Report of Inquiry

HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE DIEU ET MON DROIT HOME OFFICE POLICE ACT 1964 REPORT OF INQUIRY BY MR. A. E. JAMES, Q.C. Into the circumstances in which it was possible for Detective Sergeant Harold Gordon Challenor of the Metropolitan Police to continue on duty at a time when he appears to have been affected by the onset of mental illness Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty August 1965 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE PRICE 11s. 0d. NET Cmnd 2735 1 (2) COPY WARRANT OF APPOINTMENT In pursuance of the powers vested in me by section 32 of the Police Act 1964, I, the Right Honourable Henry Brooke, one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, hereby appoint Arthur Evan James, Esq., Q.C. to inquire into the circumstances in which it was possible for Detective Sergeant Harold Gordon Challenor of the Metropolitan Police to continue on duty at a time when he appears to have been affected by the onset of mental illness. AND I further appoint Commander William John Adlam Willis, C.B.E., M.V.O., C.G.M., D.L., R.N. (Retired), formerly one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary, to sit as an Assessor on the Inquiry and G. H. Baker, Esq., D.S.C., of the Home Office to be the Secretary thereof. AND I direct, under subsection (2) of section 32 of the said Act, that the Inquiry shall be held in public. (Sgd.) HENRY BROOKE One of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State Home Office, Whitehall 18th August, 1964 3 CONTENTS THE REPORT 5 APPENDIX A—THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS THEREON 10 PART ONE—DETECTIVE SERGEANT CHALLENOR .. 10 Chapter I: Introduction and the general nature of the mental illness .. 10 Chapter II: History to April 1963 .. 13 Chapter III: Metropolitan Police Force, “C” Division, West End Central Police Station .. 16 Chapter IV: Survey of the period April 1963 to 6th September 1963 .. 20 PART TWO—THE MEDICAL ASPECT .. 32 PART THREE—THE SEPARATE EPISODES .. 51 Chapter I: The episode concerning Lionel William King and David Lewis Silver .. 51 Chapter II: The episode concerning Ernest George Pink, Robert Joseph Brown, William Francis and Frederick Steven James Bridgeman .. 59 Chapter III: The episode concerning Ronald William Braggins, Frank Matthews, Clifford Ireland and Frederick Steel .. 64 Chapter IV: The episode concerning Irvine Shine .. 69 Chapter V: The episode concerning Sydney Harold Dacosta Padmore, Patricia Violet Hawkins, Jean Browne and Broulio Dario Oliva .. 73 Chapter VI: The episode concerning Donald Rooum, Gregory John Hill and Ronald George Ede: the ‘Brick’ cases .. 102 Chapter VII: The episode concerning Stanley Clinton Davis .. 119 Chapter VIII: The episodes concerning Riccardo Pedrini, John Ford, James Fraser, Joseph Oliva and Alan Cheeseman .. 123 Section A General .. 123 Section B The allegations of assault and “planting” of weapons .. 132 Section C The allegations of acceptance of bribes to show favour .. 153 APPENDIX B LIST OF PERSONS LEGALLY REPRESENTED AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES .. 167 APPENDIX C LIST OF WITNESSES .. 169 4 REPORT 2 Crown Office Row Temple, E.C.4. To the Right Honourable SIR FRANK SOSKICE, Q.C., M.P. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Sir, I have the honour to report that pursuant to the Warrant of the Right Honourable Henry Brooke, M.P., then one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, dated the 18th day of August, 1964, I have held an Inquiry into the circumstances in which it was possible for Detective Sergeant Harold Gordon Challenor of the Metropolitan Police to continue on duty at a time when he appears to have been affected by the onset of mental illness. The Inquiry was held in public at 6 Burlington Gardens, London, W.1 on the 28th day of September 1964 and succeeding days, and was concluded on the 26th day of November 1964. Throughout the Inquiry I was assisted by Commander W. J. A. Willis, C.B.E., M.V.O., C.G.M., D.L., R.N. (Retired) as Assessor and G. H. Baker Esq., D.S.C. as Secretary of the Inquiry. The evidence was presented by Mr. Hugh E. Park Q.C., now The Honourable Mr. Justice Park, and Mr. M. L. M. Chavasse, both of Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. Certain persons and bodies claiming to have a particular interest in the Inquiry and in evidence likely to be adduced made application to be legally represented at the Inquiry. These applications I granted save and except those made on behalf of the Police Federation and the National Council for Civil Liberties whose respective interests I did not consider such as to warrant legal representation. The inquiry was held pursuant to the powers vested