HC Deb 19 March 1968 vol 761 cc375-86

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I refer the House to a debate which took place on the 7th March, initiated by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas) when he raised the case of Lady Diana Cooper and what was then termed the "drug raid". The Under-Secretary of State on that occasion made a number of statements reported in HANSARD which were not then, and are not now, in accordance with the facts. I will not go into them in detail but would refer hon. Members to columns 830, 832, 833, and perhaps more important, column 835. The Under-Secretary implied that this was an isolated case, this sort of thing did not usually occur, that the police took certain precautions and did not usually act in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman should have been informed by the police that there were at least four other cases, which I know of—one in my own constituency, one in Kilburn, one in Clapham, and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and, indeed, there was one in the Prime Minister's constituency. None of those cases has been satisfactorily dealt with. The police have deliberately misinformed hon. Members and have obviously misinformed the Under-Secretary with regard to the evidence which has been given to the House.

I will recount what happened in Forest Gate, which is in my constituency. In this case, the person concerned was having a birthday party for his three-year old child. Without warning, the police raided his home. It was on a Sunday and these were not plain-clothes police men. They arrived in Black Marias and there were motor-cycle police and uniformed police. The house was raided, the children were frightened, the women were searched, without women police officers being present, and the children's food was examined.

I raised this matter with the former Home Secretary at the time. It took three months to receive a reply. When I received it, the Home Secretary said he would ask the police to investigate and have a report made. Before this happened, the local Press telephoned me and said that the police had completed their investigations, had exonerated themselves and that the report would contain certain matters. I did not know anything about this and, as far as I knew, no one else did. I contacted the Home Office who confirmed they had had no report from the police.

After the Press had published reports in two newspapers and after three reporters had told me the police had given them information before the Home Office or I had received it, I was eventually informed by the Home Office that the police had made a statement that they had received an anonymous telephone call from the person who was the occupant of the house, and who had, allegedly, reported the matter. It is as if my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton telephoned the police and said, "I am Colonel Lipton. I am holding a drug party at my house tonight. Will you come round?"

That is exactly what the police did. They did not trouble to check. They did not look up the electoral register or contact the town hall to find who the person was. They made no investigations to discover whether or not he was a respectable character. They simply made the raid. They did all that I have mentioned and then they held an investigation and exonerated themselves. It is a disgusting situation.

If I picked up the telephone this minute and phoned the police, saying, "I am Mr. James Callaghan. I am having a drug party in my house. Will you please raid it?", would they go along and raid it? I see the Under-Secretary of State smiling, but that is what happened in this case. The person concerned happens to be a coloured gentleman, and I am still waiting for the promise made by the Under-Secretary when he replied to the recent debate and said that all these sorts of cases are treated alike. In the case of Lady Diana Cooper, within 24 hours of the Press getting hold of the story, the Deputy Commissioner went along to apologise to her. My coloured constituent is still waiting for the Deputy Commissioner to apologise to him. No doubt because he is coloured, he may have to wait a little longer.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

If I may make one small correction to what my hon. Friend has said, in Lady Diana Cooper's case it was two days after the raid that a police superintendent called, and a further two days after that that the Deputy Commissioner called. My own constituent has had neither of them call yet.

Mr. Lewis

In Lady Diana Cooper's case there were gaps of two days and two days. In my constituent's case it is something nearer six months, and he is still waiting for the superintendent or the Deputy Commissioner to go round and see him. Presumably they do not know where Forest Gate is. I can supply the address, if necessary.

In the course of his speech, the Under-Secretary of State referred to his concern with the general safeguards provided for all citizens, whatever their status or social background. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton is quite right. Those concerned in the case in Kilburn are still waiting for the superintendent or the Deputy Commissioner.

However, as regards the case in my constituency, I am not so much concerned with the raid, bad as it was, but with the fact that anyone can phone the police with such a story and have it acted upon. I am told that my constituent was advised by the police that he probably had some neighbours who did not like him and it may be that they had phoned the police to cause him trouble. He was advised to sort out who his neighbours were.

