Chief Constable Dismissal Procedures

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for allowing me to speak. I will be brief as we have limited time.

Nick Gargan’s appointment to Avon and Somerset police was not without drama. The new PCC had controversially requested that the chief constable of eight years, Colin Port, re-apply for the post in a competitive process. Mr Port acrimoniously resigned and the police and crime commissioner appointed Mr Gargan as chief constable. Mr Port then attempted to block the appointment in court, but failed, and the force endured a period of stressful turbulence, which doubtless tested loyalties.

It is not my place to comment on whether Mr Gargan should have remained as chief constable, but I will illustrate serious procedural deficiencies, particularly within the IPCC. The support IPCC commissioner chosen was Mrs Jan Williams, formerly chief executive of Cardiff and Vale NHS board. Mrs Williams was herself the subject of a complaint to the IPCC by Mr Gargan over the IPCC investigation of the brutal killing of Bijan Ebrahimi, a diabolical incident for which Mr Gargan publicly apologised on behalf of Avon and Somerset police. She was certainly not an intuitive person to be a support commissioner of an “independent” investigation into the man who had been challenging her authority.

Unfortunately, Mrs Williams as support commissioner and Mr Tapp as lead investigator did little to allay concerns about bias in how they conducted the investigation. The independent misconduct panel report described their approach to the investigation as “blinkered”, and noted that no less than four key submissions by the IPCC “seem a little unreal” and that action taken by Mr Tapp

“reflects an overenthusiastic mindset”.

In July 2014, the IPCC publicly announced that the Gargan investigation was a criminal investigation, but it had earlier been established that there was not sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. However, the IPCC and the media continued to refer to “female victims” and the IPCC never corrected those reports, leading to loss of confidence in Mr Gargan on the basis of false allegations. The independent misconduct panel notes that the main alleged victim

“has no complaint about NG. She does not consider herself a victim. Her principal concerns have not been with him but with the reaction in the workplace. At all times, she describes NG’s behaviour and manner towards her as kind, courteous and polite.”

It goes on:

“She is not alone. In the un-used and until recently, undisclosed material, interviews with other women resonate with similar comment. It is a striking feature of this entire investigation that not a single female member of staff has made a complaint about NG”.

The IPCC did not notify the police and crime commissioner, or Mr Smith, the PCC chief executive officer, when it became clear that there was no criminal charge to answer. The report states:

“Despite the IPCC failing to secure admissible evidence from female witnesses in support of the original hearsay allegations, Mrs Williams and Mr Tapp did not fully reveal this to Mr Smith. The IPCC would speak of the quantity of witnesses who had been seen, rather than the quality of their evidence.”

The misconduct report goes on to say that the IPCC misled the PCC

“as to the likelihood of a criminal prosecution being brought”.

[Dr Fox]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the use of the phrase “insufficient evidence” in relation to possible criminal proceedings when what is meant is no evidence in relation to possible criminal proceedings is unforgivable and deeply unjust?

[Charlotte Leslie]

I have deliberately been very conservative in my description of what happened, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is one of the biggest disgraces I have seen in relation to policing.

Unbelievably, even when it was apparent that the original allegations had no admissible evidence, Williams promised a “hard-hitting report” regardless. Having found no evidence for such, Mr Tapp applied for powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to seize Mr Gargan’s phone and communications, in clear breach of RIPA guidelines. It was only then that Mr Tapp and Mrs Williams were able to find additional complaints on data use.

Finally, let me go back to the whistleblowers who originally made the allegations. The misconduct panel report reads:

“It is surprising that on the inchoate and tenuous grounds available, whistleblowers with potential animus, giving belated, hearsay, non-particularised accounts, Mr Tapp should consider it appropriate to include Misconduct in Public Office...he had no rational basis for so alleging”.

What was this “potential animus”? We know, because the PCC leaked it in a breach of protocol that far outweighs what was alleged against Mr Gargan. We know that the whistleblower was a former work colleague of Mr Port, Mr Gargan’s predecessor, who had tried to block Mr Gargan’s appointment through the court.

It is hard not to see all the evidence as a serious indictment against the IPCC with implications not only for future chief constables, but for our constituents. We cannot repeat the scandalous circle of cover up that happened with the NHS in Mid Staffs and the Care Quality Commission. I ask the Minister to take any actions necessary to ensure that such a necessity to question the IPCC’s competence and independence never arises again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

There we are!

The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the flow of people across the Mediterranean, which is why we have been clear about breaking that link of people thinking that they can get on to vessels and make that perilous journey northwards to the EU. I know that he has made interesting and important comments on this issue, but we must be clear not to establish new legal routes into the EU as that may make matters more difficult. I look forward to appearing before his Committee and giving further evidence.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to tackle extremism.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to tackle extremism.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The terrible events in Tunisia show the importance of our work to defeat terrorism and extremism at home and overseas. We have already increased counter-terrorism funding, and last week a new duty came into effect on public servants to tackle radicalisation. We are determined to go further, and our counter-extremism strategy will set out a wide-ranging response, part of which will be implemented by the forthcoming counter-extremism Bill. Together, we must defeat these pernicious and poisonous ideologies.

