeated for the main
14 one. But your Lordship will see at paragraph 17 the
15 kind of protocols that Dame Janet imposed. At 17:
16 "Sound and images will be provided on a ...
17 basis~... [where]:
18 "The general principle ... only the individual
19 speaking ... the chairman, counsel ... legal
20 representatives ..."
21 So there is no, as it were, circling the court to
22 look for people in the back row or interested people who
23 might be picked out. No camera views will be taken in
24 a way that looks over counsel's shoulders and enables
25 documents to be read. If the witness becomes

35
1 distressed, the camera immediately switches to a wide
2 angled view. No sound when the hearing is not in
3 session. No filming other than in public hearing. No
4 members of the public shown. Cameras will not give any
5 coverage to a disturbance.
6 Then in paragraph 18:
7 "... fair reflection of the nature of proceedings
8 and the issues ..."
9 19, importantly:
10 "The chairman may instruct that certain parts of
11 recorded material must not be recorded or broadcast. In
12 such circumstances the relevant section of the recording
13 must be physically erased ..."
14 LORD HUTTON: You referred, in paragraph 17, to if a witness
15 becomes distressed then the camera will switch to a more
16 general view. But that means that the person's
17 distress, the beginning of the distress, is shown on
18 television or may be shown, which may cause considerable
19 embarrassment to that person.
20 MR ROBERTSON: Of course I accept that. That is why the
21 protocol I suggest is a one hour delay. I think we will
22 come to that. Clearly we will see there is a one hour
23 delay so any witness who did become distressed, it is
24 difficult to envisage that Mr Campbell or Mr Gilligan or
25 the Prime Minister would become distressed, and those

36
1 who would become distressed of course would be mainly in
2 the coronial area. But if it were, then 19 would no
3 doubt come into play. Your Lordship would no doubt
4 instruct the physical erasion of that recorded material.
5 Then 20, the condition that none of the recorded
6 material may be used in humour, satirical or fiction
7 drama programmes and so forth.
8 Then material proposed to be used subsequently would
9 be subject to your prohibition and so forth.
10 There is the other protocol often used which is that
11 there is a delay, usually of half an hour or an hour, so
12 that if there is anything untoward, any matter of
13 national security that one does not want to have a wider
14 application, then as chairman you would obviously stop
15 that televising and order erasure. So that protocols,
16 and there are many of them, that is just one example,
17 can ensure that television does not in any way affect
18 the smooth running of the Inquiry or indeed cause any
19 undue burden to any witness.
20 So that is the second matter that I take for
21 granted.
22 The third matter that I take for granted and will,
23 in fact, address is what your Lordship said this morning
24 in your final paragraph, that obviously every word
25 spoken at this Inquiry it is important that the public

37
1 should know, and that the press will be able to report
2 everything that takes place.
3 My submission is that it is important not that the
4 public should read every word of evidence but they
5 should hear the tone of voice in which that evidence is
6 delivered, see the body language and demeanour of the
7 witness who is speaking it, because very often, as one
8 knows, tone of voice, demeanour and so on may give
9 a very different impact and truth to a particular
10 utterance, and very often it alters it considerably. In
11 order to appreciate evidence, as your Lordship knows,
12 the Court of Appeal are always saying: well, the trial
13 judge saw the witnesses.
14 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
15 MR ROBERTSON: There was the story, I think it was the
16 Australian judge who delivered the impeccable summing-up
17 but his body language showed him pulling a chain and
18 holding his nose. That is an obvious example. We
19 nonetheless say that to understand evidence accurately
20 and truthfully one needs to see it being delivered.
21 LORD HUTTON: But let us take a civil servant who is not
22 used to appearing on television, perhaps a middle
23 ranking civil servant. He is aware that his tone of
24 voice and body language may be studied or people may
25 draw inferences and conclusions not just from what he

38
1 said but the way he said it. Does that not impose very
2 considerable strain on him?
3 MR ROBERTSON: It may well. We are not suggesting we have
4 a right to cover every witness. We would suggest, with
5 great respect, that your Lordship may enquire of each
6 witness in the, as it were, constitutional stage,
7 whether they have any objection to being televised. We
8 believe or understand that a number of important
9 witnesses would welcome being televised, for reasons
10 that I will go into. But obviously if a witness feels
11 that they would be inhibited by being televised then
12 your Lordship would simply not permit them to be
13 televised, and there would be a number of witnesses
14 probably falling in that category.
15 LORD HUTTON: But that might, in itself, place considerable
16 strain on a witness if he were asked were he willing to
17 be televised, he knew that some of his colleagues were
18 saying that they were, but he had reservations. It is
19 somewhat difficult, is it not, to pick and choose
20 between witnesses? And then if you have some witnesses
21 who say, "I am willing to be televised", and others, for
22 quite valid reasons, saying they are hesitant about it,
23 you may have inferences drawn: oh well, that witness who
24 was not prepared to be televised, there must be
25 something rather dubious about his evidence.

