POLICE (HARTLEPOOLS) (Hansard, 16 January 1974)

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)
In bringing this matter of police conduct to the attention of the House I am merely adding to a very extensive body of legal, professional and lay opinion. Numbers of specific cases of the misuse of police powers have been exposed, The Press has done a remarkable amount of investigatory reporting. Parliament has debated the matter, and various organisations have made available an abundance of information. I have received many letters from many parts of the country underlining public concern. The police force 877 itself is actively concerned with the problem, and Sir Robert Marks, Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, has made his views well known.
But I have to say that, during a quarter of a century of working and public life in Hartlepool, I have not had a single complaint which merited more than a reasoned discussion to settle it, with the exception of the past two years. In this latter period more and more complaints have come to my notice. In the beginning, drawing on past experience I sought to make the complainant feel easier rather than encourage any action, but eventually I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I was out of step with reality.
Since I have prepared a fuller report which I shall be sending to the Home Secretary I will deal here with only one or two cases, some considered opinion, and the principles I invoke as of paramount importance.
There should be no question of the priority need to control the chilling intrusion on privacy, to protect individual rights, uphold the law and promote desirable changes in it by democratic processes. We should oppose brutality and violence on every front as alien forces in the conduct of our public and personal affairs. Nor should we countenance the misuse of power and privilege which deprives others of their dignity and freedom. I take it for granted that everyone has the right to be treated with decency, fairness and justice. Influence, authority and power are not tolerable in a parliamentary democracy if they do not serve the interests of the people as a whole.
I also take it for granted that if we are to avoid the growth of totalitarian roots in our society or the spectre of Orwellian control over our lives we must have the courage to speak up and act whenever there are signs which threaten the character and nature of our people.
I turn now to some considered opinion. Mr. Dennis Paling, barrister-at-law, in the "Criminal Review" of May last year observed in respect of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964": However there are numerous opportunities for evasion open to the policeman. First there is the understandable difficulty of persuading one policeman to give evidence 878 against another. There may be pressures from superiors to say nothing, thus in the Leeds police enquiry the police cadet who originally made the complaint was first told by his superiors to forget it. Mr. Paling then referred to a very serious case of police assault and brutality. His observations included comments on unlawful entry, police methods of postponing investigations, and the police practice of making charges of assault against themselves by complainants.
Turning to the debate on 23rd February 1973 introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), Mr. Paling wrote: The Home Secretary intervened in the debate and said that he personally had long held the view that the introduction of an independent element into police complaint procedure is essential". My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) quoted the Home Secretary in his Adjournment debate on 11th April 1973 as saying: I must also be able to tell people with confidence that where there are black sheep among the police forces they will be sought out and dealt with without fear or favour and without any suggestion of matters being covered up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April 1973 ; Vol. 851, c. 994.] That view I submit to the House was a considered view and a view reflecting an awareness of a growing problem.
The issue of The Guardian of 3rd November 1972 refers to a case where police pressures were placed on a man in Durham. Detectives attempted to force him to become an informer. The Guardian offered to make tapes, names, and photographic evidence available proving the blackmail technique and showing an excess of filthy language calculated to coerce the man to do something he did not want to do.
Moreover, the Sunday Times of 28th November 1971 referring to the case of a man who died describes the notorious Leeds Police Mafia and adds: It was unfortunate that Mr. Oluale was pitchforked into the hands of two brutal policemen of a force in which some aspects of discipline and integrity had decayed…". One of the officers in the case had been previously concerned with "fixing" evidence. Eight officers in that division had been convicted in the previous two years. Young officers were afraid of the 879 Police Mafia—ten officers—and in evidence one stated, We felt there was no senior officer we could turn to. On 5th March 1972 The Observer described two cases of corruption, an exposure subsequently resulting in 144 officers being found in breach of police discipline. The paper observed: The police could not be trusted to inquire into the dirty laundry in their own house. Between 1965 and 1972 the number of complaints by chief officers of police rose from 6,736 to 9,872 in England and Wales. The cases substantiated have risen from 756 to 1,100. The cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecution have increased from 433 to 1,788. These figures are alarming but they raise very pertinently the doubts about the complaints procedures. As Mr. C. H. Rolph, a writer and penal expert, has said: In my belief nothing could do more to improve the public image of the police service than the considerable sacrifice of a jealously guarded autonomy. Early last year Tom Harper, journalist, reported in The Sunday Times Figures I have dug out show dramatically of the 4,314 complaints recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1971, 1,316 were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Criminal proceedings followed in 104 cases. There were 93 traffic offences. But 92 per cent. of the cases were filtered back to the police and disciplinary action was taken in only 41 cases. I conclude this brief reference to considered opinion, which is only a fragment of the total record and statistical account, by turning to a quotation from Sir Robert Marks, Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He has stated: It is equally certain that for those very few who let down the Department, the force or service for personal gain or other improper motive there must be and there shall be a reckoning. I have already indicated the time-scale of change at the Hartlepool police station. The Home Secretary is aware of the suspension of the chief superintendent of police. On that I make no comment, except as a statement of fact. Nevertheless, in proceeding with Hartlepool matters I want to stress once again that in my view the majority of police in Hartlepool are men of considerable ability and work in accordance with the highest standards.
