HC Deb 17 January 1984 vol 71 cc173-5W
Mr. Dalyell

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 14 January to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the late Miss Hilda Murrell.

Mr. Giles Shaw

Yes. The text is as followsWhen I spoke to you on 28th December about my letter rejecting your claim of British Intellingence participation in the events surrounding the death of Miss Hilda Murrell, you said that you would also wish me to respond to the detailed questions about the case with which you opened your speech to the House on 19th December. I have now also received your letters of 24th and 29th December. It may be most straightforward if I deal with the questions in the order in which you raised them. The police confirmed at Miss Murrell's inquest that there was evidence within the house of a thorough and systematic search and a struggle between Miss Murrell and her assailant, which might well have served to add to the disorder. However, I understand from the Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary that the terms "ransacked" is an exaggeration of the true extent of the disorder and has not been used by them in describing the break-in at Miss Murrell's home to the press. The police have confirmed that the telephone at Miss Murrell's home in Shrewsbury had been disconnected. At first they believed that this had been done by means of removing the connectors at the junction box but at no time, I understand, have the police used the term "sophisticated" to describe the way in which it was done. In the absence of any further evidential confirmation that this was the means of disconnection and after subsequent checks of the junction box, the police now believe that the connecting wires were simply snatched out but that, possibly because the connecting screws were loose, this was the point at which the wires became detached. I further understand that Miss Murrell had a telephone extension in her bedroom, the effect of which to anyone telephoning her would be as you described in the House. As to the telephone in Miss Murrell's cottage at Llanymynech, the fault was discovered by one of Miss Murrell's neighbours in Shrewsbury who, in telephoning Llanymynech in an attempt to trace her, was unable to get through and reported the fault to the telephone exchange. Subsequent checks by telephone engineers revealed that it was out of order because of an electrical fault due to storm damage: no human interference in its operation was evident. At the inquest the police presented the Home Office Pathologist's report on the wounds which had been inflicted on Miss Murrell. These confirmed that there was no physical evidence of an actual sexual assault upon her; there were however signs in her house of some attempted sexual activity towards her. Even if the unnecessary distress to the family were not a factor, the Chief Constable is unable for properly operational reasons to disclose details of what these signs are: you will recognise that they could prove to be crucial evidence in any future criminal proceedings. As I said in the House, Miss Murrell's car was first reported to the police by a local farmer on the afternoon of Wednesday, 21st March, as having been abandoned at Hunkington in the ditch of the road running adjacent to the copse where her body was subsequently found. Two officers investigated the report within an hour but, because there were no apparent suspicious circumstances, only superficial damage to the car and no apparent danger or obstruction to the public from the car, took no further direct action. They did, however, check the registration number of the car immediately and obtained the correct name and address of the keeper (Miss Murrell); the Chief Constable informs me that claims that the wrong registration number was checked are factually incorrect: no such error occurred and no comment to that effect was made on Friday, 23rd March by the Shrewsbury police. On Friday, 23rd March the farmer telephoned the police again to inform them that the car was still in the ditch. An attempt by the police to telephone Miss Murrell met with no reply. The Chief Constable informs me that, having obtained no reply to his telephone call the police officer then went to visit Miss Murrells house: he arrived at 7.00 pm., found the door unlocked and entered the house where a light was on; he saw nothing untoward however (which confirms the police's point about subsequent misuse of the word "ransacked"), assumed that Miss Murrell had left the house briefly and therefore had no reason to make a further search. In leaving the house he requested that further attempts be made to contact Miss Murrell: I now understand these were made by telephone and not by visit as I reported in the debate. I apologise for this error. As I described in the 3rd paragraph the fact that the telephone had been disconnected would not be apparent to an outside caller. A further visit was made by another police officer at about 7 am on Saturday, 24th March who, making a quick search of the house, found it in the same state as I have described above and the door still unlocked. He returned at about 8.15 am to find the same scene and locked the door; he made enquiries of neighbours and relatives as to where she might be. Miss Murrell's gardener and a neighbour arrived at about 9 am and were able to confirm that a burglary appeared to have taken place. An intensification of police activity had already begun with the result, as you know, that a police officer and the gamekeeper's wife, searching the area near to where the car had been abandoned, found the body in the copse. This police officer noted the time of discovery of Miss Murrell's body as 10.25 am: the police have no record of, nor any reason to believe, that Commander Green was subsequently told different times for the discovery of her body. The Chief Constable informs me that there