66 "No, we would rather have the Inspector "-he had And later: : Q. Was anything said about the nature of the questions which were going to be asked of you? A. Yes; he said to my brother when he desired to get rid of him," But my questions to your sister may be rather delicate," so my brother said, "Well, perhaps her mother can come down here," and then the detective said, "Oh, we won't bother." (ii) Miss Savidge's statement before her solicitors says that Chief Inspector Collins at the beginning of his interview with her said, "We know everything." This Chief Inspector Collins denied. The following is his evidence on this point : Q. Then she says that you said, "Perhaps you are not aware how clever a man you are speaking to," and that you already knew everything? A. No. Q. What? A. Nothing of the sort. Q. It would be a little difficult for anyone to say that, would it not? A. I am afraid it would. Q. At any rate did you say that? A. No, I did not. Miss Egan's evidence was as follows: Q. What did Chief Inspector Collins say to you that he wanted you to do? A. He said, "Now Miss Egan, I have come here to see you regarding the Sir Leo Money case, and I want you to tell me the truth-all you know about it-because I already know everything." My conclusion therefore is that on the whole the evidence of Mr. Saxe and Miss Egan corroborates Miss Savidge rather than Chief Inspector Collins and Sergeant Clark. 3. The original document out of which the whole subsequent case has emerged was Miss Savidge's statement, made to the solicitors on the morning of May 16, the day after the interview at Scotland Yard. It is of importance to decide whether this statement was made without pressure or undue influence being exerted on Miss Savidge either by Sir Leo Money or others. Messrs. Syrett are a reputable firm of solicitors, and Mr. Syrett is a witness whose evidence I would accept. On this point his evidence was as follows: Q. And were you present when Miss Savidge made the first statement which she made to you as to what had happened? A. No, what happened was this. When Miss Savidge and her father came and the others to my office, I asked her to tell me first in her own words what had happened. I think that was before any shorthand writer was brought in at all. At all events, I asked her in the first instance to tell me quietly in her own way what had occurred, and she did so, taking some little time. I then, from her demeanour and one or two questions which I put to her satisfied myself as to her statement being bona fide and straightforward. I then instructed my managing clerk, Mr. Cecil, to take the statement down from her word by word, and it was then we called in the shorthand clerk, and I was present during the greater part of the time when that statement was taken, not the whole time. Q. And while you were there would there be any ground whatever for suggesting that any person suggested at all to Miss Savidge what her statement should be? A. None whatever. I should not have allowed it for a minute. Q. For instance, particularly Sir Leo Money: Did he interfere at all or at any time in what she was saying? A. Not at all. I should not have allowed it. 4. One test of Miss Savidge's credibility is her life during the last few years, and on this some light has been shed. In order to arrive at a decision with regard to the prosecution of the two police constables in the Hyde Park incident, certain inquiries with regard to Miss Savidge were begun on May 9. This Tribunal was appointed on May 24, and the diary of Detective Sergeant Chambers shows that, after the appointment of the Tribunal and until the day before its public sittings began, the police were continuing private inquiries into Miss Savidge's character and interviewing informants as to her past. The Counsel for the police explained that the purpose of making these inquiries, after the appointment of this Tribunal, was that, if they elicited information on which Miss Savidge could be attacked, this would be proper when she appeared in the witnessbox before the Tribunal. The fact that no such attack was made appears to indicate that the investigations by the police revealed nothing in Miss Savidge's character that would weaken her credibility as a witness. I therefore give the preference to Miss Savidge's credibility as a witness, and conclude that she was asked a number of questions that ought not to have been asked, and that certain of her replies were forced into a form that misrepresented what she wished to say. For this the responsibility rests with Chief Inspector Collins. It has been suggested that Chief Inspector Collins had seen the two constables in the Hyde Park case, and was working to secure their acquittal. Such an assumption is not necessary as an explanation of what occurred. This can be fully accounted for by the presence of an unconscious bias in favour of the police arising out of the esprit de corps which marks the Force, and which was shown in another direction by the mechanical corroboration of each other's evidence by the chief police witnesses. It would be a result of the system by which police offences are investigated by the police themselves, to which I refer later. IV. Our inquiry has raised two issues with regard to the Director of Public Prosecutions : (1) His action in connection with the events which led to the interrogation of Miss Savidge. (2) His views of the legal duties of witnesses as set out in his evidence and in a letter that he wrote to Messrs. Syrett on May 17. 