880 I shall be sending the Home Secretary letters. One refers to the treatment of a man by the name of Ron Hoyle. He was attacked by officers belonging to the Drug Squad. A witness informs me in writing of brutal treatment, filthy language and piercing screams of pain. He describes at length his concern and appeal for the beating to stop and how he was threatened by the police. He added: The atmosphere was so tense that if the noise in the kitchen had not been stopped we would not have been able to tolerate orders from these thugs any longer. Mr. Ron Hoyle had to be taken to hospital in a state of collapse. He was treated for a small abrasion over the left eye. I have seen his hospital admission report. It is headed: Collapse. Drunk? Drugs. I have questioned the hospital group secretary on these headings and he admitted freely that the drugs entry was possibly suggested by the police. He confirms that no medical test was made which produced any evidence of drugs whatever.
A letter from another constituent states, with reference to police conduct towards her son: They physically held my boy against the panda car, slapped his face and called him a long-haired bastard. Two young people protested about the treatment. The young boy was released. He returned home in a serious state of distress. No charge was ever made against him. He has never committed an offence in his life.
Another constituent complains how a policeman took his educationally subnormal son to the police station. His letter accuses the constable of telling his son that he would keep him there until 10 p.m. unless he told him what he wanted to know. It is claimed that the boy, aged 17, was threatened with a statement that the police nearly crippled a man who refused to tell what they wanted to know.
An investigation was made in this case by the police. The charges are not sustained.
But, as one senior officer told me the other day, from his personal experience at the end of these kind of investigations, You are not certain you are right."— meaning that the police were not certain they were right. What is wrong 881 in my view is that this young, educationally subnormal lad was deprived of his rights under the Judges Rules. His is the very kind of case which needed the presence of a friend and certainly his parents because, not understanding the full implications of words, he could have incriminated himself, although he was innocent.
Recently I have had to deal with a situation where a young man's father went to the police station freely, to be helpful. On that occasion a detective constable took the young man into a room and refused to allow the father to be present. The young man was told that the detective had evidence that he had committed an offence and that in the circumstances he had better admit it. The young man has not been charged. The evidence was lacking and the approach was clumsy and offensive, to say the least.
Another person has written to me saying that he went to the police station to make an inquiry. He was told by a detective constable to get out, using a choice expression of obscene language, a term consistent with other accounts I have heard.
There is a case of a young man who accused the police of brutality. The police report on the case asserts that his wounds were self-inflictd. My agent saw these wounds and later I saw photographs of them. I still remain unconvinced that the nature of these wounds could have been totally self-inflicted.
In December of last year one of the oldest employers in Hartlepool, and one of the largest employers of labour there, complied with the statutory requirements of the Customs and Excise investigatory branch and the police came to his bonded premises. They jostled the women workers back up the stairs as they were leaving, pushing some in a manner which raised objections, made them stand against a wall, facing it with their hands upon the wall while they were searched. Some women were stripped in circumstances which they claim was humiliating and not totally private. Nothing was found, no charges were made, not a word of apology was offered. The official responsible in this firm, a man of considerable experience, discussing the matter with me stated that the police method was completely foreign to him. He was talking, 882 too, with experience because he referred to a case two and a half years previously when a pilfering problem was investigated with some efficiency and without raising objections. I understand that the head of this firm is similarly annoyed with the police method.
I want now to turn to the case of Peter Lund. This man had committed no offence. He called at the police station with his wife to make an inquiry about his brother. This man is a registered disabled person with only one healthy lung who has been warned not to exert himself. He was a male nurse but has had a period of not being fit for anything but light work. I understand he carries a card to identify him and recommend what action to take to assist him should he become ill in a public place.
This man was brutally assaulted in the police station. Only police officers and the man's wife were present. I have examined a copy of the hospital accident treatment card from St. Hilda's Hospital dated 4th September 1973.