This sort of thing can be extremely damaging. It would have been just the same if my constituent had been waiting to get a job. If someone wants to do harm to a man in that position, he has only to phone the police to say that there is a drug party going on at his house, and the police will raid it. There is an old saying that mud sticks. Another says that there is no smoke without fire. The police come along in Black Marias and on motor-cycles. In this case, they frightened poor little children out of their lives. Uniformed police jumped all over the garden and, as I have said, searched the women. Obviously, the whole neighbourhood soon got to know about it. One can imagine how it would quickly come to the ears of any potential employer.

It could happen that a man's neighbours wanted to get their own back after having had an argument. All that they have to do is phone the police and say, "Will you go along to such and such an address. They are having a drug party there", or it may he that the police are told that there is some stolen property there.

I suggest that the police should be told, first, that they should not go along to a magistrate and tell him that they want a warrant, inferring that they have, as was said here, good grounds for it. It was said that there was one case where the officer misled the magistrate. I can quote five cases where this has happened. I say that the police, when they go to a magistrate to get a warrant, should put into writing their grounds for requesting it and the evidence upon which it is based.

Equally, when they go along in response to an anonymous phone call, they should check with the local authority on the character background of the complainant to see whether he is a decent person or has a criminal record. There are a thousand and one ways in which they can do that.

When they go along to the premises concerned, I suggest they should be discreet. I suggest plain clothes policemen in an ordinary car. They should knock on the door in a decent manner and say, "Mr. Taverne, may we come in and speak to you? We have a warrant and we would like to look around to see what is happening." If there is nothing untoward they can go away without letting all his neighbours and friends know what is happening.

I shall have to give way very shortly, because my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton wishes to mention the case of a dear old lady of 67. This can be very a frightening experience.

I deeply resent the fact that the police should give their own report exonerating themselves to the Press before giving it to me. I am asked to divulge the names of the Press reporters before we can have another inquiry conducted by the same police. if the police never divulged this report to the Press and if, as is the case here, the police were the only ones who had the report—neither the Under-Secretary nor I had it—who gave it to the Press reporters? This question has never been answered. These Press reporters have told me that it was definitely the police who gave them the report. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell me who gave the report, in which the police investigating their own conduct exonerated themselves, to the local Press enabling them to publish it—copies of which I have sent to the Under-Secretary—weeks before he even had the decency to send me an answer to my communication.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I will not take very long in outlining the case that I have to present, because we are all anxious to hear what reply the Under-Secretary will make to the serious allegations which have been addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

We all know only too well what happened in the case of Lady Diana Cooper and the very speedy apologies which were tendered to her by high-ranking police officers.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North has referred to the case of Mr. and Mrs. George of Kilburn. Nine weeks ago now, their home was raided by the police who were allegedly looking for drugs. Again, nothing was found. Mr. George, a 23 years' old transport contractor, and his wife are still waiting for an explanation or an apology from the Home Office. Why have they had to wait so long? The official reply in that case is: Because Mr. George has made no official complaint. Press publicity does not constitute an official complaint. If Mr. George makes a complaint it will be investigated and he will be informed of the outcome. He might, or might not, get an apology. It is within the Commissioner's discretion to decide the form of reply. If the Home Office argument is based on that proposition, it is doubly at fault, because the police said that Lady Diana made an official complaint, hence the apology. According to Press reports, Lady Diana says that she made no formal complaint. Her words, according to the Press report that I have seen, were: Obviously I got an apology only because I was well known. I had not contacted the police. I suppose it was lucky that the police picked on me. Otherwise there might not have been such big publicity and these outrageous actions would never have been brought into question. In the case of my constituent, Mrs. Callis, an old lady of 67, her house was searched on 4th January last. I have not yet been able to ascertain on what basis the search warrant was granted in that particular case, but I believe it was connected with some burglary. I do not know whether Mrs. Callis was suspected of actually having burgled somewhere or of being in possession of some stolen goods, but there again, despite the most vigorous complaints addressed to the police by her son, no reply has yet been forthcoming.

