This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/27/chilcot-inquiry-bereaved-father-backs-legal-action-to-speed-publication

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Chilcot inquiry: bereaved father backs legal action to speed publication Chilcot inquiry: bereaved father backs legal action to speed publication
(35 minutes later)
Legal action may be the only way to force Sir John Chilcot to publish his long-delayed Iraq war inquiry, according to the father of a soldier who died in the war.Legal action may be the only way to force Sir John Chilcot to publish his long-delayed Iraq war inquiry, according to the father of a soldier who died in the war.
Roger Bacon, whose son Matthew was killed in 2005, criticised Chilcot for failing to set a publication date and raised the threat of legal action to speed things up.Roger Bacon, whose son Matthew was killed in 2005, criticised Chilcot for failing to set a publication date and raised the threat of legal action to speed things up.
Chilcot on Wednesday strongly defended the “Maxwellisation” process in which those facing criticism are given a chance to respond, saying it was essential for fairness, accuracy and completeness.Chilcot on Wednesday strongly defended the “Maxwellisation” process in which those facing criticism are given a chance to respond, saying it was essential for fairness, accuracy and completeness.
Related: Chilcot defends long-delayed Iraq inquiry – but sets no date for publicationRelated: Chilcot defends long-delayed Iraq inquiry – but sets no date for publication
But to the frustration of bereaved families, Chilcot did not say when the report, which is expected to criticise a wide range of ministers, intelligence officers, Whitehall officials and senior military staff, will be published.But to the frustration of bereaved families, Chilcot did not say when the report, which is expected to criticise a wide range of ministers, intelligence officers, Whitehall officials and senior military staff, will be published.
“He (Chilcot) has now come back and it’s as we were, that the Maxwellisation process will continue and he will publish, as he puts it, as soon as possible, but when’s that?,” Bacon told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday. “It seems to us that the only way of getting on with this is to take some kind of legal action.” “He (Chilcot) has now come back and it’s as we were, that the Maxwellisation process will continue and he will publish, as he puts it, as soon as possible, but when’s that?” Bacon told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday. “It seems to us that the only way of getting on with this is to take some kind of legal action.”
Matthew Jury, of McCue & Partners, a law firm representing some of the families, has also raised the prospect of legal action. “Sir John has refused the families’ legal request to impose an effective timetable on the Maxwellisation process, thereby preventing any deadline being set for publication of the report,” he said.Matthew Jury, of McCue & Partners, a law firm representing some of the families, has also raised the prospect of legal action. “Sir John has refused the families’ legal request to impose an effective timetable on the Maxwellisation process, thereby preventing any deadline being set for publication of the report,” he said.
“In the circumstances, the families’ legal team, which includes Lord Brennan QC and Sarah Hannett of Matrix Chambers, will be taking further legal steps as are considered necessary and appropriate.”“In the circumstances, the families’ legal team, which includes Lord Brennan QC and Sarah Hannett of Matrix Chambers, will be taking further legal steps as are considered necessary and appropriate.”
But Crispin Blunt, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said setting a deadline could “wreck” the inquiry. He conceded that Chilcot’s use of the word “shortly” to describe when final replies were expected was “a bit of an elastic term” that should be clarified, but warned against an externally imposed deadline.But Crispin Blunt, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said setting a deadline could “wreck” the inquiry. He conceded that Chilcot’s use of the word “shortly” to describe when final replies were expected was “a bit of an elastic term” that should be clarified, but warned against an externally imposed deadline.
“We can do that but we can wreck the inquiry in the process,” the Conservative MP told Today. “The inquiry, which is independent and sets its own procedure, has determined how it is going to conduct itself. It is without any doubt I think in the last 10% of its inquiry time, I would sincerely hope after six years.”“We can do that but we can wreck the inquiry in the process,” the Conservative MP told Today. “The inquiry, which is independent and sets its own procedure, has determined how it is going to conduct itself. It is without any doubt I think in the last 10% of its inquiry time, I would sincerely hope after six years.”
Sir Robert Francis QC, who led the inquiry into the Mid Staffs hospital scandal, warned those who faced criticism against being uncooperative in responding to the inquiry.Sir Robert Francis QC, who led the inquiry into the Mid Staffs hospital scandal, warned those who faced criticism against being uncooperative in responding to the inquiry.
In a letter to the Times, he said: “It is clearly important for the report of the Iraq inquiry to be concluded as quickly as possible. It might be helpful if those who may be criticised were reminded that they have no right to dictate the content of the report, and are not in any event bound by any adverse judgment contained in it.In a letter to the Times, he said: “It is clearly important for the report of the Iraq inquiry to be concluded as quickly as possible. It might be helpful if those who may be criticised were reminded that they have no right to dictate the content of the report, and are not in any event bound by any adverse judgment contained in it.
“Reports and their conclusions only retain the persuasiveness justified by their reasoning and content. They might also want to bear in mind that drawing attention to themselves by aggressive or uncooperative tactics is likely to do little to avert well-founded criticism and may even strengthen the grounds for it.”“Reports and their conclusions only retain the persuasiveness justified by their reasoning and content. They might also want to bear in mind that drawing attention to themselves by aggressive or uncooperative tactics is likely to do little to avert well-founded criticism and may even strengthen the grounds for it.”
Francis said parties to the Mid Staffs inquiry were not shown drafts of the report before its publication because he feared “it would lead to a process looking unacceptably close to a negotiation” over the report’s content.Francis said parties to the Mid Staffs inquiry were not shown drafts of the report before its publication because he feared “it would lead to a process looking unacceptably close to a negotiation” over the report’s content.
He pointed out that he had the advantage of statutory rules governing the obligation to give those who might be the object of express or implicit criticism a fair opportunity to offer comments on them in confidence. He also had the benefit of a large team of legal advisers to help him devise and operate a workable system.He pointed out that he had the advantage of statutory rules governing the obligation to give those who might be the object of express or implicit criticism a fair opportunity to offer comments on them in confidence. He also had the benefit of a large team of legal advisers to help him devise and operate a workable system.