39
1 MR ROBERTSON: Sir, exactly. You would want to avoid,
2 I accept fully, any invidious comparisons.
3 LORD HUTTON: Selections, yes.
4 MR ROBERTSON: Which is why we would invite you to
5 distinguish certain classes of witnesses. The class of
6 witnesses comprising the Cabinet Minister, the
7 politician and those familiar with the medium and indeed
8 the broadcast journalists, the BBC figures, we say would
9 fall into the class where one should require television
10 unless they are venturing into matters of national
11 security. It may be that other classes of witness one
12 would not or would at least enquire of them. But those
13 who have a measure of public accountability built into
14 their role, such as the Prime Minister and Mr Hoon and
15 Mr Campbell and the BBC broadcasters who, of course, are
16 adept at the medium and will be talking to an extent
17 about the ethics of the medium, would fall into a class
18 where one would expect them to give evidence.
19 Your Lordship's comment that the press will be able
20 to report to the public everything that takes place,
21 I will seek to persuade your Lordship that the press,
22 while able to report to the public, will not, in
23 practice or in fact, report to the public everything
24 that takes place. I will seek to explain why the
25 reporting by way of television is more satisfactory as

40
1 a measure of fairness than leaving the matter entirely
2 to the print medium.
3 But could I simply and shortly list the 10 points
4 that we say collectively may persuade your Lordship to
5 reconsider your initial view?
6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
7 MR ROBERTSON: The first point is that television companies
8 are entirely unlike the print medium in this country
9 because they are bound by strict statutory duties. One
10 finds those duties in the Broadcasting Act. I wonder,
11 can I hand up to your Lordship, because it was not in
12 our original bundle, the Broadcasting Act of 1990.
13 Section 6 contains the general requirements.
14 Your Lordship sees that.
15 Your Lordship sees the Commission must do all they
16 can to secure that every licenced service, we are
17 dealing here with applicants only from licenced
18 services.
19 "(a) Nothing included in programmes offending
20 against good taste or decency."
21 That is not perhaps relevant. But:
22 "(b) That any news given in whatever form in its
23 programmes is presented with due accuracy and
24 impartiality."
25 That is 6(b); and (c):

41
1 "Due impartiality is preserved on the part of the
2 person providing the service as respects matters of
3 political or industrial controversy or relating to
4 current public policy."
5 The Act goes on to enforce and to develop through
6 codes. the ITC programme code is a very detailed set of
7 requirements for ensuring that news and current affairs
8 are presented both accurately and impartially. Indeed,
9 there is a special provision of the Broadcasting Act
10 which requires there should be no editorialising on
11 television.
12 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
13 MR ROBERTSON: So those statutory duties on the broadcasters
14 which are enforced by both the Authority, which has
15 powers -- I think one broadcaster, whom I do not
16 represent, was fined £1 million for putting out a false
17 current affairs programme. There are very heavy fines
18 and the possibility of loss of licence as a punishment
19 if there is no due accuracy and impartiality.
20 So that sets television aside and is a guarantee of
21 what your Lordship was so concerned to ensure, namely
22 fair treatment of your witnesses. So that, of course,
23 is not a requirement of any kind that is binding on the
24 press. One may have tabloid television but not in
25 relation to news or current affairs. There is no

42
1 tabloid treatment of news or current affairs or at least
2 no distorted treatment of news or current affairs thanks
3 to those duties. That is the first point that I make.
4 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
5 MR ROBERTSON: My Lord, the second point that needs to be
6 brought into play is the fact, and it is a fact, that
7 most people in this country obtain their knowledge of
8 current events and news from television and not from
9 newspapers. The latest survey puts that at 65 per cent
10 of people get their news from television not from print.
11 There is another study saying 70 per cent.
12 It is clear, we say, that television is the prime
13 purveyor of news. It purveys it in a form that permits
14 its viewers seeing tone and body language to understand
15 the reality of that evidence.
16 My Lord, I would ask your Lordship to consider what
17 will happen to your Lordship's Inquiry if television is
18 not permitted. 70 per cent of the British public will
19 get their news of your Inquiry from television, but how
20 will they get it? They will get a somewhat breathless
21 young reporter, maybe middle aged reporter, standing
22 outside the High Court announcing that today at
23 Lord Hutton's Inquiry the Prime Minister said such and
24 such, and a few words and phrases will be picked out of
25 the witness' evidence. There will then be what I have

