Key points: Kelly family's QC

Here are key points from the closing statements of Jeremy Gompertz QC, Counsel for the family of government scientist Dr David Kelly, on day 23 of the Hutton inquiry.

Mr Gompertz said the Kelly family accept that Lord Hutton may find that various individuals were "blameworthy".

Jeremy Gompertz QC

"The Kelly family are not seeking revenge or retribution against individual scapegoats."

The Kelly family's objective is to expose the "duplicity" of the government in their handling of Dr Kelly.

"Systematic failures" at the Ministry of Defence should be addressed and remedied, said Mr Gompertz.

The family wanted to ensure "as far as is humanly possible that no-one else should suffer the ordeal endured by Dr Kelly".

If there should be some criticism of individuals to achieve their objective, then the family "accept this as a necessary step".

Unfortunately, it would appear that there is still a long way to go before this objective is to be achieved, judging by the government's submissions, Mr Gompertz said.

"With the exception of the Walter Mitty slur, the government and MoD do not accept that any criticism should be made of any government action or any blame should be attached to any individual in the events leading up to Dr Kelly's death."

The allegation by Mr Gilligan that the change had been made by Downing Street ... could hardly be further from the truth." Jonathan Sumption QC Government case: Key points

"This should be contrasted with the approach of the BBC."

Mr Gompertz said the Kelly family was "deeply hurt and angered" by evidence given by Richard Hatfield, the MoD director of personnel.

"He said Dr Kelly was irresponsible for a fundamental failing in meeting Andrew Gilligan and that he, Mr Hatfield, may well have initiated disciplinary action against Dr Kelly and suspended him."

The family were also concerned by his assertion that the MoD had given Dr Kelly "outstanding support".

"Were the matter not so serious, the family would find the assessment of the support given to Dr Kelly as ... to be risible."

Never again should a civil servant be publicly named if there is an alternative, said Mr Gompertz.

Never again should there be "such feeble support for an employee" at a time of crisis, he said.

"A glaring example is that the press office failed to telephone Dr Kelly to warn him that his name was known to journalists, apparently because it was thought that Dr Wells [Bryan Wells the MoD director of Counter Proliferation and Arms Control] should tell him. Sadly, the press office had not bothered to obtain Dr Kelly's telephone number."

Mr Gompertz pointed to the "contribution of the culture of the media" to Dr Kelly's death.

For example, he said "the style of the Today Programme in making news as opposed to reporting" the story and the approach of investigative journalists.

Mr Gompertz pointed to the conduct of "some of the photographers" for their part in the "harassment of Dr Kelly before his death and the family after it".

"The effect of all this media attention upon an extremely private and retiring man should not be underestimated," he said.

"This treatment of a grieving family by the media is wholly unacceptable."

Part of Dr Kelly's job was to communicate with the media and he had been described as an "accomplished media person".

Mr Gompertz said it was hard to see why Dr Kelly should have sought permission for his meeting with Mr Gilligan.

There are four reasons why the Kelly family believe BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan's evidence was "unreliable".

Firstly, Mr Gilligan's account of the chronology and progress of his meeting with Dr Kelly was "irreconcilable" with the physical evidence discovered by experts looking at his Sharp organiser.

Secondly, the reporter's account of the meeting was inconsistent with material made by himself in preparation for the broadcast, and was inconsistent with his Mail On Sunday article.

Thirdly, Mr Gilligan lost his manuscript note which cast doubt on the content of the conversation.

Lastly, Mr Gilligan has "proved himself to be an unreliable historian" by the changes in his account of the number of meetings he had with Dr Kelly and when they took place.

The family invited the inquiry to find that the government made a deliberate decision to use Dr Kelly as part of its strategy in its battle with the BBC.

This included putting him in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) and Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to undermine Andrew Gilligan's evidence.

Mr Gompertz said all government witnesses had denied making a deliberate decision to use the weapons expert as part of its strategy in its battle with the BBC.

The "hypocrisy of these denials" has since been disclosed by some passages in the diary belonging to Alastair Campbell, the government's director of communications.

He said the diary provided compelling evidence that there was a government strategy to get Dr Kelly's name out.

The diaries were only disclosed after Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon left the witness box on Monday and he could not be cross-examined, said Mr Gompertz.

"They indicate with clarity, if accepted by the inquiry, that the secretary of state's denials of the Government's strategy, put to him in cross-examination, were false. Indeed they reveal he was an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal to put Dr Kelly's name into the public domain. This is totally contrary to his previous stance."

