HC Deb 16 March 1993 vol 221 cc259-66

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

10 pm

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

Less than 24 hours ago, Grampian Television broadcast a TV special called "The Open (and Shut) Case" on the as yet unexplained death of Billy Harris in Glasgow on the evening of 3 August 1989. The programme was produced by Michael Mulford, who, with Billy's family in Dundee, has spent the past three years painstakingly and determinedly pursuing the truth about what happened to Billy that night.

The Minister, like me, has benefited from seeing the Grampian TV special and from discussing the case directly with Michael Mulford. I am sure that I speak for both of us when I place on record our heartfelt thanks to Grampian Television and to Michael Mulford, but above all to Benny and Marie Harris and their family, without whose courage and unfailing determination the search for the truth about what happened to Billy would have been abandoned long ago.

What little do we know about the truth of what happened to Billy? We know that he died of severe head injuries. We know that his body was found in National Bank lane, Glasgow. We know that his body was first seen on the night of 3 August but not officially found or reported until the morning of 4 August. In all honesty, after that we know very little with any certainty.

Billy's case has variously been described by the authorities as murder, potential murder, suspicious and an accident. Naturally, the family have been totally bewildered by such official inconsistency and confusion—and no no wonder, given what they have been told by the authorities.

Will the Minister confirm that Strathclyde police initially passed a message to Tayside police within hours of Billy's death, which read: William John Harris had this morning been found dead in a lane in city centre of Glasgow. He apparently had head wounds. No money or other valuables in his possession. Locus where he was found known for assault and robbery of homosexuals. Case is being treated as a murder inquiry although the post mortem came up with nothing helpful. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that Strathclyde police passed that message to Tayside police, who in turn passed it on to the family.

In a letter dated 23 May 1990, the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) indicating that the case in its early stages was being treated as "a potential murder". Will the Minister confirm that that was so in the early stages of the case?

The Crown Office, in various letters, has repeatedly referred to the case as "suspicious". Would the Minister say whether it still takes that view?

Strathclyde police have told the family on two occasions that it believes that Billy's death was an accident. On the first occasion, Detective Chief Inspector Val Gryzbeck telephoned Billy's mum in November 1989 to tell her that in his view it was an accident.

On the second occasion, in March 1990, two Strathclyde officers visited the Harris home in Dundee. An account of what they said was shown on the Grampian TV special, in which Billy's dad described how an officer explained to him how the accident came about. The officer described how Billy, who at the time had a blood alcohol count of 345 mg/ml and was very drunk, was supposed to have fallen back four or five times on to the same stairs, hitting his head in the same way.

The Minister has seen the programme and will remember how Billy's dad described the way in which the officer described the accident to him; how Billy fell over once, then twice, then three times, then four times, then a fifth time. The officer thought that it was on the fifth occasion that Billy sustained the injury that caused his death.

Does the Minister really believe that version of an accident? Does he not agree that a man as drunk as Billy was would have done well to stand up at all, never mind repeat four or five times a fall which even once would have rendered a sober man unconscious? Is it not a much more credible explanation that we are dealing with a murder, not with an accident?

How does the Minister explain the changes in the police view of how Billy died? They first of all tell Tayside police that it is a murder inquiry. They then interview potential witnesses in the local pubs in the Glasgow area, explaining that they are investigating a murder. Then, suddenly, the accident theory begins to emerge. Can the Minister suggest any reason why this should be so?

For example, the annual report for 1989 by Strathclyde's chief constable reads: The reduction in murder inquiries I welcomed in my last report was not sustained in 1989, with 63 murders and culpable homicides investigated, nine more than in 1988. This increase inevitably strained investigative resources, and it is therefore of considerable satisfaction that a 100 per cent. clear-up rate was achieved. That is fine, but will the Minister therefore confirm that the official view now is that Billy's death in 1989 was neither murder nor culpable homicide, but an accident?