43
1 to describe as a cartoon sketch of your Lordship and the
2 witness. It will be a caricature because artists will
3 not be allowed in court, but there are artists,
4 your Lordship will be familiar of seeing them.
5 LORD HUTTON: I have seen them before, Mr Robertson, yes.
6 MR ROBERTSON: So that will be the voiceover of the
7 breathless reporter will be imposed --
8 LORD HUTTON: I think you are being a little unfair on some
9 of the reporters. I appreciate it is advocate's
10 licence.
11 MR ROBERTSON: Yes. Then there will be a scroll down one
12 side where certain phrases will be scrolled down the
13 screen, perhaps so or perhaps not. That will be the
14 treatment that will have to be delivered by the main
15 news media if television cannot do it live. How much
16 better, one says rhetorically and entirely, would it be
17 if instead of "Mr Hoon said this" or "the Prime Minister
18 said that" over a cartoon, if the Prime Minister was
19 seen saying it in a particular tone of voice, with
20 a particular demeanour; the public would see it as it
21 happened and not through an artist's impression, or not
22 with the assistance of an artist's impression.
23 So the second point that I would invite
24 your Lordship to consider is simply that the main news
25 of your Lordship's Inquiry would, in respect of

44
1 constitutional, important witnesses, be received in
2 a more truthful and accurate way if they were seen live
3 than in the way that I have described, which is the only
4 way that television can deal with an Inquiry from which
5 it is excluded.
6 My Lord, the third matter, which is also not often
7 appreciated but there is very recent evidence that
8 endorses this, is that television is the most trusted
9 media of communication. It may be somewhat unpalatable
10 for newspapers but the trust, of course, of the public
11 stems from two matters: firstly, probably, from the due
12 impartiality duties that I have shown your Lordship in
13 the Broadcasting Act; but, secondly, it, of course,
14 comes from television's capacity as a medium to show
15 things as they really are. The phrase that "a picture
16 is worth 1,000 words" may be an exaggeration, but it
17 does get at an essential truth; that in a cynical world,
18 which knows how words can be spun this way and that,
19 just how important it is for the public to see and hear
20 what actually went on and not, as it were, a second-hand
21 report.
22 Your Inquiry, we would respectfully submit, would
23 not only have more impact but would have more respect if
24 it could be seen to be at work rather than reported to
25 be at work through the newspapers.

45
1 Those matters, if I could hand up the very latest
2 report, it is by the Broadcasting Standards Commission
3 and the ITC, who are the two regulators, and they retain
4 Professor Hargreaves, who is a professor of journalism,
5 and others to do the research. I have taken the liberty
6 of flagging, at page 22, the latest data on the question
7 of trust.
8 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
9 MR ROBERTSON: The data shows that journalists, as a group,
10 are not highly trusted as truthful sources of
11 information, but television newscasters are. Television
12 brands are well trusted; and the survey suggests that
13 television news is trusted to tell the truth by
14 85 per cent of people. There are different matters.
15 Then, at page 44, at the bottom:
16 "Television news is now the only news medium
17 available, used, trusted and valued across the whole of
18 British society. 65 per cent [That is the source of my
19 65 per cent of the British public.] say they regard
20 television as their main source of news, compared with
21 16 per cent radio, 15 per cent newspapers."
22 Word of mouth is 1 per cent. But in terms of source
23 there it is.
24 At page 49:
25 "Are we satisfied with the news we get? A number of

46
1 questions were asked to gauge of the level of
2 satisfaction about broadcasters. 95 per cent were
3 either very or fairly satisfied with broadcast news,
4 90~per cent for current affairs."
5 Then at page 50 it does note, and this is important
6 in relation to the two networks, or two that are
7 prepared to as it were give themselves over to cover the
8 entirety of a witness' evidence, the message is that
9 24-hour television services are forming an increasingly
10 important part of the news landscape, especially for
11 those who work unsociable hours and so on. 34 per cent
12 have access. Then at 51:
13 "24-hour television news values it", for those
14 reasons.
15 Then at 73 at the bottom:
16 "Trust in truthfulness. Viewers who consider a news
17 provider to be impartial might be expected to trust that
18 provider to tell the truth. We know from Mori that
19 sharp distinctions are drawn between professional
20 groups. The survey suggests that people are more
21 confident they get the truth from news providers."
22 Then at page 75, Channel 4 News is admired for its
23 seriousness, Channel Five News is liked for its speed
24 and liveliness.
25 At the top of that page, page 75, there is an

