Don’t Shoot the Messenger

The investigation into child abuse alleged against some of the great and the good was called “Operation Midland”. To investigate further allegations made by one man that Lady Brittan’s late husband, the former head of the armed forces Lord Bramall, and the former MP Harvey Proctor and been abusing children the police sought and obtained search warrants to search their homes.

What the Police expected the search of the homes to reveal about child abuse alleged decades earlier I have never understood. Nevertheless the police applied for search warrants to a judge, in this case to a District Judge and laid what evidence they had before the judge. The judge issued the warrants and as a result the homes of three wholly innocent elderly people were searched by the police with all the attendant publicity. Of course, the searches revealed nothing because the people that the police were investigating, all elderly, were wholly innocent and the allegations were motivated by malice. Clearly all three people were badly shaken and distressed by the police turning up with search warrants and searching their homes.

Now, after the damage was done and after the police informant was convicted for perverting the course of justice by inventing these allegations of child abuse, the issue of the warrants has been investigated by a former judge of the High Court, Sir Richard Henriques, who has claimed that the Police, when applying for the search warrants may well have perverted the course of justice because they failed to tell the District Judge that the informant had been inconsistent.

It strikes me that this is a question of shooting the messenger. Of course, the police were foolish in the way they dealt with operation Midland and made mistakes by relying on a single informant who subsequently was proved to be a liar and rather a nasty piece of work. However, the target for my criticism is the District Judge who granted the search warrants.

Search warrants must be granted by a judge. This means application for a search warrant is a judicial process in which a judge makes a judicial decision. It should not be be a rubber stamping of the request but a thorough investigation into the justice of granting a search warrant.

The issues that this raises are

  1. What did evidence of child abuse the police think they would find at the homes of Lady Brittain, Lord Bramhall and Mr Proctor? The abuse alleged was years earlier – too far away for there to be electronic evidence and DNA evidence.
  2. Absent uncorrobrated evidence of a single informant, how likely was it that the search of the homes was merely a step to “shake up” the suspects and their families: this is not a proper reason to grant a search warrant.
  3. How, if at all did the District Judge having before him or her applications for search warrants test those applications.?
  4. The allegations made warranted investigation because they were serious. However these allegations depended on a single witness whose story was uncorroborated. How was it that the District Judge failed to take account of this when considering the search warrants?

Judges should remember that they are there to protect the rights of individuals and that although the existing law on search warrants is confusing, it is clear that many applications, like these applications, are not properly scrutinised by judges.

Police make mistakes all the time, so do judges. However, judges should understand that the police do make mistakes and in the case of applications for search warrants judges are there to wherever possible prevent those mistakes and not simply to believe whatever the police tell them. .

A Short Guide to the Legal Position of Fracking

Extracting natural gas from shale – fracking – is an investment opportunity, an opportunity for a nation that has shale gas deposits to be more energy independent, and could bring environmental benefits if natural gas replaces coal for electricity generation. There are, however, many legal issues involved and what follows is a short guide to those issues as I understand them. Continue reading

Desmond Tutu Is Right – We Cannot be Selective about Justice

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a good man who has won the Nobel peace prize (one of the Nobel Committee’s better decisions) and who is not afraid to speak his mind. There are many offensive things to the good, as well as many pleasant and happy things. One of the most offensive things is hypocrisy. Mr Tutu, who last month refused to share a speaking platform with Tony Blair, has now suggested that Mr Blair and Mr Bush should stand trial at the International Criminal Court for starting the war against Iraq. Continue reading

Making Meaningful Rules

Politicians never learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. They also waste their time and our money preparing statements of policy and law which are no more than pious hopes. The latest is a proposal that local authorities (municipalities) in the United Kingdom should have a statutory duty to combat climate change. This, to my mind, falls within the same class of useless legislation as, for example, the statutory duty that the government has to abolish fuel poverty or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by so much by a certain date. These are laws or proposed laws that have no penalty for the breach of them and serve no purpose Continue reading

Perverting the Course of Justice

When I was a very young lawyer I as part of my duties I attended and observed a trial of policemen who were charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. One of the policemen was Detective Sergeant Norman Pilcher. I attended the trial almost every day, and for the days when I did not attend, I read transcripts of the day’s proceedings and analysed them. D/S Pilcher was, at the time that the charge against him was concerned, running the Drugs Squad at Scotland Yard and was in the habit of arresting famous rock musicians, some of whom alleged that he planted evidence against them. Continue reading

We will do it because we can!

If in the 1960s a government had proposed that every person who wrote a letter had to, before posting it, file details of their name and address and provide details of the person to whom they sent the letters, and deposit a photostatic copy of the letter, which the government would not open without permission from a judge, the hippies and the establishment would have united to prevent such a plan. It would not matter how much the Home Secretary protested that the plan was to prevent the IRA blowing us all up and prevent organised criminals like the Krays from operating it would not have been enacted. Continue reading

Whisper who dares: Bideford Council is saying its prayers

When someone becomes a High Court Judge in England and Wales the appointment is usually of someone who has great legal intellect. The best of Judges are able to summarise great principles of law in a few words. The law is littered with complex doctrines which are explained in pithy sentences. There are all the maxims of equity, which a layman can understand, for example “he who seeks equity must do equity”. It is a well expressed statement of the law. Continue reading