hearing transcript - 24 september 2003 afternoon

8/8/2019 Hearing Transcript - 24 September 2003 Afternoon

1/40

Hearing Transcripts

1111 thing. But I was anxious your Lordship should know the2 sequence of events. I am most grateful.3 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much.

4 I will rise now and sit again at 2 o'clock.5 (1.00 pm)6 (The short adjournment)7 (2.00 pm)8 LORD HUTTON: Mr Lloyd-Jones, yes.9 MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, Mr Smith, the solicitor for10 the Inquiry, has rightly pointed out I was unfair in11 something I said about him before the adjournment. I am12 anxious to put it right and apologise to him for that.13 We on 15th September requested Dr Kelly's phone14 logs. On 16th September Mr Smith replied in a letter in15 which he did say:16 "Your client's request still seems to be largely

17 irrelevant."18 He also said:19 "Provision of this information is not20 straightforward as the Thames Valley Police need to21 obtain necessary authorities and consents. Nevertheless22 I have passed a copy of your letter to them and asked23 that they attempt to provide the information requested.24 I will keep you informed of progress."25 My instructing solicitor then reiterated the request

1121 on the same day, pointing out the relevance and saying:2 "I would be grateful if you could please ask the

3 Thames Valley Police to treat this as an urgent4 request."5 There was then a response from Mr Smith on the 18th,6 the concluding paragraph of which invites the MoD police7 to make their own RIPA application for the records if8 they consider it relevant.9 My Lord, I am anxious to put the record straight in10 relation to that.11 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much, because Mr Smith is doing12 a great deal to ensure that a vast mass of evidence is13 made available to the Inquiry. I know he has done14 a great deal in that regard. Thank you very much for15 that.

16 Yes, Mr Gompertz.17 MR GOMPERTZ: My Lord, before I cross-examine --18 LORD HUTTON: I gather, Mr Gompertz, that for very19 understandable reasons you would like to make your20 submissions tomorrow morning.21 MR GOMPERTZ: I would my Lord.22 LORD HUTTON: I will certainly accede to that request.23 MR GOMPERTZ: My Lord, I am very grateful.24 LORD HUTTON: Yes. That means, then, for the ladies and25 gentlemen of the press, there will be no submissions by

1131 counsel made today. They will begin tomorrow morning.

2 Cross-examined by MR GOMPERTZ3 Q. Dr Wells, your background experience first. You are


2/40

4 a scientist by training?5 A. I was educated as a scientist, yes.6 Q. Have you always had scientific jobs?7 A. No, sir. Once I left university in 1988 I joined the8 administrative Civil Service and since that stage I have9 had administrative jobs in the Civil Service.

10 Q. Yes. Have you had any personnel training?11 A. Yes, I have, sir, at a number of points throughout my12 career.13 Q. Thank you. And you became Dr Kelly's line manager in14 August 2002?15 A. No, sir, strictly speaking I became his line manager16 when I took up my responsibilities which I think was17 5th August of that year. 9th August was when I first18 met Dr Kelly.19 Q. I follow. And you got on well with him?20 A. I believe I did, yes, sir.21 Q. And you became friends?22 A. Yes, we were close colleagues, I would put it that way.

23 Q. I do not mean you socialised together but you were24 friendly at work?25 A. We were friendly at work. When we were in New York

1141 together we would normally go out for an evening meal or2 perhaps have breakfast together.3 Q. You may like to know before I ask you any further4 questions that Dr Kelly always spoke well of you to his5 family.6 A. Thank you, sir.7 Q. Can I ask you, first, about media contacts. There was8 a system in place before you took over, am I not right?

9 A. That is correct.10 Q. And as you understood it, it had been in place for many11 years?12 A. I understood it to be long-standing.13 Q. That system was complicated by the fact that Dr Kelly14 worked not only for the MoD but also the FCO, DSTL and15 the United Nations agencies UNSCOM and UNMOVIC; is that16 right?17 A. Yes, he had a range of responsibilities across18 Government; and the media handling arrangements19 reflected his very wide talents and the fact that he was20 undertaking work for different agencies and departments.21 Q. Yes. Can I remind you of what you said about media

22 contacts when you gave evidence before:23 "At our introductory meeting he explained the24 arrangements for dealing with the press and that these25 would be through the Foreign Office. He would gain

1151 authorisation to do that. He did say that on certain2 topics, I think on smallpox and anthrax, he would go3 through the Ministry of Defence press office."4 Is that what you understood to be the position?5 A. That is a fair reflection of my understanding of what he6 told me at his first meeting on the 9th August.7 Q. Thank you. That was how things remained?

8 A. Correct.9 Q. And he obtained authority for his press dealings from


3/40

10 Mr Patrick Lamb, who we heard this morning, and from11 Mr James Paver in the FCO press office?12 A. Yes, I know Patrick from previous jobs, so when David13 explained to me that his policy contact in the Foreign14 Office was Patrick Lamb, I immediately knew the person15 to whom he was referring.

16 Q. Yes. So what I put to you is correct?17 A. Correct, sir.18 Q. Would this be right: that what happened was that he19 would tell you about press contacts afterwards as20 a matter of courtesy?21 A. Yes, if there was anything major that he had undertaken,22 he would normally try to tell me. If time did not23 permit, if we were not in the office together over24 a relevant period, then he may not do.25 Q. Thank you. This year, with the war in Iraq, his work

1161 became more focused on the MoD than previously.

2 A. That is correct, particularly with the establishment of3 the Iraq Survey Group and UNMOVIC undertaking4 inspections in Iraq.5 Q. Did you ever tell him anything like this: henceforth,6 you must clear all your press contacts through the MoD?7 A. I did not, sir. David's interactions with the press8 remained predominantly technical. They remained9 historic, largely to do with UNSCOM experiences. He had10 cleared those through the Foreign Office. That system11 worked and I did not ask him to change that.12 Q. Yes. You are aware, no doubt, of the memorandum13 produced by Mr Lamb, part of which I referred to this14 morning. I think you were in court, were you not?

15 A. I have seen that memorandum, sir.16 Q. The quotation where Mr Lamb says that the system relied17 on self discipline, and so on.18 A. (Nods).19 Q. You would accept that?20 A. Yes, I would, sir.21 Q. Thank you very much. So when it came to the interviews22 on 4th and 7th July with Mr Hatfield in charge, did you23 ever bring these de facto arrangements to his attention?24 A. David had set those arrangements out very clearly, in my25 judgment, in his letter of 30th June which Mr Hatfield

117

1 had read.2 Q. Yes. And which Mr Hatfield, in those interviews,3 appeared not to accept; is that right?4 A. That is right. We were dealing with a system that had5 worked well and that had broken down.6 Q. Yes. But did you ever bring to Mr Hatfield's attention7 anything like this: really this is a bit unfair, because8 this is the system that I understood had been operating9 for a long time and Dr Kelly should not be criticised10 for it; did you ever say anything like that?11 A. I did not. I did not think I could add anything to the12 way in which David had very clearly set it out in his13 letter of 30th June.

14 LORD HUTTON: Mr Gompertz, does that question relate to the15 actual fact of a meeting or the contents of what was


4/40

16 said?17 MR GOMPERTZ: The fact of the meeting.18 LORD HUTTON: The fact of the meeting, yes.19 MR GOMPERTZ: Can I ask you about the earlier meeting which20 was arranged, I believe, for 24th June? You were aware21 that it was intended that there should be such

22 a meeting?23 A. There was to be a meeting between Martin Howard, myself,24 Tim Dowse of the Foreign Office, who is Patrick Lamb's25 superior, and Martin Howard.

1181 Q. For what purpose?2 A. To discuss with David his press contacts. This was in3 the light of continuing concerns about the Observer4 article which had mentioned a British BW expert and also5 that that was the point at which I had heard that David6 had spoken to Andrew Gilligan.7 Q. At the time when it was decided to hold that meeting,

8 where was Dr Kelly? Was he in America when the decision9 was made?10 A. (Pause). I do not believe he was, sir.11 Q. Very well.12 A. I cannot remember exactly, but --13 Q. At any rate, did you tell him about this meeting on the14 24th?15 A. I did, sir. It was left to me to tell David that there16 would be a meeting on the 24th and that this was going17 to discuss his contacts with the press.18 Q. So you told him the reason for the meeting, as well as19 the fact that it was going to take place?20 A. I said it was going to be contacts with the press, sir.

21 Q. And then it was cancelled?22 A. Yes.23 Q. At the time, you told us when you gave evidence before,24 you did not know why.25 A. At the time that the meeting was cancelled I was just

1191 told it was cancelled and not given any explanation.2 Q. What did you tell Dr Kelly?3 A. I quite simply told him that, that it had been4 cancelled. Dr Kelly was coming up to London on that day5 in any case so he had other business to deal with.6 Q. So you gave him no reason?

7 A. I did not know the reason myself, sir. It was set up at8 Martin Howard's behest. Martin is an extremely busy man9 and it is not unusual for meetings to be cancelled in10 this way.11 Q. So it provoked no surprise from Dr Kelly?12 A. I do not believe it did.13 Q. No. Any reaction?14 A. No, as I say it is not unusual for meetings chaired by15 a busy person like Martin Howard to be cancelled without16 explanation.17 Q. There was, in fact, this leak inquiry which, at that18 time, was still outstanding.19 A. I subsequently learnt that, sir.

20 Q. You learnt that, I believe, on 1st July, did you not?21 A. 1st July.


5/40

22 Q. Which is when you saw the police, or was that the next23 day?24 A. That was the next day. I was informed by MoD security25 personnel on 1st July, sir.

