Ian James Henning 3rd December 1993 Application for Judicial Review [Frank Beck]

Comment

Ian James Henning was Solicitors Clark for Frank Beck

Deputy Chief Constable who issued the memo was Anthony Butler.

Chief Constable was [add]

Roger Rock was the senior crown prosecutor .

Application for Judicial Review was refused

For an Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog see [1]

[1993] EWHC J1203-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

CO/2590/91

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Friday, 3rd December 1993

Before: Lord Justice Rose and Mr. Justice Mckinnon

Regina
v.

The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary Ex Parte Ian James
Henning

MR. I. WINTER (instructed by Messrs. Greene D’Sa, Leicester) appeared on
behalf of the Applicant

MR. C. SEAGROATT Q.C . (instructed by the Chief Constable, Leicestershire)
appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of John Larking Verbatim
Reporters Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1QX Telephone No. 071
404 7464 (Shorthand Writers to the Court)

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court)

Friday, 3rd December 1993

JUDGMENT

MR. JUSTICE McKINNON : This is an application for judicial review. Leave to
move was granted by Hutchison J. after an oral hearing on 13th January
1992. The decision impugned is that allegedly made by the Deputy Chief
Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary on or about 28th August 1991 to
refuse to allow the applicant to enter police stations in Leicestershire to
attend and advise detained persons and/or decisions to that effect made by
individual inspectors of the Leicestershire Constabulary in September and
October 1991. The applicant seeks (1) certiorari to quash those decisions;
(2) a declaration that the applicant has wrongly been refused access to
enter police stations in the Leicestershire area for the purpose aforesaid.

The applicant is employed as a solicitor’s clerk by Messrs. Greene D’Sa,
solicitors practising in Leicester, and has been so employed for some two
years. Prior to that, the applicant was employed as a public defender for
six years in the United States of America and earlier as a police officer
in the United Kingdom. One of the applicant’s duties on behalf of his
employers is to attend at police stations in order to represent and advise
clients of his employers who are in custody and to be in attendance during
interviews by the police of such clients.

This application arises in the context of Code C, which is the Code of
Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police
Officers which was issued by
the Secretary of State for the Home Department with effect from 1st April
1991 pursuant to his duty under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984. Section 67, sub-section 8, provides that a police
officer should be liable to disciplinary proceedings for a failure to
comply with any provision of such Code unless such proceedings are
precluded by Section 104, which is not relevant for present purposes.
Certain provisions of Code C are relevant; they are as follows:

“6.9 The solicitor may only be required to leave the interview if his
conduct is such that the investigating officer is unable properly to put
questions to the suspect. [See Notes 6D and 6E]

“6.10 If the investigating officer considers that a solicitor is acting in
such a way, he will stop the interview and consult an officer not below the
rank of superintendent, if one is readily available, and otherwise an
officer not below the rank of inspector who is not connected with the
investigation. After speaking to the solicitor, the officer who has been
consulted will decide whether or not the interview should continue in the
presence of that solicitor. If he decides that it should not, the suspect
will be given the opportunity to consult another solicitor before the
interview continues and that solicitor will be given an opportunity to be
present at the interview.

“6.11 The removal of a solicitor from an interview is a serious step and if
it occurs the officer of superintendent rank or above who took the decision
will consider whether the incident should be reported to the Law Society.
If the decision to remove the solicitor has been taken by an officer below
the rank of superintendent, the facts must be reported to an officer of
superintendent rank or above who will similarly consider whether a report
to the Law Society would be appropriate. Where the solicitor concerned is a
duty solicitor, the report should be both to the Law Society and to the
Legal Aid Board.

“6.12 In this Code ‘solicitor’ means a solicitor qualified to practise in
accordance with the Solicitors Act 1974. If a solicitor wishes to send a
clerk or legal executive to provide advice on his behalf, then the clerk or
legal executive shall be admitted to the police station for this purpose
unless an officer of the rank of inspector or above considers that such a visit will hinder the
investigation of crime and directs otherwise. Once admitted to the police
station, the provisions of paragraphs 6.6 to 6.10 apply.