Detectives who investigated the case put it to the family at an early stage that Billy was homosexual. They produced no evidence whatsoever to support this allegation, which naturally shocked the family, who continue to reject this allegation. They point out that Billy was living with his girl friend, Elizabeth Lees, in Clydebank at the time of his death. Elizabeth Lees has called into question the accuracy of police judgments by confirming that on one occasion she and Billy were at home watching television when the police claimed that Billy was seen in Glasgow.

Billy was not known to the gay community who were interviewed by television researchers. There is simply no factual evidence to support the allegation of homosexuality. So will the Minister reveal whether the post mortem showed any evidence of homosexual activity? Did it show either anal or penile damage? Does the Minister not agree with the family's lawyer, Bob Vaughan, and with Carole Ewart, director of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, who say that the investigation could have been sidetracked unnecessarily by unsubstantiated allegations of homosexuality?

Where is the police evidence that Billy was homosexual? Will the Minister give the sources for this evidence? The family are prepared to face the truth about Billy, but they cannot be expected to tolerate unsubstantiated allegations about their son and their brother, particularly when those allegations come from the official authorities.

Then there is the suspect who was questioned at an early stage of the inquiries. This suspect was identified by a Mr. Gary Hall, a doorman at the Maison Guy's pub in Glasgow. He refused entry to Billy and another man at 9.45 pm on 3 August because Billy was drunk. He described the other man as 6 ft 2 in tall and of substantial build. This man has been traced by the programme makers, but they have not named him, in the interests of justice and fair play, and I agree with them.

The suspect was picked out in a police identification parade. He was remembered by witnesses because of his unusual dress on that evening of 3 August. He wore a grey suit with trousers and jacket that did not match, a tee-shirt and trainers. Gary Hall, who is an ex-soldier and a trained observer, had no problem whatsoever in remembering this suspect, because of the distinctive way in which he was dressed. Gary's sighting of the suspect with Billy was just one hour before, and 500 yards distant from, the first sighting of Billy's body in National Bank lane.

A number of questions arise out of those circumstances. Was the suspect interviewed under caution by the police? If so, for how long? Why was the suspect never charged, and did the alibi provided by the suspect's wife and male friend bear up under police examination? Is it still the Crown's position that Gary Hall was simply completely wrong in his identification of the suspect with Billy Harris on the evening of 3 August in Glasgow?

The Grampian researchers have now handed to the police and to the procurator fiscal evidence which casts doubt on the suspect's alibi. Will the Minister acknowledge that Grampian Television and Michael Mulford have acted with commendable responsibility by not publicising the evidence, and by allowing the authorities the time and opportunity to follow it up? Will the Minister say what progress the authorities have made in following up the evidence? Have the suspect, his wife and his male friend been re-interviewed? It would be very good to have such facts on the public record.

I should like to comment on the evidence of Dr. Jim Thorpe of Strathclyde university, who carried out an independent forensic examination of Billy's clothes at the request of Grampian Television. He discovered that Billy had been injured in one location and was then helped by someone else along the road to another location. He found bloodstains on the inside of Billy's jacket pocket and elsewhere on Billy's clothes. He concluded that death could have resulted from an accident if someone who was being half-carried had slumped to the ground several times. However, I shall quote from the transcript of the television special. On the record, he said it is of course possible that the injuries were inflicted deliberately—whoever was with Billy banged his head off the ground in pure exasperation at no longer being able to support this dead drunk person and inflicting more severe injuries than were intended. Of course I cannot exclude the possibility that the injuries were intended to kill. Will the Minister say what the Crown concluded after examining the evidence found in National Bank lane on 3 August 1989?

Of course, we might have understood much more if the family could have been given access to the post mortem report, which so far has been denied them. Their lawyer, Bob Vaughan, made arrangements through the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office to precognose Dr. John Clarke, the pathologist who examined Billy's body. Airline tickets were booked to travel south to see Dr. Clark. Mr. Vaughan was practically on his way when the Crown Office banned the interview.