This case was brought to my attention by my constituent, who asked very rightly why such speedy action was taken in the case of Lady Diana Cooper whilst in the case of his mother nothing had been done despite urgent requests for some kind of explanation. I wrote to the Home Office on 11th March. I do not expect a reply from them as quickly as all this, but I hope a speedy explanation will be forthcoming. I would have known nothing about this case but for the publicity which attended the case of Lady Diana Cooper and which prompted my constituent to come and see me about this matter.

I hope that I shall be getting a satisfactory reply from the Home Office at an early date and that in the meantime my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some kind of explanation for what appears to be a sequence of unfortunate episodes in which it appears that the police have acted, have taken out search warrants, or have obtained search warrants from magistrates without reasonable cause or justification.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has very fairly stated, he does not expect a reply yet to his query about the case of his constituent, Mrs. Callis, and I am not in a position at the moment to deal with that case. However, I would like to refer to the two specific cases that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

First, may I go back to the case of Lady Diana Cooper. It is true that a specific apology was given by the Deputy Commissioner, but I do not think that my hon. Friend can really make out a case that the police act in an unjustified manner only against those who are coloured when in fact it was admitted on the last occasion on which this question arose in the House that they had acted in an unjustified manner against Lady Diana Cooper. On that occasion I said that the reason they had acted in an unjustified manner was that they had acted on an anonymous informant without making any particular effort to check up, and I stand by what I said on that occasion, that efforts should be made by the police in one way or another to corroborate anonymous information. Obviously they cannot neglect it altogether—I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that—but the question is how they can corroborate such information, and in many cases this is extremely difficult.

Some of the actions my hon. Friend has suggested would undoubtedly take time, and when one deals with drug cases the police must act speedily because the time factor is particularly important. I then said that the kind of verification which the police should and ought to go for is keeping observation on the premises, making inquiries in the neighbourhood where this can be done, through known informants where possible, and checking records where they can be checked. Nevertheless, even when such attempts are made to try to obtain some corroborative information, undoubtedly cases will arise in which, when the raid is made or the search warrant is given, nothing is found. I fully understand the resentment which is felt by people when their houses are unjustly searched, unjustly in the sense that there is no foundation for the charge, but it would clearly be impossible for the police to be resticted in such a way that they could never act on what at the time seemed reasonable suspicion, even if subsequently nothing is found. Again, the question whether plain-clothes men are available, all depends on the time factor.

I want to come to the two specific cases which my hon. Friend mentioned, and perhaps I might deal first with the case of Mr. and Mrs. George, because I can deal with it rather more shortly.

In January the police received information from a known informant, not from an anonymous one, and, moreover, an informant whose information had been relied on in the past, that a group of people were trafficking in cannabis and using it. Further inquiries were made to check the information, and what further information became available tended to support it.

As a result, a number of search warrants were applied for and issued, and seven of these were executed on the basis of the same information. At five of the seven addresses cannabis was found, and people were arrested and charged. Mr. George's address was one of the two at which nothing was found, and after the search proved abortive the officers concerned apologised to Mr. George and his wife for the disturbance.

The next is the case with which my hon. Friend mainly dealt, that of Mr. Olujimi. In this case, as my hon. Friend rightly said, information was received from someone who described himself as Mr. Olujimi that a drug party was taking place at 3 Crosby Road, Forest Gate. The sergeant in the case decided that this was nothing much to go on, but decided that he should watch the premises before making up his mind whether to apply for a search warrant. While this was being done, an unusual number of people were seen entering and leaving that house. He came to the conclusion that the information given him by telephone could be authentic. He made an application to a magistrate for a search warrant, and it was granted.