120

1 Q. Yes. I do not want to know what passed between you and2 the police, but was that concerned with the leak3 inquiry?4 A. The meeting with the police was on 2nd July. I had, by5 that stage, received David's letter dated 30th June; and6 when I saw the MoD security people they recognised that7 what David might be saying in his letter of 30th June8 may have relevance to the leak inquiry. Clearly, we9 could not make that decision until we saw the letter;10 and so that was why we had a subsequent meeting on11 2nd July, to discuss the follow-on handling of that12 letter.13 Q. Yes. Because the reason we have been told why the

14 24th June meeting was cancelled, although you did not15 know it at the time, was because of this leak inquiry?16 A. That is what I subsequently learnt.17 Q. So when was the leak inquiry resolved, so far as18 Dr Kelly was concerned?19 A. I do not have details of that, sir.20 Q. Because he was excluded, was he not?21 A. That is my understanding, but I did not know a lot of22 the details of that until after his death.23 Q. Had that inquiry been resolved by 4th July?24 A. I do not know, sir.25 Q. Because that was the date of the first interview?

1211 A. Yes.2 Q. So that it would seem that by 4th July the reason for3 the postponement of the 24th June meeting had passed.4 Is that right, or not?5 A. I do not know when David was excluded from the leak6 inquiry, so I am not in a position to comment on that.7 Q. You cannot comment, right. Let us go on to the8 interview on 7th July. You have told us that that9 meeting concerned two issues: mainly the discrepancies10 between Dr Kelly's and Mr Gilligan's accounts --11 A. Yes.12 Q. -- of what was said when they met on 22nd May, and then

13 whether the MoD would wish to make a public statement;14 is that right?15 A. That is correct.16 Q. The vast majority of the meeting concerned the first17 topic?18 A. What we were trying to do here was to get a better19 understanding of David's account, in preparation for20 a possible statement which might lead to questions from21 the press, and in preparation for possible interest from22 the Foreign Affairs Committee.23 Q. At the end of that meeting, was he shown a press release24 which had been drafted?25 A. He was, sir. I did not see that press release myself,

122


6/40

1 but I know he was shown a press release and he read it2 through.3 Q. Ah, so you would not be able to identify which one it4 was?5 A. I would not, sir.6 Q. Very well. In which case I shall pass on.

7 I would like you to look, nonetheless, at the MoD8 statement which was in fact issued. Would you look,9 please, at MoD/1/67, which will come up on your screen?10 That was the press release, MoD statement, released at11 5.45 pm on 8th July; right?12 A. Yes.13 Q. Did you ever see that?14 A. (Pause). I believe I saw it the day after its release.15 Q. Were you ever given the opportunity to talk to Dr Kelly16 about it before it was released?17 A. I was not, sir.18 Q. You were his line manager.19 A. The press arrangements were being dealt with by other

20 people. I was not involved in this.21 Q. So nobody thought it right that you should be involved22 in this process.23 A. I had other business to attend to. We have a press24 office.25 Q. No doubt.

1231 A. We have other people who would doubtless be involved;2 and I was not involved.3 Q. Can I go back to the meeting of 7th July? Could you4 look at the notes which were made I think by yourself?5 MoD/1/46, please. That is the typed version, is it not?

6 A. That is correct.7 Q. And you told us this morning that those notes were typed8 up the next day at your dictation.9 A. I dictated them the following day.10 Q. Yes. Did you make any note at all at the meeting, or11 indeed on 7th July at any time, about the matters in12 paragraph 19 which appears on MoD/1/50?13 A. No, I did not, sir. The bulk of the meeting was14 concerned with getting a better understanding of David's15 account. That was actually quite technical and that is16 reflected in the earlier paragraphs. As I said earlier,17 I did not see the press statement that David was reading18 and consequently I was not really in a position to take

19 any detailed handwritten notes; but the following day20 I thought it appropriate to record, to the best of my21 recollection, what transpired at that meeting in22 relation to the statement.23 Q. Is there any reason why you could not have made notes of24 what is contained in paragraph 19?25 A. No reason at all, sir. As I say, the principal -- the

1241 bulk of the meeting was concerned with getting a better2 understanding of David's account, and that is what3 I focused on.4 Q. Yes. And when that finished and you moved on to stage 2

5 of the meeting, why not make notes of it, Dr Wells?6 A. It was a very short part of the meeting. I retained


7/40

7 sufficient memory to make a short summary paragraph of8 what transpired; and that is what I did.9 Q. You are content, are you, that what you have in fact10 recorded in the typed version is an accurate record of11 what was said with regard to matters other than the12 conversation between Mr Gilligan and Dr Kelly?

13 A. It is a short summary, sir.14 Q. Yes. So there was mention that the department would15 need to make some public statement; right?16 A. Correct, sir, sorry, yes.17 Q. There is examination and expression of contentment with18 the press release, whichever one that was.19 A. Yes.20 Q. Yes. And then Mr Hatfield said that although Dr Kelly21 was not named in the press release, his identity may22 become known in due course, and Dr Kelly replied that he23 acknowledged that; right?24 A. Yes. As I explained this morning, the word "may", the25 qualifier, there may have been a number of qualifiers

1251 used. There was an exchange at this point which I did2 not record. But to the best of my recollection that3 word was used at some point.4 Q. Your state of mind at the end of that interview was5 certainly not that there was to be a process by which6 Dr Kelly's particulars would be fed to the media?7 A. I had no knowledge of that, sir.8 Q. No. Still less that his name would be given if press9 personnel correctly identified him?10 A. I did not know of that, sir.11 Q. And nobody told you subsequently?

12 A. I was told at some point that there would be the policy13 that Dr Kelly's name would be confirmed if it was14 correctly put to the press office. I cannot remember15 quite when that was.16 Q. Can I ask you this: in his letter of 30th June, Dr Kelly17 mentioned press contact not only with Mr Gilligan but18 also with Susan Watts, did he not?19 A. He did.20 Q. Was that contact ever pursued in interview?21 A. (Pause). It was, very briefly, sir -- in our interviews22 we were, of course, focusing on what transpired between23 David and Andrew Gilligan.24 Q. Can I interrupt you? You used the expression "of

25 course".

1261 A. I am sorry.2 Q. Why do you say "of course"?3 A. Because we were concentrating on that at that time, on4 the meeting between David and Andrew Gilligan.5 At the meeting on 7th July, Martin Howard asked6 David about other journalist contacts and he said that7 he had spoken to Susan Watts and Martin Howard asked8 a similar question at the meeting on 14th July. That is9 the best of my recollection.10 Q. Yes. Why was contact with Susan Watts not pursued?

11 A. At that stage, we were focusing on what transpired12 between David and Andrew Gilligan.


8/40

13 Q. This would have been another unauthorised press contact,14 would it not?15 A. We did not ask David what had transpired between him and16 Susan Watts.17 Q. No. What I am trying to find out is why not?18 A. I could not say, sir. We were focusing on what

19 transpired between David and Andrew Gilligan.20 Q. Precisely. The focus was on Mr Gilligan because that21 was the point of interest for the Government; is that22 not right?23 A. I would not be in a position to comment on that, sir.24 Q. You just took notes at these interviews, did you?25 A. These meetings, yes, sir.

1271 Q. You did not participate in the process at all?2 A. With the exception of the meeting on 14th July.3 Q. Ah, we have not come on to that yet.4 A. Okay.

5 Q. Did you at any time feel marginalised by Mr Hatfield and6 Mr Howard?7 A. Not at all, sir.8 Q. Was any pressure ever applied to Dr Kelly?9 A. In respect of what, sir, if I may?10 Q. In order to ensure he was going to cooperate with the11 process?12 A. No, sir.13 Q. Were you surprised on 4th July how quickly Mr Hatfield14 decided there were no disciplinary issues to be15 resolved?16 A. I do not think I made a judgment one way or the other on17 that, sir.

18 Q. There was no sort of deal or offer of a deal or anything19 of that kind at all?20 A. Certainly not, sir.21 Q. Was there any requirement that Dr Kelly should attend22 before the FAC?23 A. He was asked -- I asked him on the morning of 11th July24 whether he was content, in principle, to appear before25 that Committee and he said that if he was asked he would

1281 do it.2 Q. It was his choice, was it?3 A. (Pause). He did not -- he did not articulate an

4 unwillingness to do it. He said that he was nervous5 about the potential for the press and that he was6 uncertain about the procedures, but if he was asked7 formally, he would do it.8 Q. Yes. That is not his choice though, is it? That is9 Dr Kelly agreeing to a request or requirement from10 others; that is right, is it not?11 A. Well, those were the words he used, sir. If he is asked12 to do it, he would do it.13 Q. I wonder if we could look at CAB/1/91, please. If we14 can scroll down a little bit, we can see this is from15 Menna Rawlings. Can you remind us who she is please?16 A. I am afraid I do not know, sir, I have not seen this

17 before.18 Q. Can we look at the first paragraph of this document?


9/40

19 LORD HUTTON: It was dated 10th July, is that right?20 MR GOMPERTZ: 10th July indeed. Thank you my Lord.21 I do not want to take much time over this. It22 refers to Sir Kevin Tebbit telephoning Michael Jay on23 10th July "to discuss requests from the FAC and the ISC24 for David Kelly (of Andrew Gilligan fame) to appear

25 before them both on 15th July.

