Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that the letters were written and replies were sent, but, as he will know as a Minister, the only way in which to discover why people have done things is to ask direct questions. The MCC refused on all occasions to answer any such questions. It insisted that they were written questions, and, when they were written, the MCC did not give any answers. It was a consultation process without any consulting; it was a one-sided consultation.

Mr. Hoon: I am simply pointing out that the MCC exceeded the requirement to consult that is placed upon it by the legislation. It consulted more widely than required under the law, and, to that extent, it has fulfilled its responsibilities under the statute.

The MCC has produced a document that provides a great deal of information. The working party's report includes a description of the accommodation of the courts in question, together with a comparison of the court where it is proposed that the work is to go, a survey of users at each court, including the percentage of actual appearances from those scheduled, modes of transport, and the times and costs of local buses and trains. The MCC received 187 responses before it reached a decision about the closures.

As a result, Suffolk magistrates court committee made a formal determination to close Felixstowe, Haverhill, Newmarket, Saxmundham and Stowmarket magistrates courts, with effect from 31 December 1998. The work is to be transferred to existing courthouses at Ipswich, Sudbury, Mildenhall, Lowestoft and Bury St. Edmunds.

Hon. Members will also be aware that Suffolk county council has now appealed against all five closures, and those appeals have yet to be determined. It would

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1048

therefore be inappropriate for me at this stage to comment in detail on the proposed closures of those courts. I can, however, describe the process and the matters that will be taken into account. The issues are presented by each party--in this case, the MCC and the county council--and each may comment on the various points that have been raised. The Lord Chancellor's Department will receive representations from several other interested parties, and I reassure the House that all those representations will be considered in detail when the appeal is decided.

The comments that Opposition Members have made to me during our two meetings, together with their observations in the debate, will be of great assistance in resolving such questions. Each appeal is considered separately and on its merits. It follows that there is no set formula by which the appeals are decided. However, certain considerations are common to every appeal. Account is taken of the accommodation that is offered, not just at the court that is subject to appeal but at the court to which the work will be transferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will accept that that is taken fully into account.

For example, is the building fit for the purpose? What are the security arrangements in relation to violent offenders or those in custody? What facilities are provided for separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses, and for access to telephones? What facilities are available for disabled people? What renovations are needed to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern and acceptable standard?

We also know of the distances that people have to travel, the cost of that travel and the time that is taken to complete the return journey. I know that that last element will be of particular concern to those right hon. and hon. Members who represent Suffolk constituencies. I am aware of those anxieties, and I shall certainly ensure that they are taken fully into account.

Local justice is not simply about the local delivery of justice; it is about local management, through the magistrates courts committee. Most important, it is about justice by local people for local people. Magistrates live locally, and they know that their communities are the bedrock of the local justice system. However, we must be open-minded about new ways of organising the business of magistrates courts. Just because things have been done in a particular way for many years does not necessarily mean that they are being done in the best way.

I am aware that difficult choices will continue to confront all the MCCs in England and Wales. I am sure that, in resolving those matters, the Government will derive considerable benefit--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next adjournment debate, entitled, "Mr. Ray Herring and the Merseyside Police".

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1049

Mr. Raymond Herring

1.30 pm

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): This debate revolves around the requirement to resign that was imposed on a former sergeant of the Merseyside police, his unfair treatment and the bias shown to him by senior personnel and the police service as a whole.

The man in question is Raymond Ravenscroft Herring, a constituent of mine. Mr. Herring is a 41-year-old man, who has served in the Merseyside police force for 20 years. He was qualified to the rank of inspector, and was twice commended for professionalism and dedication to duty. He held the position of custody officer in Liverpool's main prison detention centre, which is probably one of the most stressful and busiest posts outside London.

Mr. Herring's misfortunes started in 1993, when a summer ball was held opposite his home at the Blundellsands tennis club. Mr. Herring had been in dispute with the club for some time over its apparent flouting of the licensing laws, the volume of noise and the coming and going of visitors.