[Charlotte Leslie]

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that Islamic extremism does not filter into other existing criminal groups such as street gangs, particularly in prisons?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The counter-extremism strategy will introduce comprehensive measures to stop extremism spreading. Extremism disruption orders were announced in the Queen’s Speech, and we will also tackle extremist ideology head on in a number of ways, promoting opportunities that life offers to people living in our pluralistic society in Britain, and confronting the extremists’ twisted narrative. We will work with others across the Government, including my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor in the Ministry of Justice, to consider what actions can be taken in prisons to tackle extremism.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. What is essential is that the results of this inquiry are those in which everybody can have confidence, to ensure that it has got to the truth. As he says, it is very difficult in this area to identify what has happened, but I would say that we have seen, in the reports on child abuse in Rotherham and in the report from the hon. Member for Stockport, some good examples recently of people—Professor Alexis Jay and the hon. Lady—who have gone out and been able to identify real failings in institutions which, sadly, are still taking place today.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

Further to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others, I thank the Home Secretary for assurances that there is the potential for the inquiry to be statutory, but given that those potentially implicated may be embedded deep in the marrowbone of the establishment, does she agree that in order to gain the confidence of the survivors, imbue fear into perpetrators who may think they are untouchable and protect existing and future potential victims, the inquiry must have teeth right from the start, not be dependent on the chair’s discretion? Given that it is the establishment itself that is under investigation, those teeth may have to be very long and very sharp indeed.

[Mrs May]

I agree that we want to ensure that the panel is able to get to the truth. In this area and particularly looking at historical cases, this is not an easy task and members of the panel will have to be prepared to go wherever the evidence leads them. My hon. Friend referred to the discretion of the chair. The point of having the panel is that it is not the discretion of the chair that will determine where this inquiry goes, who is called to give evidence or what reviews are considered. That will be for the panel as a whole, which is why it is important to have the breadth of expertise that we have on the panel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I sometimes wonder whether the Labour spokesman looks at a single thing that I am doing. We have given responsibility for libraries to the Arts Council, we have set aside a £6 million fund, we have published the CIPFA statistics and we are piloting automatic membership for school children. He simply rolls over when Newcastle proposes to cut its culture and its libraries, and says, “I back Newcastle.”

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking with her ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments to advance the role of sport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The Prime Minister has established the Cabinet Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, through which all Departments are working together to deliver a tangible and lasting legacy from London 2012. Sport is at the heart of that process.

[Charlotte Leslie]

It is evident that sport has a vital role in improving behaviour in schools and health outcomes, and in preventing youth offenders from reoffending, as I have seen at Ashfield young offenders institution near my constituency. Will the Minister pledge to work with colleagues from across Departments to ensure that such interventions are available to young people so that they can turn their lives around?

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely. That process is already happening, as is evident from the work that the Department of Health does through Change4Life clubs, the work of the National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, and the cross-departmental funding for the school games.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate, and thank all the other Members of various different parties who have worked so hard to bring the debate to the Chamber. I also wish to echo the eloquent comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on the value of extradition. It is easy to be one-sided in this debate, and to forget the valuable role extradition can play both in international justice and for the families of the victims.

Understandably, the focus so far has been on the European arrest warrant and the US and UK extradition treaty, but I want to address the issue of those countries, including the US, that do not require prima facie evidence for an extradition to be requested. There are 24 of them, one of which is South Africa, and I want to highlight the case of Shrien Dewani, who has been accused of the terrible and tragic crime of murdering his wife in South Africa. This is not a question of an individual’s innocence or guilt; rather, it is a question of what kind of justice system Parliament can in good conscience approve a British citizen to go through.

My constituent Shrien Dewani was arrested more than a year ago, and he has not so far been charged in either country. Judge Howard Riddle assessed his mental health problems following the appalling and traumatic incident to be extremely severe and considered there to be a real risk of suicide. As I have said, South Africa does not require any prima facie evidence to request extradition, and extradition has been granted pending an appeal.

The case of my constituent has been the subject of extensive pre-judicial and prejudicial media coverage in South Africa, so much so that the head of the South African prosecution services is reported to have been removed from his post because he has been deemed not to be fit and proper to hold it as he has publicly prejudged the case. There have also been explicit threats by prison inmates about what would happen to my constituent were he to be put in a South African jail. It is hard to see how my constituent’s mental health can be safeguarded in such a climate.

There are also serious questions about South Africa’s record of torture in prisons. In 2010, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights found that South Africa had violated the right of a prisoner, Bradley McCallum, not to be tortured and that it had also violated its obligation to investigate and remedy the violations of that right. Those are serious matters. Can we be happy to extradite a British citizen given that severe climate?

Given the media prejudgement by officials, the public threats by prison inmates to my constituent, the very real risk of suicide and the shadow of UN investigations on torture, can it be right that we do not require any prima facie evidence from a country such as South Africa? Can it also be right that we do not further question our extradition treaties with South Africa and other such countries? I hope other Members agree that that is not right. I support the motion.

