THE POLICE

An extended sentence

NORMAN FOWLER, MP

On 14 December last year a twenty-day trial at the Old Bailey finished and with it the careers of three London policemen effectively came to an end. In the ordinary course of events this would perhaps not call for much comment. Policemen have gone wrong be- fore and have inevitably paid a heavy price. The distinctive feature of this case was that here the jury had acquitted all three.

Technically the policemen left the court that day without a stain on their reputa- tions, but the fact remains that in the weeks that followed it was made abundantly clear that they had no future left in the Metro- politan Police. They may have been acquitted in a court of law but that has not been sufficient to get either reinstatement or even repayment for the nine month period they waited for trial on the two-thirds pay given to suspended policemen.

At the time of the alleged offence all three were detectives based at Hammersmith police station. Detective Constable Kenneth Martin had been in the police service twelve years; Detective Constable Gordon Carr eleven years; and Detective Sergeant Anthony Clifford nine years. All had un- blemished police records. The charge was that on 2 January 1970 the three detectives had taken a small group of Pakistanis for questioning to Hammersmith police station. It was then alleged that they had persuaded one of the Pakistanis (a Wolverhampton jeweller) to hand over to them £5,500 in cash which he was carrying with him. The prose- cution case was that in return for the money the detectives promised not to bring false drug charges against him.

The defence case was quite simple. It was that on that same Friday morning Martin and Carr had been telephoned by another Pakistani called Bhatti who had told them that there were some Pakistanis coming from Wolverhampton who might have some information to give. Bhatti was not a police informer but he was know to Martin and Carr for the very good reason that he was on bail awaiting trial in a case in which both detectives had been closely involved. The detective inspector at Hammersmith police station was informed of the proposed meeting and he assigned Detective Sergeant Clifford to accompany the other two. The meeting then took place and the defence case was that the Pakistanis said they wanted i1,000 for their information. When this was refused they left the police station.

Without going over the whole trial it is at least worth pointing out a few of the strange features of the prosecution's case— if for no other reason than to answer the argument about no smoke without fire. It was, for example, curious that the Wolver- hampton jeweller should have been carrying so much money in cash. His story was that he had come to London to buy gold, but why he should have bothered to come all the way from the Midlands when there was a perfectly good gold market in Birmingham was not clear. Nor was it clearhow he inten- ded to buy the gold—for it certainly is not possible to turn up in Hatton Garden and buy gold for cash over the counter.

Another curious feature was that although the offence was alleged to have taken place on the Friday. it was not until twenty-four

hours later after the jeweller had returned to Wolverhampton that the loss was reported. It would, of course, have been much simpler to check the complaint had it been made at the time and the evidence suggests that it would not have been particularly difficult to attract attention. It does in any event seem curiously naive (if one was to believe the prosecution case) for the detectives to take their intended victims to a police station with all the consequent risks of discovery that that involved.

As it was, a temporary detective constable did happen to go into the interview room during the crucial period. His evidence was that he saw no signs of the bundles of money which were supposed to have been on the table. Nor when he went next door to work did he hear any signs of heavy argument which might have been expected were the jeweller in the process of being relieved of over £5,000.

Finally, how does he explain the position of Detective Sergeant Clifford? Even if one assumed the guilt of the other two detectives it was common ground that Clifford was assigned to the case only thirty minutes before the detectives left the station for their first meeting with the Pakistanis. If one supposes a plot it must certainly have been put together with extraordinary speed.

In the event the jury took only eighty minutes (which is quick considering the length of the trial) to return a `not guilty' verdict. But any elation that the three men may have felt was short-lived. As they left the court a uniformed chief inspector came forward and, without even the slightest ex- pression of congratulation, informed them that the police authorities would be 'in touch'. A week passed without any com- munication from either Hammersmith police station or Scotland Yard and finally Martin rang Hammersmith to find out what was happening. He was then told that disciplinary action was being considered.

This was the first mention of possible disciplinary action since the trial. When the detectives had been charged they had been served with a disciplinary form but this simply repeated the charges. The assumption was that they would not be tried twice and if they were acquitted by a court that would be the end of the matter. The nature of the disciplinary charges under consideration was never disclosed in spite of a letter from the men's solicitor, Victor Lissack.

The next significant step was at the begin- ing of the second week of January this year when Martin and Carr were asked to go into Hammersmith police station. (Clifford would also have gone but was away from London.) According to Martin the position was then put to them in two ways—officially and unofficially. Officially they were told that their case was still being considered by the • discipline department at Scotland Yard; un- officially they were told that there was no future left for them in the Metropolitan Police and unless they resigned they would be disciplined and dismissed from the service. The threat of dismissal also carried with it the prospect of losing both back-pay and pension rights.

Nevertheless the two men said that they did not intend to resign and left the stations A few days later all three met together and a few days after this they again contacted

Hammersmith station and were again told that their careers were finished and their only chance was to resign. Martin readily concedes that at this stage he was beginning to get worried about his financial state. He had now been living on two-thirds pay for almost twelve months and was also concern- ed about his back pay. Accordingly on Mon- day 18 January he went back to Hammer- smith police station and handed in his resig- nation. The station consulted with Scotland Yard who apparently said that this was in order provided that he put in a request to give only one week's notice rather than the usual month. This done Martin left.

The following Wednesday Martin Was at home when he received .a phone call from Hammersmith police station. He was told: 'The time is 12.30. Your resignation has not —I repeat not—been accepted'. Martin thinks he mumbled 'all right' and there the conversation ended. A little later he himself rang back to ask on whose authority the resignation had been refused and on what grounds. The next day he received another call to say that the authority was not to be disclosed and the reason was 'it is a matter of policy'. Martin was then given some more unofficial advice which was that if all three were prepared to resign then the question might be entirely different.

The three consulted again and after a further week went to Hammersmith police station where this time they all three put in their resignations. These were duly accepted and two weeks later they received their final pay cheques in which Martin and Carr received £.80 compensatory grants and Clif- ford £100. But the back pay that had accumulated over this long and drawn-out affair was not paid. On this they were told that a suspended policeman does not get back pay unless he is reinstated. As they were never reinstated there was no back pay. Perhaps the final irony of this case was that this rule itself was changed only seven days after they resigned—although no one saw fit to mention this prior to the change.

By any standards this is an unsatisfactory case. What is more, it is difficult to see how it can be satisfactorily resolved. To a large extent the damage has been done. The three men are now outside the police service and one, Martin, is planning to emigrate. Even if they were allowed to rejoin the police their future would seem limited. But one step is certainly possible—and that is for the Metro- politan Police to pay in full the back pay due to them during both the period of suspension and the months following.

The much wider question that this case throws up is the treatment meted out by the police service itself to its own members. For policemen to stand trial twice (once in court and once in disciplinary proceedings) is bad enough but may in some circum- stances be justified. But for policemen to be forced into resigning by the threat of disci- plinary proceedings is surely indefensible.

For some years now there has been pres- sure for some kind of independent check on the way that the police handle complaints from the public. The usual case advanced is that because the police are judge and jury in their own cause there is the risk of in- justice to a member of the public. The fact that policemen can be just as harshly treated under this system is usually ignored. Yet if there had been any kind of independent element in this case it is impossible to believe that these events could have taken place.