HC Deb 22 April 1977 vol 930 cc679-88

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

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)

The debate I am about to initiate is important even though I regret—and indeed I sympathise with the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State—that it comes on at a later hour than I ever remember on any Friday previously. I briefly want to set the national scene before dealing with the local incident.

We are living in a climate of growing violence—violence on football pitches, in schools and muggings in London. The Home Secretary has a special responsibility and special ambitions in that area. I quote a single figure. In the last five years the number of assaults committed by those aged between 17 and 21—that is the age group with which I am concerned—has risen by no less than 81 per cent. The Home Office must be concerned by it.

The Home Secretary and I would be at one in saying that there is sometimes a difference of opinion as to what are the proper penalties, but there will be no difference of opinion in the conviction that the most certain deterrent is surety of apprehension and surety of bringing the offenders before the court. If there was ever any obstacle to bringing those offenders before the courts I have no doubt that the Home Secretary would be the first to remove it.

The title of what we are discussing tonight is down on the Order Paper as police action in the case of Mr. Bromley, deceased. I did not choose that title and I am not very happy with it. We have a most efficient and excellent police force in Dorset and we are still proud of it. Whatever I may say critically I do not think that all the crititcism by any means falls on the police. I would not wish that impression to arise.

I turn to the local scene. I direct the attention of the House to the events which took place at 11.45 p.m. on 17th September last at 35, Kings Road West, Swanage, which is a small but lovely seaside town. In that house there lived Mr. Laurence Bromley, 61 years of age, retired with a chest condition and a heart complaint of grave character, as well as his wife, who was a trained nurse.

Shortly on the point of their going to bed, there arrived outside the house three young men in a car. One of the tyres was punctured, and at that point there was a fracas.

I concede that as there were no witnesses other than the three young men and the person assaulted and his wife, probably no one will ever know precisely what happened. I quote, as probably the shortest account of what happened, a note of what Mr. Bromley said to his solicitor three days later. The note says that he was grabbed by the shoulders and head by a person with blond hair and was then thrown on to the front garden and that this person then said that he would kick Mr. Bromley's head in. He … went on to threaten Mrs. Bromley who rang the police. Mr. Bromley was examined by his doctor. Three days later he was still shaken, and a few weeks later he was dead.

Those are the events that are not, I think, seriously in dispute, and the chief constable in subsequent correspondence with me used the phrase, without any qualification, that this was a case of common assault.

I see no reason why I should not name the three young men. They were Mr. Cave, Mr. Stockley, and Mr. Bower. Nor is it wholly irrelevant that a short time after these events Mr. Cave was convicted on a further charge of causing actual bodily harm—an offence that might have been averted if the first case had been treated differently.

I now turn to deal with Mr. Bromley's widow. I know that, whatever other impression one may have of the case, the hon. Lady will wish to convey to her our deepest sympathy for the tragedy in which she was involved.

The police were called to the house. They arrived, having on their way apprehended these three young men, whom they later took to the police station. It is to the anger of the widow that, that having been done, no charge was ever levied against these young men, and it is not immediately comprehensible why that was so.

The chief constable, with whom I have been in correspondence, said that information could be laid only by the person assaulted or by some person on his behalf", and he went on to say other than in circumstances where the aggrieved is very old and infirm and incapable of conveying the necessary authority. I wish that the chief constable had quoted the second piece of what is to be found in Stone's manual: But it may be otherwise when there is clear and unambiguous evidence by the party aggrieved to a police officer acting on his behalf. I say at once that there is a conflict of evidence. The police say that Mr. Bromley at some time or other expressed a wish not to prosecute. I must add that Mrs. Bromley, who was present throughout, hotly and indignantly denies that any such statement was ever made, and whichever version one accepts it is true that within three days, as soon as Mr. Bromley was fit to move, he was apparently complaining to his solicitor because the police had done nothing. Thus, at least at that time the police were well aware that it was Mr. Bromley's desire that a prosecution should take place.

Whatever the law may be on the point of common assault, there are other charges that could have been brought, such as a breach of the peace. I do not wish, in the few moments left to me in this debate, to seek to criticise anybody in particular. I want only to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary the fact that this is an unsatisfactory situation.

The chief constable in his letter moves on from the particular to the general and makes this statement: The practice of police officers not taking action in cases of common assault is not a local custom. I do not want to be wearisome by reading long extracts, but the chief constable goes on to say in terms that cannot be mistaken that it was not merely a decision in this case, but that it is the habit of the police in cases of common assault not to prosecute.

I suggest to the Home Office that there are other persons with an interest in this matter apart from the person assaulted. In this climate of growing violence, to which I referred at the beginning, there must be a wish by the Home Office to see that persons who commit this kind of offence are apprehended, taken before the courts and given an appropriate sentence. I should have thought that that was a primary responsibility of the Home Office.

This is a shadowy area. One may ask what the police could have done, or whether the law should be amended or what more the Home Office can do. It is not for me to point the many remedies. I do no more than ask the Home Office to take only these factors into consideration.

