HC Deb 23 June 1960 vol 625 cc806-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson (Lewisham, South)

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the circumstances in which a constituent of mine was recently arrested on suspicion, because the conditions out of which this arose have greatly troubled me, and the whole matter seems to me to raise one or two important issues related to the liberty of the subject.

The constituent is Mr. Derek James Arnold, whose address is known to the Joint Under-Secretary. He is a journeyman fitter-welder, married, with six young children—the youngest of them having been born earlier this week. Most of the jobs that he undertakes are away from home. Normally he works very long hours and earns a very good salary indeed.

At the time of the incident that I am about to relate he was not working because, on 15th March last, he was involved in an accident while riding his motorcycle to work and, as a result, sustained a broken left wrist and bruises to his arms and legs. Within a day or two his arm was put into plaster, and he was advised that it would be six or seven weeks before he would be able to return to work. That was his condition on the evening of 21st March, to which I now wish to turn.

As I have said, Mr. Brooke had been accustomed to working long hours, and found his enforced leisure rather a strain. Because of this, and because of the state of his wrist, he was sleeping very badly and was, therefore, in the habit, during this period, of going off for long walks late in the evening before going to bed. Accordingly, on the night of 21st March he left home at about eleven o'clock, firstly, to buy some cigarettes at a machine outside Bellingham Station, which is quite near to his home, and, after that, to go for a walk.

He purchased the cigarettes at the machine, then he walked down to the main road, which is Bromley Road. He turned leftwards along the main Bromley Road, on the left hand side, towards the town hall at Catford—as I should have thought, a very natural place to go for a walk in that area. From this time onwards I should like to emphasise that he was walking along broad, well-lit roads, with plenty of people about, and I can myself testify from the very many evening meetings I have in that locality that those are the general conditions operating there.

He moved in a leisurely way, it is true, partly because of his injuries, and also because from time to time he stopped to look into shop windows on the way. He had a particular interest in some of them, because he had himself made purchases there. Again, I should have thought that a very natural thing for a man to do.

Having arrived at Catford Broadway, he passed the town hall and then moved up towards Catford Bridge Station. Outside one of the shops near Catford Station he bought himself some Spearmint from a machine which was there. He then thought that he had had a long enough walk and prepared to return home. By that time, he had walked about a mile, not a very long walk for an active man in his early thirties, I should have thought.

I should explain at this point that the town hall is on a triangular site, the town hall itself being at the southern end. At the apex of the island there are two pedestrian crossings, one from the station and the other joining the main Catford Road which goes on to Bromley Road. Mr. Brooke crossed the first of the crossings and arrived at the island. He then moved over the second crossing to complete his journey across.

It was at that time about twenty minutes to 12. As he reached the second pedestrian crossing, Mr. Brooke noticed a police car stationary by the pavement alongside the road to which he was crossing. He noticed, too, that a man had been stopped by the police and was having a conversation with them. This was a quite short conversation and very soon the man moved away and, in fact, came on to the pedestrian crossing and passed Mr. Brooke on his way across. We have the name and address of that man.

Mr. Brooke then reached the pavement and turned left towards Bromley Road on his return journey, passing the police car. I emphasise that the three officers concerned were all sitting in the car at this moment. There were two uniformed officers in the front and a plain clothes officer in the back seat. As Mr. Brooke passed the car, the plain clothes officer in the back called out to him, "Where have you been? What are you doing?". I do not know how the Joint Under-Secretary of State would react, but I know that I should very strongly resent being addressed in that way in those circumstances. However, Mr. Brooke, anxious to co-operate, told the policeman that he was out for a walk and went on to explain about his damaged arm. The plain clothes policeman then replied—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. C. Johnson

The police officer in the rear of the car, the plain clothes man, then replied, "Oh, you are not out"—and he then used a word which Mr. Brooke does not understand and which I can only assume was a slang word of some kind. Mr. Brooke was then asked for his name and address. This, also, he gave. It was at that point and only at that point that the policeman who throughout this conversation had been sitting in the car got out and said to Mr. Brooke, That's a long way off. Have you got any correspondence on you?"

