HC Deb 21 July 1977 vol 935 cc2037-46

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

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

This is the second time that I have used an Adjournment debate to bring to the attention of the House the long-drawn-out, strange and sad case of the conviction of George Henry Ince. The previous occasion was on 27th March 1975. Some of my hon. Friends and I had been banging away at the armour-plated obstinacy of the Home Office long before that.

Mr. Ince is the man who was charged by the Essex police with what came to be called the Barn murder. They built up a dossier against him, which looked absolutely conclusive and irrefutable. The major part of the evidence that they adduced was evidence of identification; it was overwhelming and unanswerable evidence of identification. The only thing wrong with it was that it was wrong, because it identified the wrong man.

Fortunately, Mr. Ince, by his energy and skill in defending himself, by his continuous passionate restatement of his innocence and by his good fortune in establishing an alibi at the last minute, escaped conviction for the Barn murder, and a short while afterwards two men were arrested, charged and convicted of that murder.

The identification parade was among matters examined in a report by a distinguished officer of the Metropolitan Police—Commander Howells. That report made clear, as the Under-Secretary at the Home Office admitted in my last Adjournment debate, that the procedures during the identification parade were a gross violation of police rules and that all sorts of rules had been bent in all sorts of ways in order to get a conviction that was "phoney". The Essex police were determined to get a conviction by hook or by crook and they came very near to getting a conviction by crook.

In all this long argument with the Home Office, extending over several years, I have never said that George Ince is innocent of the crime for which he is serving a prison sentence. I do not know whether he is guilty. I am not a detective, a lawyer or a judge, and I do not presume to pronounce on such a matter. However, I have read every word of the proceedings and I say that, innocent or not, George Ince should certainly not have been convicted on the evidence adduced against him at the trial and subsequently in the appeal, because the overwhelming bulk of that evidence rested upon identification carried out a few days later in the same place by the officers who, it is now known, did a crooked identification in the case of the Barn murder.

That was evidence of witnesses whose credibility had been absolutely shattered. I do not believe that it was reasonable for the court, even with some warning given to it about the identification evidence, to ignore this lack of credibility of the people who had built up the case.

Whenever I have put these points to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he has said—and has repeated in writing —that he is not a court of law or an appeal court against the Court of Appeal and that he cannot reopen the case unless he is given fresh evidence that was not available to the court or to the Court of Appeal. But my right hon. Friend's predecessor did not say that in the Confait case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) repeatedly drew to the attention of the House.

On 8th January 1974 the then Home Secretary told the then hon. Member for Lewisham West, Mr. Carol Johnson, that he could reopen the Confait case only on fresh evidence or fresh facts relating to the issues. On 17th July that year the Home Secretary referred to the need for fresh evidence on the affair. On 1st August he said that the case could be reopened on the basis of cogent new factors—not, this time, fresh evidence. On 31st August, he referred to: significant matters which appear to suggest that the jury were not presented with an accurate or adequate picture of what occurred. That is a precise description of the presentation to the jury in the case of the Mountnessing robbery.

On 8th April 1976 the then Home Secretary said that he could reopen the case on some new evidence or other consideration of substance—that is, some consideration other than new evidence. Finally, also on 8th April 1976, answering a different parliamentary Question, he said, without mentioning evidence, that the case could be reopened on some new consideration of substance.

So, during this period of a year or more, the then Home Secretary was gradually liberalising the criteria under which he could order a fresh look at a case. The present Home Secretary, however, has done a total reversion, right back to before 1974, to a harder line—a very hard line indeed.

In a letter that the Home Secretary sent to me, however, he promised that if there were any fresh evidence he would look at it. There are two more pieces of fresh evidence. The first is the report of a second investigation into complaints against the conduct of the Essex police, this time carried out by Detective Chief Superintendent Sills of the West Yorkshire Constabulary. I do not know Mr. Sills, but I am told that he is a senior officer of high repute, is widely respected, and has a great record of service. Although the Home Secretary refuses to make Mr. Sills' report available to me or anyone else, I know what is in it. There have been leaks. Some extracts from it were published this morning in The Guardian, in an article by Mr. Peter Chippendale.

I mention in passing that when Mr. Chippendale rang up the Chief Constable of Essex to check a point or two he was told that if his paper published anything about the Sills report he would be liable to very damaging consequences, whatever that may mean. I would have thought that that was by no means the best way to improve relations between the police and the public.

I am going to say something very blunt. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State says, in reply, that Mr. Chippendale's account is not correct. I am not going to believe him; nor is anyone else. I do not say that my hon. Friend is a liar, first, because that would be out of order. and, secondly, because it would be inconsistent with the deep regard and affection in which he knows I hold him.

What I am saying is that my experience of the behaviour of the Home Office with regard to investigations into the conduct of the police gives me confidence, and gives anybody else who has any experience in these matters confidence, in the belief that the Home Office's passion for preventing the public from knowing about the peccadilloes of the occasional police officer who is corrupt overrides every other consideration in its mind, to such an extent that it becomes—I am using tough words, but they derive from experience—unscrupulous in the use of the information available to it.

