HC Deb 07 June 1962 vol 661 cc801-12

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

10.11 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

My task this evening is to turn the thoughts of the House from the great problems of the Commonwealth and of Europe and to consider for a few moments the important problem—because it is an important one—of the rights of the citizen. I am glad to have the opportunity of raising tonight with the Minister of State, Home Office, what I think I can fairly describe as the extraordinary case of my constituent, Mr. Rodney Smith, M.S., F.R.C.S.

Mr. Rodney Smith is a well-known surgeon of both national and international repute. He is consultant to St. George's Hospital, to Victoria Hospital for Children, and Wimbledon Hospital. He is a surgical tutor at the Royal College of Surgeons and an examiner in surgery at various institutions. Needless to say, he is an extremely busy professional man and his services are obviously of the highest value to the community. My constituent has outlined to me the activities of a normal working day in his life. His description is as follows: My usual working day begins before 8 a.m. and, as I am concerned with the writing and editing of a number of surgical textbooks, usually continues until somewhere around 11.30 p.m. For a number of years now it has been my practice to take a 'breather' around 4.30 p.m. by having tea and playing one or perhaps two rubbers of bridge at my club, Crockfords in Carlton House Terrace. On 2nd October last, after a busy morning operating at St. George's Hospital and a busy afternoon consulting in Harley Street, Mr. Rodney Smith arrived at Crockfords Club at about his usual time, parked his car at a meter, putting 1s. in the slot, and went into the club where his time of arrival was noted down by the receptionist as 4.20 p.m. At 5.15 p.m. a police officer, acting on instructions from a traffic warden, had his car towed away to a car pound. When he came out of the club and found that his car had gone, my constituent naturally thought that it must have been stolen, but after a lot of telephoning, he found that the police had taken it away and that the reason for this was that the traffic warden had stated that the car had been there since early in the afternoon and that it had been removed for the offence of meter feeding.

Mr. Smith tried to interest the police in checking at once the fact that he had been in Harley Street until shortly before his arrival at the club at 4.20 p.m., but met with a complete refusal to do anything to help him, although he explained that he was a surgeon and still had work to do and patients to see. Eventually my constituent had to take a taxi to the car pound and fetch his car, and, not unnaturally, he refused to pay the charge of £2 which was demanded. Later he received an official form stating that the police would issue a summons to recover this sum. By this time he had written fully to the police vehemently protesting at the mistake that had been made, and not only that a quite unjustifiable mistake had been made but that a complete lack of interest had been shown by everyone approached in putting it right.

By this stage the legal department of the Automobile Association was concerned on Mr. Smith's behalf. The first thing done by a senior A.A. solicitor was to check for himself my constituent's account of this afternoon's work by interviewing my constituent, his secretary and the last person on his appointment book. The solicitor examined my constituent's appointment book, his secretary's notebook, and satisfied himself absolutely that there could be no mistake about the earliest time my constituent could have left the Harley Street area, which was some time after 4 p.m.

I am informed that it was the solicitor's opinion that when presented with this evidence the police would at once recognise that a serious mistake had been made and would not proceed with the summons but instead offer an unqualified apology. This, however, proved to be far from the case, for although the strongest representations were made the police flatly refused to investigate my constituent's account in any way. At no time was my constituent interviewed by a police officer, nor was his secretary, nor was his last patient who was interviewed at the consulting rooms that afternoon, nor the receptionist at Crock-ford's who recorded the time of my constituent's arrival there.

Eventually a summons was issued and my constituent, on taking legal advice, including that of counsel, came to the conclusion that as a matter of principle the case must be defended. It is hardly necessary to point out that my constituent would of course have found it much more simple, much less time-consuming, and much less expensive, to pay the £2 and to have no further trouble in the matter. As a question of public duty, however, he declined to take this course, and in my view was clearly right in doing so.