Will the Minister say why the Crown Office banned the interview? What secrets could justify the withholding of post mortem results from the family? Do the family not have a right to know what the post mortem results were? What were the results of the forensic tests carried out on Billy's clothes and on the suspect's clothes? Are they also to remain secret for ever?

The family have asked me to raise a serious matter relating to their interview with Mr. Tom Dysart, senior depute fiscal in Glasgow, on 8 March 1990. The family understood Mr. Dysart to have told them that the pathologist believed that Billy had been murdered, that Billy's injuries were consistent with having his head banged on the steps, that Billy was known to have frequented gay bars, that that information was confidential, and that, if they revealed it to anyone else, it would be said officially that Billy had died from an accident and the case would be closed.

Subsequent to that interview, the family granted an interview to a Sunday newspaper—they believe that it was the Sunday Mail—and, two weeks later, two Strathclyde officers appeared in Dundee to tell the family that, in the view of the police, Billy's death resulted from an accident. Was a minute kept of the meeting between the senior depute fiscal and the Harris family in Glasgow on 8 March 1990? Will the Minister make that minute public so that we know what happened at that meeting?

The family's campaign for a fatal accident inquiry has been consistently resisted by the authorities. The Crown Office has taken the view that an inquiry would substantially prejudice any future criminal proceedings, but is that credible when the police have twice claimed that Billy died as the result of an accident?

Is it credible when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refused compensation only last month to the Harris family because their Queen's counsel was not satisfied, on the evidence available, that the deceased Billy Harris was the victim of a crime of violence? Is it credible, three and a half years after the event, with no sign of consistent police inquiries or an arrest on the horizon, to continue to resist the family's call for a fatal accident inquiry?

The Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 allows the fiscal to hold a fatal accident inquiry if a death is sudden, suspicious or unexplained, or gives rise to serious public concern. Surely the Minister will concede that Billy Harris's death meets every one of those criteria and that surely there should now, at the very least, be an announcement by the Minister that the procurator fiscal is prepared to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the events of 3 August 1989.

May I raise one or two other concerns? Does the Minister agree with Carole Ewart, the director of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, who says that the system has simply failed the Harris family, and who has now called for an independent inquiry into the whole criminal justice system in Scotland? Why was it that the present procurator fiscal banned Strathclyde police from appearing on the Grampian Television programme about Billy's death, when the police were prepared to consider appearing?

Why was it that Billy's body was kept for 42 days in Glasgow mortuary at temperatures that allowed his body to decompose, so that, when it was finally released, Billy's family were not allowed to see it and Billy Harris was buried in a disinfected body bag? Experts have said that the practice when keeping bodies at such temperatures is to do so for only three to four days at the most. Why was the body kept in Glasgow mortuary at those temperatures, not for three to four days, but for 42 days? I think that an explanation and an apology are due to the family for that.

It matters not what is said about the kind of man that Billy Harris was. He was, after all, a human being, who deserved to be treated with the same dignity as every other human being. Certainly, after his death, the authorities seem to be more concerned to defame him than to find out what happened to him. Both he and his family deserve better from those same authorities. If he died by accident, we need a fatal accident inquiry to explain how he died. If he did not die from an accident, we need a murder inquiry to find out who did it, why he did it and how.

Above all, his family cannot be left in their present state of uncertainty. They have contemplated exhuming their son's body in an attempt to discover the truth of what happened. They have decided not to erect a headstone on his grave until they know the truth about their son. All this tragic family want to know is the truth of what happened to Billy Harris. I appeal to the Minister to listen to them and to help them in any way he can, and to allow them at last to be able to lay their son Billy Harris finally to rest, and in peace.

10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)

I note the suggestion by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that a fatal accident inquiry should now be held, and I shall pass that suggestion to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

I thank the hon. Member for passing to me the video of Grampian Television's documentary this morning. I have studied it twice and with great care. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clear and careful way in which he outlined the sad circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Harris. I would ask the hon. Member to convey my sympathy to the Harris family.