47
1 interesting comment that:
2 "Among non-broadcasters [this is the second
3 paragraph] 29 per cent of the whole sample regard
4 The Guardian as truthful but this figure rises to
5 65 per cent when non-readers are excluded. So
6 65 per cent of The Guardian's readers regard it as
7 truthful. For the Sun, comparable figures are
8 11 per cent and 21 per cent, so only one in five of
9 the Sun's readers regard it as truthful on that survey.
10 But that is an interesting comment on the way in which
11 television is not only the most trusted medium but is
12 the medium by which most people get their news. We
13 would respectfully urge that medium is the one that
14 the Inquiry should permit to cover.
15 The fourth point, and I say this without any
16 criticism of the press, is that distortion is inevitable
17 in the nature of modern newspapers. It is no criticism
18 of them to say that they simply cannot provide a fully
19 accurate coverage. When your Lordship says that the
20 press will be able to report everything, every word, the
21 fact is that newspapers are lacking in space to provide
22 that and, inevitably, they can only cover the highlights
23 of evidence.
24 LORD HUTTON: But if one considers what is possible to be
25 shown on the main news programmes, the 10 o'clock News

48
1 and ITV News, and one compares that can what will be
2 published in the broadsheets, will it not be the case
3 that the broadsheets will have much more detail than
4 possibly five minutes' presentation? That must be so.
5 MR ROBERTSON: My Lord, first of all, it is not so with the
6 24-hour; the two, the Sky and the ITV active services,
7 will cover the whole evidence.
8 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
9 MR ROBERTSON: I would have thought that in terms of
10 Channel 4 News we are talking about 20 minutes.
11 Certainly if it is the Prime Minister they might devote
12 the whole hour to that. So in respect of the News at 10
13 or the Channel Five News, of course you will get 4 or
14 5 minutes. That may be as much coverage as you would
15 get in the Daily Mail, and rather more than you would
16 get in the Mirror. But it is, nonetheless, I accept
17 entirely, that in some respects some television news
18 coverage would not be greater, although it would be more
19 accurate because it shows the demeanour and so on.
20 LORD HUTTON: What percentage of viewers would watch the
21 rolling 24-hour news?
22 MR ROBERTSON: 34 per cent, according to that comment, do
23 watch the rolling news services.
24 LORD HUTTON: That is at page 50.
25 MR ROBERTSON: One remembers, I do not suppose one recalls,

49
1 I think President Clinton's invigilation by Mr Starr was
2 shown by Sky News live, I think with a delay, a short
3 delay.
4 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
5 MR ROBERTSON: But that, certainly on Sky and CNN, attracted
6 viewers who watched the whole thing.
7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
8 MR ROBERTSON: The other reason for inevitable distortion
9 are headlines, which of course, as your Lordship knows,
10 by virtue of the short space, can only encapsulate
11 a phrase. So that with the best will in the world
12 newspapers, one dimensional, no body language or
13 demeanour, have to use headlines, which may be
14 misleading. Headlines often are misleading; and may not
15 have the space to give the extended comprehensive
16 coverage that those two television channels and indeed
17 radio can.
18 That is the fourth point, that the print medium has
19 these built in deficiencies that television does not.
20 The fifth point, particularly important given
21 your Lordship's concern for fair play and fairness, and
22 I am sure the concern of many of your witnesses, is,
23 I would put under potential press bias. Many newspapers
24 have taken an editorial line already on the
25 responsibility for Dr Kelly's death. Some have blamed

50
1 what they call the star chamber of the Select Committee.
2 Others have pointed a finger at the Prime Minister and
3 Mr Campbell, or indeed the BBC or the MOD. That is the
4 editorials.
5 Columnists have expressed, as they are entitled to,
6 very trenchant opinions on these matters and will no
7 doubt continue to do so throughout the evidence.
8 Your Lordship has no contempt powers. This is, with
9 respect, very important, because your Lordship is not
10 a 1921 Tribunal and so a partisan newspaper with
11 a partisan editor or proprietor can, the day after
12 a witness appears before you, blackguard that witness
13 and say what a pack of lies he or she told and there is
14 no redress.
15 However, there is a redress, and that is to show it
16 all on television and let the public see and make up its
17 own mind against the danger of partisan distortion that
18 one has with a media that, perfectly properly in terms
19 of freedom of expression, has expressed its views.
20 That is why the problem that witnesses may face is
21 that the reports of their evidence are going to be
22 printed framed with these built in biases of the
23 newspapers. There will be editorials, there will be
24 columnists and inevitably the report, however fair and
25 accurate it is, could take on for readers a certain

