A PERSONAL VIEW

'A Matter of Grave Concern'

By DONALD ROOUM

WBEN this ugly chap arrested me I was not particularly surprised. I was neither doing nor contemplating anything illegal, but as a would-be demonstrator I knew I ran the risk of being framed for something.

Later, when he produced a piece of brick and told me the charge would be carrying an offen- sive weapon ('you can get two years for that'), 1 was alarmed, but still not amazed. Weapons are not normally planted on demonstrators, but it is common knowledge that weapons, drugs, stolen property and whatnot are sometimes planted on suspected criminals; and this vindic- tive bully was plainly incapable of distingdishing between a .suspected criminal and a suspected anti-royalist.

Then suddenly, when he was reciting the charge, it appeared that he had made a mistake in planting his evidence! Then there was the improbable combination of chances which led to my acquittal. Then some months later the Challenor case emerged as a cause célèbre, with policemen imprisoned, convicts released, and unprecedented inquiries at vast public expense. Surprises became almost commonplace.

And the utter predictability of the James Report* is in context remarkable. Predictably, the bulk of the report consists of summaries of evidence and findings of fact thereon. Predict- ably, the summaries are accurate, concise and readable. And again predictably, none but the most cogent evidence against the police was accepted by the inquiry.

Consider, for example, the treatment of four similar cases, in which it is alleged that Chal- lenor and his colleagues planted weapons. In three of them Mr. Justice James neatly sets out his findings.

I find the fact to be that . . . Police Con- stable Wells discovered in the inside pocket of Mr. Pedrini's overcoat a piece of iron tubing which Mr. Pedrini had in his possession at the time of his arrest. I find the fact to be that on searching Mr. Cheeseman . . . Police Con- stable Legge found in his pocket a flick knife which Mr. Cheeseman had in his possession at the time of his arrest. I reject as false the testi- mony of Mr. Pedrini that Detective Sergeant Challenor produced the iron tube to him in a cell saying, 'That's yours' . . . I reject the evidence of Mr. Cheeseman. (Page 151.) I am convinced that Detective Sergeant Challenor found the open razor in the pocket of Mr. Pink when in the motor car. I find no evidence . . . that Detective Sergeant Challenor instructed or countenanced the 'planting' of evidence by any other officer. . . I am not satisfied that any weapon was planted on Mr. Pink, Mr. Brown, Mr. Francis or Mr. Bridge- man. (Page 63.) The reliable evidence . . leaves open the possibility of a person aggrieved at Mr. King placing the detonators in his cushion and then taking steps to ensure that Detective Sergeant Challenor heard that Mr. King was in the West End with explosives . . . [but] points to the conclusion that Detective Sergeant Challenor did not place the detonators in the cushion but did make a genuine discovery thereof, (Page 58.) But in the other planting case, that of the bricks: The terms of reference of the Inquiry did not necessitate any findings to be made as to whether . . . Sergeant Challenor fabricated evidence by means of 'planting' bricks upon innocent persons. . . . 1 have therefore studi- ously avoided' making any findings on these . questions. (Page 102.) There is only one credible explanation for the inconsistency. In the first and. second cases above, Mr. Justice James exonerates the police by finding their accusers to be liars; in the third he exonerates the police by finding that _someone else could have done the planting. But in the fourth case he does not exonerate the police (already convicted by a jury decision), but simply refrains, as he is entitled to do under his terms of reference, from making any finding.

Evidence of misconduct by police officers, in- cluding Mr. Challenor, is accepted only where it is given or confirmed by other officers. Evidence given by the police is rejected or belittled only where it is shown to conflict with other police testimony (e.g. page 101, page 117).

In criminal trials, of course, it is assumed for the sake of convenience that police witnesses are disinterested and credible; but the inquiry was not a criminal trial, and Mr. Justice James is certainly not incapable of distinguishing be- tween logic and convenience in his accustomed method of assessing evidence. Nor is he so much at one with the police that he would whitewash them out of loyalty. I believe he has considered it his duty, and a fair interpretation of his brief, to 'set the public mind at rest' and has accepted only the most cogent evidence against the police.

He was not asked to report on whether the work of a detective is specially attractive to persons of paranoic tendencies, or whether there is adequate machinery for excluding such per- sons from the force. He was not asked if the risk of malicious prosecution. is avoidable, or whether a citizen framed with well-prepared evidence stands any chance of acquittal.

He was asked to investigate a point so piddling and irrelevant that the very terms of reference constituted an invitation to stop the Challenor case going any further; and to this invitation Mr. Justice James has responded with enthusiasm.

The main conclusions of the report (pages 7 and 8) are as follows. Mr. Challenor suffered the onset of paranoid schizophrenia in April or May 1963 and continued on duty until September. His superiors attributed the oddities of his behaviour to tiredness and a defect in hearing; their fail- ure to suspect mental illness cannot be criticised. The evidence gives no support to the suggestion of an atmosphere whereby officers could show disrespect to prisoners, and fabricate evidence, without exciting attention.

That a mad policeman should be on duty is of course 'a matter of grave concern,' but in this case no one is to blame. Challenor's superiors are all 'worthy of praise.' QED.

The one small surprise I get from the document is that it describes me as 'small in stature.' I am live foot eleven.

* REPORT OF INQUIRY by Mr. A. E. James, QC, into the circumstances in which it was possible for•Detective Sergeant Harold Gordon Challenor of the Metropolitan Police to continue on duty at a time when he appears to have been affected by the onset of mental illness. (Cmnd. 2735.) (HMSO, Its.)