BBC bosses may resign

The Hutton Inquiry was set to claim its first casualties today as the BBC was publicly and comprehensively shamed over its handling of the David Kelly affair.

Both the chairman of the BBC governors, Gavyn Davies, and Director-General Greg Dyke were said to be "considering their position" and widely believed to be preparing to resign.

The long-awaited report from Lord Hutton, formally unveiled at 1.30 this afternoon, savagely criticises the corporation from the top all the way down to its reporter Andrew Gilligan.

His central charge of dishonesty over the dossier on the weapons threat from Iraq - the allegation which triggered the titanic row with the Government and which ended in Dr Kelly's suicide - is judged by Hutton to be wholly "unfounded".

The massive report, running altogether to 740 pages, clears Tony Blair, Downing Street and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, saying there was "no dishonourable, or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media".

The report is certain to be greeted with the utmost relief in Downing Street. But it looked equally certain to be dismissed by critics as little more than a whitewash.

Lord Hutton also moved dramatically and surprisingly to clear the Prime Minister of the central charge levelled by the Tories - that he lied over his role in the unmasking of Dr Kelly.

Tory leader Michael Howard had repeatedly charged Mr Blair with lying when, questioned by reporters immediately after the weapons scientist's death, he said he denied any role in leaking Dr Kelly's name.

The law lord delivered his initial findings in an 80-minute statement at the the Royal Courts of Justice.

The weapons scientist himself is criticised for breaching Civil Service rules in his fateful meeting with Mr Gilligan, although Lord Hutton says Dr Kelly might not have realised until later the gravity of what he had done. But the most serious charges by far are levelled against the reporter himself.

Blair

"It cannot possibly be ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have the dossier as strong as possible may have subsequently influenced Mr Scarlett.

"It may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the Joint Intelligence Committee to make the wording somewhat stronger than it might have been had the dossier not been put into the public domain."

Hutton said the evidence given by the Prime Minister and Sir Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Secretary to the MoD, about how to deal with Dr Kelly's decision to come forward were "not inconsistent."

He said Sir Kevin had given evidence that the decision that a statement should be made that an unnamed civil servant had come forward had been taken at a meeting at No 10 Downing Street at which the Prime Minister had been involved.

The Prime Minister had given evidence that a decision had been taken to say that a civil servant had come forward but not to name him. He considered whether the statement about the unamed civil servant was part of a deliberate strategy drawn up by the Prime Minister and his officials to get Dr Kelly's name into the public domain. However, Lord

Hutton concluded: "I do not consider that there was a strategy by the Prime Minister and his officials in 10 Downing Street to bring this about. Having considered a large volume of evidence I have concluded there was no such underhand, dishonourable or duplicitous strategy devised by the Prime Minister and his officials."

He said the decision by the Prime Minister and officials to issue the statement was to protect the Government from the charge of a cover up and withholding evidence from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Campbell

"Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier wording to be made a strong as possible... in relation to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"But Mr Campbell recognised and told Mr Scarlett that nothing should be included in the dossier with which the intelligence community was not entirely happy."

"Mr Campbell's complaints [to the BBC] were being expressed in very strong terms which considerably raised the temperature of the debate which was ongoing.

The BBC

"I summarise my conclusions as follows: 1: The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the Today programme on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and therefore was not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from one source, and the intelligence agency did not really believe it was necessarily true, were unfounded.

2: The communication by the media of information, including information obtained by investigative reporters on matters of public interest and importance, is a vital part of life in a democratic society.

"However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of politicians should not be made to the media."

"The management should ensure that a system is in place whereby his (Gilligan's) editor or editors give careful consideration to the wording of the report and whether it is right to broadcast.

"The allegations which Mr Gilligan was intending to broadcast in respect of the government and preparation of the dossier were very grave allegations in relations.

"I consider that the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective in that Mr Gilligan was allowed in one person's report at 6.07am, without editors having seen a script of what he was going to say and having considered whether it should be approved.

Gilligan

Hutton said that Gilligan's claim that the Government probably knew the 45-minute claim in its Iraq dossier was wrong was "unfounded".

He said the allegation that the Government had "sexed up" the dossier on the threat of weapons of mass destruction was also "unfounded".

He described Gilligan's claim as "a very grave allegation which attacked the integrity of the Government".

On Gilligan's meeting with Dr Kelly, Hutton said: "I consider three issues: A, what did Dr Kelly say to Andrew Gilligan. B, at the time was Dr Kelly having a meeting which he knew was unauthorised. C, at the time of the meeting did Dr Kelly realise the meeting was unauthorised and in breach of Civil Service rules.

"In the light of the uncertainty arising from Mr Gilligan's evidence and the existence of two versions of his notes made on his personal organiser it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion as to what Dr Kelly said to Andrew Gilligan.

"It may be that Dr Kelly said that Alastair Campbell was responsible for transforming the dossier. It may be that when Gilligan suggested to Dr Kelly that the dossier was transformed to make it sexier, Dr Kelly agreed.

"However, I am satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the Government knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong.

"I am also satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the reason why the 45-minute claim was not included in the original document was that it came from one source only and that the intelligence agencies did not believe that it was necessarily true."