Extradition

Charlotte Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I agree entirely. I can say this as a Scots lawyer, because we have a civil law rather than a common law system: one important export, even as long ago as our colonisation of the United States, was the common law. Habeas corpus is a fundamental principle of the law in the United States. Not only in federal law but in the laws of each state, habeas corpus occupies exactly the same important position, as my hon. Friend suggests.

I fancy that there is not much patience in the Chamber for an analytical exercise in the interpretation of the Baker report, but in order to provide some further reading to Members who have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I refer them to part 7, pages 231 to 243, paragraphs 728, 729, 735, 739 and 742, the burden of which is that the Baker report concluded that there was no significant difference between “reasonable suspicion,” which is the standard applicable in the United Kingdom under the treaty, and “probable cause,” which is the standard necessary in the United States and which is enshrined in the fourth amendment to the United States constitution.

I have the misfortune to disagree with the conclusions of the Baker report. I believe that probable cause is a requirement that has to be met before any United Kingdom citizen should be extradited to the United States. Why do I believe that? Because before surrendering a British citizen to a foreign jurisdiction, the state—our state—should reasonably require to ensure that there is a case requiring to be answered, not a suspicion. To borrow an illustration from my own experience as a prosecutor and from domestic law on both sides of the border, suspicion justifies arrest, but suspicion does not justify charge or prosecution. Probable cause, in my view, is necessary before prosecution can be justified.

I think that my argument is underpinned by the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which reference has already been made. It concluded, rather as I have suggested, that it is necessary that the standard of proof on both sides of the Atlantic should be the same. Those arguments are properly set out on page 4 of the report. That the issue might require adjustment of the treaty was recognised by the Committee, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), is present, and by Baroness Neville-Jones, who gave evidence on behalf of the Government and who appeared to be optimistic that adjustment could be achieved.

I am persuaded by one other element of the consideration of these matters. There is a considerable predisposition on the part of the courts of the United States to invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction to an extent that we simply do not apply in this country. We have, therefore, in practice, no reciprocity in the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is my view, however, that if the significant difference in the approach in the United States is, as we know, common, that is all the more reason that the standards of proof should be equivalent.

Let me deal quickly with three further issues. First, on the matter of forum, it is surely correct in principle that there should be an effective statutory presumption that a case be tried in the country where the crime is committed, and that only in the most special circumstances should there be a departure from that principle. Secondly, on legal representation—this is also recognised by the JCHR—someone who is being sought to be extradited needs good representation not just in this country, but in the country to which they are extradited. We know that the availability of public funds, or indeed of public defenders, is to different standards in different states of the United States.

Finally, on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is, of course, a statutory requirement for the Home Secretary, I do not believe that there is any justification for the Baker committee’s recommendation that the Home Secretary’s authority on that should be transferred to the legal system. Baker says that there should be a removal because of delay being caused if it is invoked and because determination of extradition should be exclusively a judicial process. That, I think, fails to understand the nature of extradition, notwithstanding the detailed historical analysis that the Baker report contains. Extradition is diplomatic in the first instance. It becomes judicial and ultimately it is political.

In exercising that power, the Home Secretary is not acting ultra vires; she is exercising the power conferred on her by Parliament—the same sovereign Parliament that resolved that other parts of the procedure should be exercised by the courts. I see nothing wrong in principle with the Home Secretary exercising a power conferred on her by Parliament additional to the powers of the court. Parliament has chosen not to grant exclusive jurisdiction in matters of extradition to the courts, as Parliament is entitled to do. The truth is that the Home Secretary is exercising an administrative function in furtherance of the duties incumbent on her by the Human Rights Act.

It has been suggested that it would perhaps be helpful if the considerations that the Home Secretary is obliged to take into account were more fully described in legislation, such as the health of the person being considered for extradition, which is relevant to the speech we heard a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the impact on family life, the quality of treatment that a person might receive in the penal system, and, of course, the proportionality of the likely sentence that might be imposed.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing this debate. We have talked a lot about extradition treaties between the USA and the UK, and the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a case for looking at extradition treaties with countries in category 2 territories, such as South Africa, where my constituent, Shrien Dewani, may face trial, and at considerations such as the health of the person and whether they will face a fair trial, given, in the case of my constituent, the high media coverage that his case has received in the country to which he may be extradited?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

My hon. Friend underlines the need for the Home Secretary to have the jurisdiction and the discretion that the law presently allows. It is a powerful argument in support of the view that that discretion should remain.

I have not sought to deal with any particular case or set of circumstances, but my interest in this matter was first aroused by the case of the NatWest three, one of whom, Mr Gary Mulgrew, was a constituent of mine. I think that one has to be careful about changing the law in response to particular cases—there is an old legal dictum that hard cases make hard law—but today this is an opportunity to define principle, and I for one am delighted that so many Members have chosen to be present for that purpose. I look forward to the occasion when we have a resolution on the Floor of the House to which we can give effect.