On the eve of 12 September 1993, the Blundellsands tennis club embarked on its summer ball. Mr. Herring rang the police to complain about the noise, but received no immediate response. He then crossed the road from his home to the lawn tennis club to complain about the noise. Mr. Michael Smerdon, a prominent character in the case, met Mr. Herring. Mr. Smerdon's wife was the president of the lawn tennis club, and Mr. Smerdon had the role of overseeing entry into the club and other managerial matters.

Mr. Herring obtained no satisfaction from Mr. Smerdon, which led to a lengthy dispute between the two men and other patrons of the club. As he left the ball, Mr. Herring was still awaiting the arrival of the police. There, Mr. Herring and his wife were outnumbered by people who were, in the main, worse for drink. A scuffle ensued, resulting in Mrs. Herring being pushed to the floor and receiving injuries. Mr. Herring did not respond, however, preferring to wait for the police to arrive to settle matters, which they duly did.

Even though Mr. Herring felt that the group had behaved in a disorderly fashion--in addition to his wife being pushed to the ground, his car had been damaged--he accepted the police decision that the matter should be resolved as a civil dispute, and that no formal action should be taken. Everyone was advised accordingly--and that should have been the end of the matter.

At this point, the following facts should be noted. When Mr. Herring made his complaint against the tennis club, Mr. Smerdon was unaware that Mr. Herring was a policeman. Mr. Smerdon became aware of that only after the incident. During the dispute at the lawn tennis club, Mr. Herring said that he would oppose any future application for an extension to the drinking hours that the lawn tennis club might submit to the local licensing committee.

Mr. Herring believes that those facts could have encouraged Mr. Smerdon to make a formal complaint against him. Mr. Herring believes that Mr. Smerdon wanted to discredit him, thus ensuring that any objection that he might raise with the licensing committee with

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1050

respect to an extension of drinking hours would be placed to one side. Mr. Smerdon could thus assert that Mr. Herring had been disciplined as a consequence of a complaint against the lawn tennis club, and that any objection that he might raise against an application would therefore be based on malice and should be rejected.

Some weeks after the incident, Mr. Herring was made aware that the members of the lawn tennis club, alleging that he had acted in a discreditable manner, made a formal complaint against him. The investigation by the Merseyside police complaints and discipline department was, to say the least, thorough. Numerous statements were obtained, with far more vigour than a more serious complaint would normally receive. On one occasion, Mr. Herring asked for details of the guests at the club, a fact that the police would have known, to help him in the preparation of his defence. That request was denied.

The disciplinary case against Mr. Herring was held in the early part of 1995. Mr. Herring was unable to attend that hearing because of injury. The case proceeded in his absence; and from one incident, he was found guilty of four charges of discreditable conduct.

On 12 June 1995, the chief constable of Merseyside, Sir James Sharples, ordered Mr. Herring to resign from the force. Mr. Herring was also fined. In effect, merely for making a complaint of disorder, he had lost his job and his livelihood.

Is that a reasonable response to such a complaint? If so, will the Home Secretary explain why Inspector Andrew Lathom, who was convicted of assault, was merely reduced in rank? Why was Constable Robert Dunne allowed to retire on medical grounds, having been accused of indecency, only to repeat the offence in retirement and later be convicted? Why was Constable Neil Thompson, who was suspended from duty for fabricating a statement of arrest, later reinstated as, it was said, it was not in the public interest to prosecute? Why was Constable Michael Meadows, who was arrested for twice crashing his motor car while drunk and leaving the scene, only reprimanded?

All the officers guilty of those misdemeanours served Merseyside police. The examples given are not exhaustive; the details given are a matter of record. Can it be said that Mr. Herring's so-called crime of merely complaining about a noisy party--after 20 years of service--ranks above those?

Mr. Herring was devastated. After 20 years of service, and for such a trivial matter, he was now unemployed, financially unstable and completely isolated. With the help of the Police Federation, Mr. Herring appealed. A distinguished panel, including a retired judge and a chief officer of police, heard his appeal. The findings are a matter of record.

