From the Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI )
To : Office of the Chief Prosecutor
The International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
31 July 2012
A Statement in Support of the Submission
Mr David Whyte v United Kingdom
1. We confirm that all matters contained in this statement are true and, unless specified by us to the contrary , are based on evidence accrued and collated by the Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI ) , Members of the Executive : Mr Dennis Hayden of 31 Beauchamp Meadow , Lydney , GL15 5NS, UK ( Co- Founder of the CVFI ) and Mr Ken McGinley of 12 Walpole Place , Johnstone Renfrewshire, PA5 0RE, UK ( Founder and Chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association- BNTVA – 1983 to 2001 ) .
2. The evidence in this Statement of Support is taken from a small selection of many archive and other documents accrued and collated since the founding of the CVFI in 2002 and, in the many decades since the United Kingdom’s first atmospheric nuclear weapons test at Monte Bello Island , off the north west coast of Australia in 1952 , by Mr Ken McGinley during his almost two decades as Chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association . Purely for the sake of brevity further documents which also support the case that the United Kingdom is guilty of crimes against humanity are available but not included .
3. We note the evidence given to the International Criminal Court by UK nuclear test veteran Mr David Whyte listed on page 2 of his submission, i) to
iv ), and Mr Whyte’s request for the Office of the Chief Prosecutor to look into the issues and consider referring individuals named to the Court for prosecution since the UK “ has not and will not do so” . ( See Footnote Attachment 14 ].
4. The CVFI submit and offer further evidence that crimes against humanity have been conducted by a long – running , systemic and deliberate policy of denial , misinformation , withholding of evidence ( necessary to enable veterans and widows to claim pensions and other entitlements) , by the use of and control of : inter – departmental contractual agreements to carry out covert blood testing , secret removal of body parts in post mortems (as part of medical research programmes ) . The use of such covert practices being for the benefit of the State rather than to afford a duty of care to the veterans , their widows and genetically damaged children .
5. Crimes against humanity against loyal members of the UK Armed Forces and participant Commonwealth Allies were initiated and set into practice by many named persons, now deceased, who cannot therefore now be prosecuted . We submit this confirms the long running systemic abuse of power by the UK : an abuse which has been continued for over 60 years and is still being used today.
6. Therefore , we submit the following are culpable for prosecution :
a) All living UK Prime Ministers ( lately headed in the current UK Coalition Government by Prime Minister , David Cameron MP and Deputy Prime Minister , Nick Clegg MP) .
b) All living UK Secretaries of State for Defence (lately in UK Coalition headed by Philip Hammond MP , with Nick Harvey MP as Minister of State for the Armed Forces) . That is, all living persons who have held these posts since Sir Anthony Eden’s Prime Ministerial 1955 Edict in response to warnings of genetic damage to participants at UK nuclear weapons test locations i.e :
“ A pity , but we cannot help it”
All of the above politicians, briefed by Ministry of Defence officials to follow the Eden Edict are , we submit , therefore culpable for crimes against humanity .
Also , we therefore ask the Chief Prosecutor to also consider culpability of :
c) all living Ministry of Defence ( MoD ) officials responsible for Armed Forces Personnel and Veterans Policy ( lately headed by Dr Ann Braidwood ) who have advised and briefed Ministers on the intention of Eden Edict to deny a duty of care for those killed , injured or made ill as a result of nuclear test service underpinned by the oft quoted doctrine : “ the standard practice of Government to settle these issues is by litigation”, whilst simultaneously denying access to such information and evidence as is necessary for veterans and widows to enable them to take legal action to which they have been forced with no other option . These officials , we submit , all are equally culpable for crimes against humanity .
7. We note in Mr Whyte’s submission page 9 , third paragraph,
“ The Ministry of Defence are continuing their defiance of the ‘ Freedom of Information Act 2000 ‘ by deliberately supplying false and misleading information , or adopting a ‘Conspiracy of Silence’ when information is requested .”
8. In matters relating to the biological effects from exposure to ionising radiation the term “ Conspiracy of Silence” was first used by Professor Alex Haddow the Director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute , The Royal Cancer Hospital , in a 2 page letter to Sir John Cockcroft of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment dated 12th November 1951 . ( Attachment 1 and 1A ) .