Mr. Brooke replied that he had not; he was wearing jeans and his old clothes. The police officer then said, "I want to search you". Naturally, Mr. Brooke objected to this. I imagine that any hon. Member would object in similar circumstances. The plain clothes officer who had got out for the purpose of this conversation was then joined by the two uniformed men who promptly seized hold of Mr. Brooke and said to him. "Now shut up and be quiet".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him, so that we may have clarification? I understood, and I believe it was so put down, that the hon. Gentleman intended to refer to the case of a Mr. Arnold, not the case of a Mr. Brooke. The hon. Gentleman had written to me about the case of a Mr. Arnold, of which the facts are very similar to those which he has put before the House this evening.

Mr. Johnson

I must apologise to the House and to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It should, of course, be Mr. Arnold throughout. There has obviously been no misunderstanding as to the particular case to which I am referring.

Mr. Arnold, naturally, was aggrieved by the action of the police officers which he thought very high-handed. Seeing a passer-by, he asked him if he would stop and be a witness to the treatment he was receiving. Here again, we have this man's name and address. This show of spirit by Mr. Arnold obviously had some effect upon the police officers for they then had a conversation between themselves. One of them then said, "You're one of the clever ones, eh? We'll show him how clever we are and will book him on 'sus'", which, I assume, means suspicion, and turning to one of the other officers, he said, "You saw him trying those door handles, didn't you?"

This was the first time that any allegation of that kind had been made. Things then moved very quickly. Mr. Arnold was jostled into the police car and taken to Ladywell police station. During the journey he was treated in a manner which I can only describe as unfriendly. Upon arrival at the police station, he was put in charge of the C.I.D. who, he tells me, treated him very well. He was then charged by an inspector as being a suspected person and with tampering with the handles of cars.

This charge completely puzzled my constituent. He asked what cars he was supposed to have touched. The inspector replied that there were plenty of cars about—hardly, I should have thought, a satisfactory reply. At the station, Mr. Arnold took the opportunity of again protesting at the treatment he had received from the officers and particularly at having been searched.

He was put into the cells. Later, his finger-prints were taken, despite the fact that one of his arms was in plaster. I should make it clear that he was given no option at all in having his finger prints taken. Finally, he was released from the station at about 3 o'clock in the morning and told to appear at Greenwich Police Court the next morning. This he did, when the case was adjourned for three weeks. He got into touch with me about the matter as soon as he could and I at once communicated with the Home Office.

When the case was heard, three weeks later, a story was told on behalf of the police which does not at all accord with the facts which I have given to the House and which have been given to me by my constituent. It is significant, however, that after the evidence of the police had been given, the magistrate dismissed the case without calling upon the defence, saying: I cannot convict a man on evidence like that. Case dismissed. This seems to me a very sad and sorry story and it ought to give concern to all of us, particularly the Home Office Ministers.

There are two specific points which I wish to put to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. It seems to me that the rules covering the taking of finger prints are in a very unsatisfactory state. I suggest that consideration should be given to their review. The finger prints of Mr. Arnold are now in the custody of the police and, presumably, will remain there permanently, but surely where they have been taken and charges made against the person concerned have been subsequently dismissed there ought to be a system whereby the finger prints are destroyed. Had they been taken under an order made under Section 40 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, in this case, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, they would have been destroyed.

This matter has been the subject of correspondence between me and the Home Office. I have been told that the Commissioner has had inquiries made and is satisfied that my constituent's allegations are not substantiated, although he did not see my constituent nor hear his story of the facts. This seems to me to leave the matter in a very unsatisfactory position. There is obviously a conflict of evidence, but why should it always be assumed by the Commissioner or, indeed, by the Minister that my constituent is telling lies and that the officers concerned are telling the truth?

I should have thought from all the surrounding circumstances of this case as I have outlined them that there is some circumstantial evidence that the police were just sitting in that car at that moment checking on anyone who passed by, and that it was purely fortuitous that Mr. Arnold came within their ambit at that moment. Had he taken an alternative route from the station he would not have come across them.