I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member, as this has obviously been a source of grave concern to the family. For Mr. and Mrs. Harris to lose their son at an early age in such distressing circumstances must, of course, have been very upsetting for them. The hon. Member has outlined in some detail the events immediately preceding the discovery of his body in Glasgow city centre in the early hours of 4 August 1989, as well as certain developments that have taken place since then. In particular, the hon. Member raised the question of the timetable for the release of Mr. Harris's body to the family for burial, as well as the question of the storage of his body at the city mortuary. I shall deal first with that matter.

By way of background, I should explain that it is, and has always been, the police view that this is a potential murder case. I fully recognise Mr. and Mrs. Harris's concern about the delay. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that the case was, and still is, being treated as a potential murder, so the body had to be retained for a reasonable period pending the possible arrest of any person or persons in connection with the death.

As the House may know, any person accused of murder in Scotland is entitled to have an examination of the victim's body carried out by an independent pathologist, so the body cannot be released until an independent autopsy has been conducted, or the accused indicates that he does not wish to instruct independent examination. In this case, the police inquiry did not identify any person as responsible for the death of Mr. Harris, although a man was interviewed under caution and inquiries have been on-going. In those circumstances, Mr. Harris's body was kept in the city mortuary for some six weeks, until the procurator fiscal instructed its release to the family on 7 September.

Members of the family have had the benefit of two full meetings with the senior procurator fiscal depute in Glasgow, Mr. Dysart, who dealt with the matter. At the first of those meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Harris explained that, when their son's body was released to them, the undertaker had refused to allow them to see the body because of its decomposed state. It was suggested to them that they should invite the undertaker to write to the procurator fiscal with further details about the matter so that he might pursue the issue with those responsible for the storage of bodies at the city mortuary.

The Lord Advocate has responded, making it clear that, while the retention of a body pending criminal investigations is subject to the procurator fiscal's direction, the question of the means of storage of bodies is not something for which the procurator fiscal is responsible. That matter is at the sole discretion of the mortuary staff.

I should perhaps reinforce the position by repeating what the Lord Advocate said to the hon. Gentleman, who wrote to him. He said that Dr. McLay, the chief medical officer of Strathclyde police, responsible for the mortuary, wrote to the solicitors acting on behalf of the Harris family in March explaining what had occurred. He also wrote to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. McLay explained that Mr. Harris's body had been stored in non-deep freeze conditions because of the expectation that further examination would become necessary. In the event, such further examination was unnecessary. Dr. McLay frankly conceded that it was regrettable that the manner of storage led to certain decomposition of the body. He offered personally to meet the family to discuss matters, but, as the hon. Gentleman may know, that offer was not taken up. I am not aware that any reason for that has been given, but in view of the serious complaint that has been made, I will pass it to the chief constable for his personal consideration.

In addition, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) also wrote on behalf of the family to my right hon. Friend about the circumstances surrounding the death, and received a detailed reply. Following his untimely death, Mr. Harris's body was discovered by a young man, who immediately alerted the police. That was at about 5 o'clock in the morning of 4 August 1989. Subsequent inquiries revealed that a young couple had seen a body lying where Mr. Harris was ultimately found at about 11 o'clock the previous evening, but they had not reported the matter to the police. That fact was pointed out to the hon. Member for Dundee, West.

A casualty doctor was summoned to the scene, and Mr. Harris was pronounced dead. In accordance with normal practice at suspicious deaths, a senior member of the procurator fiscal's office was summoned to the scene. along with a pathologist and a forensic scientist. Serious crime officers were also in attendance, and a detailed examination of the scene, at which a series of photographs was taken, was completed. Mr. Harris's body was then removed to the mortuary, where an autopsy was carried out.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, following the post mortem examination, the pathologist concluded that injuries to the back of the head were the major factor in Mr. Harris's death, although they were exacerbated by the high level of alcohol in his system. In due course, the family were informed of the causes certified on the death certificate.