If my hon. Friend is going to say that the article is not true, let me bring out one point in the Sills report. Is he going to deny that a large number—nearly 100 —of prosecution documents found their way into the hands of the defence? Is he going to deny that some police officer or officers in Essex at about that time received a sum of rather more than £6,000? Is he going to deny that the Sills report says that it would be naive to imagine that there was no connection between those two occurrences? Will he deny that? I repeat: if he tries to discredit what has been written about the Sills report, I shall not believe him, nor will anyone else.

There is no time for me to do more than pick out one or two points that were quoted in the article. It points out that the report states that The excess of zeal by Essex police officers to pursue investigatory ends oblivious to the contradictory evidence was not in the best interests of such an investigation. That is a nice, discreet, polite, diplomatic way of saying that the Essex police picked out the bits of evidence that suited them and ignored the bits that did not suit them—in other words, that they were not carrying out their duty of seeking the truth. What they were seeking to do, for the second time with the same man, was to get a conviction by hook or by crook, and again they have got one by crook.

This exposure of the lack of credibility of the people on whose word the prosecution case was built up must constitute new evidence for my hon. Friend to consider. But there is a second piece of evidence. A statement was made a few weeks ago by a man named Sims, who is serving a sentence for his part in the Mountnessing robbery, and who says, quite frankly, "I was involved in the robbery. I admit it. George Ince was not there and had nothing to do with it." He has nothing to gain by saying that. I sent that statement to the Home Secretary some weeks ago. As far as I know, not a finger has been lifted about it.

If my hon. Friend is to say to me, as I hope he is, that the Home Office will take steps to have Mr. Sims' statement investigated, I want to ask three short and quick questions. First, what has the Home Office been waiting for? Why has the statement not been investigated up to now?

Secondly, who is to do the examination? Is it to be the Essex police? If it is, that would he an invitation to Satan to rebuke sin, would it not? That would make the Home Office a laughing stock throughout the country.

Third, may I please have an assurance that no pressure will be put on Mr. Sims to go back on what he is saying? I think that, to make sure, I had better get a visiting order and go to see Mr. Sims myself and have a little chat with him.

I hope that after my hon. Friend has replied we shall not be in a position to think, as many people do—I am not alone in this—that the history of this case tends to show, or at least leaves open the suggestion, that the Department has throughout been more interested in covering up some unpleasant features of the case than to do justice to a man who has suffered much wrong.

I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will indicate some first steps to rectify that gross injustice.

12.37 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)

The case of George Ince's conviction for the Mountnessing bullion robbery is one which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has said, has achieved a considerable amount of notoriety. I think it fair that I should remind the House that it occupied the time of the trial court for some 60 days and the Court of Appeal for six days. It has been the subject of a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, which was investigated, as my hon. Friend says, by Chief Superintendent Ronald Sills. I shall say more about that at a later stage.

Nevertheless, there has been a continuing interest in the case, as the attendance for the debate shows, and it has been spearheaded, as my hon. Friend says, by himself. He has been extremely vigorous on behalf of his constituent. It has led, as he has said, to Press speculation and, in its turn, to the second Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend has sought on the subject.

I welcome that, not only as an opportunity of answering the genuine anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend but also to clear up certain misconceptions that arise, not only in this case but in other cases in which my right hon. Friend is involved.

It goes without saying that the proper forum for judging guilt or innocence is a court of law, particularly where, as in the case of serious crime, we have a jury system, which everyone values. Even if the convicted man, or others on his behalf, nourish the belief that he was wrongly convicted, that itself does not warrant the Home Secretary's interference. He is not appointed to take the place of a court, so that any material that was fully aired and determined by the court cannot be subject to a reference to the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the frequently criticised and often referred to identification parade in the Ince case, which was dealt with very fully in the trial, is not a ground of fresh evidence.

The trial judge was most careful to sound warning about the matter, and the Court of Appeal confirmed not only the adequacy of the warning but the fact that it was the totality of the evidence upon which Mr. Ince was found guilty. As I said, on that matter alone, however disturbing my hon. Friend finds it, the Home Secretary could not intervene.

My right hon. Friend can refer a matter to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1967 if, upon new evidence or a new consideration, he considers it right to do so. Alternatively, he can recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy if the evidence is not properly receivable by the court but is tested and undermines the conviction.

It is in this category of new evidence that the statement of Mr. Francis Sims falls and its potential value lies. Clearly, this raises new matters, which call for further investigation. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided to pass the statement to the police for investigation. This will be done immediately.

My hon. Friend asked three questions. I have answered one—the statement has been passed on. Secondly, I am authorised to say that the investigation will not be undertaken by the Essex police force but will be placed in the hands of an officer from another force. Thirdly, my hon. Friend raised the question of pressure being put on Mr. Sims in reference to his statement. If my hon. Friend is asking whether pressure will be put on Mr. Sims to withdraw his statement I can stay that none will be put on. Of course his evidence will be tested and all matters that are proper for my right hon. Friend to consider—not only whether he should refer it back to the Court of Appeal but whether he follows the other course that I have mentioned in this matter—will he tested. But no pressure will be placed upon Mr. Sims to change a story that he believes to be true.

