Suicides, the American poet Anne Sexton wrote, “have a special language”. The task of interpreting why any person at any time might reach the dark conclusion that he should take his own life would be daunting enough; to do so in the case of the death of David Kelly two weeks ago will prove even more challenging. It falls to Lord Hutton, who will today formally open and then adjourn his investigation, to attempt as best he can to reconstruct the events that occurred before Dr Kelly undertook his lonely deed and to assess what impact these may have had on his state of mind and actions.
Lord Hutton’s terms of reference, the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly’s death, allow him considerable latitude. While his is not a statutory tribunal with the authority to compel witnesses to attend or the right to view documentation, in practice the distinction between a judicial inquiry and an inquiry headed by a judge may be modest. Any individual who refused to appear before Lord Hutton and any organisation that declined to provide him with the paperwork that he wished to peruse would instantly attract highly unfavourable attention. In practice, therefore, if not necessarily in theory, this law lord can stake out his own territory and oblige others to co-operate with him.
Lord Hutton has a deserved reputation as a fair man with a clear mind who is unlikely to want to play the part of amateur detective, psychiatrist or weapons inspector. He will probably aspire at the outset to focus on the strict facts before him. The reality is, though, that he is bound to be drawn into matters beyond the reach of a conventional coroner. Dr Kelly would surely be alive today if his name had not become public. His name became a matter of interest because of a broadcast produced by the BBC. That broadcast was, presumably, made possible only by what Dr Kelly allegedly told one or more reporters. Thus an element of “who said what, where, when, and to whom?” is inevitable.
This process must not, however, be allowed, as it could, to get out of hand. There will be some who want Lord Hutton to adjudicate on whether the intelligence available to the Prime Minister was accurate, manipulated, or substantial enough to justify the invasion of another country. Others might encourage him to produce detailed recommendations as to how the BBC decides whether to place certain material on the airwaves. A different lobby may well want him to turn his attention to the overall relationship between ministers, political advisers and civil servants within modern Whitehall.
Lord Hutton should not leap into these elephant traps. If he does, then his investigation will drag on for months if not years, providing rich pickings for the legal profession. Where he can be of wider value is by acquiring all of the information relevant to this affair and publishing it. This would, for example, allow the BBC’s governors to consider whether they should ask an outside figure to review the conduct and guidelines of their corporation in the light of the evidence that had become available. Parliamentarians could determine whether aspects of this controversy demand further examination by select committees. It will be hard enough for Lord Hutton to put himself into the distraught mind of one man. He will be in an impossible position if he tries to be all things to all men.