1. The papers dealing with the original police court case were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Home Secretary for his consideration as to whether or not proceedings for perjury should be instituted against the two police constables. He applied to Scotland Yard for an officer to conduct the necessary inquiries for him, and when as a result Chief Inspector Collins came to see him, he laid down to the Chief Inspector the lines along which his inquiries were to proceed. It has been suggested that he should have conducted the inquiries through the officers in his own department. His powers are defined by the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1884, and the Regulations under these two Acts of January 25, 1886. These Acts and Regulations give him no power to conduct inquiries, and he is not provided with a staff suitable for such work. I refer later to the question whether police offences should in future be investigated by the police, but in arranging for this to be done the Director of Public Prosecutions was following the established practice in such cases. The method of conducting the inquiry was left to Chief Inspector Collins. 2. The Director of Public Prosecutions stated in his evidence that it is the legal duty of all members of the public to answer questions put to them by the police during the investigation of a crime. In cases where the answers might, if made public, injure the personal character or interests of the witness, the Director of Public Prosecutions held that the legal duty to answer questions still remained, although, in certain such cases in the past, he had decided, for the sake of saving the witness from injurious publicity, not to proceed with the prosecution. This is not the occasion to discuss the view of the law held by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I consider that, in such a case as has been mentioned, the witness is entitled to decide for himself whether he shall answer questions which may eventually injure him, instead of leaving himself in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Chief Inspector Collins had a telephone conversation with Messrs. Syrett on May 16 and called at their office on May 17 in order to arrange to take a statement from Sir Leo Money. There was some dispute as to the conditions under which this should be done, and, on the evening of May 17, the Director of Public Prosecutions sent a letter to Messrs. Syrett which is printed in the Appendix. This letter appears to me to be couched in terms unsuitable to the correspondence of a public department. V.-Chief Inspector Collins insisted that everything that had been done was part of the ordinary practice at Scotland Yard. The evidence showed that this is true as to some of the features of the case, as, for instance, the length of time that the interrogation lasted; but I have not been able to judge how far it is true generally. It may well be, however, that the events of May 15 are a manifestation of a system that has grown up within Scotland Yard, and this inquiry opens wider issues than the actions of a few police officers. If Parliament had not been sitting, the things that were done to Miss Savidge would probably have never been known to the public, and she would have had no practicable means of redress. What happened to her can easily happen to any other man cr woman in her position. Grave perils to private citizens and to civil liberty have been revealed by her experience. The powers of the police are great, and if they are to detect crime must remain great, but the security of the individual depends upon the fact that they do not use these powers harshly or unfairly. Certain answers which they gave raise a doubt as to whether they properly appreciate the point of view of the private citizen. Two instances may be quoted : 1. Q. (To Chief Inspector Collins.) If a policeman goes to the works, the employer must know, and the foreman must know, and probably the other workmen must know? A. Yes. Q. Is it your experience that that has any effect upon a man's employment, or upon his good name with his fellow workmen? A. No, none whatever. Q. None whatever? A. No, Sir. 2. Q. (To Chief Inspector Collins.) Is it not your experience that at the end of an interrogation of five hours like you have mentioned, the condition of the witness is such that the signature which is finally obtained is obtained without pressure, owing to exhaustion? A. No, I have never had that experience. Q. You never had that experience? A. None whatever. And later: Q. Take this case as an instance: take Miss Savidge. She is, in your view, a normal woman of 22 years of age? A. Yes. Q. She had been at work since eight o'clock that morning? -A. Yes. Q. She came to Scotland Yard and was with you for four hours or four hours and a half? A. Yes. Q. I am not taking your case, but it is the experience of you as an official at Scotland Yard that if you take a normal woman of 22 years of age to Scotland Yard in the afternoon who has been at work since eight o'clock in the morning, and allow her to make a statement which lasts from four to five hours, and at the end of that time she signs the statement, the signature is not given when she is suffering from any degree of nervous exhaustion?-A. No, that is my experience. VI. The evidence given in this case indicates that the following questions need to be examined. 1. Are the police the proper authorities to take statements in the case of persons who are suspected or in custody and of witnesses whose personal character or interests are involved? 2. Statements taken at Scotland Yard or at police stations, whether of persons who are suspected or in custody or of witnesses, are almost always taken privately with no one else. present except the police and the person making the statement. Is there sufficient security that the person making the statement is guarded from all improper pressure? |