HC Deb 04 November 1969 vol 790 cc972-82

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

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

I am very grateful, after a number of alarums and excursions—perhaps I might almost say, fire alarms and excursions—to have the opportunity of raising at this hour on the Adjournment a question which gave me very considerable concern during the Recess and which to a considerable extent affects the morale of our police forces.

The establishments of our police forces are very low. The Home Secretary himself said on 29th October: There are vacancies in the police forces now. Recruits are not coming forward as fast as I should like. Indeed, we need an estimated 5,000 recruits in England and Wales in the rest of this financial year & There are hundreds of vacancies for candidates of the right type."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 195.] In the police force which I know best—that is, the Liverpool and Bootle constabulary—they are 640 men short against their normal establishment, and they are 60 men short of the greatly reduced establishment which is now permitted to them. They are unable to find recruits. The wastage of men from that constabulary is bigger than the number of recruits they are obtaining week by week.

There are, of course, reasons for this. The chief reason, I believe, is that the pay and conditions offered are unsatisfactory; and men can find work in the Liverpool area in conditions far less strenuous and far less arduous than those which meet the police force, and for considerably higher wages than those which are offered to police recruits. Men in the motor industry on Merseyside can obtain much higher wages for doing much less work than the police are expected to do.

It would, therefore, seem to me to be very important that everything possible should be done to see that the morale of the existing members of the police force is kept as high as possible, and I was shocked when I heard of a device which is now being used by the criminal world which can do nothing but affect adversely the morale of our police.

The device goes something like this. When a large crime has been committed —a large robbery, shall we say?—and as soon as detectives are assigned to the investigation of that crime, an accomplice of the criminals—I regret to say that it is very often a solicitor—writes to the chief constable of the force concerned and accuses the detectives who have been assigned to the job of complicity in the crime. By the rules of the game, rules with which I entirely agree, this accusation has to be investigated immediately by the chief constable. The men concerned know that they have been accused of impropriety and dishonesty, and their enthusiasm for the investigation at once obviously declines.

When the chief constable's investigation has been concluded, the facts are sent, under the rules, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who examines the case. If he finds that there is no case to answer, he informs the chief constable of that fact, and the detectives are informed accordingly. If, however, he believes that further investigation should be made, the case is handed over to a police force separate from the force in which the detectives are serving and further investigation is made.

My worry is about the case which is found by the Director of Public Prosecutions to be baseless and malicious. When this is done and the names of the detectives are thus cleared, the detectives concerned should have the perfect right to take action in a civil court against their defamer for defamation of character, and this right, of course, they have, but in order to bring that case adequately in the courts they must have access to the original document of accusation which has been sent to the chief constable of their force by the accomplice of the criminal. I discovered that this is not permitted. I found it difficult to believe this, but when I put down a Question late in the last Session I received this reply from the Home Office: Advice, when asked for, has been given to chief officers of police that it is inappropriate to furnish letters of complaint to assist in civil proceedings, because to do so might deter persons from making legitimate cornpla ints."—OFFICAL REPORT, 16th October, 1969 ; Vol. 788, c. 114.] So here we have a conflict of public interest: whether it is more important to deter members of the public from making legitimate complaints against the police or whether it is more important to uphold the morale of the police by allowing them, when accusations against them are found to be baseless and malicious, to take the action against their defamers which any ordinary member of the public would be able to take in like circumstances. It would appear that the Home Office's reply that to allow these documents to be produced in evidence might deter persons from making legitimate complaints rests on very thin ground. It one is making a legitimate complaint against anyone else, one surely must be prepared to stand up in court and defend one's action. If the complaint is legitimate, which is the burden of the Home Office's song, then it is legitimate, and it is not baseless and malicious, and therefore no court of law in the land would hold the making of such an accusation against the man who made it. But for this train of thought to be used to disallow policemen who have been unjustly accused from using in court the false evidence that has been used against them is wrong, unjust and, above all, prejudicial to the morale of the police force which, as I have attempted to explain, it is so important to maintain.

The Home Secretary has set up a working party under the Police Advisory Board, whose terms of reference are: To determine the best system of independent enquiries into serious allegations against police officers. This I welcome, and since the whole matter is therefore sub judice I will not take it further this evening. But I ask the Under-Secretary to be so good as to consider whether the question which I have raised could not be taken under advisement by that committee, and whether consideration could not be given to the alteration of this ruling when that committee reports.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)

The issue which has been raised tonight is one of the many and varied questions which arise in connection with the procedures for dealing with complaints made against police officers by members of the public. They are all questions which are undeniably important—some perhaps more particularly important from the point of view of the complainant; some perhaps from the point of view of the individual officer against whom the complaint is made. Others may be questions which concern the interests of both sides, to a greater or lesser degree. A number raise issues on which more than one point of view can reasonably and fairly be accommodated.