“6.13 In exercising his discretion under paragraph 6.12, the officer should
take into account in particular whether the identity and status of the
clerk or legal executive have been satisfactorily established; whether he
is of suitable character to provide legal advice (a person with a criminal
record is unlikely to be suitable unless the conviction was for a minor
offence and is not of recent date); and any other matters in any written
letter of authorisation provided by the solicitor on whose behalf the clerk
or legal executive is attending the police station. [See Note 6F]

“6.14 If the inspector refuses access to a clerk or legal executive or a
decision is taken that such a person should not be permitted to remain at
an interview, he must forthwith notify a solicitor on whose behalf the
clerk or legal executive was to have acted or was acting, and give him an
opportunity of making alternative arrangements. The detained person must
also be informed and the custody record noted.

Notes for Guidance

“6D In considering whether paragraph 6.9 applies, a solicitor is not guilty
of misconduct if he seeks to challenge an improper question to his client
or the manner in which it is put or if he advises his client not to reply
to particular questions or if he wishes to give his client further legal
advice. It is the duty of a solicitor to look after the interests of his
client and to advise him without obstructing the interview. He should not
be required to leave an interview unless his interference with its conduct
clearly goes beyond this. Examples of misconduct may include answering
questions on the client’s behalf, or providing written replies for the
client to quote.

“6E In a case where an officer takes the decision to exclude a solicitor,
he must be in a position to satisfy the court that the decision was
properly made. In order to do this he may need to witness what is happening
himself.

“6F If an officer of at least the rank of inspector considers that a
particular solicitor or firm of solicitors is persistently sending as
clerks or legal executives persons who are unsuited to provide legal advice, he should
inform an officer of at least the rank of superintendent, who may wish to
take the matter up with the Law Society.”

As Mann L.J. said in * R. -v- The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, ex
parte Robinson * [1989] 1 WLR 793 at page 795 C:

“It is apparent that there is only one ground on which the clerk or legal
executive can be excluded from the police station and that is that his
visit would hinder the investigation of crime. That of course is a matter
for the subjective judgment of the officer being an officer of the rank of
inspector or above.”

And at page 795 G:

“We return to the hindering point. There may be circumstances where the
police know that the person has a record of convictions. They may know that
he is criminally orientated if unsullied by detection. In those
circumstances likewise they will be entitled to conclude that to admit such
a person to the station to tender advice would hinder the investigation of
crime.”

What happened here was that the Deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire
sent a circular dated 29th August 1991 to “all sub-divisional commanders
and departmental commanders” headed “Mr. Ian Henning of Greene D’Sa,
solicitors”. It reads as follows:

“1.I refer to the Deputy Chief Constable’s instruction of 5th April 1989
regarding access by persons in custody to legal advice, which should be
read in conjunction with this report.

“2.Ian HENNING will be well known to officers of the Force. He is employed
as a clerk by Greene D’Sa, solicitors, 44 Granby Street, Leicester. A
number of incidents of serious misconduct have been documented regarding
his behaviour.

“3.I have received reports from Detective Chief Inspector ASHBY, Detective
Sergeants CREEDON and MOORE, Detective Constable RIDLEY and other officers,
together with a number of witness statements and transcripts of interviews.

“4.This material is available to sub-divisional commanders and is
accordingly enclosed herewith.

“5.I have also had legal advice from leading counsel and discussions with
the Chief Crown Prosecutor.

“6.Whilst I cannot (by reason of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)
issue instructions preventing access to prisoners by named individuals, it
is my opinion, and that of leading counsel, that there will be very few
occasions, if any, where it would be appropriate to allow Mr. Ian HENNING
access to persons in custody, or to be present during interviews with a
person, whether in custody or not. If Mr. HENNING is denied access, this
fact should be drawn to the attention of the company, Greene D’Sa,
solicitors, forthwith in accordance with paragraph 6.14, Code C of the
Codes of Practice (see the Deputy Chief Constable’s report dated 5th April
1989, paragraph 3.2).

“7.The circumstances of Mr. HENNING’s behaviour have been reported to the
Law Society by way of letter and the senior partners of Greene D’Sa are
also being informed.

“8.Sub-divisional commanders must ensure that this information is made
available to all appropriate officers on their sub-division. However, the
confidential and sensitive nature of some of the material, specifically in
relation to cases still under investigation, requires the papers to be
retained in secure conditions, either the sub-divisional superintendent’s
or his secretary’s office, but available for reference by officers, if
required. The papers should not be photocopied.