Mr. Arnold, naturally, feels aggrieved. I sympathise with him, and I hope that the House does, too. Surely there ought to be some way in circumstances like these in which, before the Commissioner or any other official dismisses a case out of hand, they should be able to face the officers concerned so that some judgment may be made between them. It is not right, in my view, that the citizen should always be thought to be in the wrong.

I yield to no one in my admiration for the police force and for the way in which, in general, it performs its duties, often in very difficult circumstances. But we have a police force because of the vigilance of Parliament in seeing that its high standard is maintained. In my view, it has not been maintained in this case and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary feels that some action on his part is called for to reassure the House in general and in particular the ordinary citizen of Lewisham on whose behalf I have raised this matter.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

As the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, I have a case very similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) which I shall have an opportunity of bringing before the House next Monday. My hon. Friend, however, is fortunate in that the Home Secretary cannot even pretend that he has no responsibility, whereas in the case of my unfortunate constituent the right hon. Gentleman has consistently fought a rearguard action to escape responsibility.

The first point of similarity between the two cases is this. Like my hon. Friend, when the facts of my constituent's case were brought to my notice I corresponded with the Home Secretary. I also corresponded with the Chief Constable of Dudley. Exactly the same thing happened to my constituent as happened to his. There was no investigation in any true sense of the word at all. My constituent, Mr. W. J. Darby, although his evidence was in direct conflict with that of the police, was not given the opportunity to state his case or to call any witnesses. It is a travesty of a democracy that an aggrieved citizen should not be able, when he has a complaint against the Executive or officers of the Executive, to have an opportunity of putting his case before an impartial tribunal.

The next point of similarity is over the taking of finger prints and photographs. What happened to my constituent is like "Alice in Wonderland", because three times he was bundled off to the police station. It is said—and I do not believe a word of it—that this man was a volunteer, and that he was told of his rights in the matter and was warned that it was his free choice whether or not he should have his finger prints and photograph taken. I do not believe that the constituent of my hon. Friend was warned either.

I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary on a specific point. The difference between my hon. Friend's case and my constituent's case is that his was taken into custody and mine was not. When I asked whether any notices were explained or any steps were taken to warn my constituent, my attention was drawn to a notice which was supposed to be hanging up in the police station, and I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Act requires that the photographs shall be taken at the place where the man is taken into custody. I was told that there were notices there, but, obviously, they could not be seen by a man who was not taken into custody.

I want the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us—and this is a highly relevant point, and I am sure that he will have informed himself of it—whether there was a notice in the police station where Mr. Arnold was taken into custody, and, if so, if the Joint Under-Secretary would read to the House tonight the terms of that notice. Will he also tell us whether it was printed in such large type that a person going in would be likely to observe it?

The second question is this: were any steps taken to destroy the finger prints and the photographs after Mr. Arnold was acquitted? It is perfectly clear that if, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an application had been made to the magistrate because of Mr. Arnold's refusal to have his finger prints and photograph taken, and that had been followed by an acquittal, the Act requires that they should be destroyed. In this case, it seems to me to be a clear evasion of the spirit of the Act, and it makes the law a piece of monstrous nonsense, for in the case of a man who volunteers, his finger prints and photographs are kept, but when a man refuses and application has to be made to the magistrate to take them, they are destroyed. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the most serious consideration to the state of the law on this matter.

Here I am at one with my hon. Friend, being anxious to do all I can to support the police, particularly in the difficult times in which we live. I also want to say that the authority of the police in our democracy must depend upon the good will and the support of the overwhelming mass of our fellow citizens, and, therefore, to regain that authority there has to be evidence given that the police themselves are anxious to carry out the law which they are required to enforce.