The particular question raised by the hon. Member is one such matter. He has argued that it is a clear-cut matter of saying that in any case where a complaint may be worded in what might be thought to be defamatory or otherwise actionable terms, it should necessarily follow that the authorities ought to provide facilities so that the writer can, if the police officer complained of so desires, be brought to account for it in the courts.

The advice which has been given by the Home Office to chief constables who have asked for it is based upon another consideration. That advice is that it is inappropriate to furnish letters of complaint to police officers who seek them for the purpose of the consideration of civil proceedings, and this advice is based upon the single, simple, but dominant, consideration that to do so might deter persons from making legitimate complaints.

The statutory provisions and principles of procedure and practice for the investigation of complaints against the police are founded on recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police which reported in 1962. In putting forward a series of recommendations for establishing a comprehensive system for dealing with complaints, the Commission said that in its view the procedure it recommended would hold the balance of being fair both to the police and to the public, not favouring either at the expense of the other and not undermining the morale of the police as a disciplined force, nor weakening its resolve to fight crime. Those recommendations were accepted by the House and were embodied in the Police Act 1964 and in the Discipline Regulations of 1965.

The regulations do not provide that an officer should as a matter of routine be furnished with a copy of any letter of complaint about him which may be received from a member of the public. Whether or not an officer is given this document depends on whether he is charged with a disciplinary offence which is founded on the complaint made against him by the member of the public in that document. Indeed, so far as the Discipline Regulations are concerned, it depends wholly on that factor.

Briefly, the procedure is that when a complaint has been received and recorded, the officer concerned is told in writing of its nature in order that he can be invited to make a statement to the investigating officer. The regulation does not require that the accused officer should be given a copy of the letter from the member of the public making the complaint.

If, however, after investigation of the complaint, it is decided that the officer should be charged with a disciplinary offence, Regulation 6(1)(b) requires that he must be given, inter alia, a copy of the letter. He is also given a copy of any statement he may have made to the investigating officer, together with copies of witnesses' statements and any other relevant documents which may be required to help him in his defence. The advice contained in the relevant Home Office circular to chief officers of police is that, although there is no specific statutory provision, a complainant should be told—which would normally be when the complainant is seen by the investigating officer—that a copy of his letter and of any statement he may make to the investigating officer will be given to the accused officer if any disciplinary charge is brought.

In the case given as an example by the hon. Member involving an allegation of the commission of a serious offence there would be no question about its constituting a disciplinary offence. Therefore, in that case and in similar cases the offending document in his example and the complaint in any other proper case would be shown to the officer.

Mr. Fortescue

I want to get this absolutely clear. My whole case concerns matters where the charge or accusation from the member of the public is found to be baseless and malicious. I am not complaining about disciplinary cases where a disciplinary offence is involved. I am referring to cases where it is established beyond doubt that no disciplinary offence has been committed by the police officer concerned.

Mr. Morgan

The question whether or not a copy of the letter is actually given to the officer turns not on the end result but upon the nature of the complaint. If the nature of the complaint is such as to involve the running of the disciplinary machinery then, under Regulation 6(1)(b), it would be necessary for a copy of that letter to be shown. If not, a copy would not be shown.

There is nothing to prevent the officer concerned from eventually making use of the copy of the letter of complaint should he later decide to take civil proceedings against the writer. The document is not, however, given him for that purpose, and it is a wholly incidental effect of the regulations that he has it available to make use of in that way.

The hon. Member is, however, concerned with the other class of case where a member of the public makes a complaint against an officer which, on investigation, discloses no grounds for disciplinary or other proceedings against the officer. The investigation may have revealed that the complaint was frivolously or maliciously made. In other cases there may be doubt as to the motive of the complainant, while in yet others the complaint may appear to have been made in good faith, but nevertheless to be wholly unfounded in fact.

I acknowledge that an officer who has been the subject of a complaint and who considers that it was made maliciously and that it contains libellous material may quite reasonably feel aggrieved and wish to take civil proceedings against the writer. It is in such circumstances that a request might be made to the chief officer of police for a copy of the letter or other document to assist the officer in deciding whether to institute proceedings. I want to emphasise this point.

The decision whether to comply with the request lies within the discretion of the chief officer. It is not a matter in which the Home Secretary has authority to issue directions, and no general guidance has ever been given from the Home Office on the subject. However, chief officers who receive requests for material from police records for use in possible civil proceedings sometimes consult the Home Office about the course they should take, and, as I have said, the advice, when asked for, has been given to chief officers that it is inappro- priate to furnish letters of complaint to assist in civil proceedings because to do so might deter persons from making legitimate complaints. The House will want me to enlarge a little on that.