“9.Details of each occasion when Mr. HENNING is denied access will be
reported to the Deputy Chief Constable, who will collate that information
and deal with any correspondence received from the solicitor concerned.”

It will be seen that specific reference is made to Code C in paragraph 6 of
the circular. Paragraph 6 of the circular also refers to the Deputy Chief
Constable’s report dated 5th April 1989 which gave advice to all
sub-divisional superintendents in respect of detained persons and their
access to legal advice. The report referred to the judgment of Mann L.J. in the * Robinson * case and to Code C then applicable which did not
contain any provision such as paragraph 6.13 in what may be called the new
Code C effective from 1st April 1991. It is not necessary to set out what
was said in that report. Accompanying the circular was a dossier to which I
shall have to refer.

On a number of occasions, the precise circumstances of which are in
dispute, the applicant was refused access to police stations in the
Leicester area in September and October 1991 for the purpose of attending
at interviews by the police of clients of his employer’s firm. It is plain
that those refusals of access were made taking into account the information
contained in the dossier which accompanied the Deputy Chief Constable’s
circular dated 29th August 1991. The dossier contains a number of reports
and statements by various police officers concerning a number of incidents
of alleged misconduct by the applicant in the period from October 1990 to
May 1991. The majority of those incidents arose in connection with the
investigation by police officers of the activities of Frank Beck whose
trial, leading to his conviction of a number of serious offences of
indecency, at Leicester Crown Court before Jowitt J. and a jury lasted from
16th September 1991 to 29th November 1991. Frank Beck was arrested on 14th
April 1990, the applicant first meeting him on 1st October 1990 after Frank
Beck had transferred his instructions to the firm of Messrs. Greene D’Sa.
In late 1990/early 1991 police officers were investigating an allegation of
the sexual abuse of a young person by a Member of Parliament. The young person had been in care at a home for young persons run by Frank
Beck. On 27th February 1991 Frank Beck publicly named the M.P. during his
committal proceedings in the magistrates’ court. Three of the incidents in
the dossier concern conversations between the applicant and police officers
in relation to the M.P. There are seven incidents referred to in the
dossier. I shall deal with each in turn, setting out the alleged
circumstances of each, remembering that this is not an appeal from the
Deputy Chief Constable’s decision and that there has been no investigation
into the truth or otherwise of the various allegations against the
applicant.

FIRST INCIDENT

This was on 26th October 1990 and was the subject of a report dated 10th
January 1991 from Detective Sergeant Tew to Detective Inspector Ashby.
Detective Sergeant Tew, together with Detective Constable Coles, were
leaving Syston Police Station when they saw the applicant. The applicant
asked Detective Sergeant Tew if he was still in the Vice Squad. Detective
Sergeant Tew replied that he was. Detective Sergeant Tew’s report continued
as follows:

“[The applicant] then went on to say that he had an informant who knew of a
male brothel in Leicester. Mr. Henning then offered to pass this
information on in return for information ‘about any lads’. I asked him if
he had the information available and he stated he would contact me when his
informant passed on the information to him. He then went on to speak about
the ‘Beck’ inquiry and he inferred that the information he required related
to persons connected with this inquiry. At this stage I told Mr. Henning I
had worked on the ‘Beck’ inquiry and as a result he seemed to lose interest
in the subject. I have seen Mr. Henning since this time and he has made no
mention of the incident or the information. Nothing was said by Mr. Henning
to directly connect his comment regarding exchange of information to the ‘Beck’ inquiry but both myself and D.C. Coles were under the impression that this was the case.”