MoD/Hoon

The Ministry of Defence was criticised for failing to tell Dr Kelly that a decision had been taken that press officers should confirm his name to journalists who guessed it.

Lord Hutton said that a brief phone call which Dr Kelly received from his line manager on 9 July, telling him that the media had obtained his name, "must have given rise to a feeling that he had been badly let down by his employer".

However, the judge said there were "mitigating circumstances". The press attention was not the only factor putting Dr Kelly under great stress; individuals in the MoD did try to help him; and "because of his intensely private nature, Dr Kelly was not an easy man to help or to whom to give advice".

Hutton said he had to consider whether the Government behaved in a way which was "dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous" in revealing the name of Dr Kelly to the press.

"If not had it acted properly in protecting Kelly?"

Hutton went on: "As the inquiry proceeded and I heard more evidence about the surrounding circumstances I came to the conclusion the reality was that there was no such underhand strategy." as strong a way as possible. They made suggestions to Mr Scarlett. Mr Campbell recognised that nothing should be included that the intelligence services were not happy with.

"Mr Scarlett only accepted those suggestions that were consistent with intelligence known by the JIC and he rejected those that were not known to the JIC.

Gilligan

Hutton said that Gilligan's claim that the Government probably knew the 45-minute claim in its Iraq dossier was wrong was "unfounded".

He said the allegation that the Government had "sexed up" the dossier on the threat of weapons of mass destruction was also "unfounded".

He described Gilligan's claim as "a very grave allegation which attacked the integrity of the Government".

On Gilligan's meeting with Dr Kelly, Hutton said: "I consider three issues: A, what did Dr Kelly say to Andrew Gilligan. B, at the time was Dr Kelly having a meeting which he knew was unauthorised. C, at the time of the meeting did Dr Kelly realise the meeting was unauthorised and in breach of Civil Service rules.

"In the light of the uncertainty arising from Mr Gilligan's evidence and the existence of two versions of his notes made on his personal organiser it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion as to what Dr Kelly said to Andrew Gilligan.

"It may be that Dr Kelly said that Alastair Campbell was responsible for transforming the dossier. It may be that when Gilligan suggested to Dr Kelly that the dossier was transformed to make it sexier, Dr Kelly agreed.

"However, I am satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the Government knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong.

"I am also satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the reason why the 45-minute claim was not included in the original document was that it came from one source only and that the intelligence agencies did not believe that it was necessarily true."

MoD/Hoon

The Ministry of Defence was criticised for failing to tell Dr Kelly that a decision had been taken that press officers should confirm his name to journalists who guessed it.

Lord Hutton said that a brief phone call which Dr Kelly received from his line manager on 9 July, telling him that the media had obtained his name, "must have given rise to a feeling that he had been badly let down by his employer".

However, the judge said there were "mitigating circumstances". The

press attention was not the only factor putting Dr Kelly under great stress; individuals in the MoD did try to help him; and "because of his intensely private nature, Dr Kelly was not an easy man to help or to whom to give advice".

Hutton said he had to consider whether the Government behaved in a way which was "dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous" in revealing the name of Dr Kelly to the press.

"If not had it acted properly in protecting Kelly?"

Hutton went on: "As the inquiry proceeded and I heard more evidence about the surrounding circumstances I came to the conclusion the reality was that there was no such underhand strategy."

Scarlett

Lord Hutton said Mr Blair's desire to have the dossier as strong as possible "may have subconsciously influenced" Mr Scarlett to have made the wording "stronger than it would have been."

But the judge was satisfied that Mr Scarlett and the Joint Intelligence Committee ensured that the contents of the dossier was consistent with the intelligence available.

Hutton added: "I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett and the other members responsible for drafting the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC.

"10 Downing Street stated that it wanted the dossier to be worded in as strong a way as possible. They made suggestions to Mr Scarlett. Mr Campbell recognised that nothing should be included that the intelligence services were not happy with.

"Mr Scarlett only accepted those suggestions that were consistent with intelligence known by the JIC and he rejected those that were not known to the JIC.

Kelly

"I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life by cutting his left wrist and that his death was hastened by taking Co-proxamol tablets. I am further satisfied that there was no involvement by a third person in Dr Kelly's death." He exonerated the other key players of culpability in Dr Kelly's death, adding: "None of these persons was at fault in not contemplating that he might take his own life. Whatever pressures and strains Dr Kelly was subjected to I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that events may have driven him to take his own life.

"The primary cause of death is bleeding from incised wounds to the left wrist. This and the ingestion of an excess of Co-proxamol and also a clinically silent coronary arterial sclerosis brought about death more rapidly than might otherwise have been the case."

He said there had also a "very careful and lengthy examination of the area where the body was found and a "careful and lengthy postmortem."

Hutton added: "In the light of the uncertainties arising from Mr Gilligan's evidence it is not possible to reach a definite conclusion as to what Dr Kelly said. It may be he said that Mr Campbell was responsible for transforming the dossier. It may be that Dr Kelly agreed with Gilligan's suggestions that the claims had been 'sexed up'.

Hutton said of Kelly: "He did not realise the gravity of the situation he had helped to create by discussing the matter with Mr Gilligan. He later came to realise the gravity of the situation."