Professor Haddow wrote:
“ The biologists can only indicate , ( and have already done so ) , the nature of certain possible hazards , but I believe the time has now come when physicists must give some opinion ( reassuring or not ) as to the future : otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to counter those who already believe ( perhaps wrongly ) that there is some sort of conspiracy of silence .”
9. In the second paragraph of Professor Haddow’s letter, he continued :
“ To my own mind there appear to be all possibilities , ranging from (a) virtual absence of any perceptible risk in the foreseeable time , to (b) the possibility that purely military considerations will over-ride any other advice.”
10. We respectfully submit evidence to show Professor Haddow’s reference at (b) above is clearly an accurate assessment. As will be shown the ‘conspiracy of silence ’, referred to by Professor Haddow in 1951, has been enforced for over 60 years by the UK and is continued to this day in defiance of the “ Freedom of Information Act 2000” by supplying false and / or misleading information, by deliberately withholding evidence of radiation levels at nuclear test locations , by losing and / or destroying: individual dose records , tissue , blood , organ and bone samples removed from living or deceased nuclear test veterans, hospital records and other evidence .
11. In the hearing of McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom ( Case No: 10/1997/794/995-996 ) at the European Court of Human Rights , Strasbourg in 1998 it was recorded :
“ 100 : The Court recalls that the Government have asserted there was no pressing National Security reason for retaining information on radiation levels on Christmas Island following the tests .”
As Mr Whyte states, in his six year struggle, to gain such information the above continued flouting of assertions by the UK could be described as perverting the course of justice , or perjury .
12 .We submit the following archive documents [ Attachments 1 to 14 ] show abuse of the normal conduct of any democratic State professing to live by an ethical or a moral civilised code .
13 . Professor Haddow asked earlier questions [ Attachment 1 para 2 ] as follows
“ In any event one is entitled to ask certain questions , e.g . , if slight contamination occurs 2,500 miles away [ a reference to a nuclear accident at Rochester in the U.S .] what is the situation say a hundred miles around a nuclear explosion site ? Secondly , if we are booked -as we seem to be – for an almost infinite series of test explosions , of which I imagine we have already hadsomething in the order of twenty , how long can this be protracted without some long-lasting effect ( even slight ) on a terrestrial scale ?”
Sir John Cockcroft replied to Professor Haddow’s letter and the above questions on 15 November 1951 ( Attachment 2 ) :
“ We of course are not at all concerned with conditions within a hundred miles of the explosions and it should be the job of the U.S. scientists to worry about this and not ourselves .”
14 . We submit to the Chief Prosecutor this total lack of concern is complicit to the negligent, criminal and inhumane attitude of it is “a pity , but we cannot help it” now referred to as the Eden Edict initiated during the Cold War .
The phrase “ it should be the job of the U.S. scientists to worry about conditions within a 100miles ” we contend is a criminally negligent lack of concern for servicemen almost all of whom , lived , worked and breathed in an environment within 20 miles of explosions, without protective clothing and respirators , and many, like Mr Whyte , were billeted much, much closer to the prompt gamma radiation released at the time of detonations of atomic bombs and were all vulnerable to the more dangerous, long term hazard of radioactive fall out, i.e. radioactive alpha and beta particles [ radioactivity able to gain access to the inside of the body to lodge in tissue , organs and bone by way of inhalation , ingestion , entering the skin by hair follicles , by skin pores or by cuts or abrasions in the skin ] . [ Attachment 7 -by Dr Gordon Edwards Ph D , gives easy to understand details of the hazard of ingested alpha and beta radiation, known to science as early as the 1920’s .]
15. Cockcroft’s short dismissal of Professor Haddow’s 1951 questions by leaving the U.S. scientists present at UK nuclear test locations “to worry about this ” is , we submit , an abdication of accountability and responsibility by proxy .
16. We respectfully also the draw attention of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor to the last sentence of Professor Haddow’s 1951 letter :
“ One thing does frankly rather terrify me , namely the appearance of morale committees and stooges whose only job seems to be to provide the “right” answers and avoid anything in the nature of unpleasantness. All we require are the facts.”