An e-mail revealed to the inquiry on Wednesday, sent on 9 July by Mr Hoon's private secretary Peter Watkins to the MoD's chief press officer Kate Wilson, said Tony Blair's chief of staff Jonathan Powell had suggested to Mr Hoon "that we should simply name our man but left the decision to Mr Hoon who has not yet reached a final view".

"This document demonstrates once again the hypocrisy of Mr Hoon's public stance on the matter in submissions he gave to the inquiry. Curiously, neither Mr Hoon nor Jonathan Powell saw fit to mention this e-mail during their evidence, which meant we were unable to cross-examine them about it. If, as the family submit, there was a strategy to out Dr Kelly, to use a witness to undermine Andrew Gilligan in furtherance of the Government's dispute with the BBC, this was a cynical abuse of power and deserves the strongest possible condemnation."

Documentary evidence of such a strategy should be taken with "the failure to provide any reasonable explanation of the abandonment of the original stance adopted in the MoD press office's Q&A material on 4 July, when it was stated that the name would not be disclosed and there was "no benefit in revealing it".

Mr Campbell's diaries on 4 July said: "GH (Geoff Hoon) said his initial instinct was to throw the book at him but in fact there was a case for trying to get some kind of plea bargain."

Mr Gompertz said "the bargain suggested by the family was there would be no formal disciplinary proceedings and no risk to his employment, pension rights or security status provided Dr Kelly gave evidence to the select committee in accordance with the direction and steers he would be provided with."

Even if a plea bargain was not carried out, it showed the type of thinking going on in the Government, "Geoff Hoon in particular" - with Mr Hoon's experience at the bar, he "would undoubtedly know the difference between a plea bargain and mitigation".

He said information was leaked to journalists. For example, Tom Baldwin wrote two articles for The Times which contained information not yet released into the public domain by the press statement and the lobby briefing. Mr Baldwin told the inquiry that the sources of both articles were conversations with Whitehall contacts.

"The Government has yet to explain... why Dr Kelly was kept in the dark about the strategy that Number 10 and the MoD had developed to confirm his name to journalists if that name was put to the MOD press office."

"The plain and obvious reason was the risk he might not consent to it and may refuse to co-operate in appearing before the FAC and ISC."

The barrister said one possible explanation was given by Mr Hatfield who had told the inquiry: "I did not, and do not, believe I required his consent." This showed the attitude that Dr Kelly's views were irrelevant: "Common decency required that Dr Kelly be kept informed."

"He had not committed any disciplinary offence, he was not on trial and was entitled to the same fair treatment as any other civil servant."

"Dr Kelly was left with the impression that a statement might be issued that would not identify him and would not lead to his identity being revealed." Dr Kelly was "expressly told" that it would not be necessary to reveal his name.

Dr Kelly was given no advice about the consequences of the press statement before it was released, including whether he should speak to journalists or confirm that he was the individual involved, the lawyer said.

The MoD did contact Dr Kelly once the press statement had been issued and records showed that Mrs Wilson, chief press officer at the MoD, called on 8 July at 2026 for 51 seconds and 2046 for one minute 19 seconds: "So less than two and half minutes of time was the extent of the assistance the MoD could manage to give Dr Kelly."

Mr Campbell's diary entry for 15 July "reveals that he had been given assurances by the Ministry of Defence" that Dr Kelly had been "well schooled" for his appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr Gompertz said schooling a witness who is to appear before a parliamentary committee is "an improper activity".

Mr Campbell said his appearance before the FAC had been gruelling - how much more gruelling would it have been for Dr Kelly, whose only request - that Foreign Office official Patrick Lamb accompany him - was turned down, said Mr Gompertz.

"Your Lordship would have been moved by the evidence of Mrs Kelly and her daughter Rachel of how tired and how unhappy he was. How he felt betrayed by the MoD, no doubt because he had been led to believe that the matter could be dealt with confidentially.

"He found himself in the glare of the media. He had worked faithfully in the Foreign Office all his life. He had achieved great eminence both nationally and internationally."

Dr Kelly had led weapons inspectors in Russia and Iraq and had been awarded the CMG and was being considered for further honours.

With Dr Kelly's death "the Government and the nation had lost their greatest expert in WMD."

Dr Kelly had worked faithfully for his country but "was used as a pawn in their political battle with the BBC".

"His public exposure must have brought about a total loss of self-esteem, a feeling that people had lost trust in him. No wonder Dr Kelly felt betrayed after giving his life to the service of his country.

"No wonder he was broken-hearted and, as his wife put it, shrunk into himself. In his despair he seems to have taken his own life."