If my hon. Friend wishes to have a pass to visit Mr. Sims and talk to him I shall be happy to try to facilitate it.

Mr. Mikardo

Thank you very much.

Mr. John

I now deal with the second limb of the speech of my hon. Friend— the question of the Sills report. I am sorry that there is so much similarity in the names, but I shall not get them mixed up: My hon. Friend asked my right hon. Friend on an earlier occasion to see a copy of the report. The report takes the form of an investigation of complaints against policemen in the case—an investigation commissioned by the Chief Constable of the Essex police. The report was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions and a copy was sent to my right hon. Friend because of its connection with the other matters concerning Mr. Ince.

The report is a private report and not a public one, and such reports have not been disclosed in the past, any more than police investigations have been published. My right hon. Friend does not feel able to depart from the normal practice, and does not feel able to publish this document, for the reasons set out in Home Office Circular 63/77, a copy of which is available in the Library. Basically this sets out some of the disadvantages, and potential disadvantages, of publishing the material in this case. I quote from one part of it. It says: Many reports contain information which could certainly not be freely disclosed such as the names and addresses of witnesses or criminal records of named persons, as well as statements made to the police and facts disclosed in the course of investigation which may be prejudicial to named persons. Investigation of a complaint against the police follows in many respects the same lines as a criminal investigation and it is equally undesirable that any report of the investigation of a complaint should be published. That certainly post-dates the Sills report, but these are mere reiterations of the principle that has always obtained and which, I believe, obtained in this case with equal validity.

The request made by my hon. Friend has been given a new twist by a report in The Guardian this morning purporting to give extracts from the Sills report. I understand that my hon. Friend has discounted in advance what I shall say. Nevertheless, because of the affection with which we regard each other I hope that he will listen carefully and sympathetically to what I shall say. I do not believe that I have a reputation for misleading the House or for trying in any way to bide behind a distortion of the facts in order to protect the Department or personal interests.

The major point in the article in The Guardian suggested that Mr. Sills had recommended Mr. Ince's release from prison pending further inquiries. This is a major point which, if true, would oblige my right hon. Friend to explain why he had not accepted such a recommendation and, indeed, why he gave the parliamentary Answer that he did to our mutual hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) on 20th May 1977. But it is not true. Mr. Sills made no such recommendation.

Clearly, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to draw up the document from which the article in The Guardian is drawn. In view of recent events I hope that The Guardian has tried to check its information. I can only assume that the intention behind the article is to force publication of the real Sills report. As I have explained, my right hon. Friend has no such intention. He will not depart from the long-standing principle of the confidentiality of such reports.

I believe that it would be to the long-term detriment of people involved in these investigations if such reports were to be published. Even where there is a public inquiry it is often necessary to check with people who have given evidence as to whether they agree that the particular proposal should be published. I therefore say to my hon. Friend that it is clear from the article in The Guardian, as I read it, that whatever document The Guardian thinks it has seen, it is not the Sills report. The printed extracts bear no resemblance to the report that Mr. Sills submitted to the chief constable.

My hon. Friend has made a number of points, some of which have already been discussed between us and some of which I shall need to consider in the light of what he has said. I shall consider them and write to him.

My contention tonight is that the Home Office is not here to cover up or to hide behind a smoke-screen. But my right hon. Friend has limitations on his power. It is not merely discontent with a verdict which entitles him to intervene. If that were so, the independence of the judiciary and of our legal system might well be undermined. My right hon. Friend can intervene only where there is some new consideration or new evidence of substance.

I believe that, at any rate potentially, Mr. Sims' statement falls within that category, which is why my right hon. Friend has passed it on and why the investigation will now take place. The investigation is designed merely to establish the truth of the matter. It is not designed to prejudge or to achieve a desired object. It will establish the truth so far as, in a complex case of this kind, that can be achieved.

The process of testing is necessary not only because the Court of Appeal can sometimes be rough on a Home Secretary who has made a premature referral but because such a referral can be prejudicial to the man himself. If there are matters that need clarification and there is a premature referral to the Court of Appeal, the court, examining only that evidence, may come to the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. That may lead to greater disillusion and greater unhappiness on the part of the accused person.

As soon as the investigation has been completed and checks have been made into the statement, we shall be in touch with my hon. Friend. I assure him that I take this case seriously. It is a case which, as he said, has caused a great many people a great deal of anxiety. But I am far from accepting my hon. Friend's strictures on my right hon. Friend or on the Home Office. I assure him that this investigation will be carried out with diligence and that he will be made aware as soon as the result is received by the Home Office.

With that assurance, I hope that the Ince case may be gone into yet again by my right hon. Friend and by the relevant authorities, so that we can see at least, if not total acceptance, a greater acceptance of the underlying basis of the case, because it is importance that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.