On the 16th February, the case duly came up at Bow Street magistrates' court where the traffic warden swore on oath that he could not have been mistaken and that my constituent's car was in Carlton House Terrace at 3.32 p.m. The evidence was then called for my constituent to show that at this time he was in Harley Street and that his car was at the pavement outside, and in the result the magistrate dismissed the summons.

It seems to my constituent and to me that two criticisms arise in respect of the handling of this matter by the authorities. First, the action of the police surely calls for condemnation. It is recognised, of course, that it is not the duty of the police themselves, as it were, to try a case of this kind, but for them stubbornly to rely on the unsupported account of a traffic warden and persistently decline to interview my constituent, his secretary, the last patient he had interviewed that afternoon and the receptionist at Crockford's Club, cannot, in my submission to the House, possibly be justified.

If the police had taken the trouble to interview the various witnesses, whom they were repeatedly invited to interview, they could not possibly have come to the conclusion that it was right to proceed with the case against my constituent. As a result of what I can only describe as a grave error of judgment on the part of the police, my constituent wasted most of the day which could otherwise have been devoted to the care of his patients, and he and various witnesses and other people were involved in trouble and expense quite unnecessarily and quite unjustifiably. At the very least, the police officer who was responsible for this matter ought to be reprimanded.

Secondly, the conduct of the traffic warden must surely lead to the irresistible conclusion that he is a quite unsuitable and unreliable person to be retained in his present employment. The facts as to the actions and evidence of the traffic warden are, I understand, as given by the Commissioner of Police as follows, and here I am quoting: At 3.32 p.m. on 2nd October, 1961, a traffic warden in Carlton House Terrace made an entry in his pocket book to the effect that a green Ford Consul car, registration number 729BYH, was standing unattended at meter No. 2419, which at that time showed 70 minutes' unexpired time. The warden made a further entry noting the mileage on the speedometer of the car. At 4.45 p.m. the same warden returned to Carlton House Terrace and saw the same vehicle, registration number 729BYH, at the same meter No. 2419. He noted that the mileage on the speedometer of the car was unchanged, and that the meter then showed 90 minutes' unexpired time. The warden recorded all these particulars in his pocket book at the time at which he observed them, together with particulars of other vehicles in the area. The warden concluded that additional coins had been inserted in the meter, and the police, to whom the facts were reported, removed the vehicle at 5.15 p.m. It is quite clear from the evidence produced by my constituent that the traffic warden's account of what took place and the entries in his pocket book were completely incorrect, and the magistrate must have come to that conclusion as he dismissed the case against my constituent.

To put the matter quite bluntly, the traffic warden made a series of entries in his pocket book which were wholly incorrect, and he gave evidence in support of the proceedings against my constituent which was obviously disbelieved by the magistrates, and could not, on the facts of the case, be other than completely inaccurate. It is unthinkable, I suggest, that legal proceedings should be taken against other motorists on the evidence of this particular traffic warden, particularly as other motorists might not have the determination and spirit shown by my constituent in contesting the legal proceedings.

It is quite obviously distasteful to have to make these criticisms of men employed in branches of the public service which, deservedly, enjoy a high reputation with the public. But to overlook, condone or try to justify what happened in this case could do no good to the branches of the public service involved and could only have a disquieting effect on public confidence. I hope that the House can be given an assurance that appropriate action will be taken in respect of the individuals involved in this most deplorable case.

10.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

This is a case about which I have had a great deal of correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). He has been good enough to set before the House the facts as they appeared to his constituent, and it is right that I should now describe the sequence of events as they have been reported by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

An entry was made by a traffic warden in his pocket book to the effect that at 3.32 p.m. on 2nd October, 1961, a green Ford Consul car, registration No. 729 BYH, was standing unattended at a parking meter in Carlton House Terrace which at that time showed 70 minutes' unexpired time. The warden made a further entry noting the mileage on the speedometer of the car. Over an hour later the same warden returned to Carlton House Terrace and saw the same vehicle at the same meter. He noted that the mileage was unchanged and that the meter then showed 90 minutes' unexpired time.