Sir John Cockcroft, for the AERE , response to this concern is simply :
“ I’m not quite sure what you mean by morale committees and stooges , are you suggesting these exist in our country ?”
17. We submit not only did stooges exist in 1951 but archive documents held by the CVFI and lodged with Rosenblatt Solicitors of London who are leading the Atomic Veterans Litigation Group in the UK and by Ian Anderson , the CVFI’s legal advisor who is an International Advocate and Attorney at Law based in
New York show official “stooges” are still used by the UK government today . Professor Haddow’s plea : “ All we require are the facts ” is still being ignored over 60 years later .
18. Your attention is also respectfully drawn to the following additional evidence of the presence of “stooges” whose only job is to provide the ‘right’ answers :
A ) The manipulation of safety records by safety committee officials . This is shown in [ Attachment 3 ]
i) An ‘Operational Immediate’ signal /telegram dated 1956 in regard to statements on genetic effects or radioactive iodine or strontium [ both fall out radioisotopes] the latter, strontium , being a bone- seeking carcinogen, once ingested into the body, with a 28 year half life . This document states :
“ We do not want you to release any statement on genetic effects or on radio-activity or strontium pending the arrival of Penney . If you have to , a safer interpretation of the MRC [ Medical Research Council ] report in the last sentence of paragraph 4 would be “ has not shown an increase” rather than “shows an increase”.”
We submit the “safer interpretation” is to hide the genetic effects noted by the MRC on radioactivity and to diminish the hazards and a clear example of criminal manipulation figures by official ‘stooges’ of the safety committee .
ii) W.G. Penney, later Lord Penney, the Chief Scientist in charge of the UK Nuclear Weapons Test Programme ( Attachment 4 para 3 ] wrote in 1955 :
“ On the balance I am recommending that if they [ the Australians ] ask us to give them a little piece of the filters [ showing samples of radioactivity ] , but that we wait a few days so that some of the short – lived key isotopes have decayed a good deal. ”
We submit this is an example of misleading the Australian scientists of the Australian Weapons Test Safety Committee ( AWTSC ) to allay the concerns of the Australian public and particularly Australian scientist Dr Hedley Marston who, as a concerned whistle – blower, was shocked by the levels of fall out particles , particularly strontium and iodine , entering the food chain through radioactive contaminated live stock .It is well documented that Dr Marston was vilified and sacked for expressing his concerns to the AWTSC .
B) The admitted need for insurance cover against radioactive hazards by Lord Penney [ Attachments 5 & 5A ]
This report by W G Penney , later Lord Penney , prior to the first UK nuclear test at Monte Bello in 1952 [ 5A para 13 ]states :
Finally there arises a major problem on Security aspects …(b) The provision of adequate Insurance cover for the participating personnel , especially against Radioactive hazards , without undue disclosure to insurance companies.”
We submit this is proof of the need for insurance against radioactive hazards and fully appreciated by the UK at the time . The fact became an ever greater priority when by 1958 , with the ‘Grapple Series’ of nuclear tests at Christmas Island, the yield of the weapons became thermonuclear thus increasing from kiloton yield bombs detonated at Monte Bello , Emu Field and Maralinga to megaton detonations at Christmas Islands in the Pacific.
C) The admission of safe upper limits as far as health and safety by Lord Penney [ Attachment 6 ]
This is in a letter by Penney to Sir Edwin Plowden dated 1955 in reference to bomb testing at Monte Bello . [Attachment 6 . ]which states :
“ …the figure to which we are now working as far as health and safety are concerned . ….We expect the yield to be 40 or 50 kilotons , but it might just go up to 80 kilotons which is the safe upper limit .”
The letter mentions the first detonation should be 10 and 20 K.T. and “ this time” as far as health and safety are concerned we are working on 25 .
We submit on the scientific evidence available at the time and today there is no safe yield of nuclear weapons . By 1958 the 80 kiloton so-called “ safe upper limit” for health and safety reasons would be totally ignored with the detonation of a series of megaton bombs [ i.e. one megaton = 1,000 kiloton and is equivalent to 12.5 times the yield of 80 kilotons Penney considered ‘the safe upper limit’ ].