I saw the man myself shortly afterwards. A nurse is reported as having said, "They"—meaning the police—"must be like bloody animals". Mr. Lund was in the hospital for about an hour. He was taken there handcuffed. A laceration under the chin had to be stitched. His teeth were broken and fractured, and there was bruising on his body and arms. He suffered some considerable pain. Mr. Lund claims he was kicked in the teeth. His wife asserts she pleaded with the officers to stop hitting him because of his disability. One officer replied "He'll be more than disabled when I have finished with him".
It is not uncommon in such cases which get out of hand for the police to make a charge of assault. Legal opinion has confirmed this. Later an officer asked Lund if he would be pleading guilty or not guilty to a charge of assault. Mr. Lund said, "Not guilty". He was then told, "If you do we'll make your life a hell." I have in my possession the man's disablement certificate dated 10th January 1973.
In some cases I have dealt with I have not mentioned officers' names. On balance I have taken the view that, though 883 my constituents have suffered, over-exuberance, indiscretion or misjudgment does not call for any further description. In some cases the police authority refuses to make the names available. But in the Lund case the record is clear from a Press report. In the Crown Court the police charges were not upheld. Mr. Lund was acquitted.
From the Press report it transpired that PC McGuinness had refused to let Mr. Lund see his brother. Sergeant Anthony Flynn and PC Brian Stork then appeared on the scene. Apparently they took over and PC McGuinness claims he saw nothing more. Detective Constable Victor Shadforth then appeared after Lund had been dragged out of the station and dragged back. Lund was being held by his hair and an arm. A Press account describes how Shadforth punched Lund in the face, kicked him on the floor and how PC Stork jabbed him in the solar plexus.
None of these police officers could say in court how Lund had received his injuries. In his summing up of this case Mr. James Chadwin, for Lund, said: It was unlikely Lund would have picked a fight with any of these officers. All three were around 6 feet in height. Two weighed more than 16 stone, and the other 14½ stone. Lund weighed 10½ stone and was registered as a disabled person spending a lot of time in hospital with lung trouble. I must point out that Mr. Lund was told privately that one of the officers involved had been before a disciplinary committee on two previous occasions, but there had been insufficient evidence. Some of us can understand that. But I must also add that Detective Constable Shadforth's name has come to my attention on more than one occasion.
In the early stages Mr. Lund naturally complained to the police. But later, reflecting on his unfair treatment, he wrote to the police stating that since he had no confidence in them he did not want a police investigation which amounted, in his view, and in the view of many others throughout the country, to the police investigating themselves. That request was ignored.
He has received a letter from the police authority stating the matter has been fully investigated under the provisions of the Act and the conclusion 884 reached that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against the officers. Mr. Lund has never appeared before an independent police investigating body.
A police officer called at his home for a statement and, before doing so, told Mrs. Lund to go into the kitchen. In her own home, she naturally refused. Mr. Lund has never been given a copy of the Home Office leaflet explaining his rights in the complaints procedure.
So here we have a man proven innocent in the courts feeling the last resounding smack of police conclusions about themselves. One might ask, since he is not capable of kicking his own teeth in, where the truth really lies in a situation where the evidence points clearly to the presence of police officers only. A malicious attack on a disabled man cannot be justified in any circumstances.
I should have preferred not to mention the names of these officers, but they have already appeared in the Press. I regret not having asked for an investigation earlier through the Home Office. The conclusion of the investigation is dated 7th December. I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of taking that course. Nor did I deem it right to seek to take that course once the police had investigated and drawn their own conclusions, because I could not foresee the Home Office altering that kind of decision.
I hope that the Home Secretary will speedily introduce measures, now held to be necessary by a considerable body of opinion, in the interests of the general public and the deserving majority of good police officers. That is important. Regional tribunals offer a solution, with legally qualified chairmen and members appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Such bodies should have the power to subpoena witnesses and to award damages. The complainant and the police should have legal advice and representation on equal terms. All this is possible, including measures to protect the police where criminal proceedings may be involved. But, whatever the solution, the present state of affairs must come to an end.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)
In the 10 minutes 885 at my disposal I will try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter.) This Adjournment debate relates to Hartlepools, but in the first part the hon. Gentleman referred to various cases from other parts of the country. I do not know what his purpose was in doing that, but I should point out that in the Leeds case, as a result of police investigation, a police officer was prosecuted and convicted and later an inquiry was held.
If the purpose of his general point is that it is necessary to have a proper complaints procedure for complaints against the police, that I accept. But I should point out that a complaints procedure already exists. Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 provides that when a chief officer of police receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of his force, he must record that complaint and cause it to be investigated. The investigating officer will normally be of the rank of superintendent or above, he will be from a different division from that of the officer against whom the complaint is made, and, if the chief officer considers it desirable, he may bring in an officer from another force to undertake the investigation.