The warden put these further particulars into his notebook. I would make it clear that these details were each recorded at the time the warden observed them and were not written in the notebook afterwards. They appeared in the notebook interspersed with details taken about other vehicles at other parking meters on the warden's beat. The warden formed the opinion that additional coins had been inserted in the meter; that is to say, that meter feeding had taken place—a very common occurrence and, of course, illegal.

He reported the matter to the police who removed the car at 5.15 p.m. in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1961. I should explain to the House that under Section 15 of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, and the Regulations made under that Act a fixed charge of £2 is payable to the police in respect of a vehicle removed by them in accordance with their statutory powers. The Regulations also provide that the charge may be recovered either as a simple contract debt or summarily as a civil debt.

My hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Rodney Smith, the driver of the car in question, is, I understand, a well-known surgeon. My hon. Friend has described his normal working day, and as the son of a doctor and surgeon myself I can sympathise with what my hon. Friend said. Mr. Smith collected the car but refused to pay the removal charge. On 6th October, four days later, he wrote to the police giving an account of his movements on 2nd October and protesting at the action they had taken. He said that the legal department of the Automobile Association would be forwarding their comments.

The Commissioner of Police tells me that both the evidence that the police had and Mr. Smith's letter were carefully considered and it was decided that in view of the conflict of evidence—and there was undoubtedly a conflict of evidence—the right course was for a court of law to have the facts put before it. Mr. Smith was therefore told that if the removal charge was not paid proceedings would be taken for its recovery.

The legal department in the A.A. asked both by telephone and in a letter dated 22nd September that the decision to go to court should be reconsidered. What the A.A. said did not differ materially from the information given by Mr. Smith except in one important respect, that is to say, in his statement to the A.A. Mr. Smith admitted that he had been mistaken in believing that the hall porter saw him arrive at Crockford's, where he had been when the car was removed, for it then appeared that the porter did not go on duty until about 4.45 p.m.

After full consideration had been given to his letter, the Association was told that the Commissioner was unable to alter his decision that the money should be recovered in the court, and the case was heard at Bow Street Magistrate's Court in 16th February this year. The magistrate, after hearing all the evidence, did, as my hon. Friend has told the House, dismiss the summons. A strong application for costs against the police was made on behalf of Mr. Smith; however, the magistrate refused that application, saying that the case had been properly brought and that it was not one in which, in his opinion, he ought to award costs.

My hon. Friend has suggested that the police should not have taken proceedings without first making more adequate inquiries, but there was in fact no one who could give precise corroboration of Mr. Smith's time of arrival at the club. The porter had not come on duty until later and the receptionist—who was originally said by Mr. Smith to have noted this important point—had appar- ently destroyed the note which he had made at the time.

May I say that these facts were to some extant elicited in pursuance of just that invitation to which my hon. Friend referred, that the police should, through the solicitors, who were the Automobile Association solicitors, make further inquiries before taking the matter to court They did, with the help of the solicitors, make such further inquiries as were possible, but these further inquiries did not eliminate in any way the conflict of evidence, and, indeed, showed that there was rather more to be cleared up than appeared at first sight.

In any event, the whole case depended on the contemporary record made by the warden whose job it was to record these details, and the details as recorded left no room for doubt that there was a prima facie case, at any rate, that an offence had been committed and it was for the court to consider that prima facie case, hear what the defence had to say about it, and form a judgment upon the evidence.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I can do no more than give the House the facts as they have been reported to me by the Commissioner of Police. While I am, of course, sorry that there should be any dispute as to these facts, it seems to me that, since there was a dispute, the Commissioner was fully entitled to take the course of submitting the matter to adjudication in the court.

I naturally accept, unreservedly, everything that my hon. Friend has said about Mr. Smith's standing and integrity, but I must emphasise that the entries in the traffic warden's notebook, which were included in chronological order among other entiries relating to other vehicles on the beat, were factual and were detailed, and I think the House ought to not that in the course of his judgment the magistrate made it clear that he was entirely satisfied as to the capacity and integrity of the traffic warden, and that he thought that perhaps a mistake might have occurred. That is presumably why he dismissed the case. There was no suggestion in the judgment that any false entries had been made by the traffic warden, and it is difficult to conceive of any reason why any traffic warden should deliberately make a false entry in his notebook merely for the sake of getting a car removed toy the police.

