Kent County Constabulary (Hansard, 15 July 1986)

§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, evidence of serious malpractice by officers of the Kent county constabulary and the inquiry by officers of the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority thereinto. Several reports since Sunday in the press and by television and radio have given prominence to allegations by my constituent, Mr. Ron Walker, who is a serving officer in the Kent constabulary. Mr. Walker has alleged that fellow officers have been involved in widespread and systematic malpractice which has led to the clear-up rate of offences in Kent seeming to be better than it really is. Mr. Walker claims that convicted criminals have been persuaded to admit, without fear of further prosecution, offences that they did not commit and that false confessions have been written by police officers, thus allowing offences to be "written off" as cleared up. He further alleges that fictitious offences have been recorded, only to be falsely confessed and written off.

These are serious allegations and Mr. Walker, who has placed his career on the line, has provided sufficient evidence in two specimen incidents to prompt the deputy chief constable of Kent, whose responsibility disciplinary matters are, to commission an inquiry by another force —the Metropolitan police—and to inform, properly, the Police Complaints Authority. That inquiry has now taken place and I understand that a lengthy report is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am concerned about the nature of the inquiry, especially its terms of reference. It is reported—1 know not how reliably—that the inquiry was restricted to an investigation of Mr. Walker's two specific specimen allegations and that no wider investigation took place. In view of Mr. Walker's more wide-ranging contentions, care should have been taken to determine whether they were two isolated incidents or whether, as Mr. Walker suggested, they were but examples of much wider abuse of the write-off system.

The last thing I want is for this unhappy matter to become a stick with which to beat the police by those who would gainsay the normally high standards of the police. I believe, however, that in the public interest we should know urgently from my right hon. Friend the Secretary whether the inquiry was restricted or whether it was drawn widely enough to determine whether there was widespread malpractice and abuse of the write-off system.

I believe that this urgent and important matter should be settled before we rise for the recess so that public confidence in the police, which must inevitably have been damaged by Mr. Walker's allegations, is restored as soon as possible. That is why I have sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.