HC Deb 02 August 1957 vol 574 cc1755-62

3.30 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Price (Lewisham, West)

It is typical of the House to move from an item of major importance and, possibly, of world-wide importance, to a matter such as I have to raise concerning one of my constituents. I wish to lay before the House the case of one John Morley Kelly, now serving a term of three years' imprisonment for offences directly and indirectly related to a diamond robbery which took place in Hatton Garden in July last year.

I have interviewed John Morley Kelly, his brother, his mother and his wife, and I have become quite convinced that Kelly is, at least to some extent, innocent of the charges levelled against him. In saying that, I cast no reflection at all upon the Home Office or upon my hon. and learned Friend from whom I have received the utmost courtesy in the inquiries which I have been making over the past few months.

It is not my purpose today to argue the complete innocence of Kelly, but to advance arguments in support of my contention that there are sufficient grounds for doubt as to his guilt, on at least some of the charges, after a most diligent inquiry, a public statement of some kind on at least some aspects of the case and as to the facts disclosed.

The robbery occurred on 18th July last year in Hatton Garden at 11 o'clock. At that hour, John Morley Kelly was in bed at Forest Hill, as his mother can and would testify. Following the offence there was an identity parade. Seven witnesses all failed to identify John Morley Kelly, and among them was the chauffeur of the car from which the gems had actually been stolen.

It seems fairly obvious, therefore, that it cannot be contended that John Morley Kelly actually took an active part in the robbery itself. I understand that the Home Office are prepared to accept that argument, but that it claims that Kelly had guilty foreknowledge. From my inquiries—and may I say, in parenthesis, that I am quite prepared to believe that there is a good deal about the case which I do not know, because, so far, the Home Office has told me very little except that my points have been investigated—and so far as I understand, the evidence for the charge levelled against Kelly of guilty knowledge amounted to the fact that his fingerprints were found on the changed number plates of the car used for the robbery.

Kelly has not denied this. He admits that he supplied the number plates that were on the car. He admits that he knew the car was a stolen car. But that does not seem to me to be sufficient evidence to prove that he knew that the car was going to be used for this offence. It certainly seems to me to be very flimsy evidence to be used in the courts of this country where it is held that a man need not prove his innocence but that the prosecution must prove his guilt.

In any case, that is only one side of the medal. So far in what I have said I have sought to cast doubt on the evidence of Kelly's guilt. There is other evidence pointing towards his innocence. For example, during the last twelve months, I am informed that there have been at least seven statements by people connected with this case exonerating in greater or lesser degree John Morley Kelly. I understand that the man who actually drove the car, a man named Gosling, who is in prison now, has made a statement exonerating Kelly.

I am informed that the two detectives primarily responsible for the investigation have both told Kelly that they knew that he knew nothing about the diamond robbery. An eminent police official, who has I believe been investigating the case as a result of my approaches, and who himself saw Kelly at Camp Hill Prison not long ago, told Kelly in the course of that interview that he knew more about the diamonds than did Kelly. Yet Kelly is in prison for having been concerned in that robbery.

A man named Amos, who was in Brixton Prison at the time, has made a statement, of which I believe the police and the Home Office already know, that the men chiefly responsible for this robbery were two brothers named Dunn, who were I believe arrested at the time, but were almost immediately released.

It seems to me from the statements I have received from various sources that the whole underworld knows that it is the Dunn brothers who are guilty and that Kelly is innocent. I believe that prison officials at Wandsworth believe this to be the case on the strength of what they hear in the course of their duties. I am quite convinced that the police and the Home Office must at least have their doubts in the matter. Yet Kelly is in prison, and the Dunn brothers are at large. I therefore feel entitled to ask why this should be so.

This brings me to another very disturbing aspect of the case. Kelly himself, from the dock at the Old Bailey, made at least one possible explanation. He alleged that the two detectives who had been in charge of this case had accepted substantial bribes from the crooks behind him. This allegation has, I know, been investigated, but so far I have never been officially informed of the result of that investigation. My only information so far emanates from a Press statement which was made some months ago to the effect that one of the two detectives concerned had resigned from the force after a very long period of service, something approaching twenty years, I believe.