The advice not to supply copies of letters of complaint has been consistently given in answer to a series of inquiries in individual cases over many years. I am sure that it is no part of the hon. Gentleman's case that this is affecting recruitment to the police.

The same principle of treating letters of complaint as confidential and not providing them to the subjects of complaint is also followed in relation to other public services, such as the Civil Service, and for the same reason. The basis for the practice, as I have indicated, lies in the view that a member of the public with a genuine complaint might be discouraged from making it by the fear that any letter embodying it might be used in civil proceedings against him. It is true that this fear might be misplaced if the complaint were a genuine one made in good faith, because the complainant in such a case would very often he protected by the rule of qualified privilege. But the view taken is that, on balance, the public interest lies in not allowing this fear—unreasonable though it may be—to discourage genuine complaints.

The introduction of the statutory complaints procedure in the Police Act, 1964, makes it, in my estimation, even more important that nothing should be done which might seem to be aimed at inhibiting the genuine complainant.

It might be submitted that this argument falls down now that a copy of a letter which gives rise to disciplinary proceedings has to be given to the officer concerned. I would agree with this to some extent. But the reason for giving the officer a copy in such circumstances is to enable him to defend himself properly in disciplinary proceedings. The rationale of that exception is that an occurrence has taken place which has meant that the disciplinary machinery of the police has been made to run. Within the scope of that machinery it is proper for a complaint which has activated that process to be disclosed to the subject of that complaint. It is a totally different matter in circumstances where that machinery is not running to maintain that there should be the same full disclosure of that document.

The fact that the officer, having had a copy of that letter in the very limited context, may subsequently use the letter for another purpose is incidental. It does not seem that the practice of withholding letters required only for use in civil proceedings is thereby invalidated.

I fully recognise the annoyance and possibly distress caused to police officers against whom unfounded allegations are made. However, it is a natural hazard of police work that an officer will from time to time be subject to attack or criticism, and most officers would in the normal way feel themselves adequately vindicated by internal inquiries which clear them of the matters alleged.

From the police officer's point of view, and that of the police service generally, it may probably be better that a malicious libel which has a limited circulation within the force only should be ignored and not made the subject of civil proceedings where it would come to the attention of a far wider audience. All my remarks have been directed at this type of case. Where defamatory matter has been published outside the police—for example in a newspaper—different considerations arise. Here the document on which the civil proceedings can be founded is the published document or if it were in a television interview, the transcript.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Would my hon. Friend agree that where disciplinary proceedings are not taken, that in itself absolves the officers from any blame? In the instance which the hon. Member has raised, if the alleged libel is by an accomplice of a criminal, the only purpose of proceedings would be to obtain damages and costs against that person. Is it not likely that such a person would not be in a position to pay damages, and therefore the action would not be much use?

Mr. Morgan

In the instance quoted by the hon. Member it may be that the person who has issued such a document maliciously would not be worth powder and shot, but that is not really the issue.

In defending the established practice I would not like to be thought to be making light in any way of the genuine anxieties of police officers in this matter, or as supporting the right of evilly disposed persons to make unfounded and scurrilous allegations against police officers with impunity. Such persons should be very much on their guard as the criminal law provides measures for dealing with them. Under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a person who causes the wasteful employment of police by making a false report about the commission of an offence can be prosecuted and, if convicted, sentenced to a maximum of six months' imprisonment. In 1968, in the Metropolitan Police District alone three persons were convicted under this section for causing a waste of police time in investigating false allegations made against individual police officers. In addition, in certain circumstances persons making complaints against police officers might lay themselves open to prosecution for criminal libel or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I have stated the existing practice and the reason for it. Let me say that an opportunity now exists—as envisaged by the hon. Gentleman—for this practice to be discussed and examined within the police service. This—and no doubt other questions also touching on the position and protection of a police officer involved in a complaint—will be among matters which will come before the Working Party of the Police Advisory Board, which has been set up by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is clear that the task of the Working Party will involve an extensive review of the complaints procedure as a whole. The Working Party includes representatives of the Police Federation as well as of the chief and other senior officers and the local police authorities. In short, the Working Party contains a body of expertise and experience on the kind of question which has been covered in our debate tonight.

The Police Federation has already indicated that it would welcome any change that would permit something less than the present exhaustive and formal procedures in the case of malicious or frivolous complaints, such as we have been talking about. It has, in particular, raised the question of enabling an accused officer to have the facilities—which it is to be assumed would mean giving the accused officer a copy of the letter of complaint—to take civil action against a complainant in appropriate cases.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the appropriate course will be that this matter should for the moment be left for consideration by the Working Party, and that it can be taken for granted that the working party will have due regard for all the views that have been expressed in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.