19 .As mentioned in page 14 above it has been established since 1925 in science there is no safe dose of alpha fall out radiation once ingested into the body .[ Attachment 7 ] A point graphically demonstrated in London in November 2006 by the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko . An invisible to the eye amount of fall out alpha particle polonium -210 [a radioactive isotope used in nuclear bomb trigger mechanisms ] ingested from a teapot into Litvenenko’s body is a causal link to death UK government sponsored National Radiological Protection Board – NRPB – scientists (now renamed the Health Protection Agency , HPA ) admitted are only a hazard to health ‘when inhaled , ingested or entering the body by a cut or abrasion in the skin etc.’[Attachment 8]
Our contention is the committees of ‘stooges’ feared by Professor Haddow in 1951 , contrary to Sir John Cockcroft’s short letter [ Attachment 2], existed in 1951 and still exists in the United Kingdom today .
20. We respectfully submit , Lord Penney’s referral to an upper limit for safety reasons of 80 kilotons confirms the concerns of Professor Haddow in 1951 “ that purely military considerations [ other than safety considerations] were allowed to over-ride any other advice.” Nuclear test veterans all lived and worked within just 20 miles or less of nuclear detonations ( in the case of Mr Whyte he was much , much closer ), without any protective clothing or respirators , and therefore all were in grave danger of genetic damage leading to long term ill health and premature death by inhaling or ingestion of fall out .
21. We submit the following evidence as examples of how senior UK politicians react to the Eden Edict “ a pity but it cannot be helped ”.
In 1993 Dr John Reid MP , [ Atttachment 9 ] in a letter written as a Spokesman for UK Labour party on Defence Policy, copied to the then Leader of the Labour party the late John Smith PC , MP wrote :
“ It is our firm view that the nuclear test veterans should be regarded in the same way as any other servicemen or women who has been injured in the service of their country and we have constantly asked the Government to take this approach . …the Government still refuse to concede the principle involved but you can be sure that we will maintain our pressure upon them to do so since it is only in this fashion we can reasonably expect that justice will be done even after all this time .”
After the Labour party election victory in 1997 the administration led by Tony Blair ,as Prime Minister , took office and Dr John Reid MP became Secretary of State for Defence. Reid immediately reneged upon his above expressed conviction on gaining office .
22 . In 2009 Liberal Democrat , Defence Spokesman , Nick Harvey MP provided Rosenblatt Solictors of London with a written witness statement of support for a settlement of nuclear test veteran’s claims for compensation .His staunch support , a statement of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg’s policy towards the nuclear test veterans, lasted only until 2010 . On becoming Minister for the Armed Forces in the UK’ s current Cameron – Clegg Coalition government formed following the general election of 2010 , Harvey immediately backward somersaulted and reneged upon his previous held convictions and the policy of the Liberal Democrat party prior to the election .[ Attachment 10 ] .
The new Minister for the Armed Forces , Nick Harvey , when asked to explain his action said , since he had become a Minister said he had become privy to new information concerning the nuclear veterans. This excuse , used by countless politicians before him, we submit has no substance. Harvey, when asked to reveal the “ new information” he had became privy to, has remained silent .
23. The UK Conservative party do not come out in any better light in this matter. For example, in 2007 , following the assassination of Litvenenko by ingested fall out radiation Mark Harper MP , then a Shadow Conservative Minister for Veterans , wrote a letter expressing a full understanding of the prime causal link to ill health in persons exposed to fall out type radiation [ Attachment 11 ] yet failed to concede this could possibly apply to the legacy ill health in nuclear test veterans .
24. In June 2009 , following a Limitation Trial to time bar the nuclear veterans from taking full court action against the Ministry of Defence , the MoD used the Limitation Act as a legal technicality to delay court action . In his verdict, allowing cases to proceed to full trial the Judge , Mr Justice Foskett wrote “ fall- out radiation is the prime causal link to ill health in nuclear test veterans.”
Three years later the nuclear test veterans have still been unable to present the scientific evidence that fall out radiation is the prime causal link to legacy ill health suffered by the veterans .