SECOND INCIDENT

This was on 28th November 1990 and was the subject of a report dated 21st
January 1991 from Detective Inspector Ashby to Detective Chief
Superintendent Carr, and by Detective Sergeant Creedon dated 24th January
1991 also to Detective Chief Superintendent Carr. This incident arose in
the course of a number of tape-recorded interviews with Frank Beck at
Wigston Police Station and consisted of a number of interruptions by the
applicant during the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh tapes of the day,
each concerning the statement of a witness who had made allegations against
Frank Beck. The three witnesses whose statements were put to Beck in the
course of those interviews were those of, as I shall call them, witnesses
A, B and C. The interviews were conducted by Detective Inspector Ashby and
Detective Sergeant Creedon. Detective Sergeant Creedon’s report reads as
follows:

“During the fourth tape of the day I mentioned witness A and the
conversation was as follows:

BECK: ‘I shan’t make any comments about this one at all. I have had contact
with [witness A] and I ——’

HENNING:’He’s been in contact with us and he had made a number of serious
allegations so I don’t think Frank should say anything about this one.’

D.S.:’There’s no point in reading it out then?’

D.I.:’Well no, I think we ought to at least give you the opportunity to
listen to what he has said.’

BECK:’I know what he said, I have a copy. I have seen a copy.’

HENNING’How shall I say it, as a result of police officers visiting his
house he has made allegations of intimidation and assault and he admits to
making the statement and he has explained about his reasons why.’

D.I.:’Has he made a complaint against the police then?’

HENNING’Yes.’

BECK:’And I’m aware of what he said.’

HENNING’Against a certain officer.’

D.I.:’Right.’

“It was then agreed we would not read the statement.

HENNING’He said it’s not true.’

D.I.:’Right.’

HENNING:’And has explained why it’s been written down, and he’s backed it
up with allegations and he says he’s got a witness to an assault which took
place on him.’

D.I.:’O.K.’

HENNING: ‘So we’ll leave that one.’

“As a result of the above conversation we moved to a further statement.

“CONCERNING WITNESS B: During the fifth tape of the day Beck initially
could not remember the boy although he finally did so.

D.S.:’Anyway we now know who witness B is we are talking about.’

BECK:’Yes, it is ——’

HENNING:’On that carry on talking about it, but witness B has been in touch
with us this past Monday evening, further to say that there is something in
the pipeline with regards to him.’

D.S.:’Well, I saw him.’

HENNING:’Did you?’

D.S.:’Well, it’s about me.’

HENNING:’No, your name wasn’t mentioned. We’re looking after you, mate.’

D.S.:’That’s because I do things properly.’

BECK:’That’s debatable.’

HENNING:’No, it’s something in the pipeline, but he’s made no complaint
about you.’

“Despite Henning’s interruption witness B’s statement was still read.

“CONCERNING WITNESS C: His additional statement was read and the sixth
taped interview continued.

BECK:’This guy is about six foot something.’

HENNING:’Armed robbery.’

BECK:’Yes.’

D.S.:’Hang on, let’s not just assassinate his character yet, till the end
of the statement.’

“I read from witness C’s statement and Beck denied he had alleged witness C
was an armed robber.

D.S.:’No, you said that’ (directed towards Henning).

HENNING:’Umm, sorry.’

D.S.:’Has he committed armed robbery, rather than throw it in.’

BECK:’He didn’t say that.’

D.S.:’I am sorry, he did.’

HENNING:’There’s ——’

D.S.:’You said armed robbery.’

HENNING:’I’ll tell you what I said, but I’ll enlarge on what I said.
Obviously I have talked to a lot of people, information, not from official
circles, from unofficial circles, that he’s heavily engaged in armed
robberies.’

D.S.:’Well, I think if you’ve got any duty at all, Ian, you should tell the
police about it rather than just chuck it in.’

HENNING:’I’ll tell you now all that I know. He’s a getaway driver for armed
robberies in the Peak District, that’s all I know.’

“I then had a brief discussion with Beck concerning witness C’s previous
convictions.”

As to witness A, Detective Inspector Ashby said this in his report:

“Witness A was visited by Detective Inspector Armstrong of the Devon and
Cornwall Police (he lives in Bodmin, Cornwall). Witness A confirmed that he
had contacted the defence but only to inform them he had made a statement.
He states that he was not happy with one of the Leicestershire officers who
interviewed him but he did not want to make a complaint. He was not
assaulted. He made the statement voluntarily and the contents were true.”

As to witness B, Detective Inspector Ashby said this in his report:

“As a result of the allegations made by Mr. Henning, I visited witness B.
He stated he had not contacted the defence and had no intention of doing
so. The defence had not contacted him.”

