THE tragedy of apparent suicide is not merely the pointless loss of a life but the lasting pain it leaves behind for family and friends.

For the family of Dr David Kelly the days will pass like slow torture and I fear it will be a long time before their private grieving process can begin. It is for them that sympathy should be reserved.

Dr Kelly has been described as a hard working man of integrity. No doubt he believed he was acting honourably in meeting members of the Press to give guidance on the Iraq dossier, but to do so without authorisation broke the rules.

When the BBC accused the Government of going to war on a lie and claimed a mole had backed this up, then Dr Kelly would have known there would be an investigation.

I don't think the Foreign Affairs Select Committee who questioned Dr Kelly should blame themselves for the subsequent tragedy, though some members may reflect on their approach. Frankly, people face far tougher grillings from their bosses, journalists, police or in court cases.

The row over how Dr Kelly's name emerged is also something of a red herring. Dr Kelly spoke to at least three different journalists.

But the fact that a name did emerge means Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter who broke the story, failed in one crucial aspect - the protection of a source.

Not only should the journalist protect the source, ensuring anonymity is preserved, but he should also prepare and advise as to the likely consequences.

The Today programme on Radio Four has a fairly small audience but its includes Britain's "movers and shakers", politicians, newspaper editors, business leaders.

In effect it sets the news agenda. The words uttered on Today by its reporters or guests become the starting point that day for the national media.

Andrew Gilligan would have known that. He would know that his suggestion that the Government conned the nation as to the need for invasion would have an explosive impact on the news agenda.

He then followed this up by writing a first person account of his meeting with his source for a leading Sunday newspaper which gave more clues as to Dr Kelly's identity.

Did Mr Gilligan faithfully record Dr Kelly's actual words, or was it Mr Gilligan who did all the talking and then interpreted the nods and mutters of Dr Kelly? Did Mr Gilligan's hypothesis become Dr Kelly's quotes? I certainly find it hard to believe, for example, that Dr Kelly would use the phrase "sexed-up".

For the Government there were two very important issues which would have to be dealt with even if Dr Kelly were alive today.

Firstly, they could not ignore the allegation that they had gone to war on a lie. Secondly, the mole had to be found, otherwise who knows what would have been leaked next?

In the circumstances, asking Dr Kelly to come clean to a Parliamentary committee does not seem excessive. Some might say he was fortunate not to be sacked on the spot.

The Hutton inquiry must be full and open and only then can proper judgement be made. But at this stage in proceedings I feel the man with most questions to answer is Andrew Gilligan.

Published: 25/07/2003