If Lord Hutton's findings had been presented to the public more skilfully, their reception would have been very different, writes Michael Zander

Most of the comment on the recent Hutton report has been sharply critical, with the cry 'whitewash' heard loudly.

But if Lord Hutton had only written his report more skilfully, it would have had an entirely different reception.

His main conclusions amounted to this:

- No one could have predicted, and no one should be blamed for, David Kelly's suicide;

- Andrew Gilligan's serious allegation that the government probably knew that the '45-minute claim' in the dossier was dodgy was unfounded;

- The BBC was remiss in allowing the allegation to be broadcast and then failed at every level to deal appropriately with No.

10's complaint about that allegation;

- Dr Kelly's detailed briefings of Mr Gilligan and Newsnight's Susan Watts were unauthorised and in breach of civil service rules;

- Once he had come forward and identified himself to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as the possible source of Mr Gilligan's story, Dr Kelly's name was sooner or later bound to enter the public domain;

- If the government had tried to prevent his name emerging, it would have been accused of a cover-up;

- The question-and-answer device that led to Dr Kelly's identification was not an unreasonable way of solving the government's problem of allowing his name to emerge without outing him directly;

- No.

10's considerable efforts to beef up the dossier did not result in it containing anything unacceptable to the intelligence service.

These conclusions seem not merely tenable but entirely reasonable and consistent with the evidence.

The trouble is the way they were written.

Despite its enormous length, the report is extraordinarily thin and dry.

Its 740 pages - grotesquely overpriced at 70 - consist mainly of excessively long extracts from the evidence without any commentary, followed by terse, baldly stated conclusions.

What was largely missing from the conclusions was the context and appropriate comment.

When dealing with the failings of BBC management's response to No.

10's complaint about the Gilligan allegation, Lord Hutton should have said something about the fierce campaign carried on by Alastair Campbell against BBC coverage of the war.

That background of hostility may well have led the BBC to take the view that this was just another 'Campbell rant'.

On Mr Campbell's efforts to beef up the dossier, Lord Hutton said, absurdly, that there was 'a possibility' that John Scarlett and the joint intelligence committee had been subconsciously influenced by the prime minister's wish that the dossier be as strong as possible.

Rather more persuasive would have been something along the lines of: 'No.

10's unrelenting efforts to beef up the dossier undoubtedly led to the inclusion of material that would not have been included in a normal JIC assessment.'

On the outing of Dr Kelly's name, the report would have been more balanced if it had recognised the unattractive nature of the question-and-answer procedure adopted, even while accepting it as perhaps the least bad way of handling a difficult situation.

When dealing with the fact that Dr Kelly's briefing of the journalists was in breach of civil service rules, Lord Hutton should have mentioned the fact that he had been doing it for years to the knowledge of the MoD.

His 2003 MoD performance and development assessment actually referred to communication with the media 'about Iraq issues' as part of his 'roles and responsibilities'.

Therefore, the issue was not, as Lord Hutton suggested, that in briefing journalists Dr Kelly had broken the rules.

It was the fact that in this instance his briefing had led to the mother of all political rows.

Michael Zander QC is Emeritus Professor of Law at the London School of Economics