Detective Inspector Ashby’s report concludes as follows:

“These incidents raise a number of issues. Firstly, Mr. Henning has told
lies during the interview which affected the course of that interview.
Secondly, he has raised false hopes for his client and, thirdly, he has
caused extra work to our enquiry in investigating his allegations.

“In my view, he has acted improperly, both to his client and by obstructing
our interview. I have spoken with Roger Rock, senior Crown Prosecutor, who
states that it is possible to bar solicitors/clerks from interviews if it
can be shown they have acted improperly.

“I understand this is not the first time Mr. Henning has been criticised.
There are a number of other complaints, one of which also involved the Beck
inquiry and the report on this, by Detective Sergeant Tew, is attached.

“I respectfully suggest that a letter be sent to Greene D’Sa informing them
of our concern and that consideration be given to Mr. Henning being barred from attendance at police stations in our area.”

Detective Sergeant Creedon’s report concludes as follows:

“Quite clearly Henning has tried to influence the course of our interview
with Beck. As Mr. Ashby has reported, Henning has lied: witness A has not
made a complaint against the police, nor has he withdrawn his allegations
against Beck; witness B has never contacted the defence; witness C has no
convictions for armed robbery. I reiterate Mr. Ashby’s view about the
effect of Henning’s improper actions, and would add that if he were to
behave like this with more inexperienced officers he may be able to
adversely affect an interview, and ultimately the course of justice.”

THIRD INCIDENT

This was on 12th March 1991 and was the subject of a report by Detective
Constable Norman on 14th March 1991 and a statement by him on 11th July
1991. A defendant was arrested on suspicion of indecent assault on a number
of occasions upon his niece. On 12th March 1991, during a break in the
tape-recorded interview while Detective Constable Norman was preparing to
start a further tape, the applicant made a number of comments in the
presence of the defendant concerning the case of Frank Beck. Detective
Constable Norman’s statement reads as follows:

“Mr. Henning referred to the similarity between the two cases, stating that
in both instances there were a number of people making individual
allegations of indecency against one person. He went on to say that the
Beck inquiry was ‘falling apart’ and that the police ‘gave it their best
shot’ at the committal hearing and produced their best witnesses but,
having seen the witnesses, ‘he’ was certain that ‘he’ could ‘destroy them’.
Mr. Henning then said that there was an M.P. involved but that ‘no one was
doing anything about him’. Although he did not name the M.P., Mr. Henning
said that ‘everyone would soon know all about it because it was going to be
in the newspapers’.

“Apart from the obvious tactical ploy of giving the defendant a sense of
security, knowing that a similar case was in difficulty as far as the
prosecution was concerned, the comments made by Mr. Henning about Frank Beck, whom the defendant has obviously heard of, appeared to be in breach of
confidentiality.”

FOURTH INCIDENT

This was on 28th September 1990 and was the subject of a report by
Detective Constable Ridley to Detective Sergeant Creedon dated 8th May
1991. Three defendants were arrested and interviewed regarding an alleged
abduction and rape. The allegation was found to be untrue. They were
rearrested on the same day in respect of an alleged burglary and, following
interviews by the police, were later released without charge. However,
before that happened, during a search of a motor vehicle owned by the first
defendant, a radio-cassette player which was recently stolen was found
secreted in a rear arm-rest. All three defendants were interviewed and all
denied any knowledge of the cassette player. All three defendants were
represented by the applicant. The second defendant was the first to be
interviewed regarding the cassette player, amongst other things. The
applicant was present during that interview.

After that interview the applicant was allowed a private consultation with
the first defendant, who was later interviewed without the applicant being
present. In the course of that interview the first defendant said that the
applicant told him during the private consultation that the police had
recovered the cassette player from the rear of his vehicle. Detective
Constable Ridley’s statement concludes:

“… it is apparent that Mr. Henning divulged the content of the interview
with the second defendant to the first defendant and forewarned him of what
to expect during the interview.”