The case was treated as a murder inquiry from the outset, and a full investigation was launched under the charge of a senior detective officer. A thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Harris was carried out by the police, which included interviewing a number of witnesses who either knew Mr. Harris or associated with him, including those in whose company he had last been seen alive.

Members of the Harris family were also interviewed to try to build up the fullest possible picture of Mr. Harris and the events which preceded his death. For reasons which will become obvious, it will not be appropriate for me to go into great detail as to what those inquiries revealed, or to name all the witnesses that were interviewed. Following the inquiries, a detailed report was submitted by the police to the fiscal's office in Glasgow.

In accordance with normal practice, after the procurator fiscal's office had carried out its own inquiries—liaising closely with the police—a full report was submitted to the Crown Office for the instructions of Crown counsel. On the basis of the information contained in the procurator fiscal's report, Crown counsel took the view that it was not appropriate to instruct a fatal accident inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Harris's death. As the hon. Member will appreciate, no one has been identified as being responsible for causing the injuries from which Mr. Harris died. However, the possibility remains that a person may yet be arrested in connection with the death and, accordingly, public disclosure of all the facts could very well prejudice any future criminal proceedings.

Mr. McAllion

Does the Minister accept that a precedent exists in the case of Mr. Sandy Drummond of Fife, who died in suspicious circumstances? The case became a murder inquiry, yet the procurator fiscal allowed a fatal accident inquiry to go ahead, and that opened up new lines of evidence that helped the murder inquiry.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Yes, it is indeed a precedent, but the circumstances are not exactly the same. However, as I said, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, and it will then be a matter for him.

I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, at the meeting between Mr. Dysart and the family, the fiscal explained the position to Mr. Harris's parents. It is quite misleading to suggest that Mr. and Mrs. Harris have somehow been denied information by the authorities.

Turning to the police investigation, inquiries revealed that Mr. Harris had been drinking in bars in the Glasgow city centre on the evening before his body was found. He was last seen at about 9.45 pm on Thursday 3 August in 1989 in the company of another man, at which time they were refused entry to a public house which has been frequented by homosexuals.

The question whether the deceased was homosexual was a possibility to which the police felt they had to have regard, but there is no conclusive evidence either way. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question as to whether there is any evidence from the post mortem suggesting any homosexuality, the answer is that there is none.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether a minute was kept of the meeting between Mr. and Mrs. Harris and Mr. Dysart. The answer is that there was no minute.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the terms of the post mortem report, but these are being treated as part of the evidence of the case. Given that the case is an on-going criminal inquiry, it was considered that it would have been wrong to divulge all aspects of the evidence.

As I have mentioned, the body was found in the yard behind the premises of John Smith's book shop in St. Vincent street, Glasgow at about 5 am on Friday 4 August. Mr. Harris had sustained severe head injuries, which, as I have said, were the major factor in his death. He had an extremely high level of alcohol in his blood and the pathologists were of the view that this would have worsened the effects of the head injuries and would have been a contributory factor to his death. What I think needs to be emphasised particularly is that it cannot be said at present with any certainty how William Harris sustained the injuries from which he died.

I must stress that the investigation into the death of William Harris is still open. The hon. Gentleman referred to the television programme, which I have studied. I understand that it appeared to be critical of the fact that no one had been charged. The reason for that is clear and simple; there is insufficient evidence to bring charges. I have made it clear that a suspect was interviewed under caution. In addition, the programme claimed that the Harris family may have been misled by the authorities and unfairly denied a fatal accident inquiry, and that this somehow adds to the notion that certain important details about their son's death have been kept from them.

The Harris family received a very high degree of understanding and co-operation from the authorities, not least from the police and the fiscal's office. The family continue to demand an inquiry and remain critical of the police handling of the investigation. I have to say that the programme contained little new information which is not already known to the police. No words of comfort can undo what happened, but I believe that this debate has served to highlight the fact that the case has, regrettably, not been cleared up.

William Harris's death is undoubtedly suspicious and must therefore remain a cause for serious concern. For that reason, this is a case which is still open, and I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's main request—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.