I do not think that it would be right for me to attempt to speculate as to possible reasons for the discrepancy of evidence. The matter has been before the court and I can find nothing in what the magistrate said to indicate either that the case was not properly brought or that the traffic warden was shown to have behaved improperly in any way. No fresh evidence or matter not available to the court at the time of the hearing has come to notice since then. The traffic warden was known as a most methodical and reliable traffic officer. The Commissioner could not agree that this case showed that he was unreliable in the discharge of his duties or should never be sued again as a witness in proceedings against motorists.

1 should perhaps disclose, to the extent that it might be considered material, that the warden has since resigned, but he has done so owing to the recurrence of an old injury to his knee which prevents him from doing very much walking, and if a traffic warden cannot walk he is not able to perform his duties properly. But there was no question of his being asked to resign on disciplinary grounds or as a result of this case.

I am indeed sorry that my hon. Friend's constituent feels aggrieved. The enforcement of these very necessary traffic rules in the centre of London is a matter of great difficulty, but if individual cases are not taken up when the facts as gathered on the spot appear to make it necessary to do so, the whole object of the restrictions will be defeated.

I hope that the account which I have given of the sequence of events as they appear from police records makes it clear that proper care was taken by the Commissioner's office and that there was no evidence of improper action on the part of the traffic warden. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if, as a concluding comment, I say that there are many occasions on which the police, in pursuance of their duty to enforce the law, have to take the case to court, knowing that their duty is to lay only a prima facie case before the court and in circumstances in which the answer to it, if it has come their way—which is not always the case—does not appear to upset that case. If every time the police lose a case which they have taken before the court in that way we are to expect disciplinary proceedings to be taken against somebody in the police force or some traffic warden, the whole system will break down.

I hope that I am not being in any way unduly critical but merely passing what I think is a fair comment when I say that although I am only too glad to stand at the Box in order to express the point of view of the Commissioner of Police, we should have a very large number of Adjournment debates if the matter were raised every time that the police lost a case.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Having listened to the debate, I personally am satisfied with the Minister's reply. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is equally satisfied.

I hope that we all agree that these traffic wardens have a very difficult task to perform. My experience and that of my hon. Friends is that they discharge their task admirably and with very great satisfaction in difficult circumstances. As the Minister said, if the Commissioner of Police, on evidence by a reliable traffic warden, feels that a prosecution ought to be brought, it is his duty to bring it, notwithstanding any conditions there may be and notwithstanding the fact that occasionally the police may not be able to prove their case. That is what the courts of justice exist to decide—whether a case is proved up to the hilt.

I therefore do not take the view that it is any criticism of any traffic warden or of the police if an occasional prosecution fails. That shows that justice has been done. It is a tribute to the impartiality of the courts. In the interests of the efficient administration of these difficult traffic laws, I personally applaud the fact that, after having made what seem to me to be reasonable inquiries, the Commissioner was not deterred from performing his legitimate and proper function of taking proceedings and leaving it to a court to decide.

Sir C. Black

Does the hon. Gentleman contend that a traffic warden is a reliable person who writes in his notebook that a car is at a particular meter at 3.32 in the afternoon when it is clear that the car was not there at that time?

Mr. Fletcher

There seems to me from what I have heard to have been a complete dispute about that. No doubt traffic wardens, being human, occasionally make mistakes, but one is entitled to assume from their general record of integrity that what they say is right. If they occasionally make mistakes, it is for the courts to deal with that and not for the Commissioner of Police to be put off from the perform- ance of what I think is his proper duty. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), having heard this explanation, is perfectly satisfied that the administrative action was properly carried out and that in the result justice was done—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.