It was said that there was no connection whatever between the resignation and the allegation of bribery. It was said that the resignation was due to the fact that his wife did not like the irregular hours of duty. If that were so, the only comment that I can make is that this was a singularly unfortunate coincidence. Whether that be so or not, it remains the fact that so far, as far as I am aware, no official statement has yet been made upon the result of those investigations.

I contend that if these charges have been investigated and disproved, a statement to that effect should be made in order to clear the officers concerned. If, on the other hand, investigations have shown that there were, or might have been, some grounds for these charges then a statement to that effect should be made. The reputation of the police force is at stake and cannot be preserved by secrecy and coyness. The facts must be revealed.

To return to my constituent, he and those representing him—particularly, if I may say so with all humility, the M.P. who is trying to protect his interests—are entitled to know as many of the facts as can be given. I submit that to be the maximum number of facts consistent with justice. I am not asserting his innocence. I believe him guilty of a serious amount of guilty knowledge regarding the stolen car, and on that offence he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. He has now been in prison for twelve months and is nearing the end of that part of his sentence which relates to that offence. Shortly, he is to enter on that part of his sentence which relates directly to the diamond robbery.

It is to that part of his sentence that I direct my comments. On that score, I express my sincere anxiety. I believe that the facts should be proven and established, that the innocent should be freed and the guilty punished.

There has recently been a good deal of publicity about a case in which a man in prison, contending that he is innocent of the charge against him, by a series of sensational activities involving escape, hunger striking, and so on, has been able to force some kind of inquiry into the facts of his case. I think it unfortunate that if there is any doubt about a man's guilt, he should have to resort to such tactics before an inquiry is obtained. I hope it will not be necessary in the case of John Morley Kelly and that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give me all the information he has at his disposal.

3.42 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

As is known by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), and as he has been good enough to imply, this is a case which has been the subject of most careful consideration by my right hon. Friend. John Morley Kelly was tried on 29th October, 1956, at the Central Criminal Court and found guilty of four separate offences—receiving a stolen motor car, receiving two Road Fund licences which had been stolen, and stealing diamonds to the value of £75,000.

On 19th November, 1956, he received a sentence of three years' imprisonment for the offence of stealing the diamonds and a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for each of the other offences, all the sentences to run concurrently. He applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his convictions. The court, after considering his application, refused him leave on 11th February, 1957. Since his conviction a number of representations have been made by Kelly and by my hon. Friend on his behalf. I wish to pay tribute to the pertinacity and public spirit of my hon. Friend, which seems to me entirely proper in this matter. Indeed, such activities are one of the protections and safeguards of our system of justice in this country.

These representations were to the general effect that Kelly had been wrongly convicted, particularly of the offence of stealing the diamonds. I should like to make clear what is the position of my right hon. Friend in cases of this kind. As the House will appreciate, he cannot in any way purport to re-try a case which has been decided by the court. It is not his function to do so and the House will recognise how undesirable, indeed how unconstitutional, it would be for any Home Secretary to act in such a way.

Kelly was tried on indictment at the Central Criminal Court, and the question of his guilt or innocence was a matter for decision by the jury. They had the advantage of hearing the evidence, seeing the witnesses including Kelly, and of hearing the speeches of counsel and the summing up of the learned judge. It was in those circumstances that the jury found Kelly guilty.

If it is felt by a person convicted on indictment, or by his legal advisers, that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, or that there are present any of the other reasons which the law provides shall give ground for an appeal, it is open to him to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. This, as I have said, was done by Kelly.

My right hon. Friend cannot assume the functions of the court of trial or of the Court of Criminal Appeal. He is always prepared to consider any matter which is placed before him by way of petition by a prisoner or on a prisoner's behalf, and if the circumstances revealed are such as to justify such action it is open to my right hon. Friend to make a recommendation for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by way of remission of all or part of the sentence, or again, if the circumstances justify it, for the grant of a free pardon.

The Home Secretary has also had conferred upon him by Parliament the power to refer a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. Any applications for the use of any of these powers are most carefully and thoroughly considered. My right hon. Friend cannot, however, set up his view of the facts of a case against the view which the jury or the Count of Criminal Appeal took of the same facts. If there is new evidence or new material which was not before the court, then clearly this is a circumstance which it is most important for him to consider and decide whether action on his part is warranted. But if there is no such new evidence or material, his power of action is limited.