1291 "I had spoken about this to you and Kara Owen2 beforehand. Kevin said that the MoD was unlikely to3 stand in Kelly's way, if he decided this was something4 he should do."5 It is that phrase that I want to ask you about. Was6 it Dr Kelly's choice that he should appear or not appear7 before the FAC?8 A. I quite simply asked his views on the principle of9 appearing in front of both the ISC and the FAC; and, as10 I said, he said that if asked he would do it. I have

11 not seen this record before, before now.12 Q. Yes. After the 7th July meeting, the next time you saw13 Dr Kelly, face to face, was on the 14th; is that right?14 A. That is correct, sir.15 Q. Yes. Meanwhile, he had, as it were, been on the run,16 I do not want to overdramatise it, but escaping from the17 media in Cornwall; is that right?18 A. He was advised to leave his house, sir, yes.19 Q. Yes. You tell us, do you, that in accordance with the20 phone records which we see today for the first time,21 that you managed to contact Dr Kelly at 3 minutes past 722 and 9 minutes past 7 on the evening of the 9th July?23 A. The call that I made is 3 minutes past 7 and David

24 called me at 9 minutes past 7.25 Q. Thank you. It was a very brief call at 9 minutes past,

1301 was it not?2 A. We were -- I was on a train. For understandable reasons3 I was limited in what I could say on the train.4 Q. I see. So what did you tell him at that time?5 A. I said that the press office had confirmed his name and6 that he should be in touch with the press office.7 Q. Did you tell him that his name would be in the papers8 the next day?9 A. I said that his name had been confirmed.

10 Q. Did he understand what you were talking about?11 A. I believe he did, sir.12 Q. Right. And so it was that you phoned him at 6 minutes13 to 8, another call of no great length, about one and14 a half minutes, is that right?15 A. That is right, sir.16 Q. What was that all about?17 A. That was because, as I say, I was limited on what18 I could say on the train. I said I would try to phone19 him once I got off the train. That was that telephone20 conversation then.21 Q. Thereafter there were indeed a number of telephone calls22 to Dr Kelly when he was in Cornwall?

23 A. That is correct.24 Q. I think there were two of some length, one of six


10/40

25 minutes at 10 o'clock on the 11th, and another one of

1311 just over nine minutes at nearly 6 o'clock in the2 evening the same day.3 A. That is right. I think the rest are probably my

4 attempts to get hold of David. He had told me that5 mobile phone contact could be difficult.6 Q. Yes. Was he being told, during the course of that day,7 that he was going to have to come back to London the8 following Monday for a meeting in order to prepare for9 the FAC?10 A. That would have been the conversation at 4 minutes to 6.11 I expect at that point I conveyed to him that he would12 be appearing before both Committees and suggested that13 he came back on Monday to prepare for those.14 Q. Yes. When you saw him at the briefing meeting on15 14th July, you saw him together with Mr Howard; right?16 A. Correct, and Heather Smith from personnel.

17 Q. You or rather Mr Howard went through a list of items18 about which he might be asked; is that right?19 A. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure that David20 understood the different constitution of the two21 Committees and to set out our view on the likely areas22 of questioning. It was also fair to say that at the23 beginning Martin said that there were no departmental24 lines to take on this.25 Q. He was given some steers though, was he not?

1321 A. He was told what the likely areas of questioning were;2 and it was made clear to him, on a number of occasions,

3 that he could -- he should feel free to give his own4 account.5 Q. We have seen a document produced by Mr Alastair Campbell6 that you have no doubt read about, his diary or part of7 it.8 A. I am aware of the diaries from the press, sir; yes.9 Q. Yes. In it there is an entry that the MoD had assured10 Mr Campbell that Dr Kelly had been well schooled. Do11 you recognise that process as having taken place on12 14th July?13 A. I saw that entry in the press, sir. I have to say that14 the meeting on 14th July was not schooling Dr Kelly, it15 was making sure that he understood the nature of the two

16 Committees and --17 Q. Sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you, go on.18 A. And that he understood the sorts of questions that the19 Committees were likely to ask. We did not know what20 questions they would ask, of course.21 Q. Because giving him departmental answers would be quite22 wrong, would it not?23 A. It was made clear to him that he should answer in the24 way that he wished.25 Q. Yes. Was that true even of the tricky areas?

1331 A. The tricky areas were tricky in the sense that, and

2 Martin Howard was clear on this, that they were at the3 margins of legitimacy in terms of what the Committees


11/40

4 could ask David, given the Defence Secretary's earlier5 letter.6 Q. That expression was used during the meeting, was it not,7 "tricky areas"?8 A. I have answered questions on this before sir, and9 I believe it was.

10 Q. It appears in everybody's notes.11 A. Including mine.12 Q. Including yours. Why does it not appear in the typed up13 version of your notes?14 A. Because I expressed it as being at the margins of what15 was permissible within the bounds of the16 Defence Secretary's letter. I did not feel it necessary17 to use the verbatim words.18 Q. The typed up version is an approximation of what went on19 at that meeting, is it not?20 A. It is a summary, sir -- yes, it is a summary of what21 transpired.22 Q. Can I just go back to 9th July for a moment? Were you

23 aware that the name was going to be, in effect, released24 by a combination of the statement, the Prime Minister's25 Official Spokesmen's briefings and the Q and A material?

1341 A. All I was aware of, sir, was that David's name would be2 confirmed by the press office if it was put to them.3 Q. Did you ever tell him that?4 A. I did not, sir. I knew that he was in touch with the5 press office, they are the experts in dealing with the6 press; and -- so I did not discuss that with David.7 Q. Can I come to two last topics? You knew David Kelly8 really quite well by this time, did you not?

9 A. Fairly well, sir, yes.10 Q. Would you describe him as a private, sensitive and11 modest man?12 A. I would describe him as a private man, a man who thought13 carefully, a man who was proud in the best sense of the14 word. He was a world renowned expert. That is how15 I would describe David.16 Q. And his character was such that what he perceived to be17 a public loss of his reputation would impact upon him18 very seriously?19 A. I have to say from my own perspective, sir, David knew20 that I wanted him out in Iraq as soon as we could.21 David knew that the theatre wanted him out in Iraq as

22 soon as we could manage.23 Q. Could you answer my question? I know you are trying to24 be helpful.25 A. So from my perspective, sir -- my perspective -- David's

1351 reputation as one of the world's foremost weapons2 inspectors had not been damaged.3 Q. Did you ever become aware that he had a sense of4 betrayal?5 A. I heard that in evidence, sir.6 Q. No, I meant at the time, when he was still alive.7 A. No, no, sir, I did not.

8 Q. Did you take into account the effect of the media9 attention upon him?


12/40

10 A. Yes, I did, sir. When he left his home on 9th July the11 records show that I have phoned him very regularly to12 check how he was feeling.13 Q. Yes. Did you take into account the reports of stress14 made by Mr Colin Smith, first of all?15 A. I was not aware of that record.

16 Q. Nobody told you about that.17 A. I was in constant touch with David, as the record shows.18 David was back in my office on Monday morning. I was19 asking how he was and he was assuring me that he was20 tired but otherwise he was fine.21 Q. Were you aware of Mr Nick Rufford's article in the22 Sunday Times on July 13th?23 A. I was, sir, and I phoned David mid morning, I think24 Mrs Kelly said it was about 11.30, first of all to check25 how he was and also to discuss Sunday's coverage which

1361 actually was less than we had been expecting.

2 Q. Yes.3 A. And David said, at that time, that he was dismayed at4 Nick Rufford's article.5 Q. I am not asking -- my fault entirely, I am not asking6 for that reason. You will recollect that he, Mr Rufford7 that is, expressed certain comments about Dr Kelly's8 appearance and how he was handling the pressure; do you9 remember that, or not?10 A. That was in evidence, was it, sir?11 Q. No, I am talking about in the article. We can show it12 to you if you would prefer to see it.13 A. I do not recall that bit in the article, sir.14 Q. Regrettably I do not have the reference immediately to

15 hand. Perhaps I could come back to it. The reason16 I ask you these questions is as a basis for the next17 question: did you ever do anything to help Dr Kelly18 other than talk to him on the telephone, as you have19 told us, and then face to face when you met him on the20 14th, 15th and 16th in connection with the briefing21 meeting and then the Select Committees?22 A. I was doing a lot to help David, sir. I had cancelled23 an important trip to the US so that I could be with24 David on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.25 Q. Yes.

137

1 A. I had arranged -- or had arranged hotel accommodation2 for David at MoD expense, should he need it. He3 actually wished to have other arrangements.4 LORD HUTTON: When did you offer that to him, Dr Wells?5 A. I offered that to him when he arrived back in London on6 the 10th, my Lord. Sorry, on the 14th, my Lord, excuse7 me.8 LORD HUTTON: And was that for what night or nights?9 A. That would have been initially for the nights of Monday10 and Tuesday, on the basis that David was giving evidence11 to two Committees on the Tuesday.12 LORD HUTTON: Yes. And his response to that was ...?13 A. That he was staying with one of his daughters in Oxford

14 and he would prefer to do that. I said if that was what15 he wanted to do, that was fine by me.


13/40


14/40

22 MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you very much Dr Wells.23 A. Thank you sir.24 LORD HUTTON: Mr Lloyd-Jones do you have any questions you25 wish to put?

140

1 MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, no.2 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much indeed.3 A. Thank you my Lord.4 MR DINGEMANS: Mr Harrison, please, my Lord.5 MR JAMES HARRISON (called)6 Examined by MR KNOX7 Q. Mr Harrison, could you give the Inquiry your full name?8 A. James Harrison.9 Q. And your position?10 A. Deputy Director Counter Proliferation and Arms Control11 in the Ministry of Defence.12 Q. You have given evidence before. Since you last gave13 evidence it has emerged that four Parliamentary

14 Questions were found on Dr Kelly's computer which had15 been sent by the Ministry of Defence on 17th July 2003.16 Perhaps we can just call them up before I ask you to17 comment on them. Could we call up COM/1/1?18 Do you recognise this? This, I think, is the text19 of an e-mail that you sent at about 9.28 in the morning,20 in fact.21 A. That is correct, yes.22 Q. And then COM/1/2. This is one of the attachments that23 you sent which is a Parliamentary Question from24 Bernard Jenkin. Do you see that?25 A. Yes.

