MR. LIDDLE TOWERS (Hansard, 15 December 1977)

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)
My Lords, no. The matters of concern relate to the cause of Mr. Towers' death and to allegations that police officers dealing with him committed offences of violence. The normal processes of law provide for the investigation of these matters. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General stated in his Written Answer to a Question in another place on 3rd May that there was no medical evidence to support a contention that Mr. Towers' death was in any way attributable to wilful violence or rough handling by the police. The outcome of police investigations has been carefully considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General whose conclusion is that this is not a case 2231 in which criminal proceedings should be instituted against any police officer. It would not be right to set up a public inquiry, since the allegations made against individual police officers of criminal conduct could not fail to be central to the matters any such inquiry would be asked to examine.

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was a coroner's inquest and that a strange verdict was passed: that it was a case of "justifiable homicide", which means, in effect, that the man died at the hands of the police and that they were justified in killing him? It was a very strange verdict, with very few precedents that I can find. Is not this matter sufficiently grave that we should not rely upon the say-so of a functionary like the Director of Public Prosecutions? And is it not the nearest thing that we in this country have to Steve Biko?

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
No, my Lords. On the latter point, may I say that that is, frankly, a gross exaggeration; this matter is not at all parallel to the Biko affair. I am surprised that my noble friend should use such exaggerated language against either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Northumbrian police. The point I come back to which my noble friend made relates to the verdict of the jury. My noble friend said that the verdict was unusual. He is absolutely right; it was an unusual verdict. In the period between 1971 and 1976 there were only five in similar terms. However, it is only fair to say this, too: that there has been no application by the family to my right honourable friend the Attorney-General for a reopening of the inquest. I understand that that remains the situation. If such a request is received from the family, my right honourable friend will, of course, consider the matter.
So far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, my noble friend referred to him as a "functionary". The position is that when an allegation is made that a police officer has committed a criminal offence, the matter goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions who is wholly independent of the Police Service. That was the procedure employed in this case and it seems to me to be one which is wholly appropriate.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE
My Lords, is not the real point that it is the function of Government and Parliament to set up standing arrangements for the investigation of complaints and to trust those arrangements when they have been set up, and that special inquiries to deal with individual events should be regarded as exceptional and should be instituted only when distinctly necessary?

§ Lord BLYTON
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I come from that district? Is he further aware that the family have been pressing for an inquiry into the death of Mr. Towers, that the Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street has also been pressing for an inquiry and that the general opinion among the public is that the death of Mr. Towers has been covered up?

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
My Lords, I am indeed aware of the consideration to which my noble friend Lord Blyton has just referred. It is perfectly true that the family have been pressing for an inquiry. So have a number of Members of another place. The facts of the matter are, however, that the papers have been considered not only by the Director of Public Prosecutions but also by the Attorney-General. They have both come to the conclusion that the matters which have been put to them do not justify criminal proceedings against any of the police officers in this case; and I should like to put this matter to my noble friend and to the others who have raised it, who, I am well aware, are greatly anxious about this situation. If an inquiry were to be set up, it would have to be set up under Section 32 of the Police Act. If the inquiry did not deal with these allegations, which amount to allegations of serious criminal offences by the police officers, obviously it would be pointless. If, on the other hand, it did deal with those allegations, the inquiry itself would be transformed into a criminal court.

§ Lord GLENAMARA
My Lords, does the noble Lord not understand that many of us believe that the Government are quite wrong in the attitude that they are taking and that there is considerable local disquiet and also a fair amount of national disquiet about this case? Without expressing any view as to whether or not 2233 the homicide was justifiable, does not the noble Lord feel that it would be very much to the advantage of both the family and the police themselves if the matter could be cleared up in an inquiry? This disquiet will not go away. It is going to niggle on until something is done to clear it up.

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
No, my Lords, I do not think that it would be right for the Government to change their decision. I have explained at some length the considerations which have led the Government to come to this conclusion. I am well aware that there is a significant degree of concern in the North-East of England—and elsewhere, no doubt—about this case. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, this matter has been gone into most carefully by people outside the Police Service who have no contact whatever with, and no direct responsibility for, the Northumbrian police. I would say to my noble friend that it would be quite wrong for the Government to change their decision in this matter, and they will not do so.

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord referred to the fact that he thought my advocacy was a trifle exaggerated, but I think I have had—

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have had probably longer experience of this sort of thing than he has had; and is he also aware that it is going to be very rough in this country if, after one night in a cell, a man can die as a result of his treatment? This sort of thing is not to be brushed off by the suggestion that it is merely a local outcry. This is a case that will not lie down and in the end the Government will have to inquire into it. I have read all the papers and I am not satisfied with the way in which it has been handled.

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that my noble friend is not satisfied with the Answer that I have given; but I must point out to him that the term which he employed in his first supplementary question referred to the Biko case, and what I said then—and repeat now—is that it was 2234 a very serious exaggeration of the situation. I must tell my noble friend that we have gone into this matter extremely carefully. The papers—I repeat—have been examined by people wholly independent of the Northumbrian police; they have come to the conclusion that criminal charges should not be brought against these police officers and, that being so, it seems to me wholly inappropriate to set up a public inquiry.

§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER
My Lords, did I hear my noble friend incorrectly?—because I thought that, in his first Answer, he said that there had not been pressure from the family but if there were it would be seriously considered, whereas in his later answer I thought he said that there was a question from the family and he was well aware of it.

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
No, my Lords, the point to which I referred was the question on the inquest. I said that the family had not asked for a reopening of the inquest, but if they did so, then my right honourable friend the Attorney-General would, of course, consider that request.

§ Lord PANNELL
But the reason why the family did not ask for a reopening—

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is very curious that people here seem to obey Paine's dictum, that they think of "the plumage but always forget the dying bird", and that the reason why the family did not want another inquest was because all the police witnesses refused to give evidence before an inquest?

§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH
My Lords, that may indeed be one of the reasons why the family have not asked for a reopening of the inquest. I made a particular comment on the inquest because my noble friend specifically referred to the decision of the jury. The decision of the police officers in this matter was in no way different from any other witness in an inquest where in fact it was possible that, as a result of a decision by an inquest, criminal proceedings could be taken.