51
1 colour. And the value of television is that it is bias
2 free. It cannot editorialise; statute prevents it from
3 editorialising. It does not have columnists. It does
4 not have that power to prejudice people. It does not
5 have that pre-determined framework.
6 That, we suspect, is why a number of important
7 witnesses on constitutional issues would prefer to have
8 their evidence seen, available, as it was given on
9 television rather than, in their view, distorted by
10 columnists or editors in the press. So that it may well
11 be that were your Lordship to ask a number of your
12 witnesses, they would wish to do that.
13 That is the fifth point. That television is
14 unbiased and that fair play may well require that
15 a witness testify in public, on television.
16 My Lord, the sixth point quickly is really one
17 I draw from Wigmore's famous formulation. It is at the
18 last page of our skeleton argument. It applies with all
19 the more force to television, his classic statement of
20 the value of open justice, its operation intending to
21 improve the quality of testimony is twofold.
22 Subjectively it produces in the witness' mind
23 a disinclination to falsify, firstly by stimulating the
24 instinctive responsibility to public opinion symbolised
25 in the audience.

52
1 Of course, as you know, there are only a limited
2 number of seats in this court; and the audience is not
3 very large. But when the audience can be the entire
4 country, through comprehensive television coverage,
5 Wigmore's first point is all the more enhanced. The
6 witness, knowing that television is taking his evidence
7 or her evidence throughout the world will, firstly,
8 testify with that instinctive responsibility to public
9 opinion that one hopes we get from public figures.
10 And the second point Wigmore makes is the safeguard;
11 objectively it secures the presence of those who may
12 possibly be able to furnish testimony in-chief or to
13 contradict false fires and yet may not have been known
14 beforehand to the parties to possess any information.
15 This is at page 18.
16 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
17 MR ROBERTSON: That is the second safeguard, that witnesses
18 are more inclined to tell the truth if they know that
19 someone, somewhere, be it Birmingham or Baghdad, will be
20 able to come forward if they know that lies are being
21 told and confirm them. The Blom-Cooper Inquiry in
22 Antigua, which was looking at very serious corruption in
23 ministers, records that exactly that happened, that
24 a vital witness came forward -- they had not intended to
25 testify, it was only when they saw a lie being told on

53
1 television that they came up with evidence that in fact
2 led to the dismissal and prosecution of a government
3 minister.
4 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
5 MR ROBERTSON: My Lord, that is the sixth point.
6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
7 MR ROBERTSON: The seventh point is one I am sure
8 your Lordship is well aware of, the open justice
9 arguments that are in our written submissions.
10 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
11 MR ROBERTSON: I will not repeat them, other than by
12 reference to the two great Scott v Scott principles:
13 every court in the land is open to every subject of the
14 king. Of course, as your Lordship will bear in mind,
15 there may be many people from Scotland or indeed from
16 Northern Ireland who would wish to come and see
17 your Lordship's Inquiry and will be able to do that in
18 relation to important witnesses by witnessing their
19 evidence on television because they cannot come over to
20 see it.
21 LORD HUTTON: Those principles are stated, of course, before
22 the days of television. There is the consideration that
23 under the relevant Act, television is not permitted into
24 an ordinary trial or an ordinary hearing. So that
25 principle has to be read, I think, against that

54
1 background.
2 MR ROBERTSON: Yes, of course. The 1925 Act was passed
3 because I think someone -- flash photography of
4 Dr Crippen in the Old Bailey dock. It it relates to
5 flash photography. That has been taken to relate to
6 television, as Dame Janet said.
7 Your Lordship will be aware a number of the Scottish
8 courts, for example, have allowed televising of appeals,
9 some under protocol, some actual criminal trials where
10 the defendants agree. My clients, at the moment, are
11 discussing in fact a pilot project of televising the
12 Court of Appeal.
13 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
14 MR ROBERTSON: One is aware that certainly there are aspects
15 of your Lordship's House of giving judgments which are
16 televised. This is a live issue.
17 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
18 MR ROBERTSON: Whatever the inhibitions obviously on trials,
19 because one has juries to consider, Public Inquiries --
20 there have been a number of Public Inquiries that have
21 embraced television, not only the Shipman Inquiry and
22 Public Inquiries in this context, or the Blom-Cooper
23 Inquiries into corruption in the Caribbean, Lord Mackay
24 of Clashfern spoke highly of television coverage of his
25 Inquiry into the Trinidad judiciary. That was an

55
1 Inquiry which involved the examination of the Chief
2 Justice and a number of judges and the Attorney General.
3 Lord Mackay permitted television coverage of that --
4 LORD HUTTON: Was that a Public Inquiry?
5 MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
6 LORD HUTTON: Were members of judiciary called and to give
7 evidence in public before Lord Mackay?
8 MR ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed. I was his counsel on that
9 occasion and examined them in public; and the entire
10 examination was broadcast on television every night.
11 And Lord Mackay in his report indicated that there had
12 been a great deal of public interest in it. It had
13 arisen from a dispute between the Attorney General and
14 the Chief Justice.
15 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
16 MR ROBERTSON: There was also the Fiji case where
17 your Lordship will remember an armed coup took over and
18 a government was installed, and the Fijian Court of
19 Appeal, comprising five international judges, had to
20 decide whether the military backed government was
21 legitimate. It was again a decision to allow television
22 by three to two. One of the dissenting judges wrote
23 subsequently that the televising of this
24 constitutionally important case had entirely vindicated
25 the stance of the majority because of the public