It seems to me that on this point, and I have made the most careful inquiries, I can find no one who, being taken into custody or charged in the circumstances of my constituent, had ever been warned of his rights in the matter of having his finger prints and photographs taken. I cannot find one. I am on firm ground from the inquiries I have made in and around my constituency. I do not believe that it is the practice of the police to warn the citizen, either in the situation of Mr. Arnold, or in the situation of Mr. Darby, of his rights in the matter.

My hon. Friend would be reassured, and I certainly would be, if the Joint Under-Secretary will give an undertaking tonight, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that, irrespective of the merits of our two cases, he will invite chief constables and give instructions in the Metropolitan area to display notices explaining the rights of the citizen when taken into custody, and that when a man is so taken into custody and charged, and the police want to take his photograph or finger prints, he should be given a written notice to the effect that his agreement to such a request is entirely a matter for his own free will. This would represent a big step forward. The rest of the merits of the case of Mr. Darby I will discuss with the hon. and learned Gentleman on Monday night

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has fired a sighter, an expression which he will appreciate, to get his eye in for Monday night, when I greatly look forward to replying to him with greater notice of some of the points he will then raise than I had of some of the points which he has raised tonight.

Hon. Members appreciate that this House, although it is the High Court of Parliament, is not a court of law. We find ourselves tonight, as frequently happens, not only in Home Office matters but in other matters, in the position where an hon. Member has put forward, quite rightly, in his full entitlement to do so, the ex parte point of view of one of Her Majesty's subjects, and I find myself as a Minister, as other Ministers have had to do, putting forward the viewpoint of authority with whom that subject of Her Majesty has come in conflict.

I will put forward the facts as we understand them, and I will make various comments upon matters of controversy to which reference has been made. It must, however, be appreciated that it is difficult for this House to adjudicate in any sense. In spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Dudley and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson), there is the process of law in the courts upon which there can be adjudication.

Before I reply on the facts, I should mention that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14th March conveying some of the complaints which Mr. Arnold then made, but that was a month before the case was heard. After the hearing, Mr. Arnold called at Lewisham Police Station and volunteered a written statement which he made to the police and which the Commissioner has treated as a complaint to the police which it was his duty to consider as a matter affecting the discipline of police officers. I shall refer to what was put forward by the hon. Member and to the nature of that complaint.

There are some facts about which there is no dispute: namely, that Mr. Arnold was arrested by three officers of the Metropolitan Police in Catford shortly after midnight on 22nd March. The suspicion was that he was loitering with intent to commit a felony. At the time, he was on sick leave from his employment and, owing to an injury to his left arm, it was in plaster. One of the three police officers said that he wished to search him on the spot. Mr. Arnold objected to being searched, and all three police officers then got him into the police car, in which they had been patrolling, and took him to the police station, where he was formally charged with loitering with intent to commit a felony. He was searched and his fingerprints were taken. He was released on bail about two hours later.

Then the hearing of the case took place on 13th April. Mr. Arnold pleaded not guilty and in the course of the hearing a police officer gave evidence of having seen him look into the back of a parked car and try the door handles of two other parked cars. The magistrate dismissed the charge and refused an appli cation for costs on behalf of Mr. Arnold, and it was after that that Mr. Arnold made his statement.

Mr. C. Johnson

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman not confirm that the magistrate in dismissing it said, "I cannot possibly convict a man on evidence of that kind"? That, surely, is material.

Mr. Renton

I am not able, without notice, to confirm it. I am at the same time not in a position to deny it. If the hon. Member says that the magistrate said that I have no doubt that he did.

The main ground against the police in the hon. Member's speech was that the police arrested, searched and charged Mr. Arnold on a fabricated case. What I say about this is that on the facts as they came to his notice the Commissioner did not believe that anything improper was done by the police officers. Indeed, on the facts as reported by the police officers to their superiors, it seemed right to bring a case.

