Confait Case (Hansard, 13 December 1977)

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees

1. The full report by the hon. Sir Henry Fisher has been published today as a return to an order of the House of Commons. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I should like to pay tribute to Sir Henry Fisher for his comprehensive report and for the thoroughness with which he has conducted the independent inquiry into this case.

2. The inquiry was set up by my predecessor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to examine the circumstances leading to the trial of Colin George Lattimore, Ahmet Salih and Ronald William Leighton on charges arising out of the death of Maxwell Con-fait and the fire at 27 Doggett Road, London, S.E.6 in April 1972. The inquiry was set up following the judgment by the Court of Appeal in 1975 that the convictions of the three young men arising from those charges were unsafe and must be quashed.

3. The report examines in detail the events leading to the trial. Sir Henry Fisher makes a number of criticisms of the conduct of the police investigation, including the interviewing of the youths in the absence of their parents and certain specific breaches of the Judges' Rules. He rejects, however, other allegations 121W about the way in which the youths' confessions were obtained and finds that the allegations that the police had assaulted them were untrue. Sir Henry Fisher also criticises some aspects of the handling of the case by the pathologist concerned, the Officer of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecuting counsel.

4. As to the involvement of the three young men, Sir Henry Fisher finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the most likely explanation is that all three of them took part in the arson of which they were convicted by the trial court; that Leighton and Salih were involved in the killing—in relation to which Salih never stood trial; and that Lattimore, who was convicted of manslaughter by the trial court, was not involved in the killing. Sir Henry makes it clear that in coming to these conclusions he was not bound by the verdict of the jury or the judgment of the Court of Appeal, that the arguments addressed to him were not in all respects the same as those put to the courts, and that he had available to him a great deal of evidence which was not before the courts.

5. As Sir Henry Fisher also makes clear in his report, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, and is to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt; and the task of the Court of Appeal was to decide whether the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Sir Henry's findings were, I must emphasise, findings about what probably happened. It does not, of course, follow that if all the evidence available to Sir Henry had been available to, and admissible in, the criminal courts, it would have led the courts to conclude that the burden of proof was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

6. My predecessor agreed when the convictions were quashed that all three young men were eligible for ex gratia compensation by the Home Office. Interim payments were made of amounts recommended by the independent assessor to whom such cases are customarily referred, but my predecessor decided that a final assessment would have to await Sir Henry Fisher's findings. I shall now, if the young men wish, refer all three cases for 122W further consideration by the assessor. He will, in making his recommendations, have regard, in the light of the report, to the extent to which the convictions were attributable to any action or failure to act by the police or other public authority or were contributed to by the accused persons' own conduct.

7. Sir Henry Fisher was also invited to explore general questions of law or procedure which were raised during the inquiry, and he has accordingly made a number of suggestions. Sir Henry has acknowledged the dangers of drawing general conclusions from the facts of a particular case and has pointed out that an inquiry of the kind he was asked to undertake does not constitute a sufficient foundation for fundamental changes in the law relating to police investigation and criminal prosecution.

8. My right hon. and learned Friend and I accept that many of the issues raised by the report require further examination, which can be done only by a body of the stature of a Royal Commission, which can go into all aspects of any proposed changes. We shall therefore arrange for Sir Henry Fisher's report to be laid before the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure so that those suggestions which raise fundamental issues affecting police investigation and criminal procedure can receive the close examination which they warrant. In particular, we shall invite the Royal Commission to consider, in the context of the balance to be struck between the interest of the whole community in bringing offenders to justice and the rights and liberties of the individual citizen, Sir Henry Fisher's suggestions relating to the Judges' Rules and their enforcement, unsupported confessions and access to solicitors.

9. There are, however, a number of suggestions in the report which do not raise matters of basic principle and whose possible implementation can be considered by the Government before the Royal Commission completes its work. My right hon. and learned Friend has already arranged for the examination of certain suggestions which affect the responsibilities and staffing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In particular, the Director of Public Prosecutions has set up working parties to review the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1946 and, in relation to cases committed 123W for trial, the disclosure to the defence of statements and other information in the possession of the prosecution, and the editing of witness statements. My right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that Sir Henry Fisher's suggestions on these topics are examined by these working parties. In so far as Sir Henry Fisher's remaining suggestions do not require to be referred to the Royal Commission, my right hon. and learned Friend and I shall arrange for them to be considered urgently in consultation with the police and others principally concerned.