On receiving the investigating officer's report, the chief officer must send it to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless he is satisfied that the report contains no allegations of criminal offences. The Director then decides whether it is appropriate to institute criminal proceedings, and under the present procedure the Director informs the complainant of the result.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a full and thorough system for the investigation of complaints against the police and I am perfectly satisfied from my experience in the Home Office that complaints against the police are fully, firmly and thoroughly investigated when they are brought to light. What cannot be done is to investigate complaints of which notice has not been given to the police.
In almost every case that the hon. Member has mentioned today, what he has just said is the first knowledge I have had of those cases. The first knowledge that the Home Office has had 886 of those cases was when he chose to refer to details of the cases in public in the House of Commons today. One cannot carry out an investigation or request it to be carried out unless a complaint is made and one has the opportunity to investigate it.
The hon. Member quoted other people who had said they believed that there was a need for an independent element in the investigation of complaints into the police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear earlier last year that he accepted that case. He has had a working party looking into methods of providing for an independent element, an ex post facto review of complaints against the police where an individual complainant was dissatisfied. That working party has now completed its work and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to make an announcement.
I must deplore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred to various cases here today and presumably, by referring to them, has given credence to the allegations that have been made, without giving any opportunity to have those allegations properly investigated.
As long ago as September last year, the hon. Gentleman gave wide coverage in the Press to numerous allegations which, he said, he had against members of the Hartlepool police. As long ago as 20th September, having set out again serious allegations which he said he had against the town's police, he said that he was sending a dossier of five separate incidents to the Home Secretary. We are now in January 1974, and not one word have we heard on any of those matters from the hon. Gentleman since the publicity he achieved on 20th September, making allegations against the Hartlepool police, until he has repeated them here today.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I have just said that the report is now complete and is being forwarded to the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I appreciate that. The hon. Gentleman has said this morning that he is now about to send the report to the Home Secretary. I will await with interest the receipt of that report. To the extent that it contains details of complaints against the police, I assure him that they will be investigated.
887 The point I was making was that as long ago as September last year the hon. Member chose to get a great deal of publicity, making various allegations against the Hartlepool police, and he said at that time that he had a dossier which he was sending to the Home Office. Instead of seeing it, however, we have heard nothing from him until now, when he chooses to repeat his allegations here.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member has gone about the matter in this way, because by doing so he appears to give credence to what are only allegations and at the moment one does not know whether they are accurate. I regret that the hon. Member chose to do it in this way, because I believe that the effect is to cast doubt on the integrity of officers of the force.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the suspension—he is right—of the chief superintendent. The chief superintendent was suspended, as the hon. Member has said, as a result of a purely internal disciplinary matter. The matter is in no way connected with any of the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made. No member of the general public was in any way involved in the issue which led to the suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, of the chief superintendent. That should be made clear lest it be felt that his suspension was in any way linked to the type of allegations which the hon. Gentleman has made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one case which I have been able to investigate. That was the case of Mr. Lund. In that case an investigation was carried out. The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted, and Mr. Lund was informed that the director did not consider that action was justified. It was the hon. Gentleman himself who, on 28th November, took by hand to the police a letter written by Mr. Lund in which he said that he, Mr. Lund, could not have any confidence in the investigatory process, that he had decided to consider another approach to the problem and that any further communication between him and the police would be unnecessary. It hardly falls to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the nature of that inquiry in 888 view of the letter that he took on Mr. Lund's behalf to the police.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Is the Minister saying that a Member of Parliament is acting wrongly by carrying a letter at the request of a constituent to a place to which the constituent fears to go? I must insist that the Minister answers that question. I do not accept that stricture. I shall serve my constituents in a proper manner. I have had more opportunity to investigate this matter than has the Minister, and I object to his insinuation.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman did anything wrong.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
The Minister has no case.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I was trying to reconcile the fact that the hon. Gentleman delivered that letter with his complaint today about the method of investigation, when the man himself was complaining in advance that he would take other approaches. No other approaches were taken.
In another case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on another occasion, when he went personally with the complainant to the police station to make a complaint, when the investigation was set up the complainant just withdrew the complaint.
I repeat, however, that if the hon. Gentleman gives to the Home Office—as he says that he now will—details of the complaints and the claims that have been made to him, we shall ask for a report from the Chief Constable of Durham on each individual matter. But if the hon. Gentleman has that evidence, it is unfortunate that he did not choose to put it forward in that way, rather than to give credence to what are at this stage, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, merely allegations. Making the allegations in this way is bound to give credence to them and, therefore, to cast doubt on the police in that area.
I would rather that we should carry on in the normal way and investigate complaints which are put to us.