Evening Standard (London): MoD chiefs 'played Russian roulette with Kelly's life'

THE Government was today accused of playing Russian roulette with the life of Dr David Kelly as the Hutton Inquiry exploded into conflict.

Lawyers acting for Dr Kelly's family accused the Ministry of Defence of deceit and hypocrisy - and of leaving the weapons scientist exposed when they could have protected him. The deputy head of Defence Intelligence, Martin Howard, faced a gruelling cross- examination from Jeremy Gompertz, the QC acting for Dr Kelly's widow Janice and her family. Mr Gompertz accused the MoD of playing "parlour games" over Dr Kelly's identification, allowing journalists to produce a series of names - 21 in the case of the Times - before confirming that the right man had been discovered.

When Mr Gompertz asked whether the department was playing "a game, perhaps, of Twenty Questions?" Mr Howard replied: "We are not responsible for how the media put their questions."

To gasps in the court room, Mr Gompertz then asked "or was it more like a game of Russian roulette?"

Mr Howard replied: "No. It was not that, either."

It was the first time any of the witnesses summoned to the inquiry had been grilled by a "hostile" barrister.

As the gloves came off, it was clear that more senior witnesses, up to and including Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, now face their toughest and most dangerous test yet.

Mr Howard was fiercely challenged by Mr Gompertz, who said: "I suggest to you that the strategy adopted with regard to disclosing Dr Kelly's identity was both cynical and irresponsible." The official replied: "I would disagree with that completely."

Today's session also brought potentially damning new evidence for the MoD and for Mr Hoon.

Mr Gompertz homed in on an early version of the question-and- answer document drawn up to guide MoD press officers on how to handle media enquiries into the unnamed individual who had come forward to say he held an unauthorised meeting with the BBC's Andrew Gilligan.

If asked whether the Government would name the person involved, press officers were to answer, "We are not prepared to name the individual involved." If asked why not, the recommended reply was, "We have revealed all the relevant details. There is nothing to gain by revealing the name of the individual, who has come forward voluntarily."

Mr Howard was repeatedly pressed as to why there had been "a sea change", with a decision to provide a whole series of "clues" to the weapons expert's identity and then confirm his name.

The earlier plan, the lawyer pointed out, "would not have identified Dr Kelly at all". Mr Howard said it was necessary to protect other officials who might wrongly come under suspicion and into the media spotlight.

Mr Howard was asked if there was a deliberate "strategy" to out Dr Kelly then belittle him. James Dingemans, QC to the inquiry, pointed out that journalists were telephoned by anonymous Whitehall sources who said Dr Kelly was only a junior official.

"The briefing of journalists rather suggests there was a plan or strategy, does it not?" he said. Mr Howard replied: "It could be interpreted that way."

Mr Dingemans repeatedly asked him why Dr Kelly was not warned that his name was being confirmed to journalists. "I do not think that's fair because he was told his name was likely to come out," Mr Howard insisted.

Key evidence of dissent among intelligence officials over the Iraq dossier were not disclosed to MPs, the inquiry heard. Mr Hoon failed to act on advice to tell the committee that two officials protested in writing to their line managers.

But Mr Hoon himself was not told that one of them, scientist Bryan Jones, was so concerned that he copied his letter to the deputy chief of defence intelligence at the time, Tony Cragg.