Re: Who is Lord Hutton?

["Richard Harris" <rhh1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So why was Lord Hutton chosen?

If he remains true to form, we know what to expect from his inquiry

Roy Hattersley
Monday July 28, 2003
The Guardian

It was Lord Justice Scott, interviewed last week on television, who aroused
my interest in how the government decides who heads judicial inquiries.
Judges, he said, are trained to make objective assessment of evidence. And I
recalled how he exhibited that talent when he examined the sale of arms to
Iraq. His report concluded that "parliament and public were designedly led
to believe" that the export embargo was being applied more strictly than
"was in fact the case".
In plain English that could only mean that ministers did not tell the truth.
But the Scott report was explicit in its judgment that they had "no
duplicitous intention". I hope that sort of objectivity - internal
contradictions which keep everybody happy - can be avoided ...

It is, therefore, worth considering what it is in Lord Hutton's character
and record which made him the "appropriate" choice. We know that he is
fierce in his defence of judicial integrity. He was one of the law lords who
criticised Lord Hoffman for voting in favour of General Augusto Pinochet's
extradition without first declaring his connections with Amnesty
International. And he takes a stern view about the duty of public servants
to obey strict rules of conduct. Lord Hutton voted to dismiss the appeal of
Private Lee Clegg - the paratrooper who shot a joyrider at a Northern
Ireland checkpoint. And he subscribed to the ruling that David Shayler could
not legitimately claim that revealing the secrets of MI5 was in the public
interest.

He is certainly not going to be a soft touch. Ulster lawyers (see Sir Edward
Carson) rarely are. But why is he so regularly described as "conservative"?
Clearly that does not mean that he votes Tory. Rather it is the suggestion
that his instincts favour the orthodox and that he feels happier following,
rather than setting, precedents. He does not revel in doing the unexpected
or hope to acquire a reputation for audacity.

So, if he remains true to form, we can expect his inquiry to end as so many
inquiries have ended. The report will be balanced and judicious, as is
always the case. No one will be unfairly blamed, as they never are. But when
was the last time a judicial inquiry was explicitly critical of a minister's
integrity or the honesty of a senior civil servant? Not Franks on the
Falklands war and certainly not Scott on arms to Iraq. On the rare occasions
when that happens, the report is a sensation. We are at least allowed to
wonder if, when Lord Hutton was adjudged to be "appropriate", the appointing
authority recalled that sensation is not his style.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1007043,00.html

Hattersley, of course, forgets to mention the sham judicial inquiries into
Bloody Sunday.  And thinking of Hutton, now what kind of lawyer do you get
from the Protestant ascendancy of the North of Ireland?

Richard.