Judge Charles’s Order setting out the terms and behaviour of the new remitted First Tier; includes requirement for SSD to respond to the appellants’ arguments possibilities and certainties, stepping stones, and evidence.
Battersby, Smith Final Statement of CaseThis had been revised to remove any statements which could be seen as giving evidence. It was the one on which the case was fought.
Battersby, Smith final skeleton argument for the hearing presenting the outline of the case.
Expert witness report Prof Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake (submitted September 2015) showing errors in ICRP risk model, particularly for congenital illnesses. Lists examples of peer reviewed evidence showing ICRP to be in error by between 100 and 1000 times.
Expert witness report Prof Shoji Sawada (submitted September 2015), showing errors and cover ups in the LifeSpan Study (LSS) of Japanese A-Bomb survivors and the consequent error in ICRP risk factors. People exposed to the black rain who were too far (more than 6km) from the bomb epicentre to receive any prompt external irradiation showed serious radiation effects from internal fallout equivalent to about 700mSv of external dose.
Expert witness report Prof Vyvyan Howard (submitted September 2015) Internal particles of Uranium and failure of IRCP. Reasons to believe Chronic lymphatic leukemia to be radiogenic.
Supplementary expert witness report (submitted May 2016). Prof Vyvyan Howard's analysis of congenital malformations in data which Charles J ordered to be released. This shows 10-fold excess malformations in data from Dundee University's questionnaire study of British Nuclear test veterans.
Expert witness report Prof Malcolm Hooper (submitted September 2015). Uranium effects and errors in ICRP.
Witness report by Richard Bramhall on cover ups and failures in the Report of CERRIE - the UK Government's scientific advice Committee on Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, 2001 - 2004. Mr. Bramhall was a CERRIE member.
Hugo Charlton transcript - a discussion between Mr Charlton (a criminal barrister) and Judge Blake on the procedural unfairness of the last minute exclusion of papers co-authored by Chris Busby.
Transcript: opening submission by Dr Chris Busby
Transcript: Closing submission by Dr Cecilia Busby. Chris Busby's daughter Cecilia was standing in for Group Captain Andrew Ades, who suffered a heart attack days before the hearings began. Here she discusses scientific paradigm shifts and argues that the conventional ICRP model of radiation and health is in the middle of a massive attack as new epidemiology and scientific data are published. She shows that the expert witnesses for the appellants (the veterans) are significantly more knowledgeable and eminent than those of the MoD; she rips into the MoD witnesses with reference to their responses when being cross-examined. (Andrew Ades is making a good recovery, we hear.)
Transcript: Closing submission by Dr Chris Busby. Chris reviews the scientific evidence and refers to the standard of proof as laid down by Judge Charles when he ordered the rehearing; to succeed in their application for pensions, the veterans had only to raise "sufficient doubt" that their cancers were caused by their radioactivity exposures, based on evidence which was "not fanciful".
Closing submission submitted in writing for appellants Battersby & Smith. This follows a suggestion by Blake J that all the individual issues and evidence be laid out in the form of a table. None of the other Parties did this.
The Determination (or Decision). The Tribunal's Decision was that all the pensions should be refused, except for one man who had suffered a cataract. The Decision was not sent to the representatives but posted by mail to one of the appellants on 16th December 2016. It was dated 16 October 2016. Eventually, after complaints from the veterans and from solicitors acting for the Secretary of State for Defence, a digital version was sent. It was re-dated 22 December, and this was the date from which the appeal period of 6 weeks began.
Appeal application. A child of the late Leonard Battersby appeals against the Decision.
A Formal Complaint. We have complained to the Bar Standards Board about barrister Adam Heppinstall QC, who acted for the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD). The issue is that the Order by Charles J which required the new hearings instructed the SSD witnesses to address all the evidence and substantive arguments submitted by the veterans. Heppinstall misdirected the Tribunal by claiming in writing that his witnesses had been instructed to prepare to speak about the appellants' case although, when it came to court, they all said the opposite. We believe this was a serious irregularity which adversely affected the appellants' ability to bring their evidence before the Tribunal. One of the appellants' representatives described this as deliberate.
Day 1, 13th June 2016
Day 2, 14th June 2016
Day 3, 15th June 2016
Day 4, 16th June 2016
Day 5, 17th June 2016
Day 6, 20th June 2016
Day 7, 21st June 2016
Day 8, 22nd June 2016
Day 9, 23rd June 2016
Day 10, 28th June 2016
Day 11, 29th June 2016
Day 12, 30th June 2016