25. Politicians are briefed by officials of the Ministry of Defence and, on becoming Ministers or when asking questions as Shadow Ministers , we submit they are misinformed and ill informed . As a consequence, we submit they become too weak and /or are too dishonest, or are coerced to believe it is in the national interest to remain silent and / or a combination of all of these factors. This renders them unable ,unwilling or too weak to seek any change of policy . For this reason we submit they are all culpable of crimes against humanity .
26. The abuse of power by the UK Ministry of Defence and contractual departments acting as their surrogates has impacted adversely on the long term health of many thousands of UK nuclear test veterans , on our Allies from Commonwealth countries such as Canada , Australia , New Zealand and Fiji who participated in the tests, their widows and genetically damaged children and grandchildren .
As an example of the international abuse by direct action of the UK government we submit two examples for consideration by the Chief Prosecutor .
1) In 1999 the Leader of a New Zealand political party a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand , Winston Peters MP was warned by the British High Commisioner to New Zealand that any help by the New Zealand government given to the New Zealand nuclear test veterans would be regarded as an “ unfriendly act .” [ Attachment 12 ]
2) The Australian Royal Commission in the mid 1980’s investigating the UK nuclear tests carried out in Australia identified Sir Ernest Titterton , an Australian scientist who headed the Australian safety committee AWTSC was , in fact, an agent working for the UK government to minimise the record of radioactive fall out from the nuclear tests in Australia.
27 . It is a fact that every other nuclear nation has apolgised for , compensated and honoured , with gratitude , the sacrifice of their nuclear test veterans and the sacrifice of their families except the United Kingdom .
28. In order to keep this document as brief as possible we have been unable at
this time to disclose other documents held that are of relevance to this subject , however ,
29. The CVFI was approached by the Scottish Parliament in late 2011 following a debate in the Scottish Parliament to provide more evidence . We therefore enclose copy of a “ Chronological Time table of Evidence” sent to the Scottish Parliament in December 2011 . [Attachment 13 ]
30. This statement should give the Office of the Chief Prosecutor sufficient evidence of complex and long running systemic abuse of power by the UK government that has resulted in crimes against humanity. We believe this statement and attachments provide sufficient additional evidence to support the case of Mr David Whyte v. United Kingdom and we therefore respectfully submit it for the consideration of the Chief Prosecutor.
31. Finally , with regard to scientists particularly since the 1980’s culpable of assisting crimes against humanity, we submit that the following action is being taken :
1) the names of scientists, living and dead , are being collated and will include :
2) those drawn to our attention through government sponsored and controlled committees and departments , who have contributed as “ stooges” to crimes against humanity committed against loyal servicemen , by the use of , for example :
3) significantly flawed and inaccurately compiled epidemiological studies – statistical studies , based only on death certificates – without any cytogenetic blood testing of individuals to assess the degree of translocated chromosomal aberrations in their DNA compared to men of similar age and habit who had not attended a nuclear test location or compared to nuclear power workers who have been blood tested in retirement ,
4) those who have been lead authors in writing scientific papers not subjected to peer review, passed as evidence to Ministers , prepared and designed to denigrate other peer reviewed scientific papers ,
5) those involved in inter-departmental covert removal and covert analysis of tissue , blood , organs and bone for medical research purposes by government pathologists with support of government scientists and coroners etc ( as indicated by the Redfern Report of 2010) and
6) those who have taken part in the non – disclosure of the results of such medical research performed without consent of veterans families and other acts against the interests of those who participated in the UK weapons test experiments .
All of this detail is currently available and a dossier is in process of collation as evidence .
Yours sincerely ,
For and on behalf of the Combined Veterans’ Forum International .
Dated the 31st day of July in the year 2012 .
Mr David Whyte has sent his submission to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Intenational Criminal Court and states this is because the UK “ has not and will not” admit to its crimes .
The determination to avoid accountability and responsibility has been confirmed recently by criticism of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Prime Minister Cameron , Former Prime Minister Blair together with Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell are reported , in the UK Daily Mail newspaper of 17 July 2012 [ Attachment 14 ]saying the legislation is a ‘horrible mistake’ ”.