1411 Q. You can see what the nature of the question is:2 "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether3 his Department has complied with Dr Kelly's terms and4 conditions of employment in handling the matter of his5 discussions with Mr Andrew Gilligan."6 Then COM/1/4, another question from Mr Jenkin:7 "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on how8 many occasions Dr David Kelly spoke to BBC Radio 49 defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan; and whether his10 line managers were aware of this."11 Then COM/1/6:12 "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what (a)

13 Civil Service and (b) MoD rules and regulations may have14 been infringed by Dr David Kelly in talking to BBC15 Radio 4 defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan."16 Finally page 8:17 "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what18 disciplinary measures his Department will take against19 Dr Kelly."20 LORD HUTTON: Do I understand they were all sent at 9.25 am?21 A. 9.28 am, my Lord, yes.22 MR KNOX: I think we can actually see your e-mail at23 MoD/30/51.24 LORD HUTTON: Yes.25 A. That was the covering e-mail, my Lord, and the four PQs

142


15/40

1 were attached to it.2 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much. Yes.3 MR KNOX: You say in that e-mail:4 "More PQs! But plenty of time for reply. I expect5 that Bryan will deal tomorrow."6 Can you explain why you say plenty of time for

7 reply?8 A. If you look at each of the four PQs there is a date for9 answer stamped on it. As I recall, the date was Monday10 8th September. So the answers were not required to the11 House of Commons until that date.12 Q. Can you explain how these e-mails came to be sent or13 rather this e-mail with these attachments came to be14 sent to Dr Kelly?15 A. Yes. They were received by Dr Wells' secretary by16 e-mail from the Parliamentary Branch on that morning,17 I think perhaps about half past 8. She herself was on18 leave that day but had left her e-mail such that any19 would be automatically forwarded to somebody else in the

20 branch. They were so forwarded, in effect, to one of my21 staff who passed them on to me again by e-mail.22 I received them around 9.13 or so on that morning.23 I looked at them. Plainly he referred to Dr Kelly.24 If, on that particular day, he had been coming into25 the office, then I would have simply printed them off

1431 and handed them over to him for his information. He2 was, of course, not in the office that day. I knew that3 he was at home. John Clark, I knew, was speaking to him4 about the two Parliamentary Questions from5 Andrew Mackinlay and also the letter to the Foreign

6 Affairs Committee. It seemed to me that David Kelly7 ought to be aware of these questions. They were matters8 of public record. There was in fact no reason to9 consider concealing them from him by not making them10 available to him.11 I had access to e-mail to be able to forward them to12 David, which John Clark did not. So it seemed to me13 that I should forward them to him, simply so that he was14 aware of them, as a matter of courtesy.15 Q. Before forwarding them did you yourself open the16 attachments and read the attachments?17 A. Yes, I looked at each of the questions before forwarding18 them to see just what they were.

19 Q. Just as a matter of mechanics, if one goes to MoD/30/720 you can see, I think, the first of the Parliamentary21 Questions coming in to you. At the foot of the page you22 see the initial e-mail at 8.25.23 A. Yes.24 Q. Then it gets passed up to CPAC-ADNS, which is the second25 entry down, then it goes from CPAC-ADNS to you,

1441 CPAC-CB3, is that right? Arriving with you at 8.25.2 Would that be how it is going?3 A. Not quite. CPAC-CB3 in fact is a member of my staff.4 He forwarded it to me, top of the page, CPAC-DD, you

5 will see it is forwarded to me in the top entry and to6 two others.


16/40

7 Q. You get it at 9.15 and you send it on at 9.23?8 A. That is right, 9.28, yes.9 Q. Did you discuss these PQs with Mr Clark?10 A. I do not recall any discussion, but I am quite certain11 since he also received them at the same time in that12 same covering e-mail -- sorry, Wing Commander Clark that

13 is, and I think we will have -- I probably expressed my14 views which were these were not matters for us to reply15 on. They seemed to me primarily matters for16 Richard Hatfield, the personnel director, and his staff17 in terms of making formal replies; that nevertheless18 I thought that David should be aware of them and19 I proposed therefore to forward them to him.20 Q. Did you speak to Dr Kelly at all about these PQs?21 A. I did not speak to him at all on that day.22 Q. And you spoke to Wing Commander Clark on this day. Do23 you know, from your conversations with him, whether he24 spoke to Dr Kelly about these Parliamentary Questions?25 A. (Pause). I do not know that he did.

1451 Q. By this time, 17th July, did you understand Dr Kelly to2 be under continuing pressure?3 A. My perception was that he had been under pressure, but4 that the peak of that had very much passed. I say that5 for a number of reasons. He had to leave his home to6 avoid the press over the weekend, he was now back at7 home on the Wednesday. He had had to appear before the8 Foreign Affairs Committee on the Tuesday, he had had9 some pressure obviously with that, but at the end of the10 hearing he had effectively been discharged as an honest11 witness, so that was behind him.

12 There had obviously been a great deal of press13 reporting, some of which was clearly offensive.14 Descriptions of him as a mole, for example; comparisons15 with Harold Shipman seemed obviously likely to be16 hurtful. Again the peak of that was over.17 On the Wednesday the Intelligence and Security18 Committee hearing had, as I understood it, passed19 without incident. So that was behind him. All that20 seemed to me to remain was to answer these outstanding21 factual questions from Andrew Mackinlay and the Foreign22 Affairs Committee for which he was checking his records23 at home that day. That seemed to me a straightforward24 issue. Once that was out of the way, he was able to

25 focus on deployment to Iraq.

1461 After the ISC hearing on Wednesday afternoon I had2 heard him speaking to John Clark about that and, as it3 seemed to me, as I say, the peak had passed, he had4 these administrative details in effect to attend to.5 Beyond that, he could focus on his deployment to Iraq.6 Q. One of these PQs raised the question of disciplinary7 measures that were going to be taken against Dr Kelly.8 Did you think that might in some way upset him in9 sending him that e-mail?10 A. My understanding was that there were no disciplinary

11 proceedings outstanding or being considered, so it did12 not seem to me that that was a difficulty.


17/40

13 Q. Likewise there is another e-mail talking about rules and14 regulations having been infringed. What about that?15 A. Again, he had had an interview, as I understood, with16 Richard Hatfield, the personnel director. That,17 I believed, concerned this interview with18 Andrew Gilligan, so it seemed to me that issue was

19 a dead one.20 Q. Did you keep any paper copies of the e-mails that you21 received or indeed of the e-mails that you sent?22 A. I printed out copies just of the Parliamentary Questions23 at the time; and I did keep them with other papers for24 some period after that, yes.25 Q. And do you still have them?

1471 A. I do not. I was due to be on leave from 21st August for2 a period of 10 days. In the middle of that I had to3 return to give evidence on the 27th, so on the day4 before I went on leave, I organised any relevant papers

5 that I had relating to my appearance on the 27th.6 I found these PQs amongst those papers, they did not7 seem to me to be relevant. There was no action that8 I was required to do with them so I destroyed them on9 that day.10 Q. I take it nothing has ever in fact happened to these11 outstanding Parliamentary Questions by Mr Jenkin?12 A. As I understand it, yes, indeed the questions were dealt13 with by the personnel branches within the Ministry of14 Defence who had received copies of them at the same15 time. They were the people who were primarily16 responsible -- whose area of responsibility the17 questions fell into and I know, having -- when I was

18 asked by the Inquiry about the questions, I checked with19 them subsequently and also with the Parliamentary Clerk20 and I am aware that those questions were subsequently21 answered in time, I think, for that 8th September22 deadline, but I think the answers, as I understand it,23 were in the terms of: this is a matter for Lord Hutton's24 Inquiry and no further information was given.25 Q. I see. We have not actually seen the answers as

1481 eventually drafted. Perhaps they could be provided in2 due course to the Inquiry.3 A. I have not done. They certainly can be, yes.

4 MR KNOX: Thank you very much.5 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much Mr Harrison.6 A. Thank you my Lord.7 WING COMMANDER JOHN CLARK (called)8 Examined by MR KNOX9 Q. Wing Commander, we have heard, this afternoon --10 I should ask your full name.11 A. My name is Wing Commander John Clark.12 Q. Your position?13 A. I work in the Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat14 and my appointment is CONAC 1 which is conventional arm15 control and the appointment is just identified as number16 1 of a series.

17 Q. We have heard this afternoon from Mr Harrison about four18 Parliamentary Questions by Mr Bernard Jenkin which were


18/40

19 sent to Dr Kelly on 17th July. Did you yourself, in the20 course of your conversations with Dr Kelly on 17th July,21 discuss these four Parliamentary Questions at all?22 A. No, I made no reference at all.23 Q. Can you recall Dr Kelly making any reference to these24 four Parliamentary Questions in the discussions?

25 A. No, I have no recollection of that at all, I am afraid.

1491 Q. Can I press you a little on that. When you say you have2 no recollection of that, are you saying you believe he3 did not or are you saying you cannot remember one way or4 the other?5 A. I am saying I believe he did not.6 Q. Were you, yourself, aware of the content of these four7 Parliamentary Questions?8 A. No, I was not actually. My priority at the time was9 clearly to facilitate the two outstanding Parliamentary10 Questions and the response to the Foreign Affairs

11 Committee. So that was my priority. So when the four12 PQs arrived, my initial reaction was to look at the13 deadline, saw that it was September, had a large sigh of14 relief and then ignored them.15 Q. Are you aware of any reason why Dr Kelly should not have16 been sent those four Parliamentary Questions on17 17th July?18 A. No, none at all. My relationship with David Kelly was19 founded on loyalty and integrity. He was a very senior20 individual within the Department and to be honest it21 would have been unfair if elements of the investigation22 or the PQs were kept from him. It was important he knew23 what was going on.