Following that, six officers went to the house. They showed the warrant to the occupier. They explained the reasons for the visit, but it soon became obvious that the information was incorrect, because a children's party was in progress, and the search was discontinued. The officer in charge apologised to Mr. Olujimi, and apologised again later when Mr. Olujimi went to the police station on the same day. At that time Mr. Olujimi appeared to accept the apology.

He made a number of charges which he later withdrew. All the witnesses who were seen by the police agreed that the police officers were polite throughout the visit. It was alleged that the children were frightened. In fact, the other witnesses interviewed said, that, far from being frightened, the children were laughing and playing. Other witnesses were interviewed by the senior police officer. Mr. Olujimi withdrew the allegation he had made earlier that the police went round tasting food, and again there was no substantiation for the allegation that male police officers had searched women in an obscene way. When Mr. Olujimi was seen again later he appeared to accept the apology.

My hon. Friend then had a long correspondence with the previous Home Secretary, in which the reasons for the delay in answering was explained, and the question came up about the leakage to the Press. I sympathise with my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly much to be regretted if information which he has not had, and which the Home Secretary has not had, finds its way to the Press. But the difficulty here is that there is no way of finding out who was the police officer who supplied the information, without finding out from the members of the Press who got it, and I must say that when my hon. Friend was approached by the Home Secretary and asked whether he would have any objection to the members of the Press being asked who the police officer was he objected to this and said that he did not wish the Press to be pressed any further. In his correspondence, he expressed general dissatisfaction coupled with astonishment that the police had not seen fit to accept that some policemen must have given the information to the Press, but my hon. Friend did not give the name of the police officer alleged to have given the information, and I do not think that he knows who the officer is. He would not let us inquire of the journalists either. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to discover or to try to discover who the police officer was—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I did not ask for the name of the police officer and I am not asking for it now. It seems that the police exonerated themselves—this is their exoneration—and they then held an inquiry into their own conduct and exonerated themselves again. They are the only ones with the report. Neither I nor my hon. and learned Friend has it. Three Press reporters—my hon. and learned Friend has the names—say that the police gave it to them. Who else could have given it if it was not the police?

Mr. Taverne

The least which one might do is approach the three Press men to find out who supplied them with the information, but my hon. Friend was not agreeable to this course.

However, this case, the George case and possibly the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton all once again raised the difficult issue of the police acting on information. There was an attempt in the Olujimi case to try to confirm and inquiries were made in the case of Mr. and Mrs. George. Certainly, in the former case, five of the seven warrants executed were based on good information. The fact that I have not specifically mentioned, in the case of Mr. and Mrs. George, that they were innocent, by the way, does not mean that I have any suspicions to the contrary. All I am saying is that, in this case, the police were acting on information which, five times out of seven, was proved well-founded.

The question was raised last time, and my hon. Friend has raised it again, of whether the whole procedure for applying for warrants to the magistrates should not be reviewed. This point was also raised in an editorial in The Times. The House might wish to know that the journal Justice of the Peace recently commented on this procedure. It did not agree with The Times or object to the general procedure followed and said: It would be a pity if the police now went to the other extreme and never applied in such cases—it was up to the magistrate whether he considered an application reasonable. I reaffirm that the police should try to confirm anonymous information. It is not always possible for them to get completely satisfactory corroboration, and it is inevitable, in some cases, even where the information seems to be confirmed, that they will act wrongly, but we must keep a balance between the two, to see that people are not prejudiced and do no. have their premises wrongly searched and, on the other hand, do not tie the hands of the police so much that they cannot carry out searches which the criminal law in general demands.

Mr. Lipton

May I take it, then, that in all cases where a search warrant is employed but nothing is found, some kind of apology may usually be expected?

Mr. Taverne

In all the cases which I have come across where nothing has been found, an apology has been offered. I do not know every case, and I would of course look into any instance where this has not been so.

Question put and agreed to.

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