Although it accepted that Mr. Herring might have acted over-zealously in his approach, the panel unanimously found in his favour. The panel criticised Merseyside police for the late serving of discipline notices, and for preferring four charges to one global charge. They also criticised the fact that a staff appraisal had been submitted at the hearing, which flew in the face of all other excellent reports--and was, moreover, prepared by an individual whom Mr. Herring had never met. In all, the tribunal felt that Mr. Herring should never have been dismissed, and that, even if he were guilty as charged, he should receive no more than a reprimand.

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1051

Mr. Herring's relief was short-lived. The findings were sent to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who chose to overturn them. Mr. Herring's appeal was dismissed. Mr. Herring firmly believed that that decision was the result of a direct intervention by the chief constable to ensure that he never had the chance to return to work, and thus be a potential irritant to the police on Merseyside.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. In September 1996, the Blundellsands tennis club held yet another summer ball. Once again, Mr. Herring and his neighbours were disturbed by the noise of the ball. Mr. Herring called the police, and the music was turned down for a while. As the music level rose, Mr. Herring rang the police again, and, receiving no response, appealed to Mr. Smerdon, who, it should be remembered, had been a witness in the disciplinary hearing that led to Mr. Herring's dismissal.

Following the advice of officers in the environmental services department--and fortunately for him, as it transpired--Mr. Herring took the precaution of carrying with him a small, concealed tape recorder so that there could be no dispute about what took place--the noise levels and so on.

After Mr. Herring appealed to Mr. Smerdon, Mr. Smerdon responded by ridiculing Mr. Herring. He belittled him, and even taunted him about freemasons and about his own acquaintance with senior police officers who were also freemasons. Despite that, Mr. Herring acted in a restrained and dignified way, as he had in September 1993. However, just before the police arrived--the police Mr. Herring had summoned--Mr. Smerdon suddenly accused Mr. Herring of spitting in his face. That was nonsense, and all present knew it, including a bystander who commented to that effect at the time.

When the two police officers arrived, they were apprised of the allegation, and immediately demanded that Mr. Herring go with them to the station. Knowing that he had done no wrong, Mr. Herring naturally agreed. Having been told that he was under arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, Mr. Herring was taken to Crosby police station. He was searched, given his rights and placed in a cell. Two hours later, the arresting officer returned with a statement from Mr. Smerdon alleging that he had been assaulted. Mr. Herring denied the offence, and was released without charge, awaiting the decision of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Papers will show that the police decided to pursue the prosecution after noting that Mr. Herring had raised a complaint against them. On 14 February, the case was heard before South Sefton magistrates court in Bootle. In evidence, Mr. Smerdon, who was still unaware of the existence of the tape recording, confidently described how Mr. Herring had sworn and spat at him. He added that he was not given to aggressive behaviour.

Sergeant Foulkes followed Mr. Smerdon. Sergeant Foulkes described how he went to Mr. Herring and did everything according to procedure: how he had cautioned him outside the house, how he had taken hold of Mr. Herring, and how Mr. Herring had verbally objected. The sergeant, when asked whether he was

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1052

sure of all the circumstances, was adamant in his response. He was certain that he was telling the absolute truth. He was not mistaken, he could clearly recall the incident, and he was certainly not lying. A second police officer, WPC Martin, who was called to give evidence at a later stage, gave evidence identical in every respect.

At this point, Mr. Herring then introduced to the court his tape recording, which clearly demonstrated that Mr. Smerdon, Sergeant Foulkes and WPC Martin had been lying. Having been told of the tape, Mr. Smerdon was instructed by the court clerk that he was not to inform anyone of its existence. He ignored this instruction and rushed out of the court at the first available opportunity to the lobby outside, saying loudly,


In due course, Mr. Smerdon was brought before the court and fined £100 for contempt of court.

The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he was "exceptionally calm" and "never swore". The tape revealed that he said:


The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said, "The defendant swore." The tape reveals that the defendant did not swear.

The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said:


The tape revealed that Mr. Smerdon did not say that. In fact, the defendant said, "Don't touch me." The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he told Mr. Ward, the commissionaire for the evening, to call the police if the defendant did not leave immediately. The tape reveals that this conversation did not take place. The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that he was "truthful and honest". That comment is not consistent with the evidence heard on the tape.