24 Q. I think you have suggested you were aware that these25 four Parliamentary Questions were sent to Dr Kelly?

1501 A. No, I was not aware of that.2 Q. You were completely unaware even of the existence of3 these four Parliamentary Questions?4 A. No, I did see the four Parliamentary Questions and, as5 I said, I checked the deadline and then ignored them.6 Q. Were you, yourself, sent the Parliamentary Questions on7 a computer that you had?8 A. Yes, they were forwarded to myself some time after9 9 o'clock on the morning of the 17th.

10 Q. Did you print out any hard copies?11 A. No, I did not.12 Q. Can I just move to a different topic, a short point: it13 appears from the telephone records we have seen that14 a phone call was made from Dr Kelly at 1.36 in the15 afternoon to the Ministry of Defence, and indeed to your16 telephone line at the Ministry of Defence. Can you17 recall receiving a telephone call from Dr Kelly at 1.3618 in the afternoon?19 A. No, I cannot, and the Thames Valley Police drew my20 attention to this and I have thought long and hard about21 that telephone call. I have no recollection of that22 call, unfortunately. I surmised at the time that

23 I traditionally pop out for a sandwich somewhere between24 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock and perhaps he had left


19/40

25 a message on my answerphone. When I returned from

1511 leave, I checked -- I have a notebook which if there are2 any actions outstanding from answerphone messages,3 I will note those down. I have no notes whatsoever, so

4 I am afraid I have no recollection of that at all.5 Q. Was there a voicemail left on the telephone?6 A. I have no evidence to suggest that there was.7 Q. Finally, just one matter: in Mr Harrison's evidence to8 the Inquiry when he last appeared, he said that he told9 you in the course of the 17th July to make sure, amongst10 other things, I now quote, "that the answers given by11 Dr Kelly fully dealt with telephone contacts as well as12 face to face meetings that he had had with journalists".13 Can you recall if you passed on that message to Dr Kelly14 on 17th July?15 A. No, I did not. That was one of the elements I had to16 pass on when I was trying to contact him after

17 3 o'clock. So that was one of the elements that18 James Harrison had raised but no, I had not discussed it19 with him.20 MR KNOX: Thank you very much Wing Commander Clark.21 LORD HUTTON: Thank you very much Wing Commander.22 A. Thank you my Lord.23 MR KNOX: I think the next witness is Mr Rufford.24 LORD HUTTON: Yes.25

1521 MR NICHOLAS RUFFORD (called)2 Examined by MR KNOX

3 Q. What is your full name?4 A. Nicholas Rufford.5 Q. Your occupation?6 A. I am a journalist.7 Q. And you have already given evidence to this Inquiry, so8 I will not take you over all the same points again.9 I just want to ask you this first: when you first10 arrived at Dr Kelly's house in the afternoon or the11 evening of 9th July, did you already know that he was12 the source of the Gilligan report on the Today13 Programme?14 A. I did not know.15 Q. What was your state of belief or suspicion at that time?

16 A. I suspected he might be the person who had spoken to17 Andrew Gilligan but I did not know for sure.18 Q. Had you discussed your proposed visit to Dr Kelly on19 9th July with anyone at the Sunday Times?20 A. Yes, I discussed it with the news editor, Charles Hymas.21 Q. What had you told Mr Hymas?22 A. I had said to him that I suspected that Dr Kelly may be23 the person who had spoken to Andrew Gilligan, but I did24 not know for sure. I also told him that I had been25 trying to contact Dr Kelly during the day by telephone

1531 and had been unsuccessful; and we agreed that the best

2 strategy would be for me to go and call on Dr Kelly.3 Q. When you arrived at Dr Kelly's house, can you recall


20/40

4 whether he said anything about having been contacted by5 the Ministry of Defence or not?6 A. Yes. His first words were that he had been contacted by7 the Ministry of Defence and told that he would be named8 in national newspapers the following day.9 Q. After you left Dr Kelly's house, did you report back to

10 your editor or Mr Hymas?11 A. Yes, I did. I phoned him almost immediately I left12 Dr Kelly's house; and I told him that Dr Kelly had13 confirmed that he was the person who had spoken to14 Andrew Gilligan and I also told Mr Hymas that Dr Kelly15 had told me that his name would be in the papers the16 next day.17 Q. You said, on the last occasion, that you discussed with18 Dr Kelly the possibility of his writing an article for19 the Sunday Times. Would you like to explain the20 circumstances in which you came to make that offer to21 him?22 A. Yes, he told me he felt he had been misrepresented in

23 the way that the BBC had reported their contacts with an24 intelligence source; and I asked him whether he would25 like to put his point of view in an article for the

1541 Sunday Times.2 Q. I think you also mentioned that you made an offer of3 hotel accommodation to Dr Kelly on that occasion. Did4 you link the offer of hotel accommodation to the writing5 of an article?6 A. No, I did not. They were made at separate ends of the7 conversation. The offer of hotel accommodation was made8 in the context of any help he may need and which the

9 newspaper may be able to give and it was right at the10 end of the conversation.11 Q. Did you know, when you suggested that Dr Kelly might12 write an article for the Sunday Times, that he was going13 to give evidence or might have to give evidence before14 the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Intelligence and15 Security Committee?16 A. No, not at that stage.17 Q. When you suggested to Dr Kelly, "Would you like to write18 an article?", how did he respond to that?19 A. He said he would be happy to do it with the agreement of20 the MoD press office.21 Q. Therefore, when you left Dr Kelly eventually, did you

22 take the matter up with the MoD press office?23 A. Yes, very soon after I left his house I phoned Pam Teare24 on her mobile phone and asked whether Dr Kelly might be25 able to write an article for the Sunday Times to put his

1551 version of events.2 Q. And what did she say?3 A. She at first said "no", then she said in the unlikely4 event that Dr Kelly was allowed to write an article, she5 would remember that I was the first journalist to submit6 such a request.7 Q. Can you say at what time you made that telephone call to

8 Pam Teare?9 A. Yes. It was 20.17.


21/40

10 Q. How soon after leaving Dr Kelly's house did you make11 that call to her?12 A. I left his house at round about quarter to 8, so it was13 roughly half an hour later.14 Q. Just working back from the mobile phone records, you say15 you leave his house about quarter to 8. What time do

16 you think, therefore, you arrived at Dr Kelly's house?17 A. It was roughly 7.30 that I crossed the road to his18 driveway.19 Q. I take it, therefore, your conversation with Dr Kelly on20 this occasion was about 15 minutes; is that right?21 A. That is correct.22 Q. I think it has been suggested that possibly your visit23 was not entirely welcome or something of a surprise.24 What do you have to say to that?25 A. Before I crossed the road, Dr Kelly saw me in the car

1561 park of the Wagon and Horses. I waved to him and he

2 acknowledged me. It took some time to cross the road3 because of the traffic and he stood at the end of his4 drive and waited. So I do not believe that it was an5 unwelcome visit.6 Q. It has also been suggested that Dr Kelly asked you to7 go. Is that correct?8 A. That is not correct.9 Q. So when you did leave, how did the parting take place?10 A. It took place amicably. I had been talking to him for11 about 15 minutes, he had not invited me into the garden12 or into the house so I felt that I did not want to stay13 any longer.14 Q. Mrs Kelly's evidence was that when she spoke to Dr Kelly

15 after he had seen you he mentioned the name Murdoch, the16 suggestion being that you must have also mentioned the17 name Murdoch to Dr Kelly. What do you say about that?18 A. It is possible that the name Murdoch did come up in the19 conversation but not in the context of a deal as has20 been suggested.21 Q. Could you say in what context the name Murdoch came up?22 A. It was in a light hearted context. Dr Kelly, when we23 met for a drink or a meal, would always want to ensure24 that I did not pay personally and he would say: is this25 on Mr Murdoch? And it became something of

157

1 a catch-phrase after our meetings. So when I suggested2 at the end of the conversation hotel accommodation, he3 said: is that on Mr Murdoch?4 Q. And you said?5 A. It is.6 Q. In your article which you wrote in the Sunday Times on7 13th July, after this meeting, you have mentioned8 Dr Kelly by name and I think there has been a suggestion9 that he was upset to see his name mentioned as if he was10 giving you an interview. What do you say to that?11 A. There were parts of the conversation that were off the12 record and I honoured that and kept those parts of the13 conversation off the record until after he died. But

14 the rest of the conversation was not off the record.15 Q. And I think you have given evidence before, but perhaps


22/40

16 you can just remind the Inquiry, why do you think that17 some parts of the interview were on the record?18 A. By implication, because he had asked for certain parts19 to be off the record, the rest was on the record. That20 is the convention when journalists interview somebody21 and I think Dr Kelly was well aware of that.

22 Q. I think it has also been suggested you may have been one23 of the writers or a writer of an article that appeared24 in The Times on 10th July, that is to say the Thursday25 of that week. Is that right?

1581 A. That is not true. I do not write for the daily Times,2 I write only for the Sunday Times.3 Q. On another article that you wrote on 13th April it was4 said, I think in Rachel Kelly's evidence, that Dr Kelly5 appeared to be upset or frustrated to see that his name6 was mentioned, in terms, in the article which you had7 written in which I think you quoted him as saying that

8 one of the Iraqi generals knows where all the bodies9 were buried. You quoted Dr Kelly's name in terms. What10 do you have to say about that?11 A. Dr Kelly -- we had a lot of discussions afterwards and12 Dr Kelly never said to me that he objected to having13 been quoted. It was a one line quotation and it was14 after an interview in which he had described this Iraqi15 general and his meetings. He had had about 20 meetings16 with this particular individual.17 Q. You say you had lots of conversations after this. This18 is 13th April. How many conversations did you have with19 Dr Kelly after 13th April?20 A. I would say about nine or ten.

