HL Deb 11 May 1976 vol 370 cc873-8

3.50 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the case of Mr. George John Davis. The Statement is as follows:

"At the Central Criminal Court on 18th March 1975, Mr. Davis was convicted of robbery and wounding with intent to resist arrest, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 17 and 3 years' imprisonment.

"He applied to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. On 11th December 1975 the full court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against conviction, but ordered the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

"After the trial, Mr. Davis and those who had been charged with him but acquitted made a number of complaints against the police. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis asked the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire to make available a senior officer of his force to investigate these complaints in accordance with Section 49 of the Police Act 1964.

"I have received interim reports from the detective superintendent who has undertaken this task. These reports relate principally to the identification of Mr. Davis by witnesses, and I have re-examined in the light of them the identification evidence on which Mr. Davis was convicted. As a result, I am satisfied that this evidence has been seriously weakened.

"I do not have evidence of Mr. Davis' innocence to justify my recom- mending a free pardon. I have considered whether I should refer the case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. But this would be a lengthy process and it is not at present clear that all the relevant material now before me could be considered by the Court.

"My conclusions about the shift in the balance of evidence in the case are such that it would not be right for Mr. Davis to remain in prison any longer. I have therefore decided to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to remit the remainder of Mr. Davis' sentence. He is being released today.

"Since the investigation into the complaints made against the police by Mr. Davis and others has not yet been completed, it would not be right for me to discuss the complaints generally, or the results of the investigation in this context in any detail. I would, however, say that my decision today in no sense prejudges the result of the investigation and in no way implies that any police officer has behaved improperly."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, all this is rather unsatisfactory. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is another identification case, apparently. There were two; namely, Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Virag, I think it was, if that is the way to pronounce it, which formed the basis of the reference to the Devlin Committee which has just reported. In both of those, the two convicted people were able to prove their innocence, I think in the case of Dougherty after reference to the Court of Appeal, who found that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory after a previous appeal had been dismissed.

So far as I can see, this case is rather left in the air. There has been no reference to the Court of Appeal, and apparently there is to be none. In the meantime, Mr. Davis, who was sentenced in the event to 17 years, has been let out without anybody knowing whether or not he is guilty, without his being declared innocent, and without the Court of Appeal declaring that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. There is pending an investigation into the conduct of certain police officers, which is not yet complete. I do not in the least wish to suggest that what the Home Secretary has done is wrong, but surely the matter cannot be left quite like this, so that we do not know whether a man sentenced to 17 years for a serious offence is either guilty or innocent, or to be treated as a convict with his conviction standing, or as an innocent man with his conviction quashed, or a free pardon given. Surely this is not satisfactory. Cannot the noble Lord the Minister give us a little more comfort in the matter?

My Lords, I must add that every time one of these unfortunate identification cases comes up, another wound is inflicted on the credibility of our system of criminal justice. The Lord Chief Justice has already said that these identification cases are a chink in our armour. It seems that we really must, sooner or later, come round in Parliament to a discussion of these identification cases in the light of the Devlin Report which we now have. I hope the noble Lord the Minister can give me a little comfort in this matter.

Lord AMU LREE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement just made. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for what he has just said, with which I am in general agreement, although I do not want to go into all the points he raised. All I would say is that this is one more case which makes one doubt the wisdom of identification parades, unless there is very strong corroborative evidence to go with that identification. I hope very much that the Government will make a further inquiry into this matter to see whether we can change what appears to be a very unsatisfactory way of identifying possible criminals.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. Certainly there are difficult problems concerning this particular case. My right honourable friend could have awaited the result of the police investigation and then considered whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal; it was within his right so to do. But the consequence of that would have been that this man would then have been kept in prison for many more months. The decision that my right honourable friend has taken is that it is right to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in this case, because in his view it would not be acceptable to keep this man in prison while these lengthy police investigations continue. After the result of the police investigation, it can then be considered whether it would be appropriate to take this case to the Court of Appeal on the question which would arise over the guilt or innocence of this man. But the decision taken by my right honourable friend seems to me to be the right thing to do in the interests of justice, where my right honourable friend is satisfied that the balance of evidence given at the trial has been affected, and those facts have been drawn to his attention by the investigating police officer.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord the Minister a little further. This is a difficult matter. At this stage I am not trying to reproach either the Home Secretary or the noble Lord the Minister, but supposing, at the later stage which he has indicated, he refers this case to the Court of Appeal. I can understand if the Court of Appeal were to say that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. That would either quash the conviction or give a free pardon to Mr. Davis. But supposing the Court of Appeal say that the verdict was not unsafe and not unsatisfactory—and they might equally well do the other, for all I know—we then get a situation where a man has been convicted and sent to prison for 17 years; the Court of Appeal says that the verdict is safe, and the Home Secretary has let him out after just over a year. I cannot feel that that is a happy outcome.

I must remind the noble Lord of the occasion for which his right honourable friend is not responsible, but the Government are, that of the Scottish case of Meehan, which is exactly on all fours with some of these cases (another identification case) now pending, in which the Scottish Office presumably will have to come to a similar decision. I cannot feel that what has been decided in this matter is altogether happy.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is a perfectly valid one. Of course, in the situation that he sets out, it would be a very difficult result to justify, and I accept that. But what the noble and learned Lord does not say—and I make no reproach to him either is, what it is suggested my right honourable friend should do in a case where he has received a report from the police which in his view significantly changes the balance of the evidence at that trial; and, secondly, in the situation where my right honourable friend knows that the police inquiry is bound, by the nature of this case, to go on for many months. I accept totally the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord makes his point, but all I am saying to him is that there is no easy solution to a case of this kind.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I do not think we can take this any further this afternoon. I think it would be unfair for me to try to do so. But I would put it to the noble Lord that prima facie the question of whether a verdict is safe or unsafe is a matter for the Court of Appeal and not for the Home Secretary, unless the matter is clear beyond doubt. I quite understand the humanitarian wish of the Home Secretary, probably shared by the whole House here and by another place, not to keep a man in jail a moment longer than is necessary, pending investigations. But in the end what has happened—and one must underline the fact—is that it is the Home Secretary, who is an executive officer, who has decided that the balance of evidence has shifted as a result of the inquiries, inquiries about which we at the moment know nothing, and therefore we can form no independent judgment of our own. Nor is it referred to the court, nor in fact have we any indication as to whether it ultimately will be, although it may be. One must await now until further facts emerge, but I think we must reserve our judgment on this matter.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I make no complaint at what the noble and learned Lord has said. It would, of course, be only right for me to say that this is in no sense an unprecedented decision. It is certainly not common for custodial penalties to be remitted under the Prerogative, but there have in fact been seven cases since 1971, although I would not for a moment suggest that they were all on all fours with this particular case.

Lord PARGITER

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the fact that we are not asked to sit in judgment or reserve judgment or anything of the kind. We are merely being asked to listen to a Statement which is being made, and therefore no action is called for, and no reservation on our part is called for at this juncture.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

Yes, my Lords.

Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, not on the legal technicalities, but on the question of compensation, whether I am right in assuming that compensation for the time spent in prison will be paid, and, if so, what are the factors that are taken into consideration?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I think I must ask my noble friend to await a decision on a point of that kind, for the reasons I gave in answer to the questions of the noble and learned Lord. My right honourable friend is not saying that Mr. Davis is innocent; there is a continuing police investigation in this case. This is a matter which will have to be considered at the conclusion of that investigation.