56
1 importance of the issues.
2 The other aspect of open justice is of course
3 Jeremy Bentham's point that it keeps the judge while
4 trying under trial. It would provide reassurance to the
5 public that so far as is humanly possible
6 your Lordship's Inquiry is endeavouring to find the
7 truth about these matters.
8 So that is the seventh point. The application, if
9 you like, in particular force of the open justice
10 principles to televising inquiries.
11 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
12 MR ROBERTSON: My Lord, the eighth point again we have
13 covered in the submissions so I do not need to do more
14 than outline it. It is the Article 10 point. I have
15 had some discussions with Mr Dingemans about whether
16 your Lordship is sitting as a public authority. I would
17 venture, respectfully, to suggest that you are, given
18 the very broad definition of public authority in the
19 Human Rights Act section 6(3)(b).
20 "Public authority includes any person certain of
21 whose functions are functions of a public nature."
22 On that basis, we would suggest, it does define
23 your Lordship's role in this Inquiry; this Inquiry
24 indeed is serving functions of a public nature.
25 LORD HUTTON: Dame Janet Smith's opinion was that Article 10

57
1 was not engaged.
2 MR ROBERTSON: It was. It was interesting because there was
3 there a split between her independent advice from
4 Mr David Pannick to the effect that Article 10 was
5 engaged --
6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
7 MR ROBERTSON: -- and the view of counsel for the Government
8 that it was not.
9 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
10 MR ROBERTSON: If your Lordship were or is a public
11 authority for the purposes of section 6 then, of course,
12 Article 10 comes into play; and even if your Lordship
13 were not a public authority, it may be that you would
14 wish to follow the freedom of expression. Indeed,
15 your Lordship has indicated this morning that that is an
16 important matter.
17 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
18 MR ROBERTSON: I simply note, firstly, that the European
19 jurisprudence Lingens, Castells and so on, does say that
20 it is of vital importance in respect of political and
21 public figures that political and public figures have
22 less right to privacy and to shield themselves from the
23 media than do private people.
24 LORD HUTTON: What is the reference? Are there paragraphs
25 you can refer me to in those cases?

58
1 MR ROBERTSON: I will give them to you precisely, if I may.
2 LORD HUTTON: Yes, that would be helpful.
3 MR ROBERTSON: It is a passage in Castells v Spain and
4 Lingens v Austria to the effect that public figures have
5 less right to, as it were, privacy or to avoid exposure
6 than others; and that assists with the category that
7 I have indicated may be appropriate for televising.
8 The other aspect is the exceptions in 10(2).
9 Your Lordship would have to be satisfied that the
10 shutting out of television was necessary in the
11 democratic society and proportionate in respect to
12 Article 10(2) exceptions. And the only exception that
13 would seem to be appropriate, subject to national
14 security of course, which we fully accept, would be
15 protecting the rights and reputations of others.
16 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
17 MR ROBERTSON: But while we say that we accept that, that we
18 have no desire to televise the coronial witnesses, that
19 exception must be narrowly construed. One has to bear
20 in mind the question of whether the restriction is
21 necessary in democratic society. We would submit that
22 democratic society thrives on the public being given the
23 most accurate information possible about these matters
24 of high importance. So that is the eighth matter.
25 The ninth matter is the importance of an historic

59
1 record. One goes to the Auschwitz museum or the
2 Holocaust museum and sees the late Sir Hartley Shawcross
3 speaking at Nuremberg, and sees Goering being
4 cross-examined.
5 One sees international tribunals now all permit
6 a television record. It is important, when the
7 consequences of your Lordship's Inquiry may be of
8 enormous or very great constitutional significance, it
9 may lead to the passage of law protecting whistle
10 blowers, it may redefine the role of the constitutional
11 position of the security services and the issue of their
12 independence from Government. Then a visual annex, as
13 it were, having a record, an historic record of the
14 statements by Ministers of the evidence given by
15 Ministers to this Inquiry has a value of itself; and it
16 is not evidence that would be available some time in
17 a public records office, it would be a visual and
18 historic record of the witnesses speaking as to
19 constitutional matters.
20 My Lord, the tenth matter, finally, is this: that
21 your Inquiry will appear on television anyway, just as
22 Lord Scott's Inquiry into the Matrix Churchill trial and
23 Sir William McPherson's Inquiry into the Stephen
24 Lawrence killing appeared on television. It appears by
25 way of what is called a dramatic re-enactment. It