in the Secretary of State by section 32 of the Police Act 1964 and I exercised the powers, provided by section 290, subsection (2) of the Local Government Act 1933, enabling me to require the attendance of witnesses and to take evidence on oath. This proved to be necessary as there were witnesses whose evidence was required but who were reluctant to give evidence at a public inquiry. A preliminary question was raised as to whether the wording of section 290 subsection (2) of the Local Government Act 1933 permitted only the taking of evidence on oath or by subscribed declaration, and by implication included taking evidence on affirmation where for proper reason a witness declined to be sworn. Having regard to the various statutory provisions I ruled that at an inquiry held under section 32 of the Police Act 1964, there was power to take evidence on affirmation, and I considered that the taking of evidence by subscribed declaration was less appropriate than the other methods of adducing evidence on oath or affirmation. 5 I would respectfully invite your attention to the fact that the Warrant under the authority of which the Inquiry was held directed, pursuant to section 32 subsection (2) of the Police Act 1964, that the Inquiry should be held in public. There were times during the hearing of evidence when I felt strongly that a power to receive evidence in private would have been of assistance in arriving at the truth, for the reasons that,— (a) certain witnesses were reluctant to have their conduct brought into public scrutiny in relation to matters which had been disclosed in public in the past and since forgotten with the passage of time, and (b) in matters concerning information given by citizens accustomed to giving information to police officers, there was a bond which inhibited both the citizen and the police officer concerned from disclosing the truth or the relationship between them. Further, in regard to the advantage of a power to hear evidence in private at a public inquiry, I would respectfully invite your attention to the aspect that, in matters touching the conduct of police officers, documentary evidence is at times in the nature of, or is intermingled with, written records of facts outside the scope of the inquiry, or written expressions of opinion which in style and content were not intended to bear the close analysis of public scrutiny. I fear the situation, should it arise, when every memorandum or note is penned with the prospect in view that it may at some future time be scrutinised in public, and subject to critical analysis of every word. In order to inquire into the circumstances in which it was possible for Detective Sergeant Challenor to continue on duty at a time when he was affected by the onset of mental illness it first had to be ascertained when it was that he became so affected. This necessitated the consideration of a number of episodes in relation to which it was contended that there was conduct on that officer’s part indicative of mental illness. In particular certain medical evidence opened the possibility of Detective Sergeant Challenor being affected by the onset of mental illness in the summer of 1962. The Court of Criminal Appeal on 28th July 1964 quashed the convictions of Riccardo Pedrini, John Ford, James Fraser, Joseph Oliva and Alan Cheeseman on the ground that, had the jury at their trial at the Central Criminal Court in December 1962 been informed of the medical evidence at the disposal of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the jury might have returned a different verdict. Therefore it was necessary to inquire into the facts concerning the arrest of, and the proceedings against, those five named persons. Wherever I have reached the conclusion as a result of inquiring into these episodes that there is no evidence of mental illness affecting Detective Sergeant Challenor at the time of such episode, I have nevertheless considered it right to include in this Report my findings in respect thereof. It would be less than just to those persons whose character and conduct have been called in question in public if I failed to do so. My principal conclusions can be reported briefly. The evidence given and my findings of fact thereon necessitate a longer report. For convenience of reference, and to save perusal of the whole by persons whose interest is confined to a part, I state my principal conclusions hereunder and append to this Report Appendices A, B, and C. Appendix A sets out a summary of the evidence and my findings of fact thereon. There are matters which are common to many of the 6 Chapters in this Appendix. In order to reduce cross references to a minimum I have endeavoured to make each Chapter complete in itself.

Load more