General Chat

Yesterday The Home Secretary Teresa May announced a public enquiry into the possibility of corruption by the undercover police unit of the Metropolitan Police involved in the original Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. The enquiry will investigate claims of corruption and whether decades of secretive undercover police operations has led to miscarriages of justice.

Today, it has been reported that two animal rights activists are to appeal their convictions for firebombing department stores, this is said to be in light of the announcement by The Home Secretary Teresa May to investigate claims of corruption by undercover police officers.

Judging by the concerns voiced yesterday by The Home Secretary, I think there will be a queue lining up to lodge appeals on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice as a result of evidence given by undercover officers.

Yesterday's statement by The Home Secretary was not only a bad day for the police, most police officers are honest, hard working with many risking their lives to protect us, it was also a bad day for our justice system.

Do you think this will see the doors of The Court of Appeal flung wide open to anyone convicted where undercover police gave evidence?

Don't know. I rather doubt it.

But a lot of stuff seems to have happened years back. My confidence from boyhood in police was shattered many years ago and I have very strong (anti) views about them.

There was far too much of rolling the trouser leg up, racialism, sexism and I do feel the boil should be lanced and many who retired years ago need to be publicly shamed for their actions. At almost whatever cost in compensation to the victims.

Witnesses in court must give their real name not an assumed name. It is basic law. There are no exceptions including under cover police. There is provision in terrorist cases for evidence to be given in front of the judge only where it is essential for identities to be kept secret. Even in such cases real names etc must be given.

It is also part of the British constitution that policing is by consent (Halsey) - the police are not, legally, an executive arm of the Home Office as in many countries.

So, yes, appeals are possible. However to succeed an appeal would have to show that the prosecution relied on evidence from under cover officers acting beyond the line and giving false id in court. If other evidence was sufficient to convict then any appeal would fail.

Unfortunately graft and corruption in the London met. are far from being restricted to a few exceptions. Not much has really changed since the days of the Sweeney.

Theresa May and her opposite numbers have had enough - the sugar is going to be hitting the fan big time though a Royal Commission rather than a public inquiry is needed and there is no time for either to complete between now and the next election.

Never seen Sweeney, Rollo. But I have seen the 1970's police documentary entitled "Life on Mars" with Chief Inspector Gene Hunt :-)

I would like to thank RollotheRed and JustJohn for their thoughtful contributions to my thread

pp OFITG :-D :-D <3

RolloTheRed - I agree with most of what you say but I have two concerns about Royal Commissions. The first is that the members are appointed by the Government of the day, although those appointed are supposed to be persons of the highest integrity, so can the public have confidence that none of those appointed, have allegiances to any of the political parties who have been in government since the murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993.

I ask that in light of you comment that the police are not, legally, an executive arm of the Home Office.

My own opinion is that over the years politicians have regularly, perhaps not directly, interfered in the day to day running of our police forces.

My second concern is the length of time that Royal Commissions take to reach their decisions, and that their findings and recommendations, I think I am correct in saying, are not binding.

According to English law Parliament is sovereign and thus it cannot be bound by the conclusions of either Public Inquiries or Royal Commissions. The main advantage of a R.C. is that it has far greater powers to compel witnesses and dig out evidence - powers that would be essential for any useful result.

As it is the govt. is trying to give the mangy old dog, the IPCC, some teeth. The IPCC failed to bark in the night and is probably not up to learning new tricks.

The police are supposed to be under political control which has for a long time been the local police committee. These have atrophied and become the poodle of the Chief Constable hence the new Police Commissioners. It is just that they are not supposed to be under direct Home Office control. ACPO takes a coach and horses through the concept of independent and democratic policing and should be suppressed.

The use of the police by Thatcher in breaking the miners strike was illegal. The new National Crime Agency has very dubious constitutional underpinnings and is a good example of how much the UK desperately needs a written constitution.

Law takes time and that includes public inquiries, RC and coroner's inquests. The current mania for shaving legal costs down to the bone is destroying UK criminal law. Paradoxically the ill considered cost cutting of Chris Grayling will not even save money if the net effect if to fill the prisons with easy convictions. It will certainly result in a lot more Steve Lawrence cases.

It may be worth remembering that from day 1 at boot camp the police are reminded that their primary role is to uphold the Queen's Peace and to protect life and property. Crime detection and such are secondary.

Rollo - A lot of weighty and relevant points in that post, alas I do not envisage a written constitution before I trot of this earth and nor do I envisage, despite numerous calls for one, a proper enquiry into the police activities in the miners strike and what actually took place during those Thatcher years.