60
1 usually begins as a play put on at a theatre in North
2 London, and then transfers to I think the BBC, maybe in
3 this case to ITV, I do not know. But the participants
4 and witnesses are played by actors; and there is nothing
5 that one can do to stop this. Indeed, it shows,
6 perhaps, the appetite, legitimate appetite of the
7 public, for information beyond the press, beyond the
8 bare written words of what happened.
9 So in Lord Scott's case a play called "Half the
10 Picture" was performed on television with, I think,
11 Ms~Sylvia Simms playing Lady Thatcher. Of course it was
12 played very well, no doubt; but there is an element of
13 mimicry. There is, of course, a large element of
14 selection.
15 The value of television, of televising Inquiries, is
16 that it puts an end to this kind of dramatic
17 re-enactment which, however well intentioned and
18 obviously catering to a public interest, cannot be the
19 truth. The evidence of the Prime Minister, whoever
20 plays him, is not seen for really it is, for what it
21 was, and not for what a skilled actor with all sort of
22 acting abilities embellishes.
23 My Lord, this is not a light matter that I am
24 canvassing. It is a matter that I would respectfully
25 ask your Lordship to consider. It may appear to

61
1 the Martian rather bizarre that we live in a country
2 where these great constitutional issues are discussed by
3 evidence given by public men and women and yet we are
4 not allowed to see it, but when we do see it is it is by
5 actors mimicking the evidence that was given.
6 So that we would say that it is time that television
7 was allowed to show the public the real thing~--
8 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
9 MR ROBERTSON: -- and not have it re-enacted. It could be,
10 I do not know, it may be that television will re-enact
11 every night. That was done at the -- I think the Pontin
12 case that went to Strasbourg. There it was re-enacted
13 by newscasters. There would be nothing to stop
14 television producers putting Mr Bremner, or whoever, on
15 with the transcript and reading the transcript. That
16 is, in a sense, what your Lordship would stop by
17 allowing the real thing to be.
18 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
19 MR ROBERTSON: So they are the 10 matters -- I am sure
20 your Lordship had some of them in mind, but may not have
21 considered them in their collectivity~--
22 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
23 MR ROBERTSON: -- which makes us urge your Lordship not to
24 be afraid of this medium, but you see from the
25 affidavits the utter seriousness of the broadcasters;

62
1 and, as I say, some witnesses would actually prefer
2 their evidence to be broadcast (a) to give a full
3 account of themes, and (b) to avoid the distortion and
4 prejudice that may arise from the press, particularly
5 appropriate where broadcasters themselves may be called
6 upon to explain their conduct.
7 There is another area that we would urge -- I know
8 your Lordship is minded to allow some addresses by
9 counsel, but there may be matters of great interest not
10 only to law students and politics students in counsel's
11 submissions because (a) they may touch the privileges of
12 Parliament, an important matter; and even if it is only
13 a matter discussed by counsel rather than by witnesses
14 the public would be legitimately interested in that.
15 Protection of sources is clearly an important matter,
16 given the case of Goodwin v United Kingdom and the
17 Article 10 protection that the BBC will no doubt call in
18 aid. Submissions of counsel on that matter will be of
19 value.
20 It may be that protection of whistle blowers --
21 America and Australia or Canada have special whistle
22 blower legislation that has not come here; but
23 discussion of the advantages of a Whistle Blowers Act to
24 protect people like Dr Kelly in the future would be of
25 great interest.

63
1 As I say, submissions on the constitutional role of
2 the security service and the independence from
3 Government would all be of value and would be of
4 interest, and would be matters that the television
5 companies would wish to show the public being presented
6 by counsel.
7 So, those two areas -- it may be, of course, that
8 your Lordship has identified different stages. It may
9 be that stage 2 where individuals will be asked to
10 account for themselves and matters of potential
11 criticism will be put to them, that individuals, at that
12 stage, would very much want to have their answers seen
13 and heard rather than reported inadequately or perhaps
14 with partisan comment in the press.
15 So, my Lord, unless I can help you further, I will
16 give your Lordship the references from Castells and
17 Lingens.
18 All we are asking, at this stage, is for you not to
19 shut the door, to keep it open and indeed to consider in
20 fact asking witnesses who fall into the two categories
21 that I have identified, as those who have a public role
22 as politicians and who are, that way, accountable to the
23 public; and, secondly, those who are broadcasters, in
24 any event, should certainly be invited to accept that
25 their evidence will be televised. Obviously, if