21 Q. Would these have been on the telephone or at meetings?22 A. They were almost entirely -- no, they were entirely on23 the telephone.24 Q. Finally, Wing Commander Clark, in his evidence on the25 last occasion he came to the Inquiry, remembers

1591 overhearing a telephone conversation which Dr Kelly had2 with you on 6th June 2003. Is there anything you would3 like to say about that?4 A. Only that I called Dr Kelly and he said he was unable to5 speak at the time and asked me to call him back two6 hours later, which I did. So I believe that the

7 conversation which Wing Commander Clark overheard was8 the first of two conversations.9 Q. Is there anything else you would like to add in the10 light of comments that you have heard in evidence since11 you yourself gave evidence to the Inquiry?12 A. No, there is not.13 LORD HUTTON: Do you have any questions Mr Gompertz?14 MR GOMPERTZ: No thank you, my Lord.15 LORD HUTTON: Mr Rufford.16 A. I beg your pardon.17 LORD HUTTON: When Dr Kelly told you that he had been18 contacted by the MoD and told that he would be named in19 the newspapers the following day, did he say anything to

20 the effect that he would have to leave home?21 A. No, he did not say that but I did ask him whether he had


23/40

22 been advised or counselled by the Ministry of Defence on23 how to handle press calls, whether they were sending24 anybody to chaperone him or whether he had suggested25 hotel accommodation or staying with friends and he said

160

1 they had not.2 LORD HUTTON: Did he say when it was that he had been3 contacted and told by the MoD that he would be named in4 newspapers the following day?5 A. I beg your pardon?6 LORD HUTTON: Did he indicate to you when he had received7 this information from the MoD that he would be named the8 following day? Did you understand it was a recent call?9 A. Yes, he said "I have just had a call". That was at10 about 7.30.11 LORD HUTTON: I see. Yes. Thank you very much. Very well.12 Thank you very much Mr Rufford.13 A. Thank you.

14 MR DINGEMANS: Professor Hawton, please, my Lord.15 PROFESSOR KEITH EDWARD HAWTON (called)16 Examined by MR DINGEMANS17 Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?18 A. Keith Edward Hawton.19 Q. And your qualifications?20 A. Doctor of Science, Doctor of Medicine, Fellow of the21 Royal College of Psychiatrists, Diploma of Psychological22 Medicine, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.23 Q. You have given evidence to the Inquiry on 2nd September.24 Had you, before you gave evidence, interviewed25 Mrs Kelly?

1611 A. I had.2 Q. And had she provided information to you to the effect3 that Dr Kelly had confided in her his belief that his4 mother, who had suffered a stroke, might have committed5 suicide although an open verdict had been recorded at6 the inquest?7 A. Yes, she did.8 Q. That was not adduced in your oral evidence to9 the Inquiry on 2nd September. At that stage, what was10 your view about its possible relevance?11 A. I think the relevance of that fact was extremely12 uncertain and would have been speculation to have put

13 forward.14 Q. Have you since you gave evidence on 2nd September15 received further information?16 A. I have.17 Q. And what is that further information?18 A. I have received three items of information. One is19 a copy of a letter that was sent by Martin Hemming,20 legal adviser to the Ministry of Defence, to the21 solicitor for the Inquiry on 22nd September. Another22 piece of information was a copy of the register of23 Dr Kelly's mother's death, the register entry I should24 say, and the third was a copy of an entry by a general25 practitioner in Leeds on Dr Kelly when he was a --

162


24/40

1 presumably a student at Leeds University in 1964.2 Q. Turning first to the letter from the legal adviser to3 the Ministry of Defence. What relevant information does4 that disclose?5 A. I will read what it says. It says:6 "I enclose two extracts from Dr Kelly's vetting file

7 which were prepared based on a report prepared by the8 investigating officer handling his initial positive9 vetting clearance in 1985. The first records an10 interview on 20th November 1985 with Dr Kelly in which11 he referred to his mother's death."12 The relevant passage, quoting from the letter,13 reads:14 "'Dr Kelly said his mother died by her own hand in15 1964, never having remarried. For many years prior to16 her death she suffered from depression and he has little17 doubt that the verdict of the coroner at the inquest18 into her death that the balance of her mind was19 disturbed was correct.'"

20 Q. Was there any other information in the letter?21 A. Yes, there is a -- as follows:22 "The second extract --23 LORD HUTTON: I think there should be no reference to24 anyone's name, Professor Hawton, or to any particular25 locality.

1631 A. I understand. The second extract reports an interview2 on 28th November with a friend of Dr Kelly who had known3 him for many years, who he had nominated as one of his4 character referees. I am quoting here. The relevant5 passage seems to be as follows:

6 "The main incident in their lives that had brought7 them ..."8 Sorry:9 "He thought that the main incident in their lives10 that had brought them closer friendship was that their11 mothers each took their own life within a short period12 of each other. They were in many ways able to give each13 other encouragement and help following these tragedies,14 which helped them to develop a closer bond of friendship15 between them."16 Then another following extract:17 "He recalls the death of his mother [here one18 assumes he is referring to Dr Kelly, Dr Kelly's mother],

19 which occurred at a time during his student days at the20 University of Leeds and was known to be engrossed in his21 studies and whilst the tragedy distressed him, he22 appeared to ride the period well and at no time when23 [they] were together did he display any mental reaction24 to this unfortunate matter. In fact, the referee said25 'he can be considered a well balanced person'."

1641 MR DINGEMANS: Turning to the second piece of information2 which I think you have told us was entry on the death3 register. Can you identify any relevant and only4 relevant extracts?

5 A. This concerns, as I said earlier, Margaret Kelly's6 death, that is Dr Kelly's mother's death, on


25/40

7 13th May 1964, and the cause of death is stated as8 bronchopneumonia, that is a chest infection due to9 barbiturate poison, and an open verdict was given.10 Q. So it was an open verdict?11 A. Yes.12 Q. And the final piece of information, I think you referred

13 to some GP records.14 A. Yes, there is a GP record just dated May 1964, the15 specific date is not given. I think one can deduce it16 was following Dr Kelly's mother's death. It reads as17 follows: "Insomnia following death of mother". Then18 there is an indication that a tranquilliser was19 prescribed.20 Q. In what ways might this further information be relevant?21 A. I think it is uncertain whether this adds anything22 further to the information that I had already had at the23 time of my previous appearance at the Inquiry.24 Q. Are there three possible ways in which suicide in25 a family can potentially be relevant?

1651 A. Yes, indeed. The first way is fairly clear, and that is2 through transmission through generations, in other words3 from parents to children, of severe mental illnesses4 which are known to be associated with risk of suicide,5 and the evidence suggests this is largely a genetic6 transmission. The sorts of illnesses one is referring7 to here are manic depressive illness, for example,8 severe depression, alcoholism and so on.9 Q. From what we have heard about Dr Kelly there does not10 appear to be any evidence of that, is that right?11 A. No, I do not think this applies. There is certainly no

12 evidence that he had significant mental illness, either13 at the time of his death or previously.14 Q. The second way in which it might be relevant?15 A. Well, the second way -- and we get on to slightly less16 certain ground here -- is through transmission of --17 through generations of certain personality18 characteristics which might increase the risk of19 suicide.20 Q. In the past you told us that those characteristic traits21 would be, for example, aggression, impulsiveness.22 A. Hmm.23 Q. Is there any evidence that Dr Kelly had those24 personality traits?

25 A. Absolutely not, and indeed the reverse I would say.

1661 Q. So we come to the third possible way. What is that?2 A. Well, this gets into a much more uncertain area and this3 is whether having a suicide in a family can affect an4 individual within that family's attitude towards5 suicide. There is virtually no research on this6 somewhat for obvious reasons, in that it is difficult to7 ascertain attitudes particularly in people who have died8 by suicide themselves. But one can speculate that this9 could have an effect on an individual but it might work10 in one of two possible ways.

11 Q. What are those two ways?12 A. Well, the first might be that if a person is in


26/40

13 a situation in which they are faced by apparently14 insurmountable problems and are feeling hopeless and15 suicidal, having had a family member commit suicide16 might possibly make them somewhat more comfortable with17 the idea of suicide. On the other hand, such a person18 is likely to have intimate knowledge of the terrible

19 impact that suicide very often and usually has on20 families, which may indeed actually serve to decrease21 the likelihood of suicide in that individual.22 Q. So in the light of those matters, can I relate those23 back to your previous conclusions and ask you now, in24 the light of all the evidence, to state your conclusions25 or the summary of factors that you believe may have

1671 contributed to Dr Kelly's death?2 A. Well, I stick with the conclusions that I presented when3 I appeared before. Firstly, that I think one major4 factor was the severe loss of self esteem that he had

5 from feeling that people had lost trust in him and from6 his "dismay" was the word I used before, maybe that was7 an understatement, at being exposed in the media. And8 I think the fact, as I think has now been generally9 acknowledged, that he was a very private person made his10 being in the media all the more stressful for him.11 The second factor, I believe, was that he probably12 was coming to fear that the prospects for continuing his13 previous work were diminishing and it is possible that14 he feared he would lose his job altogether, perhaps15 particularly when he saw some of the communications that16 he had received on the morning of his death.17 And thirdly I think the effect of this on him would

18 have been to have filled him with a profound sense of19 hopelessness. I think another very relevant factor, as20 I said when I appeared before, was his private nature,21 his dislike of sharing personal problems and feelings22 with other people; and according to several accounts, he23 had become increasingly withdrawn during the -- into24 himself during the period shortly before his death which25 meant that I think he became even less accessible or

1681 less able to discuss his problems with other people.2 Q. And those remain your conclusions?3 A. They do.

