Frequently asked Questions

To read documents in PDF format you will need a copy of the freely available Adobe Acrobat Reader.

· Letter of appointment from Lord Falconer to Lord Hutton dated 22 July 2003.

· Letter from the Secretary of the Cabinet to Permanent Secretaries dated 7 August 2003 regarding internal disciplinary process.

When will Lord Hutton's report be published?
Lord Hutton announced on Monday 13 October that he hoped to deliver his report by the end of the year but, as he has a large amount of oral evidence and documentation to consider, it may be that the report will not be delivered and published before the New Year. An announcement will be made once the publication date has been confirmed.

Once the report is published, it will be available to be purchased from the Stationery Office, who will be printing the report. It will also be published on this website.

What issues will Lord Hutton investigate during the Inquiry?
Lord Hutton's terms of reference are "urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly".

Why was Lord Hutton chosen to be chairman of the inquiry?
He is a man of integrity and independence, well qualified to conduct such an inquiry. He was the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland from 1988 to 1997, and has been a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lord) since 1997.

Who will Lord Hutton report to?
The Government has asked Lord Hutton to report to Lord Falconer, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

What is the estimated cost of the Inquiry and how is the cost broken down e.g. staff, IT, resources etc?
Currently it is too early to tell. A full breakdown will be provided when Lord Hutton reports. The cost is likely to be over a million pounds. The main costs include staff, IT, rent of accommodation and legal bills. The Hutton Inquiry costs do not include any costs incurred by other Government Departments.

How many people are directly involved in the Inquiry team, how is it structured?
Judge – Lord Hutton
Two Counsel – James Dingemans QC (Senior Counsel) and Peter Knox (Junior Counsel)
Solicitor – Martin Smith (from Solicitors Clifford Chance LLP)
Secretary to the Inquiry – Lee Hughes
Deputy Secretary – Helen Smith
Office Manager
Personal Assistant
Press Office and clerical support from DCA Communications Group
Technical web support and content management from DCA
IT support from the Royal Courts of Justice as required

How does the Inquiry affect / tie into the Coroners Inquest and the Thames Valley Police investigation?
The Coroner's inquest has been suspended. The Thames Valley Police investigation in support of the Oxfordshire Coroner now reports to Lord Hutton.

By what process has evidence to the Inquiry been requested by Lord Hutton. What terms of reference have Parties had from the Inquiry with regard to the requested disclosure of evidence?
On behalf of Lord Hutton, the Secretary to the Inquiry has written to Parties seeking evidence. The letter quotes the terms of reference for the Inquiry, as provided by Lord Falconer, and seeks disclosure of all relevant evidence. Additional specific information can be and has been requested by the Inquiry team after consideration of the initial documents provided.

All evidence, with some exceptions and editing of personal information, has now been published on this website. This evidence has been published as received. Any missing pages or documents are a matter for the providers.

How have these requests for evidence been handled by their recipients, e.g. Government departments?
This is a matter for the individual providers of evidence but we understand that the Government has set up two units in the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Defence (MOD) to act as liaison points with the Inquiry. Most providers of evidence are disclosing documents on a rolling basis and the Inquiry team receives new documents on a daily basis.

How have the disclosed documents been sifted by the Inquiry team?
When evidence is received by the Inquiry team it is referenced, indexed and scanned into a database by the secretariat and passed to the legal team for consideration. All evidence is dealt with in the same way.

What evidence is not being made available?
The following is not being made available: -

a. There are about three pages of evidence being withheld on National Security grounds.

b. Some evidence will be redacted before publication to remove certain sensitive information on personal privacy grounds e.g. home addresses and telephone numbers.

c. Some evidence will not be published at all on personal privacy grounds, for example personal witness statements, chronologies and other notes.

d. We are not disclosing the content of personal witness statements, notes and chronologies as these are simply advance notice to the inquiry of what an individual witness intends to say. All relevant evidence from these documents will be or will have been disclosed during examination and thus in the public domain through the transcripts of evidence given.

e. No one was asked for a witness statement and they are not a requirement of the Inquiry process. What witnesses were asked to do was provide a note of any points or issues they wanted to come out during their examination. The inquiry did tell witnesses that these notes would be received under a duty of confidentiality and would not be disclosed with all the other evidence by the Inquiry team. Provision of these notes is a matter for individuals. It is for individual witnesses to confirm whether or not they have provided them and to release the contents should they wish to.”

How have witnesses been chosen and how have they been requested to attend? Have time constraints influenced the numbers of witnesses called to give evidence?
The legal team decides who they would wish to interview and formal letters are sent out by the Secretary to the Inquiry. No constraints on numbers have been imposed.

Have any special arrangements been made for witnesses to give evidence to the Inquiry?
On the whole the high level of co-operation has left little need for special arrangements.

However, waivers were sought from certain people in relation to journalists who were giving evidence to the inquiry, with the aim of releasing those journalists from any duty of confidentiality that they owed to those providing the waivers.

Some witnesses who are abroad have been permitted to give evidence by video link. For the most part witnesses have been called in chronological order.

Lord Hutton will explain any future special arrangements in public if they occur.

How will the second phase of the Inquiry, i.e. the cross examination of witnesses, be conducted? Will Lord Hutton place any constraints on the lawyers representing the involved Parties?
Lord Hutton will determine which witnesses will be recalled for stage two of the Inquiry and who will be able to cross examine the witnesses and the extent of that cross examination. Parties to the Inquiry will of course be able to make representation to Lord Hutton on these matters.

Appropriate notice will be given to Parties to the Inquiry with regard to this.

How has Lord Hutton decided whom he will ask to give evidence in the second phase of his Inquiry?
Lord Hutton has stated that during the course of the adjournment (following the completion of the first phase of the Inquiry) he will consider which parts of the evidence already given and which issues arising from that evidence should be subject to more detailed and rigorous scrutiny. He will also give consideration to what witnesses he should recall to assist him in the second stage of the Inquiry and he will consider whether there are any additional witnesses whose evidence he has not yet heard whom he should call.

Why are only some witnesses being recalled?
Lord Hutton, in his closing remarks to phase one on Thursday 4 September, made clear three points on the recall of witnesses:

First, if he recalls a witness to give further evidence in the second stage of the Inquiry this does not necessarily mean that he regards that person as a possible object of criticism. He may recall a witness simply to clarify some matters and not because he thinks that he or she may be liable to criticism in his report.

The second point is that if Lord Hutton does not recall a witness this does not necessarily mean that he or she may not be subject to criticism in his report. It is possible that the reason why a witness is not recalled is because he has notified that person privately in writing that he may criticise him or her in his report in a particular way and that person has informed Lord Hutton that he or she does not wish to dispute that criticism and have the opportunity to give further evidence in the second stage.

The third point is that if a witness is privately notified by Lord Hutton that he or she may be subject to criticism in his report, this will be a provisional view which he may alter or revise in the light of further evidence and/or on further consideration.

Are providers of information to the Inquiry protected from future legal proceedings?
The Hutton Inquiry is protected from any legal proceedings coming from information disclosed during the Inquiry, e.g. slander and libel, so long as publication of that material is consistent with the needs of the Inquiry and is not malicious.

Providers of information will need to take their own legal advice on this matter. The Cabinet Secretary has stated that nothing which any Government official provides to the Inquiry by way of evidence, whether orally or in writing, will be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings against that official or any other official, subject to the limitations set out in his letter of 7 August.

Back to Top