64
1 your Lordship were to leave that door open, then we
2 could return with the appropriate protocols.
3 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Robertson.
4 Yes. Mr Gompertz, do you have any observations that
5 you would wish to make on this?
6 MR GOMPERTZ: I have, my Lord.
7 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
8 MR GOMPERTZ: I do not --
9 LORD HUTTON: Perhaps I should say, Mr Gompertz, that we are
10 approaching 1 o'clock and I am very much in counsel's
11 hands. It may be that if we sit on a little beyond
12 1 o'clock we will be able to conclude. I think if
13 counsel are agreeable I would be minded to sit on if
14 that is agreeable to everyone.
15 Yes.
16 Submissions in reply by MR GOMPERTZ
17 MR GOMPERTZ: I shall be very brief.
18 I do not attempt to answer Mr Robertson's
19 submissions, but I do have specific instructions from
20 the Kelly family as to their perception of the
21 television of the proceedings.
22 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
23 MR GOMPERTZ: The family feels that the presence of
24 television cameras at the Inquiry would only serve to
25 intensify the ordeal which the family faces and the

65
1 pressure upon them. The death of Dr Kelly has caused
2 them distress enough.
3 The surrounding issues, with implications of
4 national proportions and the intense media interest,
5 have turned a private tragedy into what the family feels
6 is a public maelstrom to which the family is wholly
7 unaccustomed.
8 Having witnessed the added strain suffered by
9 Dr Kelly by reason of the television of his evidence to
10 the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of
11 Commons the family would not wish that any witness at
12 this Inquiry should be subjected to a comparable
13 experience. The family wish to see everyone involved in
14 the Inquiry treated in a dignified manner. The family
15 members are concerned that televising the proceedings
16 will turn their private loss into the nation's
17 entertainment. They are also concerned that if the
18 proceedings are televised many commentators and viewers
19 will regard presentation as more important than
20 substance and that witnesses will be judged by the
21 public by their performance as witnesses rather than by
22 the content of what they have to say.
23 The family acknowledges that the Inquiry is to be
24 a Public Inquiry and that the public has a legitimate
25 interest in the process of the Inquiry as well as in its

66
1 outcome, but suggests that televising the Inquiry will
2 not assist the Inquiry in its search for the truth nor
3 in its evaluation of the evidence and assessment of the
4 events which have occurred.
5 My Lord, for those reasons, the family invites you
6 not to allow television of the proceedings.
7 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much, Mr Gompertz.
8 Mr Sales, do you have any submissions on behalf of
9 the Government?
10 MR SALES: Sir, no submissions. The Government is entirely
11 neutral on this matter and the difference between
12 Mr Gompertz and Mr Robertson.
13 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Very well. Thank you very much indeed.
14 Mr Caldecott?
15 MR CALDECOTT: Sir, the BBC has sympathy with the views of
16 Dr Kelly's family as expressed by Mr Gompertz. As
17 a broadcaster, they do not oppose Mr Robertson's
18 application but they are content to leave the decision
19 to your Lordship to make.
20 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
21 Ms Campbell?
22 MS CAMPBELL: Ms Watts similarly takes a neutral stance in
23 this matter, sir, and supports the BBC's contentions
24 that it is a matter for the Inquiry.
25 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much.

67
1 Mr Pleming, do you have any observation that you
2 wish to make?
3 MR PLEMING: Sir, I take the same position as Mr Sales.
4 I have nothing else to add.
5 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
6 Mr Robertson, is there anything you would wish to
7 say in reply?
8 Submissions in reply by MR ROBERTSON
9 MR ROBERTSON: Only that one fully understands the family's
10 position which obviously was articulated before they
11 heard the application. It may not, of course, be quite
12 as pronounced having heard it; the same view may not be
13 taken. Obviously it was precisely to avoid the concern
14 that we do not seek to have the coronial aspects of
15 the Inquiry.
16 LORD HUTTON: Yes.
17 MR ROBERTSON: It was to establish that media circuses in
18 this country are not created by the broadcast media, but
19 I showed your Lordship the restraints that applied to
20 that media and do not to the press.
21 Of course, one has frequently the case that of
22 course very disturbing matters to individuals give rise
23 to issues of great public importance and that freedom of
24 expression and the right to communicate information is
25 a matter that must be greater than the concern of

68
1 individuals; and that is the basis upon which we put our
2 submission.
3 LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much.
4 (1.00 pm)
5 (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday
6 11th August 2003)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

69
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
2
3 Opening Statement by LORD HUTTON ................. 1
4
5 Application by MR ROBERTSON ...................... 26
6
7 Submissions in reply by MR GOMPERTZ .............. 64
8
9 Submissions in reply by MR ROBERTSON ............. 67
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 .

<< Back