FIFTH INCIDENT

This was in late 1990/early 1991 and was the subject of a report by
Detective Constable Moore to Detective Sergeant Creedon dated 15th May
1991. The applicant was waiting to consult with a client in custody at
Charles Street Police Station; and he had a conversation with Detective
Constable Moore in the front enquiry office. In the course of that
conversation the applicant said that a Member of Parliament (whom he named)
had been involved in child abuse with children in care and that he had
documentary evidence to support it. The applicant mentioned that a national
newspaper was aware of those allegations and that News at Ten was going to
feature it but had withdrawn it at the last minute. In his report Detective
Constable Moore stated that at no time had he worked on the Beck inquiry.

SIXTH INCIDENT

This was on 16th May 1991 and was the subject of a report by Detective
Constable Gibbard to Detective Inspector Ashby dated 17th May 1991. It
concerned a conversation between the applicant and Detective Constable
Gibbard in the interview room at Charles Street Police Station. The
applicant mentioned Frank Beck. Detective Constable Gibbard said that he
had been involved in the case. The applicant said that they (meaning his
firm) were issuing writs for conspiracy against a Member of Parliament
(whom he named), the Director of Social Services, the Chief Constable and
another named person. He said that he had been wined and dined every night for weeks by different people from the press, including national newspapers.

SEVENTH INCIDENT

This was on 16th February 1991 and was the subject of a statement by
Detective Constable Cheney dated 11th July 1991. A man (known to Detective
Constable Cheney) with previous convictions, and who was then being dealt
with for criminal offences, telephoned Wigston Police station on 16th
February 1991. The man said that the police were looking at a named Member
of Parliament in relation to sexual offences against male persons.
Detective Constable Cheney asked the man how he had obtained this
information. The man told Detective Constable Cheney that it was the
applicant who told him. Later that day Detective Constable Cheney told
Detective Sergeant Creedon of this conversation.

On a number of occasions in February and March 1991, in the course of the
police investigation into allegations against the M.P., the applicant told
Detective Sergeant Creedon that he had documentary evidence to substantiate
those allegations. Despite many requests to supply that evidence to the
police to assist them in their investigations, the applicant never did so.
As a result of counsel’s advice, a letter was written by Detective Chief
Superintendent Carr dated 15th July 1991 to Messrs. Greene D’Sa, requesting
the applicant to supply such evidence to the police. There was no reply to
that letter.

On 28th August 1991, the day before his circular, the Deputy Chief
Constable wrote to the Secretary General of the Law
Society complaining that the applicant had been acting improperly whilst
involved in his duties at police stations in Leicestershire. He highlighted
four areas: (1) breach of confidentiality; (2) impeding interviews; (3)
passing information; and (4) improper disclosure. The Deputy Chief
Constable referred to certain incidents in the most general terms. He said
that he had received advice from leading counsel suggesting that he should
inform sub-divisional commanders of the applicant’s behaviour. They would
be supplied with documentary evidence supporting the Deputy Chief
Constable’s observations. The letter concluded:

“The advice gives those officers responsible material which may assist them
when considering if Mr. Henning should be allowed to be present during
interviews with persons whether in custody or not.

“The matters set out above are of a serious nature and you may well feel
the need to speak to me regarding them.”

On the following day, 29th August 1991, the Deputy Chief Constable sent out
his circular to all sub-divisional commanders and departmental commanders.
Also on that day the Deputy Chief Constable invited Mr. Peter Greene, a
partner in Greene D’Sa, to his office and gave him a general outline of the
allegations against the applicant, much as he had done in his letter to the
Law Society. Neither specific details nor dates were given. On 11th
September 1991 the Deputy Chief Constable sought the view of the
Solicitors’ Complaints’ Bureau as to the advisability of providing a copy
to Greene D’Sa of his letter of complaint dated 28th August 1991, and added:

“… it is perhaps worth reiterating that there are other matters which are
still under investigation which were not included in the letter” (that is the letter of complaint dated 28th August 1991).

That refers, as Mr. Thwaites on behalf of the applicant submitted, to the
investigation which led to the applicant’s arrest on 3rd December 1991. I
will come to that later.