The Information Commissioner , however , insists the scope of the Act “ should not be reined in but extended and claimed secret documents were being destroyed and officials were using private email addresses to avoid scrutiny .
THE COMBINED VETERANS’ FORUM INTERNATIONAL ( CVFI ) IS AN INDEPENDENT FORUM ESTABLISHED IN 2002 TO SUPPORT ALL NUCLEAR TEST PARTICIPANTS OF THE BRITISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST EXPERIMENTS 1952 TO 67 , THEIR WIDOWS AND GENETICALLY DAMAGED CHILDREN . LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE CVFI IS IAN ANDERSON , INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE AND ATTORNEY AT LAW ( NEW YORK )
List of Attachments / referring to Mr David Whyte v. United Kingdom
Attachment No. Details
1 & 1A Letter dated 12 Nov 1951 from Professor Alex Haddow ,
Director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute, Royal
Cancer Hospital London to Sir John Cockcroft , Atomic
Energy Research establishment , Harwell .
2 Sir John’s 15 Nov 1951 response to Professor Haddow.
3 Operational Immediate signal / telex dated 31 July 1956 –
Statement on Genetic Effects and Radioactive Iodine and
4 Letter dated 2 December 1955 from WG Penney , later Lord
Penney , Scientist in Charge of the UK Weapons Tests to Sir
Frederick Brundrett , Ministry of Defence .
5 & 5A Report prior to October 1952 first atmospheric atomic by UK
Monte Bello Island by the Chief Scientist WG Penney .
6 Letter dated I October 1955 from WG Penney to Sir Edwin
Plowdon UK Atomic Energy Authority , London.
7 26 page Report on Health Effects from Ionising Radiation –
by Dr Gordon Edwards PhD , for the Canadian Environmental
Advisory Council in 1996 .
8 Email commenting on the Admission by UK Health Protection
Agency scientists of the hazard of ingested low dose , low level
fall -out type radiation – dated 29 November 2006 .
9 Letter from Dr John Reid MP dated 24 August 1993
10 Email dated 10 July 2010 to Joseph Watts , Journalist “ A call
for full disclosure or the resignation of Minister Nick Harvey .”
11 Transcript and comment on letter from Mark Harper MP
dated 1 March 2007 , original letter available on request.
12 Email with details of Press Release by Winston Peters leader of
NZ Political Party dated 12 August 1999 sent by Roy Sefton,
Chairman of the NZNTVA.
13 CVFI report 14 December 2011 to the Scottish Parliament .
14 Daily Mail 17 July 2012 report : “ Information Tsar Attacks
Secrecy in Whitehall” , by Political Editor , James Chapman .
From the Combined Nuclear Veterans’ Forum International ( CNVFI )
To : M.P. Dillon
Head of Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Chief Prosecutor
The International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
14 December 2012
Dear Sir , Madam
At our request Mr David Whyte has kindly sent the CNVFI copy of your letter reference : ORP-CR-237/12 dated 07 December 2012 .
We thank the International Criminal Court for the interest taken in Mr Whyte’s submission to the Prosecuter and confirm that there is much more evidence still to come. For this reason we are extremely grateful for confirmation that the information submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor will be held in ICC’s archives and the decision not to proceed may be reconsidered if new facts, or evidence, provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed .
Without prejudice we submit the following new evidence recently obtained in answers from Freedom of Information Act questions . It is our belief these further facts will tip the balance of the scales of justice towards criminal negligence and crimes against humanity against the individual Mr Whyte .
This new evidence , in official UK government documents, is referred to in the closing pages of a 255 page book published in November 2012 entitled:
” Beneath Heaven and Hell”, ISBN 978-1-291-20928-6 by investigative journalist Alan Rimmer .
We therefore request the following two official UK government documents named below , regarded as prima facie evidence, be added to our Statement in Support of the Submission of Mr Whyte v. United Kingdom dated 31st July 2012 . The additional documents we refer to are :
1) ” Weather and Wind Directions During Christmas Island Nuclear Tests” a 10 page report in 1985 by the Director General of the Meteorlogical Office , Bracknell , Berkshire , UK in answer to a request from a senior official ( name redacted) at Aldermaston.