The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that, after the spitting incident, he went directly to make a phone call. The tape shows that Mr. Smerdon remained in discussion and made bird noises and impersonations. The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Smerdon said:


The tape reveals that Mr. Smerdon said:


    "Did you see that, Sergeant?"

The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated:


    "I don't recall Smerdon being abusive--didn't hear him swearing."

The tape reveals that Mr. Ward was present when Mr. Smerdon said:


    "Piss off, bog off, pratt features",

and when he made bird impressions. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes said:


    "Spoke to defendant opposite club--he came up to me when I pulled up."

The tape reveals that WPC Martin stated that they met in the garden. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes stated on arrival, "Defendant quite happy." The tape reveals that this was not the case. The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated that the music level was quiet. The tape reveals that the music was clearly loud.

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1053

The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated:


and also:


    "Smerdon said defendant was glaring and that there was an altercation."

The tape reveals that this was incorrect.

Sergeant Foulkes stated that he had cautioned Mr. Herring and arrested him immediately at the scene--he lied. Both officers said that they had made their detailed pocket notebook entries independently. Clearly, they lied. Both officers said that they had spoken to another witness, Mr. Ward, outside the club premises. Again, they lied.

Following the playing of the tape recording in court, the case collapsed and a new complaint and discipline inquiry began. Mr. Herring, now the complainant, alleged perjury, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. Sergeant Foulkes said that his arrest took place outside his home address; he lied on oath, as his arrest took place in the police car. When he asked for an outside force to investigate the complaint to ensure impartiality, his request was denied. Only after 14 months, with the direct intervention of myself and a senior member of the Police Complaints Authority, was the inquiry passed to the Lancashire constabulary. An officer of appropriate rank is still to be appointed to investigate the case.

But what have Merseyside police done to address the grave issues raised in Mr. Herring's complaint? Some 15 months after the collapse of the case, Mr. Herring has heard nothing, and the two police officers are still going about their business. Mr. Herring's life has been devastated by the sequence of events, yet he has nothing to show for what has happened to him, except extreme anxiety and a complete and utter loss of health and peace of mind.

I cannot underestimate the consequences of this matter for Mr. Herring's family: they have been truly catastrophic. Having destroyed his life, Merseyside police are seeking to preclude Mr. Herring from gaining access to his pension. It is accepted that such action may be considered only against persons who have committed a grave and serious crime. Is complaining about a noisy party a grave and serious crime?

I seek justice for Mr. Herring. I want the original complaint against him quashed in the light of the fact that one of the key complainants was a known perjurer. I want to know what action Merseyside police intend to take against the two police officers and Mr. Smerdon, and why they did not act earlier. I want to know why an officer who was found guilty of a minor incivility has been dismissed, while other officers, who have committed more serious offences, are treated more leniently. Is the Home Secretary confident that Merseyside police are capable of executing disciplinary procedures in a fair and equitable manner?

I want to know to what extent freemasonry is a factor in Mr. Herring's downfall. It is rare for a person who plays the masonic card to be found out. In this case, a tape recording exists in which Mr. Smerdon is heard invoking the support of the freemasons movement. Has Mr. Smerdon enjoyed the assistance of Merseyside police in other matters? Are we comfortable that police officers

10 Jun 1998 : Column 1054

who commit perjury are allowed to work among the public, and may be--and have been--called to give evidence on oath? Is it fair that the Home Secretary should be the final arbiter of police disciplinary and employment matters? Should he have the power to overturn the findings of a tribunal, which is what happened to Mr. Herring?

I note that the Home Secretary has ordered a review of the PCA. I hope that it will consider the issues surrounding the discipline of police officers, the prosecution of police officers who have done wrong, and the role of tribunals and of the Home Secretary. I also hope that an open and fair system of police discipline will emerge for the benefit of other officers, but I suspect that it will be too late to help Mr. Herring.


Next Section

IndexHome Page