The Home Office should think not only of this case—I hope that the Minister will not deal exclusively with it—but also of the multitude of similar offences of which this is but one. Although, naturally, Mrs. Bromley would wish in tribute to the memory of her husband to feel that those who did this dastardly thing were dealt with, she would no less wish that this case should be of public use and that there should be some assurance that this sort of thing will not happen to others.

There is the saying "What is done cannot be undone" but in a spirit of helpfulness to the Home Office and the police, I direct attention to this incident as a example of other incidents which can occur, and I beg the Home Office to take consideration of these matters.

5.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

I should like to say first how sorry I was to hear of the death of Mr. Bromley and I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), whose constituent he was, would convey my sympathy to the family. The hon. Gentleman raised some important points and I am grateful to him for having given me advance notice of them.

I shall deal with the particular case first before going on to some more general principles. The hon. Gentleman has already been in correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister of State, who explained to him that this is not a case in which the Home Secretary had any power to intervene. In particular, my right hon. Friend has no power to direct a chief officer of police—in this case the Chief Constable of Dorset—to bring or not to bring a prosecution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the enforcement of the law chief officers of police are not subject to any direction by a Minister of the Crown. This is an important constitutional principle, which I think it right that I should stress at the outset.

Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend does possess the power to ask a chief constable for a report on any matter connected with the policing of an area, and accordingly, when the hon. Member indicated that he would be raising this case on the Adjournment, the Home Office asked the Chief Constable of Dorset for a report. What I shall now have to say is based on information that the Chief Constable has supplied in response to that request.

The assault on Mr. Bromley took place during the evening of 17th September 1976. At 14 minutes to midnight Mrs. Bromley made a 999 call to the police control room at Dorchester to the effect that three young men had knocked Mr. Bromley down and made off. Two police vehicles responded. As they approached the scene they saw and stopped three men thought to be those involved, who were taken to Swanage police station in one of the police vehicles. A sergeant and a constable went in the other vehicle to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Bromley.

There they saw Mr. Bromley. He was sitting in a chair, and appeared to have some difficulty with his breathing, though there was no visible injury. The police sergeant, in a report that he made before Mr. Bromley's subsequent death, gave the following account of what he was told: Mr. Bromley said that he had gone outside on hearing his wife shouting to someone in the street. He had seen three men and told them to be quiet or he would sort them out. On hearing this one of the men entered the front garden. Mr. Bromley said that he made to strike him but was picked up and dropped on the lawn. The man then left. Mr. Bromley insisted to the police officers that he had no injuries and was short of breath because of a long-standing illness. The seat of his trousers was covered with mud, but there was no mud on any other clothing.

He refused to allow the sergeant to call a doctor, and asked that no further action should be taken, saying that he had brought the problem on himself to a certain extent. He was advised by the police officers to contact a solicitor if he eventually wished to bring proceedings for common assault. This, as I have said, is the version of events given by the sergeant in a report, which, it is worth emphasising again, was made before Mr. Bromley's death. The other police officer present has since made a statement confirming the details given by the sergeant.

Mrs. Bromley had informed the officers that she had seen the three men interfering with her bed and breakfast sign. However, the three men, when interviewed at the police station, said that their car had had a puncture—which was confirmed—and that while they were changing the wheel Mrs. Bromley shouted at them and told them to be quiet. They answered her back and her husband came out. He made a swing at one of the men, who had entered the front garden, but was picked up and dropped on the lawn. The man concerned was warned about his future conduct, and the three men then left the police station.

The next day Mrs. Bromley telephoned Swanage police station and indicated that she proposed to bring proceedings if the police did not. She asked for the names and addresses of the three men, which were given to her. Mrs. Bromley said that on undressing her husband she had found a scratch on his ankle.

I understand that Mr. Bromley was examined by a doctor on 20th September. He found him shaken by his experience, but on examination he found no bruising and only one small laceration above the left ankle. On 4th October the police received a letter from Mr. Bromley's solicitors asking for some relevant details of the incident. A reply was sent to this letter on 21st October. On 24th October Mr. Bromley died.

Subsequently two post mortems were performed, one by a Home Office pathologist. I understand that both doctors found that Mr. Bromley's death was due to a heart condition and could not be connected with the earlier assault. I quote from the report of the Home Office pathologist: The heart condition is at a stage that death might reasonably be expected to occur at any time. Death in a person with heart disease at this stage might be precipitated by physical exertion or emotional excitement but it would not be reasonable to attempt to connect this death with an incident some live weeks earlier. Subsequently, on 13th December 1976, a full inquest was held by the coroner, sitting with a jury. Eleven witnesses were called, and all the parties concerned were represented. A verdict of "death by natural causes" was returned.

There are two other developments to which I shall refer, to complete the picture. Three days before the inquest Mrs. Bromley telephoned the police to say that at the time of the original incident, three months earlier, her husband's watch had been wrenched from his wrist. That was the first time this allegation had been made to the police. However, a statement was obtained, and a full investigation made. But nothing has been found to substantiate the allegation or lead to the recovery of the watch alleged to have been stolen.

Second, on the day after Mr. Bromley's death a complaint was made to the police by his stepson to the effect that the police had not done their duty in dealing with the incident on 17th September. A full investigation was carried out by a senior officer appointed by the chief constable, in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. However, the complaint was found not to be substantiated.

