Earlier in the year Deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson led a vocal campaign to bring Lord Brittan to justice for child abuse. He accused the Tory Peer of being “as close to evil as any human being could get” over an alleged 48-year-old rape accusation.
He went over the heads of senior Met detectives by writing to the director of public prosecutions after discovering that Brittan had not been interviewed about the allegation. As it turned out, Watson’s witch hunt was a sham with no evidence and which resulted in heart break and pain for the terminally ill Brittan and his family.
The Met’s DCI Paul Settle admitted he’d dismissed the case against Brittan in September 2013 and accused Watson of going behind his back to demand the investigation be reopened.
Watson later apologised for his over zealous behaviour, although Lord Brittan had passed away long before that happened.
The savaging of Brittan is a good example of that hugely important issue surrounding the succession of child abuse accusations – that not everything you are told necessarily turns out to be correct or even well-intentioned. And this sorry tale goes back a long way. Zealots burned England’s Jews in the 12thcentury on the back of trumped up charges of child murder and abuse.
Without fear of favour
There is a well-worn phrase within the British model of policing that is hugely influential in shaping the actions and thinking of every member of a police force who is called on to help, support or investigate – that phrase is “without fear or favour”.
During my time in the service it underpinned everything I did as a public servant, as an operational officer, a detective and as a senior leader and commander.
The current dictionary definitions of fear contain an interesting phrase ‘to avoid the risk of…’ as in no one dared refuse the order for fear of losing their job.
In policing an officer considers this in terms of doing their duty and doing it in way they believe to be right and in the public’s, or an individual’s, best interest without worrying about the consequences for themselves.
We have all been reminded of this individual and collective stoicism and bravery in Liverpool in recent weeks with the murder of an officer just doing his duty. It’s not the first and it sadly will not be the last. Every front line officer knows this and the vast majority continue to do their duty without fear.
“Favour” is very different and is embedded in the democracy of this country. Without favour ensures corruption is not the norm as it is in many other cultures and is the bedrock of the integrity of the service.
“Without favour” manifests itself in many ways: from policing political marches, even though one’s only sympathies may be stretched to the limit, through to investigating crime whatever the sex, colour, race, sexual orientation or socio-economic background of a victim.
It is this independence of thought and action on behalf of the public that has caused me to question where the current feverish debate on historic child abuse is leading the police service.
Strangely, it has been within my own sphere of professional practice where this concern has surfaced – ensuring the voice of the child or victim is heard.
Human rights
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 helps in this debate in two clear ways.
- Part one of Article 6 makes it a right for everyone to receive a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. That would be the 12 men and women of the jury if the case is heard at the crown court.
- Part 2 of Article 6 enshrines in law the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Both of these points are embedded in our culture and law, and in my view critical in maintaining a fair and decent democracy.
So what has caused me to worry? How can this possibly link to the “fear and favour” conversation?
It’s the way the service in certain quarters is articulating its message to would-be reporters and therefore supposed victims of historic child abuse. I watched in horror some months back when a senior officer first uttered those now well used words into a bank of TV cameras and journalists microphones: “come forward and we will believe you!”
I led investigations into serious criminal offences and underpinning the “fear and favour” was for my role to ‘seek the truth’. When I felt I had captured a version of it, or at least a patchwork quilt of evidence that might represent a collective version of it, I allowed others – namely lawyers – to present it for independent scrutiny to a jury.
Truth is now always obvious
It strikes me and others who comment or write on such matters that giving unqualified belief to every victim who comes forward oversteps the mark significantly. Many times I spent weeks investigating serious allegations against perfectly innocent people only to find the accusations were false and malicious for a variety of reasons. The truth is not always obvious or what is first presented.
I know why the service is asking victims to come forward. It wants victims to report past crimes – and so do I. It wants to understand the depth of abuse and offending now and also in times gone past. I applaud this.
The Service may not admit it publicly, but it is fearful that public opinion and the furore around high profile abuse is against it. But a result of this is that the Service forgets the bedrock of policing and investigation that is integrity and fairness to victim and accused.
I point once again to the Human Rights Act.
A few in the service need to consider moderating and changing their language when asking victims to report. The bold commitment to believe without question whatever a victim tells them is not appropriate.
This will inevitably undermine their ability to police with integrity of purpose. They will also see cases fall in court and in the appeal courts, which will have created more unnecessary victims in those who were wrongly accused.
I want the voice of victims to be heard just as much as most people, but I don’t want my old service to accept everything its told at face value. Seeking the truth for victim and accused through independent examination of the available facts is still the way to go and the public will support it.
One always needs to remember criminal investigation as a part of policing needs to be carried out with the utmost integrity and without fear or favour.