Sir Elwyn Strikes Again

POLITICAL COMMENTARY

By ALAN WATKINS

In the year 1857, at the summer assizes of the county of Cornwall, an unfortunate man . . . was sentenced to twenty-one months' im- prisonment, for uttering, and writing on a gate, some offensive words concerning Christianity.

S. Mill, 'On Liberty,' Ch. H.

A labourer, aged seventeen, born in Tipperary, who fixed a pamphlet saying 'Blacks not wanted here' on [al front door . . . was found Guilty of a charge brought under the Race Relations Act, 1965, at Middlesex Area Sessions yester- day.—'The Times,' October 18, 1966.

T'THIS week I begin with Mr Sydney Bid- well. Now who on earth, as my friend Cross-bencher might ask, is Mr Sydney Bidwell? I will tell you. Mr Bidwell is the unremarkable Labour MP for Southall. And, on the evening of July 16, he was engaged in the unremarkable task of preparing to take his dog out for a walk. He was, he explains, tired of watching television and felt in need of some fresh air. As he moved towards his front door, two panes of glass were smashed from the outside. He opened the door and, accompanied by his dog, chased a youth who was running away at high speed. Mr Bidwell caught the boy, who had tripped over a low wall. He appeared frightened of Mr Bidwell and terrified of the dog. He kept repeat- ing, 'Don't worry, I'll get two years for this'— . a reference which Mr Bidwell did not immedi- ately fully comprehend.

As Mr Bidwell took Christopher Britton (for such was the boy's name) back towards his house, he noticed a beer-bottle with a leaflet wrapped round it. This was the blunt instrument which had been used to smash the panes in the door. He also noticed another leaflet gummed to his door and several more scattered about the porch. The leaflets carried the message, 'Blacks not wanted here.' They were adorned with a black hand- print. They were, they made clear, issued by the Greater Britain Movement. When Mr Bidwell and his captive were safely inside the house, Mr Bidwell's son-in-law telephoned the Hayes police station. There ensued a not particularly fruitful political discussion. Mr Bidwell told Britton, 'You are only a little weed,' or words to this effect, to which Britton replied, 'So was Hitler.' Britton kept saying, 'Go on, hit me,' but Mr Bidwell desisted, for, apart from anything else, Britton was short and slight and wore thick spectacles. Eventually, PC Cargill turned up and took Britton off to Hayes police station.

At this point it may help to clarify matters if we go back a little in time. This was not the first occasion on which the unfortunate Mr Bid- well had had the windows of his front door smashed. Previously he had lost not two but four panes of glass. More seriously, this incident had been followed by a threatening telephone call to Mrs Bidwell which had caused her some distress. The caller had spoken with a slight Irish accent; and the youth whom a neighbour had observed running away after the original glass-breaking incident fitted Britton's description. From this we may conclude that, everything considered, Mr Bidwell behaved with remarkable restraint.

At the police station, a pamphlet which was rather more offensive than the leaflet he had stuck on Mr Bidwell's front door was found in Britton's pocket. Part of it read: `Do you want a black grandchild? If not, stop immigration now.' How- ever—and this is of vital importance in view of

subsequent events—Britton was not charged under the Race Relations Act; nor did Mr Bid- well suggest that he be so charged. Instead, charges of malicious damage were preferred under section 1 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1964, and section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act, 1914. These were still the only charges against Britton when two days later he appeared at Uxbridge magistrates' court.

But then the situation changed. The papers in the case were sent by the local police (the man in charge was Inspector Farrell) to the Metro- politan Commissioner, Who in turn sent them to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director decided that a prosecution should be brought under section 6 (the 'incitement' section) of the Race Relations Act. As required by that section, he asked the consent of Sir Elwyn Jones, as Attorney-General, to a prosecution. Sir Elwyn gave his consent. Thus when Britton next appeared at Uxbridge on August 1 the case had altered : he was now charged not only with malicious damage but with incitement. More, this undersized, bespectacled, seventeen-year-old Irish-born labourer had the distinction of being prosecuted by the DPP acting with the consent and the approval of Mr Attorney himself.

