How will we have truth?

"Where law ends, tyranny begins" - John Locke, 1690

IT IS understood that the Prime Minister has ruled out a public inquiry into the four explosions that occurred on July 7. How, then, will the truth be established as to who perpetrated these atrocities and with whom the guilty were possibly connected?

A public inquiry could be set up for each of the four explosions using Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners Act. This was designed for the investigation of multiple deaths when there was a common cause - for instance, a train crash.

Duplication is avoided and distress to relatives lessened. It has been invoked at least five times - twice for the sinking of the trawler Gaul. It was last used for the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly.

An ad hoc inquiry by Lord Hutton was set up the day that Dr Kelly's body was found and the Section 17a vehicle added later - and inappropriately, given that it was a single death.

Would the use of Section 17a ensure the truth and finality that the loved ones and the country require for these terrible crimes? In the case of Dr Kelly, there was a conflict between the coroner's duty to establish the cause of his death and the Hutton inquiry, which was charged with looking into "the circumstances surrounding his death."

When the coroner Nicholas Gardiner reopened the inquest in March last year, most people believe that he gave a verdict of suicide and that the inquest was closed. Instead, the inquest was adjourned indefinitely and thus there was no verdict.

On July 21 this year, Beaconsfield Tory MP Dominic Grieve asked in Parliament "what the status is of the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly."

Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman replied: "On March 16 2004, the Oxfordshire coroner decided not to resume the inquest, which he had adjourned pending Lord Hutton's public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly."

In these bombings, there would be no reason for any conflict between the usual duties of the coroner and those spelled out by the Lord Chancellor for a 17a inquiry. There is a possible fatal flaw in this proposition and that is the Public Inquiries Act 2005. This was the creature that crept under the portcullis after Parliament was prorogued.

This draconian law allows the relevant Minister to decide which parts of an inquiry are heard in camera, what papers are made available, what gets published and so on. This was allowed through, with a few others, after private discussion between party representatives.

This Act might have nullified the 17a provision, but it is not easy to find out. Without resort to 17a, how will the coroners deal with the massive amount of forensic evidence and without duplication in each case?

There are two rules for us. In the case of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the disgraceful four-day delay in giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission "possession" over the investigation, we have been told to stop asking questions and cease speculation. And it is right in this tragedy that we wait for the IPCC report, as well as wishing for it to be prompt.

The other rule applies to the bombings of July 7 and 21. Every few days, more "evidence" is displayed on TV - a CCTV picture of four men here and a veiled widow with baby speaking to Channel 4 there.

Last month, we were shown a picture of a man in Boots at King's Cross. One doubts whether much or any of this would be admissible in a court of law. What is the purpose of it all, apart from seeking to prove the story and the guilt? It is certainly helping to feed the ignorant with anti-Islamic urges.

There must be a plan to bring these bombings before the law in the most proper and effective manner. There must be fact rather than supposition and inference. There must be law, which cannot be allowed to wither more.