4 MR DINGEMANS: Thank you, my Lord.5 LORD HUTTON: Mr Lloyd-Jones, do you have any questions?6 MR LLOYD-JONES: My Lord, no.7 LORD HUTTON: Thank you. Thank you very much indeed8 Professor.9 MR DINGEMANS: My Lord as my learned friend Mr Gompertz has10 negotiated an extension, that concludes the evidence for11 today.12 LORD HUTTON: Very well.13 MR DINGEMANS: I am completely wrong, I am sorry, it is14 Mr Hatfield.15 LORD HUTTON: Yes.16 MR DINGEMANS: Sorry, my Lord.

17 LORD HUTTON: I think perhaps this will be a convenient time18 for us to take a break. Thank you very much.


27/40

19 (3.25 pm)20 (Short Break)21 (3.30 pm)22 MR RICHARD PAUL HATFIELD (called)23 Examined by MR LLOYD-JONES24 Q. Mr Hatfield, is your full name Richard Paul Hatfield?

25 A. It is.

1691 Q. Are you the Personnel Director of the Ministry of2 Defence?3 A. I am.4 Q. Is it right you have given evidence to the Inquiry on5 I think three previous occasions?6 A. Yes, it is.7 Q. Mr Hatfield, did you receive, yesterday, a log of8 telephone calls made by Dr Kelly on 8th July?9 A. I did.10 Q. Were you then able to compare that log of calls with

11 technical records that were available to you?12 A. Yes, I was.13 Q. And as a result of that, did you obtain a more complete14 picture of the sequence of events leading up to the15 release of the press statement on 8th July?16 A. Yes, I was able to produce a more complete and detailed17 picture of that afternoon.18 Q. As a result, did you produce a new witness statement?19 A. I did.20 Q. And was that witness statement volunteered to21 the Inquiry this morning?22 A. It was.23 Q. Can you assist us as to where you were in the early

24 afternoon of 8th July?25 A. I was on a tour of one of my directorates in the

1701 building in which I work.2 Q. Did you have any contact with Dr Kelly earlier that day?3 A. Yes, I had spoken to him on my mobile -- he had called4 me on his mobile to my mobile at 8.30 that morning from5 RAF Honnington.6 Q. What was the purpose of that call?7 A. That was following up the conversation we had at the end8 of the meeting the previous afternoon, and we had agreed9 he should go and complete his training but before he

10 started it on the morning of the 8th he should check11 that there is no reason why he should not go ahead, that12 I did not need to recall him to London for a meeting or13 something like that.14 Q. In the early afternoon you were at one of the15 directorates, and what happened?16 A. I was called back by my secretary from this tour at some17 time just after 3.30 in the afternoon.18 Q. What did you do then?19 A. I had been summoned back by the Permanent Secretary's20 office and the first thing I did was to ring that office21 and talk to Dominic Wilson who explained to me it was22 expected that MoD would need to make a statement about

23 Dr Kelly, although unnamed at that stage, that evening24 and I was going to be asked to clear the text with


28/40

25 Dr Kelly when it was available.

1711 Q. Did you see the text at that point?2 A. No, I did not see the text at that point although3 Dominic read over to me what I think was probably the

4 text as it had come back from a meeting in No. 10,5 although it was not the final draft.6 Q. Did you then make contact with Dr Kelly?7 A. I did.8 Q. Do you know what time that was?9 A. The MoD records tell me it was precisely 15.58. I rang10 him hoping to catch him before he left RAF Honnington,11 since it would be easier to talk to him if he was not on12 the road. In fact I got his mobile voicemail at 15.5813 and left a message on it.14 Q. What was the message?15 A. Well, the message was, in substance, that I wanted to16 talk to him as soon as possible about the possible

17 release of a statement and talk to him about the text of18 that statement.19 Q. Now that you have seen the record of Dr Kelly's mobile20 phone, do you know what happened after that?21 A. Yes, the mobile phone record that was disclosed to me22 yesterday shows he called his voicemail at 16.12 and23 then called me back at 16.14 again on my mobile,24 although I was in my office.25 Q. What did Dr Kelly say?

1721 A. Dr Kelly first of all told me that he had been driving2 down a fast road, I think he said a dual carriageway, it

3 might have been a motorway, when his mobile had gone off4 15 minutes earlier and he had to get to somewhere where5 he could stop in order to return my call.6 Q. What did you have to say to him?7 A. I then essentially repeated the basic message I had8 given him on the voicemail and told him that although9 I did not have the text at the moment, the statement was10 likely to be slightly longer than the one we had11 discussed as a contingency text the day before because,12 in particular, I had noted that it was going to say13 a little bit more about what he had told us he had said14 to Andrew Gilligan, and that was what I wanted to talk15 to him about in particular.

16 Q. Did you say what the Ministry of Defence was proposing17 to do with the statement?18 A. I said that I was expecting it to be issued that19 evening. At this stage I did not know anything more20 precise than that.21 Q. Did you have a draft at that stage?22 A. No, I did not have a draft at that stage.23 Q. What did you say to Dr Kelly you proposed to do about24 it?25 A. I said that we would need to talk again in half an hour

1731 or so; and he suggested that by then he ought to be

2 getting to somewhere where it would be much more3 convenient for him to talk, and we agreed to make


29/40

4 contact again in half an hour or so.5 Q. At that stage, by the time of that telephone6 conversation, had you already seen the Q and A document?7 A. At the time of that telephone conversation I had not8 seen any Q and A document. Immediately after that9 conversation I saw a draft, which I think the Inquiry

10 has had for a long time, which had been circulated11 earlier that afternoon, amongst other people to me, that12 had been sitting on my computer while I was out of my13 office, and I passed two comments on minor questions in14 that back but as it happens they were not taken into the15 final Q and A.16 Q. Do you know what time you sent those comments back?17 A. Yes, I do. That was 16.35.18 Q. When did you receive the final version of the statement?19 A. I now know that I received it at 16.57.20 Q. And in what form did you receive it?21 A. Well, as a result of Pam Teare's evidence last Friday we22 realised that it was sent by e-mail and eventually found

23 it on a terminal in my office and in the PUS's office.24 Q. Was that version sent to you for amendment?25 A. It was not sent to me for amendment but I did in fact

1741 propose an amendment to it.2 Q. To whom did you make the proposal?3 A. I proposed the amendment initially to Dominic Wilson in4 the PUS's office and he took it back into the PUS.5 I suggested reinserting a reference which had been in6 the draft which I had used the previous day, saying that7 the meeting with Andrew Gilligan was unauthorised; and8 that had been omitted in the draft that had been worked

9 up by the PUS.10 Q. So that change was not in the typed copy which you had11 received by e-mail?12 A. It was not in my typed copy, no. I wrote it in in13 manuscript.14 Q. Did Dr Kelly ring you back?15 A. I now know that actually I rang him back. I think by16 this stage there was a certain degree of anxiety that17 I should make contact. So I rang him to see whether he18 was now available. The MoD records show that I got19 through at 17.10.20 Q. What did you say to him on this occasion?21 A. On this occasion I essentially picked up where I left

22 off, said I now have the text. I read it through to23 him, paragraph by paragraph. He said very little at24 all, but each paragraph he indicated he had not got25 a problem. When I finished running through the text, he

1751 confirmed that he was content with it. I said to him2 that --3 LORD HUTTON: Sorry, may I just ask you: when you read the4 statement to him, did you include the amendment that you5 had suggested?6 A. Yes, I did, my Lord, I included my manuscript amendment.7 LORD HUTTON: Had that already been approved?

8 A. Yes, it had.9 LORD HUTTON: I see. Was there just the one amendment that


30/40

10 you proposed?11 A. I did talk about another one but we never made it.12 MR LLOYD-JONES: I think your evidence was that you13 initially proposed two amendments.14 A. That was to the Q and A brief.15 Q. That was the Q and A brief?

16 A. In fact I did discuss with Dominic Wilson another17 possible change to the statement but we agreed it was18 not worth making. I do not think he even put it to the19 PUS. So that just dropped out of the reckoning.20 Q. So you then propose two amendments to the statement, one21 which was accepted?22 A. That is right.23 Q. It was that which was written in manuscript by you?24 A. Correct.25 Q. And you read that to Dr Kelly?

1761 A. To Dr Kelly.

2 Q. Did you say anything to Dr Kelly about what was likely3 to happen after the statement was released?4 A. Yes. Yes, I did. Now that I am clear on the timing,5 I can say that I did not make a general sort of6 observation that I thought it would come out quite soon.7 At 17.10 I knew that as soon as I reported a statement8 had been agreed with no suggested amendments, the9 process would begin absolutely immediately. So I told10 him that it would go out very fast and I said to him11 that I was certain it would be out by 7 o'clock.12 I guessed, I think probably wrongly in the event, that13 it would not make the 6 o'clock news.14 Q. Was anything else said in that conversation?