In view of my right hon. Friend's constitutional position in these matters, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to review the evidence which was in fact before the jury, not all of which I think was put forward by my hon. Friend today, although he referred to certain of the matters. It was for the Court of Criminal Appeal to say whether there was evidence before the jury which was sufficient, if accepted by them, to justify Kelly's conviction on all four charges. I repeat, that was for the Court of Criminal Appeal and not for my right hon. Friend. I do not think my hon. Friend does question the verdict on the charge of receiving the motor car which is alleged to have been used in the robbery or the licence offences.

With regard to the stealing of the jewellery, I should like to say this, in view of what was said by my hon. Friend. I know he appreciates this because I have discussed the case with him at great length. It was not necessary for the prosecution to establish the offence of stealing to prove that Kelly was the man who actually snatched the diamonds or even that he was present at the time. It is enough if he knew that the crime was going to be committed and took active steps—such as helping to fit false number plates on the car to be used—to facilitate it.

Mr. H. A. Price

Surely it would also be necessary to establish that he knew that the car was going to be used for that purpose.

Mr. Simon

Yes, that is certainly so, as I said, if he knew the crime was going to be committed and took active steps to facilitate it.

I turn to the points which have been raised subsequently to the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have no time today to deal with those in detail, although I think my hon. Friend will agree that we have discussed them in the past exhaustively. I should, however, like to assure the House that they have all been most carefully looked into. My hon. Friend said, and I in no way dissent from this, that in a case like this the facts should be carefully probed and it should not be necessary for any prisoner to resort to the tactics of another case which my hon. Friend called to our attention. With very great respect to him, I entirely agree with that. In this case, in view of the representations which have been made by Kelly and by my hon. Friend on his behalf, the facts have been very carefully probed.

A senior police officer, who had no connection with the case in which Kelly was convicted, has seen Kelly. He has seen various people who Kelly has said could provide information, to some of whom my hon. Friend has referred today. He has made a most painstaking and thorough inquiry into Kelly's allegations. Nothing has been forthcoming which would cast any doubt upon Kelly's conviction and no fresh evidence has been revealed on which my right hon. Friend would be justified in taking any action. It is quite true that a number of allegations have been made, to some of which my hon. Friend referred today but on investigation it has proved impossible to substantiate them. A number of persons who are said to have made statements to Kelly—a number of persons who Kelly has said told him certain things, to which my hon. Friend has referred today—have subsequently denied them when interviewed by the police in the course of the investigation. In those circumstances, no evidence has been forthcoming on which my right hon. Friend, within the constitutional limits which I have endeavoured to lay before the House, would be justified in taking any action.

My hon. Friend has suggested that there were others involved in this affair who were equally or more guilty than Kelly. Another man was in fact convicted and sentenced at the same time as Kelly for stealing the diamonds, and there were others who were convicted in connection with the stolen motor car. It may very well be, as my hon. Friend said, that there were still others who were connected with the affair of the diamonds, but against them it has been impossible for the police, despite every effort on their part, to obtain sufficient evidence to justify prosecution. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is not a prosecuting authority and has no control over prosecutions. It is not for him to say who shall or shall not be prosecuted. That is a matter either for a chief officer of police or for the Director of Prosecutions, depending on the nature and circumstances of the case.

Even, however, if there are others who are connected with this affair whom it has proved impossible to prosecute, that is really quite irrelevant to the question of the part played in the matter by Kelly. I am sure the House would agree that it would hardly be right for prosecuting authorities to say that because they could not prosecute all the people they believed to be concerned in particular offences they should not proceed against any of them. The learned judge, one of our most experienced criminal judges, at Kelly's trial, in passing sentence made quite clear, as I think my hon. Friend knows, that he realised that Kelly may have played only a minor part in the larceny of the diamonds. He expressly took that into account in the sentence which he passed.

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will consider most carefully everything which has been said today and is ready to have the fullest inquiries made again into anything which is relevant to his consideration of this case. He fully realises the importance in matters affecting a man's honour—still more in matters affecting his liberty—of leaving nothing which may be relevant uninvestigated. If I may say this, with respect, he fully appreciates my hon. Friend's motive in raising this matter today. If there is anything I can do to help my hon. Friend in any further point he would like to discuss with me, I assure him that I am, and shall remain, entirely at his service.