is similarly no truth in the "New Statesman" article's claim that the police forced an entry into Miss Murrell's home on the morning of Saturday, 24th March: I have already explained that the police officer who visited her house on Saturday morning found the door unlocked and therefore forcible entry was not required. Indeed it was he who secured the door. I have already explained in my letter of 28th December that the West Mercia Special Branch were consulted by their colleagues in the early stages of the investigation; and I explained the reasons why that was so. To avoid any misunderstanding, I should add that although that ended the involvement of the force's Special Branch in the case, experienced detective officers from Special Branch were subsequently used, not in any respect in a Special Branch role, to assist in routine work connected with this major murder enquiry, which placed a very heavy burden on the detective manpower of a relatively small force such as West Mercia. Turning to the availability to Miss Murrell's family of the post-mortem report, the release of this on formal application is a matter entirely within the coroner's discretion and not one in which I would intervene. As you say, they would have been entitled to have an independent post-mortem examination: a matter on which their legal adviser would have been expected to inform them. One of the injuries listed in the Home Office Pathologist's report to the coroner was a severe bruise to the right cheek and this may be the mark of a blow below the eye to which Commander Green was referring. The determination of cause of death is however a matter for the coroner and not for a Home Office Minister to determine; as I said in the House, it is recorded on the inquisition as hypothermia. To put the record straight about the subsequent autopsy and the release of Miss Murrell's body for burial, I have necessarily to touch on somewhat distressing detail. In view of the deteriorating condition of the body, which was stored under refrigeration which, while it retards, does not stop deterioration, a second autopsy was carried out in August by an independent pathologist (who is also on the Home Office list) at the request of the coroner on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, before the body was released by the coroner for disposal. It was carried out for the benefit of the defence of any person who, not yet in custody, may be charged with an offence in connection with the death. It was established at the inquest that the results of the two examinations were entirely consistent, the details of the second were not therefore necessary for the conduct of the inquest. In order not to prejudice any future criminal proceedings, neither post-mortem report was formally disclosed. You will have seen the letter on this point to the "Times" on 10 January from the Pathologist who conducted the first post-mortem. In dealing with bodies in a deteriorated condition undertakers provide a leak proof container, hence the zinc lined coffin. In the United Kingdom bodies are stored in whatever facilities are available in a particular mortuary, in this case refrigeration but not a deep freeze. The release of a body for disposal is again a matter entirely within the coroner's discretion and I cannot comment on that. Arrangements for disposal subsequent to the release of the body are matters within the control of the family, in consultation with the undertakers whom they selected to arrange Miss Murrell's cremation. You referred also in your speech to the evidence of Mr. Scott who did not see Miss Murrell's body when he walked on Thursday, 22nd March in the copse where it was subsequently found. This claim seems to me to be one incapable of substantiation either way: while Mr. Scott may know the area extremely well, the pathologist's evidence suggests that she died on Wednesday 21st March in the position in which she was found and the police consider that the fact that Miss Murrell was left in a slight hollow, dressed in clothing of a colour which merged in with that of the undergrowth, could well explain why her body was not noted either by Mr. Scott or by the other witness who, you say, has now come forward about this. You have yourself dismissed the connection between her death and Miss Murrell's views on nuclear power. However, you referred in the House to her telephone conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Morgan Grenville. They have been interviewed by the police, as have other people with whom Miss Murrell might have been expected to speak on this subject but none said that they had had a similar conversation with her. In the circumstances, the police are unable to take this further. As to your general comments that the police were responsible to the case in a way which was both incompetent and out of character, these are purely subjective assessments and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them. I hope that having given you this extremely detailed reply to your other questions you will agree that this discharges the undertaking I gave you in the debate. I trust that you will discharge your obligations as a citizen by giving the West Mercia officers your fullest assistance when you meet them tomorrow.

Mr. Dalyell

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Minister of State's statement on 19 December 1984, Official Report, column 470, if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Mercia police as to which day reference was made to establish on the police national computer the ownership of the car, registration number LNT 917W; and what action was taken to try to seek the owner.

Mr. Giles Shaw

The car in question was that belonging to Miss Hilda Murrell and the information requested was contained in my letter of 14 January to the hon. Member, the text of which I have published in answer to his previous question.