15 A. I cannot remember anything else specific in that16 conversation, although either in that one or in the one17 at 16.15 I told him that when we put the statement out,18 he should talk to the press office and to Bryan Wells19 about support which, as I have mentioned in previous20 evidence, I could not actually say which of the two21 conversations I actually did that in.22 Q. After that conversation, Mr Hatfield, did you take any23 further action?24 A. I reported straight back to the Permanent Secretary's25 office within minutes and I have been told that the text

177

1 that I agreed with Dr Kelly was sent out from the2 Permanent Secretary's office to the press office not3 necessarily for release -- I am not sure about that, but4 it was e-mailed to them at 17.18. And that was the end5 of my involvement.6 Q. Now your original account in your evidence to this7 Inquiry was that you had reported to Sir Kevin that you8 had cleared the statement with Dr Kelly before9 5 o'clock.10 A. That was my strong memory that we had completed the11 process just before 5 o'clock. I had, effectively,12 conflated the call at 10 past 5 with the one at quarter13 past 4; and until we discovered when the text arrived

14 I did not realise that I had done that.15 Q. Are you satisfied now that the account that you give,


31/40

16 with the benefit of the records, of the times of the17 telephone calls is an accurate account of what occurred18 that afternoon?19 A. Yes.20 Q. Could I very briefly raise one other matter with you?21 You may have been in court earlier this afternoon when

22 Professor Hawton gave evidence in relation to some23 information in DV files?24 A. Yes.25 Q. Can I just ask you about DV files? Are those personnel

1781 files?2 A. No, they are not personnel files, they are security3 files.4 Q. What is the difference between them?5 A. They are held very separately, and under almost no6 circumstances are they released to personnel7 organisations because the information that is disclosed

8 in a positive vetting, or in modern parlance develop9 vetting interviews, is meant to be on a very10 confidential basis, for reasons that I think are fairly11 obvious given the example this afternoon.12 Q. Do you as Personnel Director have access to those DV13 files?14 A. Under normal circumstances, no. As my job also includes15 overall responsibility for security and one of my16 subordinates is the Director General of Security and17 safety and the Defence Vetting Agency works for me using18 my security line, I could, under exceptional19 circumstances, have access to the files but I have not20 ever had access to a file in this job.

21 Q. When did the information which has been referred to by22 Professor Hawton this afternoon, that is the information23 from the DV files, come to your attention?24 A. The first information I had, and I do not have all the25 information referred to this afternoon, was on

1791 15th September in the early evening when --2 Q. How did it come to your attention?3 A. I understand that the file, which is normally held in4 York at the Defence Vetting Agency, had been brought to5 London to be held by the London based security6 organisation working for me in case it was required or

7 information was required for this Inquiry. I believe8 the Inquiry had separately directly approached the9 agency to confirm that Dr Kelly's vetting status was10 still extant at the time of his death. That is why they11 brought it to London, just in case it was required.12 The individual holding the file in London naturally13 wanted to familiarise himself with the file in case14 information was required, and also to familiarise15 himself with the procedures if we needed to disclose16 information from such a sensitive personal file. In17 doing so, he came across the information that18 Professor Hawton referred to this afternoon.19 Q. Have you read the file?

20 A. No, I have not read the file.21 Q. Were you aware of this information in July of this year?


32/40

22 A. In July I was completely unaware of it.23 Q. Could any of the other Ministry of Defence witnesses to24 this Inquiry have been aware of this information in July25 of this year?

180

1 A. I do not believe so.2 MR LLOYD-JONES: Thank you very much. I am grateful.3 LORD HUTTON: Do you have any questions Mr Gompertz?4 MR GOMPERTZ: Just a very few, my Lord, with your Lordship's5 leave.6 LORD HUTTON: Yes.7 Cross-examined by MR GOMPERTZ8 Q. Mr Hatfield, can you tell us first to what grade in the9 MoD does DSTL grade 9 equate?10 A. It does not equate to any existing grade. There are11 three -- the modern MoD has two grades at band B, B1 and12 B2. Between them I think they cover DSTL 9, 8 and 7.13 Obviously because they are three to two, they do not

14 match exactly.15 Q. Are you aware that in October 2002 Dr Kelly was promoted16 to DSTL grade 9?17 A. I am.18 Q. Are you also aware, as Dr Shuttleworth told us, there19 only twelve such persons in grade 9 in DSTL?20 A. I am aware from Dr Shuttleworth's evidence of that, yes.21 Q. Thank you. Can we come to the evidence about telephone22 calls on 8th July? When you were last in the witness23 box, may I summarise your evidence as follows: at24 3.58 pm you called Dr Kelly in order to read the25 statement to him. At about 4.30 Dr Kelly called you

1811 back on his mobile and you read the statement, paragraph2 by paragraph, to him over the course of about 103 minutes, and then at 5.10 pm you called Dr Kelly again4 to say that the button had been pressed. Is that a fair5 summary of what you were saying last time?6 A. Not quite, but it is close. The timings were much7 vaguer than that and, as you may remember, one of the8 problems I was having was placing the only time of which9 I had precision, the 16.35 Q and A in relation to my10 telephone call.11 Q. You had your own telephone records last week, did you12 not?

13 A. I had my own telephone record last week, which is why14 the 17.10 call appears. If you look at my original15 evidence, it is not mentioned at all.16 Q. Yes. I am talking about last week.17 A. Yes.18 Q. You had your telephone records so that you could time19 the calls at 3.58 and 5.10?20 A. My problem, last week, was I had been trying to obtain21 the records of the matching phone calls for some time22 without success. Therefore I was unable to give you the23 complete sequence.24 Q. Did you have records which showed calls at 3.58 and25 5.10?

182


33/40

1 A. I did.2 Q. Thank you. This week, today, you tell us that at 3.583 you called Dr Kelly and left a message; right?4 A. Yes.5 Q. At 4.14 he called you back and the statement was not6 read to him then but you said you would read it as soon

7 as you got it?8 A. Yes.9 Q. Right. And at 5.10 the statement was read; correct?10 A. Correct.11 Q. Is it because of the e-mail that has been discovered12 that shows that you only got the statement at 4.56 pm13 which has caused you to alter your evidence?14 A. It is a combination of getting the e-mail and finding15 out the details of the intervening phone calls which16 I had had a problem with. If you actually refer to my17 original evidence, and on the very first day of18 the Inquiry you will find that I was having some19 difficulty in placing that middle call between 16.15 and

20 16.45.21 Q. You have now seen Dr Kelly's telephone bill, have you22 not?23 A. I have.24 Q. Showing the second call to be only 1 minute and25 8~seconds?

1831 A. Indeed.2 Q. Is it that that has jolted your recollection so3 dramatically in this regard?4 A. No. As I explained, I do not think it is dramatic at5 all. My problem is I did not know when I had received

6 the text. When I found the text, it was actually rather7 later in my memory on an exceptionally busy afternoon,8 it was quite clear that I could not have read it to him9 before I got it, if you see what I mean.10 Q. It is also now quite clear, is it not, that there was no11 call lasting 10 minutes?12 A. No.13 Q. There was one --14 A. It is clear, yes.15 Q. Yes. There was one lasting about 3 minutes?16 A. No, there were actually three telephone calls. There is17 one in which I leave a message, a quite substantial18 message on his voicemail; there is a conversation at

19 16.14 in which I tell him that we are going to have20 a statement and the gist of what has changed, and then21 there is a conversation lasting almost 4 minutes in22 which I read through a short statement to him, which add23 up in total to not far short of 10 minutes. As I say,24 I conflated the two.25 Q. If we had not been able to check your evidence against

1841 electronic records, the Inquiry would have been misled?2 A. If I had not been given Dr Kelly's records I would not3 have been able to complete the record. I have been4 trying to get them for some time.

5 MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you.6 Cross-examined by MR DINGEMANS


34/40

7 Q. Mr Hatfield, can I just pull up MoD/40/1, the e-mail you8 received at 16.56? This is timed 16.56.9 A. Yes.10 Q. And it is from PUS PA, who is that?11 A. That is one of the secretaries in Sir Kevin Tebbit's12 office.

13 Q. Right. And it is to the Personnel Director.14 A. It is actually to -- addressed to my private secretary.15 Q. Right, "Personnel Director-PS".16 A. One of the reasons why we took so long to discover it is17 he was on leave that day so we were not looking in the18 right place, if you like. It was sent -- it was read by19 my personal secretary and brought in to me although20 I think not the covering sheet, just the attachment, and21 therefore we were looking in the wrong place when we22 were looking for e-mails earlier.23 Q. That shows that you did not have the press statement at24 16.15.25 A. Well, that is not conclusive. That was one of our

1851 problems because until it was drawn to my attention that2 it might have arrived by e-mail, I thought it might well3 have arrived by fax in which case it could have arrived4 considerably earlier. But we do not think it did arrive5 by fax.6 Q. You had had it or had had the latest version read out to7 you at about, I think you say, 3.30-ish or something?8 A. No, it would have been just before I called Dr Kelly at9 4 o'clock, between 3.30 and 4 o'clock.10 Q. Now, you left a message on Dr Kelly's voicemail?11 A. I did.

12 Q. Do you know how long that message was?13 A. The telephone records show it was I think 1 minute14 16 seconds.15 Q. Okay. What did you say on that voicemail?16 A. I said who I was, that I was trying to contact him17 because the MoD -- I had been told that the MoD needed18 to make a statement that evening and that I wanted to19 talk to him about the content of that statement.20 Q. Did you say why the MoD needed to make a statement that21 evening?22 A. I do not think I did in the voicemail.23 Q. Because we have seen the interview notes on 7th July and24 although there is discussion about a possible press

25 statement --

1861 A. Yes.2 Q. -- no reasons are given, as it were.3 A. No, because on 7th July it was against any sort of range4 of reasons.5 Q. Absolutely.6 A. Yes.7 Q. Then you have a telephone conversation at 16.14?8 A. Correct.9 Q. And if we call up FAM/11/2, this is redacted extracts of10 the mobile phone bill, and the telephone conversation

11 appears to last 1 minute 8 seconds.12 A. That is how I read it too although my copy was very


35/40

13 indistinct.14 Q. You know what the numbers are, I do not. In relation to15 that -- it does not look

hearing transcript - 24 september 2003 afternoon

Documents