Following the inquest the hon. Member for Dorset, South engaged in correspondence with the Chief Constable of Dorset. Subsequently he wrote to my noble Friend the Minister of State. The main thrust of his argument has been that the police should have instituted proceedings against Mr. Bromley's assailants. I have explained that this is a matter for the chief constable.

Nevertheless, there are one or two points that I should like to make. First, although I do not underestimate the psychological effect of an incident of this sort on a man in Mr. Bromley's condition, with a history of heart attacks, the only physical injury found by the doctor who examined him three days later, when any bruising might have been expected to appear, was a small laceration above the left ankle.

Mr. Evelyn King

What the hon. Lady is saying is irrelevant. In the chief constable's own words, this was a case of common assault. If a man is picked up and put down in his front garden by the seat of his trousers that is an assault. It is irrelevant whether he subsequently dies. Nor am I suggesting that Mr. Bromley's death was necessarily anything to do with the assault. I am merely suggesting that this was an assault and that there should have been a prosecution for assault.

Dr. Summerskill

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is only fair that a full account as far as it exists be given to the public and to the House. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned certain facts, including Mr. Bromley's death. It is only right that all the additional facts be presented so that people do not have the wrong impression.

As my noble Friend has already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, although it is understandable that Mr. Bromley's death brought the earlier incident into sharp focus and that Mrs. Bromley should draw a connection between the death and the attack, the inquest findings do not support this, and the two events must clearly be treated entirely separately for police purposes. In these circumstances there could be no question of a police prosecution for murder or manslaughter.

As for the question of a prosecution for common assault, the Home Secretary has no authority to interpret the law, but perhaps I can summarise the legal position as follows: assault is an offence at common law, punishable either on indictment or summarily, for which the penalties are prescribed in Sections 42 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Under Section 42 of that Act, prosecutions for common assault in a magistrates' court can be brought only by or on behalf of the party aggrieved and Section 45 provides that where a person has been tried summarily for common assault and the court has dismissed the case, or the person has been convicted and paid the fine or served the term of imprisonment imposed, no further proceedings, civil or criminal, may be brought against him in respect of that assault.

Mr. Evelyn King

The hon. Lady has omitted something that is of vital importance. It simply is not true in law that only the person assaulted can bring such a case. Apart from the fact that Mr. Bromley was dead and could not have done so, anyway, the vital words are these: but it may be otherwise when there is clear and unambiguous evidence of assault by the party aggrieved to the police officers". Such evidence was produced clearly and unambiguously, certainly four days afterwards, which was time enough. There was nothing to prevent the police from prosecuting.

Dr. Summerskill

Perhaps I may continue to deal with the position of the police in a case like this.

Section 44 provides for the issue of a certificate by the court to enable the defendant to establish that he is protected by Section 45 where the information for assault has been dismissed. The effect of the restrictions in Section 42 is to ensure that the choice of civil or criminal proceedings rests with the victim of the assault.

I emphasise that where a case of assault or robbery with violence, commonly called "mugging", is committed, there is no doubt that the police would ordinarily prosecute where there is sufficient evidence.

I come now to police prosecution policy in respect of assault cases. The Chief Constable of Dorset informs me that it is the policy of his force to institute proceedings for common assault only in exceptional circumstances, where for example the person concerned is unable by reason of great age or infirmity to institute proceedings himself. Mr. Bromley was advised that if he wished to institute proceedings for common assault he should consult a solicitor. I understand that the same policy is followed by other forces, and indeed by the police generally. These, as I have explained, are matters for chief officers of police and not for the Home Secretary, but there are three points that I would like to make.

First, clearly if the police took on the task of prosecuting in the case of all minor assaults, that would be a very considerable extra burden on their already stretched resources, and it is questionable whether it would be a proper use of police officers who might otherwise be involved in dealing with more serious offences. Secondly, if the police do not prosecute, that does not in any way preclude a private prosecution, and the Chief Constable of Dorset confirms that where such a prosecution is brought his officers are prepared to assist, for example by supplying the names and addresses of witnesses. Thirdly, it should be noted that the relevant legislation explicitly envisages and requires that prosecutions should be brought by the person aggrieved or on his behalf. There is nothing irregular or unusual about private prosecutions for the type of offence that we are discussing, which has been described as "minor assault arising from a dispute".

I should however make it clear, having referred to the law on common assault, that the whole of the law on offences against the person, including the law on common assault, is currently under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee as part of its long-term programme for the codification of the criminal law. In a working paper published last September, the committee put forward for public discussion a number of provisional proposals, including a suggestion for the repeal of the relevant sections of the 1861 Act and their replacement by a new statutory offence of assault. This would have the effect of removing the restrictions on prosecutions contained in these sections. In the light of comments received on the working paper, the committee will draw up its final report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

In conclusion, I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman has in mind specific changes in the law of common assault, which he feels would have dealt with the situation in which his constituent found himself, he should send his views to the Home Secretary. As for the actions of the police, I can only repeat that these are the responsibility of the relevant chief constable and not of any Minister of the Crown.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Six o'clock.