HOME AFFAIRS
The solicitor and the policeman
NORMAN FOWLER
Although the debate on the handling of complaints against the police seems to have been going on for an unconscionable time the two sides rarely meet on anything approaching common ground. The civil liberties boys give the impression that most of the 10,000 complaints from the public each year are potential scandals and invariably raise crucial issues of natural justice. The police on the other hand protest that the vast majority of complaints are trivial and that the whole debate is a massive irrelevance at a time when we are in danger of being engulfed by a tidal wave of violent crime.
In fact the division between the undoubtedly serious and the unquestionably trivial is in no way as certain as it may seem. A few months ago in The Spectator I gave an example of what might be regarded as the serious, involving three London policemen who were forced to resign even though acquitted of criminal charges. This is the tale of an apparently trivial incident involving a dispute between a solicitor and a policeman on the parking of a van. It points even more certainly to the need for reform.
The case started last March when the solicitor involved, Mr Peter St John Howe, returned with his family from the Boat Race. He drove down the one-way street outside his home in West London and finding nowhere to park dropped his wife and two children. Then in the timehonoured London way he drove round the block and entered the road again in search of a space. This time he found a space which was big enough for two cars but was occupied , by an Austin Princess with the driver at the wheel.
Stopping his van he jumped out and asked the driver if he would make room for him. This the driver agreed to do. Fortunately there were only two cars behind him and they both backed up to make room for him. Mr St John Howe then began to reverse into the space. He almost made it first time but was forced to change lock and back in for the final time. It is certainly true that the two cars had been held up, but an eyewitness said that this was for no more than thirty seconds and in any event the drivers did not object. There is after all a certain amount of give and take about parking in London.
Just before the final manoeuvres, however, a police black maria also came down the street and finding its way blocked one of the policemen climbed down to see what was happening. He walked up to the van and just before Mr St John Howe was about to complete his parking asked him to drive out from his hard-won space. Firmly and perhaps not very tactfully Mr St John Howe refused and a few seconds later succeeded in bringing his van to rest.
Now of course it could be argued that all the trouble would have been avoided had Mr St John Howe followed the policeman's directions and simply driven round the block. But he clearly considered that the order was stupid and said so — and he was not alone in this view. Fortunately, as it proved, there were two eyewitnesses. One said that the policeman was being "wholly unreasonable" in making the request; and the other said that he could not understand why the policeman wanted the van to move on and added that as the road was about to be cleared the policeman actually held up the traffic for a longer period than would otherwise have been the case.
At about this stage the incident began to get completely out of hand. Mr St John Howe having parked got out of his van and the policeman asked him for his driving documents which he did not have. There was a brief conversation and finally Mr St John Howe walked towards his house. The next sequence of events is described in Mr St John Howe's statement : "He (the policeman) shouted, 'Come back here, you.' I stopped and returned about two paces. 'You have not asked my name and address, I am not charged with any offence, and I am not under arrest, and therefore I am going back to my wife who is expecting me.' I turned to go away and the police officer grabbed my arm and pulled me back. I told him that he had no right to hold on to me as I was not under arrest. The police officer said: 'You bloody soon will be.' I said: I am not under arrest so let me go.' The police officer said: 'You are now '."
A ' dispute over parking had now esculated to the point that Mr St John Howe was being marched down the street under arrest to the waiting black maria. His protests that his arm was being gripped too tightly went unheeded (there are photographs to show the bruising). His request to be allowed to tell his wife who was seven months pregnant and had seen nothing of all this was refused. His attempt to take the number of the Austin Princess which still contained a valuable witness was prevented. At the station he was kept waiting for an hour and finally charged with the wilful obstruction of a police officer in the course of his duty.
The case was eventually heard at the South-West London magistrates' court in April and Mr St John Howe was acquitted. But it was an acquittal won at some cost. Mr St John Howe had spent time under arrest and time in court for the remand and the trial itself. For his wife the case clearly could not have come at a worse time and there was also concern lest the case should lead to action by the Law Society. He had also the doubtful distinction of a front page spread in his local newspaper. Not altogether surprisingly Mr St John Howe did not regard the acquittal as the end of the matter.
He wrote first to Scotland Yard to ask what action they intended to take but was told that after a careful inquiry into the complaint a full report had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director however had advised that there was no evidence to justify any criminal proceedings. Scotland Yard added that the Commissioner was also "unable to accept that you were arrested without justification." This last point Mr St John Howe disputes as he maintains that he was arrested for a non-arrestable offence.
With commendable persistence Mr St John Howe then wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions to try to discover the basis on which the DPP had decided not to prosecute. Back come the bleak reply that "it is not the practice of this department to give reasons for its decisions." But the letter also contained the advice that there was nothing to prevent Mr St John Howe himself applying for a summons for common assault. This Mr St John Howe is not prepared to do, not only because of the cost and time involved but also a prosecution of this kind would give the impression of vindictiveness. Nevertheless on the best advice it is his only remedy and as such it shows the serious inadequacy of the whole system.
The position is that Mr St John Howe considers he has a serious complaint agains the police. The police refer the case to the DPP who on the basis of unknown evidence from the police decide that there is no case to be prosecuted. The police could then take disciplinary action but certainly nothing has been said about this. All the relevant decisions have been taken behind closed doors and the evidence upon which these decisions are based is unchallengeable by the complainant. The only remedy proffered is for the citizen to take legal action of his own which not one in a thousand would consider. (How in any event do you get over the point, which is almost certain to be brought up, that the DPP has advised against prosecution?) Now is not the time to argue about the general standards of the police — although suffice it to say that I believe that these are very high—because it is not the general behaviour of the police which is in question. What is in question is whether the present system for handling complaints from genuine complainants who believe that they have been wronged is adequate. I believe it is not; and according to Peter Evans in the Times last November a Home Office working party (which included police service members) also thought it could be improved. They suggested that a report of an investigation could be referred to an independent solicitor or barrister in cases which did not lead to criminal proceedings and that the independent lawyer would then advise on whether disciplinary proceedings should follow. With typical exaggeration the National Council for Civil Liberties attacked this proposal as "absolutely useless" but in fact far from being useless it would exactly meet the needs of this case.
The report has now, been with the Home Office for nine months. The hope must be that when Parliament resumes we will hear the decision on it. For if a solicitor like Mr St John Howe feels the need of an extra check, how much more the layman?
Previous page