This official inter -department UK government document admits heavy rainfall over the Christmas Island test area deposited radioactive fall out on the servicemen .This document is government admission and confirmation of similar conclusions of an independent study by Lt Cmdr Gerry Wright ( Retired ) of the Royal New Zealand Navy and also a totally independent study by Dr Chris Busby and Dai Williams in 2010 with eye witness testimony from the ground , at sea and from the air .
This report repeats twice that the rainfall was caused by nuclear testing at Christmas Island . Buried also in the text is a passage strongly indicating servicemen were deliberately exposed to radioactive fall out.
2) ” Environmental Monitoring of Christmas Island 1957 -1958″ a 42 page report written by four officials from the UK Atomic Weapon Establishment Safety Directorate.
This document admits fall out readings at Christmas Island was generally three times higher than the recommended safety limits and in some areas radiation levels were recorded at 300 times the recommended safe limit of 1 microcuries per square metre .
For over 50 years the UK government has denied any fall out occurred and that radiation saftey levels were not exceeded . The UK government’s own official documents recently released by Freedom of Information questions now admit they have been lying .
Both of these recently acquired documents are extremely relevant to Mr Whyte’s submission and there is still more evidence to come .
We note your letter to Mr Whyte states that if he wishes he could pursue raising the matter with appropriate national or international authorities .The matter has been and is still being pursued at a national level but this was blocked by a narrow 4 to 3 verdict by the UK’s Supreme Court using the technicality of UK’s 1984 Statute of Limitation Act to time bar claims against the UK Ministry of Defence for compensation in a class action of over 1000 nuclear veteran and widow claimants .
A spokesman for the UK’s Ministry of Defence ( MoD) issued a statement after the March 2012 UK Supreme Court verdict and said :
” The Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in the tests . They were importnat tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology.”
“The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the MoD that claims brought by nuclear test vetrans were time barred and declined to allow the claims to proceed under statutory discretion.”
“Perhaps of greater significance is that all justices recognised the veterans would face great difficulty proving a causal link between illnesses and attendance at the tests.”
“The Supreme Court described the claims as having no reasonable prospect of success and that they were doomed to fail.”
We respectfully submit to the ICC Prosecutor that application of a time bar by UK national legal authorities preventing cases to be heard, individual by individual, in a full High Court hearing does not alter the fact that the sevicemen were deliberately exposed to the prime causal link to ill health , that is by inhaled and ingested radioactive fall out .
The UK MoD’s ‘debt of gratitude’ to those who took part in the nuclear test experiments has in fact been the irresponsible denial of any remedial after care and regular health checks that such exposure demands and therefore, the United Kingdom’s government have committed and act of criminal negligence .
Nuclear powers, with secret vested national interests , should we believe not be the final arbiter of an international human right that individuals potentially exposed to ionising radiation should be morally and ethically entitled to know the level of ionising radiation to which they are exposed. The case of Mr Whyte is one such case: an individual with a human right to also be correctly informed of the potential legacy ill health of such exposure .
We submit Mr Whyte’s submission is a case of international interest because allies from Australia , New Zealand , Fiji and other Commonwealth nations have also suffered severe health consequences resulting from fall out and radiation levels in excess of recommended safety levels whilst taking part in the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons test experiments at locations in the Pacific and Australia.
We thank the Prosecutor for the opportunity to submit new facts and evidence to support Mr Whyte’s case .
Yours sincerely ,
For and on behalf of the
Combined Nuclear Veterans’ Forum International .
Dated the 14th day of December in the year 2012 .
THE COMBINED NUCLEAR VETERANS’ FORUM INTERNATIONAL ( CNVFI ) IS AN INDEPENDENT FORUM ESTABLISHED IN 2002 TO SUPPORT ALL NUCLEAR TEST PARTICIPANTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST EXPERIMENTS 1952 TO 67 , THEIR WIDOWS AND GENETICALLY DAMAGED CHILDREN . LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE CNVFI IS IAN ANDERSON , INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE AND ATTORNEY AT LAW ( NEW YORK ).