Mr. B. A. Foster (Hansard, 11 June 1984)

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)
No, my Lords. The issues for the police raised by this very serious case are already being dealt with through the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the codes of practice to be issued under it. Moreover, as the Government's response to the report on miscarriages of justice of the Home Affairs Select Committee made clear, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will in future exercise his power of reference to the Court of Appeal, under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, more readily than hitherto.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply, which perhaps falls just a little way short of giving complete satisfaction. Would he not accept that this case, in which an innocent man was detained compulsorily in Rampton for six years, has some analogy with the Confait case, in which an inquiry was held which proved to be very valuable? Since he refers to the current Bill, would he not accept that, in the light of this case, procedures affecting the mentally handicapped ought to be dealt with in the Bill itself rather than leaving them to a code of practice which, as far as I am aware, does not refer anywhere to confessions, since it is right, is it not, that the police officers who first interviewed Foster must have ignored completely the Judges' Rules and the administrative directions?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I can agree with the noble Lord in this. There is a close analogy with the Confait case. Indeed, the analogy is so close that that is why we feel that a separate inquiry is not necessary. The Fisher Inquiry examined the Confait case and precipitated the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, the result of which is the Bill. As to the code of practice, I do not wish to lead your Lordships into the debates that doubtless we shall have on the Committee stage of that Bill, but I think it is apposite to say that the code of practice is tied into the Bill by sanctions and is as effective as though it were on the face of the Bill; and that it is designed to deal specifically with matters 878 relating to those who are questioned by the police when they may be mentally impaired or handicapped. Of course, at Committee stage it will be open to the noble Lord to suggest improvements to it.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that in this Question he is dealing with a case which many of us consider to be an absolute scandal and a blot upon our administration of justice? If he agrees with that description, would he not agree that this is eminently a case for an inquiry? Is he aware that the very Bill he quoted has led to discussions in this House about the nature of interviews and the danger in regard to interviews without legal representatives and with long periods of detention? Lastly, is he aware that although a letter on this matter was sent by the secretary general of MENCAP to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 10th April this year with a reminder, the Secretary of State has not yet had the courtesy to reply?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, my answer must remain what it was in my first Answer—that is, that it is a serious case; that we have taken note of it; that we believe that the provisions in the Bill I referred to will cater for it. It is open to the noble Lord to continue the reflections which he referred to a moment ago on the suitability of the provisions there when the Bill is discussed. As to the correspondence to which the noble Lord refers, I am not aware of the detail but I can assure him that, if there has been any discourtesy on the part of my right honourable friend, certainly it is unintentional. I regret the necessity of advertising the length of time taken to answer in this context, but I can assure the noble Lord that as a result of the time taken it will be a very careful answer.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the code of practice proposed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will deal with only one of the very unsatisfactory features of this case? Would he not agree that when there has been a case of such notoriety, which has caused such public anxiety, rather more attention needs to be given to the matter than merely revising the code of practice?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I will reaffirm for the last time that we see this as an important and unfortunate case. I will also confirm for the last time that we believe it is dealt with in the Bill. I do not believe that I ought to weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of the provisions in the Bill. If my noble friend thinks they are not sufficient to deal with this problem I am certain he will bring amendments to put that right.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in view of the very real disquiet which exists about this case, would the Minister be good enough to think again and at least consult with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about it? Is he aware that a discussion of the case during the Committee stage of the Bill is not really an alternative to a specific inquiry on the case itself? Is he aware that noble Lords on all sides of the House, as well as many people outside, would feel much reassured if the Government agreed to an inquiry?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I always draw my right honourable friend's attention to things said in this House by your Lordships which touch his responsibilities, and I will certainly do that on this occasion. I would, however, point out that the events in question took place some considerable time ago; the people who might be required to give evidence might not all be in the service in which they were at the relevant time; and the interest which your Lordships have shown relates to what one of your Lordships described as possible misconduct of the police in ignoring the Judges' Rules. There are procedures for complaining about such misconduct and no such complaint has been made. If it were to be made, it would doubtless be followed up.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, will the Minister agree that apart from the cases of Confait and Foster to which reference has been made, the BBC programme "Rough Justice" has demonstrated that a number of other people have been convicted of very serious offences and have spent a great many years in prison for crimes which they did not commit? Is the noble Lord really saying that the only answer that the Home Office have to this is the reply that they made to the Select Committee in Cmnd. 8856 that the Secretary of State will be prepared to refer cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal more readily than he has done in the past? If that is so, can the noble Lord say how many cases, in the year which has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper, have been so referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal and how that number compares with the number in the previous 12 months?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, your Lordships are concerned with the miscarriage of justice. It is a proper answer to say that the Home Secretary will be more ready to refer cases, which appear possibly to fall within that category, to the court to decide. Your Lordships would not expect the Home Secretary to decide these cases; he can only act as the filter between the cases and the court. As to the number of cases in the past 12 months, I regret that without notice I cannot give the noble Lord the answer but I shall write to him.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, can the noble Lord say why discovery of this monstrous injustice took so long to bring about? Is that not in itself another reason for having an inquiry into this case? It would be interesting to know what submissions were made on behalf of this unfortunate man and what was the history of the treatment of his case in the Home Office. There will be grave public concern about his matter.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the case was brought to notice because, of the two offences to which Mr. Foster had given entirely convincing admissions of guilt, one was the subject of a subsequent admission of guilt by another person which proved to be wholly credible and which was accepted. When that came to the notice of the police, they referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When it was brought to the Home Office, the Home Office immediately reviewed both cases. But the second of the two cases convincingly admitted to was in no way touched in the context of 880 the confession made by the second person and it did not, therefore, fall to the Home Office to review it.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, on that point, I should like to ask the noble Minister whether it is not a fact that Foster was originally charged with three offences, two of which were proceeded with and the third of which was left on the file? When it became known that some other individual had, beyond any doubt, committed two of the three offences, why did it take the Home Office two years before it occurred to them that it was conceivable that he might be innocent of the third? I am the last person to wish to put the Home Office in a bad light, but it would be interesting to know the answer.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I entirely understand the noble Lord's interest and also the delicacy which he has expressed as regards this matter. There were, in fact, two cases to which Foster admitted guilt and one of those was touched by the confession. As to the final proceedings in this case, of course they arose from an appeal, following the grant of a Royal Pardon in the first case.