The police officers in the car said that they saw Mr. Arnold look into the window of a parked car. One officer in plain clothes got out of the police car and kept Mr. Arnold under observation for some time before approaching him. He saw him place his right hand on the door handles of two parked cars, one of which had some clothing in it on the back seat. The officer in plain clothes, accompanied by the uniformed officer, questioned Mr. Arnold. Not being satisfied with his explanation, the plainclothes officer told him that he was arresting him on suspicion of loitering. The fact that Mr. Arnold was acquitted on this charge does not mean, of course, that the officers were wrong to arrest him. It would be a very bad thing if that assumption were to be made either by the courts or in Parliament. If Mr. Arnold thinks that he was maliciously prosecuted, he has his remedy in the courts.

The second complaint made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South is that the police used unnecessary force in getting Mr. Arnold into the car and assaulted him during the journey. The police say that no more force than necessary was used and particular care was taken to avoid injuring Mr. Arnold's left arm which was in plaster. When Mr. Arnold called at the police station on the day of his acquittal, he said that he had no complaints about his treatment while he was being put in the police car.

As to the suggestion that the police assaulted Mr. Arnold when he was being taken to the police station, in his original representations about the conduct of the police, as passed on to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member, Mr. Arnold said nothing about having been ill-treated then. This complaint was first made by Mr. Arnold in his statement to the police on the day of his acquittal. The police strongly deny that any unnecessary force was used. They say that Mr. Arnold had to be restrained because he was leaning forward and shouting and generally behaving in such a way that they feared that the driver's attention would be distracted, and there was no question of his having been assaulted.

It was and is suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South that Mr. Arnold was forced to have his finger prints taken. The facts as I have them are that the police explained to Mr. Arnold that he was not obliged to have his finger prints taken and that he made no objection to their being taken.

It is surely mast significant that in his written complaint to the police on the day of his acquittal he did not complain about having his finger prints taken, and on the other hand said that, while he could not recollect being asked whether he objected, he had in fact made no objection. At the time of making the statement he recorded that he had no objection to make. He also said that he had no complaint whatever to make about the manner in which his finger prints were taken. We shall no doubt have to go into this question of the law relating to finger prints on the Adjournment next Monday night, because the hon. Member for Dudley has given me full notice—which the hon. Member for Lewisham, South had not given me with regard to this subject tonight—that he will raise it on Monday.

Mr. Wigg

I have every intention, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not give satisfaction, of taking this matter to the High Court.

Mr. Renton

Then the hon. Member must be very careful not to make the matter sub judice. In the Metropolitan Police, I am told that the practice is that it is explained to people that they can object to finger printing, and that the method adopted is that a printed notice is displayed in the police station to that effect. I cannot say whether in this case and in this station concerned the notices were displayed in a way in which they were visible to the public generally and to Mr. Arnold in particular. I was not given notice about that, but I will make a note of it and get in touch with the hon. Member for Lewisham, South.

This may not be an answer which satisfies him, but it is the answer which is at my disposal and that of the Commissioner of Police with regard to the complaint the hon. Member has made, and I shall conclude by making one or two comments, because it is important they should be made, about some of the suggestions which were made in the speeches of both hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, South says that it is always assumed by the Commissioner and by the Home Secretary that the police are always telling the truth and are always right. That is a proposition which the facts do not bear out, because the Commissioner, like other chief officers of police, has his disciplinary powers to be exercised, either after receiving and considering a complaint from a member of the public, or as a result of matters which come to his notice direct. There are, alas, a number of these disciplinary charges which the Commissioner has to hear and in which he has to have findings of guilty from time to time every year. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Commissioner hesitates either to put a man on a charge or to make a finding against him. It just is not so. Of course, the Home Secretary has confidence in the Commissioner whose jurisdiction it is in the first instance.

The hon. Member for Dudley said that the aggrieved citizen should have a chance to put his case before an impartial tribunal. The remedy does lie at the suit of the citizen with regard to most matters which can be the subject of complaint against the police. He can, in so many cases, bring a civil action in court. There are other occasions when there is nothing to prevent him bringing a criminal charge, if that would be appropriate, against a police officer. Again, there is the disciplinary procedure preceded by complaint. So when the hon. Member says that the citizen should have his chance to put his case before an impartial tribunal, I say that I fully agree and that the opportunities are available if people care to use them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.