Britton was fully alive to the honour that was being done to him, as well he might be. 'It'll be the first one under the Act,' he observed proudly at one stage to the police (who, incidentally, seem to have behaved in an exemplary fashion throughout). Furthermore, he elected to go for trial by jury. On the incitement charge, this laid him open to a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or a thousand pounds' fine or both. The malicious damage charge was ad- journed sine die because, significantly enough, the prosecution elected to produce no evidence that the damage caused was in excess of £5.

On October 17, then, Britton came before Mr Ewen Montagu, QC, and a jury at the Middlesex Area Sessions. He was charged solely with in- citement. The pamphlet found on him at the police station was used as evidence of intent to stir up racial hatred. He himself did not go into the box. Indeed, at no stage throughout the entire case did he say one word in court. Not very much seems to have been made of the un-

doubted fact that he was acting as the agent of others more experienced than himself. His counsel attempted to argue that 'Blacks not wanted here' was not inflammatory, certainly not to Mr Bidwell. It was no use. He was found guilty, and sentence was postponed for pro don, remand and Medical reports.

The burden of these reports was that thou Britton (the youngest of an Irish initnigr Ealing family of eight) had a history of men' disturbance, he would not necessarily be hel by psychiatric treatment: He was still on proba tion: he had one conviction for loitering ■‘, intent and two for carrying offensive wea pont When, last Friday, he came up for sentence, Ni Montagu was not disposed to take a lenien view. He described this feeble-minded sevewee year-old as 'an evil person.' To prove just h evil he was, the egregious Mr Montagu Nxen on to add that 'no one can be surprised to learn that you, like so many of your ilk, hat been mentally sick. Although this may mai you even more of a danger to society, it doe-: to some extent mitigate your personal respom1 bility for what you have done.' So saying, ItIt Montagu sent Britton down for an indefinite term in Borstal.

Without prejudice to anything that happened in court, or may yet happen, it is difficult to escape the impression that the authorities v,er out to get Britton; to get him, moreover, not for damage to property, but for an offence under the Race Relations Act. Not that anyone should be wholly surprised at what has occurred. I myself forecast a case of this description in the SPECTATOR of April 16, 1965. 'In practice,' I then wrote, 'whether [someone]. is convicted is likely to depend on his journalistic skill in blurring edges and saying slightly less than he evidently means. At the same time, however, a pathetic youth who scrawled "Blacks go home" on a wall might well be found guilty.' And I went on to predict that the incitement provisions would 'work unfairly as between the literate and the lest literate.' And so it has turned out.

Let there be no doubt as to where resporbt. bility for this shabby affair lies. It does not lie with Mr Bidwell. It does not lie with the Home Office. In particular, it does not lie with that section of the Home Office which, under Mr Maurice Foley, is concerned with racial integra- tion. In fact, there are good grounds for belie ing that Mr Foley is highly displeased that the cat was brought at all. No, responsibility bet unequivocally with the Attorney-General, who authorised this smelly little prosecution.

Those who know Sir Elwyn personally know him as the kindest and most charming of men This does not alter the fact that he is capable of blunders. In this .case Sir Elwyn did not consult Mr Foley. It might have been better if he had. Certainly he would have been acting perfectly properly had he done so. On what criteria did Sir Elwyn decide to authorise the prosecution? As Sir Donald Soma, yell put it in 1938, 'When Parliament provides that the fiat of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate is a condition precedent to a prosecution taking place, it is their [sic] bust- ness to exercise their discretion to the best of their ability, it being clear from the fact of their consent being necessary that this is a case where Parliament thinks it particularly important that a discretion should be exercised and that prosecution should not automatically go fon\ ard merely because the evidence appears to afford technical proof of an offence-, The facts I have given show clearly that the Britton case was quite unsuited to the par- poses which (one must assume) the Director of 'Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General had in mind. Sir Elwyn ought to explain. In the meantime, Mr Roy Jenkins might start to pick up the pieces, and either release Britton or give him some treatment more suited to his condition.