By 18th September 1991 the Law Society had forwarded a copy of the Deputy
Chief Constable’s letter of complaint to Mr. Greene, who wrote on that day
to the Deputy Chief Constable asking for copies of the documentary evidence
referred to in his letter to the Law Society. Mr. Greene expressed his
concern that he wished to be in a position to investigate the Deputy Chief
Constable’s complaints against the applicant, and that the applicant should
be enabled to reply to the Deputy Chief Constable’s allegations without any
further delay. Mr. Greene asked for full particulars of the allegations and
of the “advice” given to sub-divisional commanders. Mr. Greene’s letter
concluded:

“In view of the effect that this matter is having upon my firm and upon Mr.
Henning, I must ask, firstly, that you reply with all possible speed to the
request in this letter and, secondly, that you urgently consider the matter
and withdraw the advice to your sub-divisional commanders.

“Unless the information I have requested both enables me to investigate
matters fully and to come to the conclusion that the complaints of ‘acting
improperly’ are substantiated and justify the action which you have taken,
I must advise you that serious and urgent consideration will be given to an
application to the High Court for judicial review and/or such other
proceedings as counsel considers appropriate.”

The Deputy Chief Constable replied on 26th September 1991 as follows:

“I have noted the contents of your letter of 18th September 1991 and have
sent a copy to the Crown Prosecution Service to enable them to seek the views of counsel before I respond in detail to the matters that you have raised. When I have received the advice from counsel, I will write to you again.”

On 3rd October 1991 Mr. Greene wrote on behalf of the applicant to the
Solicitors’ Complaints’ Bureau with a copy to the Deputy Chief Constable,
denying that the applicant had behaved improperly, denying breach of
confidentiality, passing information and improper disclosure, and seeking
to explain that there had been no impeding of interviews.

On 30th October 1991 the Deputy Chief Constable wrote to Mr. Greene in the
following terms:

“I refer to our recent correspondence concerning Mr. Henning. I have
received further advice from leading counsel, as a consequence of which I
shall provide you with further information already prepared as soon as the
current trial of Frank Beck has finished.”

On 4th November 1991 Miss Rudder of the Solicitors’ Complaints’ Bureau
wrote to the Deputy Chief Constable in the following terms:

“You will see the difficulty Mr. Greene is having in dealing with your
allegations. He has also confirmed in a further letter that he had written
to you requesting further information and has received no response other
than a simple acknowledgment. On the information available to the Bureau
and in the light of the response received from Mr. Greene, it does not
appear that there has been any action by Mr. Henning which would amount to
professional misconduct.”

Later on in the letter Miss Rudder wrote this:

“The Bureau does not, of course, have any control or involvement in the
internal procedures adopted by your establishment. However, I assume that a
proper investigation of the allegations would be undertaken with Mr.
Henning, and his firm being given the opportunity to respond to the
allegations, and Mr. Henning will not be prejudiced in carrying out his
duties until the matter has been looked into. In that regard, assuming it
to be the case, can you please confirm to me that a copy of the letter of
3rd October received from the senior partner in response to the allegations will also
be circulated to your sub-divisional commanders when considering the
matter.”

On 3rd December 1991 Greene D’Sa sent to the respondent a notice of
application for leave to apply for judicial review, informing him that at
an ex parte hearing the application was adjourned for two weeks to allow
time for the respondent to file an affidavit in reply and be represented on
the adjourned hearing.

On 11th December 1991 the Deputy Chief Constable wrote to Mr. Greene
setting out additional information in respect of “impeding interviews” and
saying:

“You will appreciate that in view of the duration of the trial of your
client Frank Beck, it would have been inappropriate to have given you such
details earlier.”

The Deputy Chief Constable offered facilities for listening to the relevant
tapes. Further details were given in respect of incidents 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Incidents 1 and 7 were not referred to. The Deputy Chief Constable
concluded his letter as follows:

“Because all this information leads me to the conclusion that Mr. Henning’s
conduct constitutes a threat to the proper investigation of alleged crimes
and is unprofessional and likely to do harm on the broadest basis, I
consider that he has shown himself to be an unsuitable person to attend an
interview of the suspect or person in custody at a police station, but my
instruction to my divisional officers is to exercise their individual
discretion in each case which comes before them.

“I do not propose to send you a copy of my internal instructions but I am
prepared to let you see it in my office on a confidential basis, by
appointment.”

It is the applicant’s case that the Deputy Chief Constable acted in bad
faith. In order to set that allegation in context, it is necessary to refer
to the circumstances leading to the applicant’s arrest on 3rd December 1991 on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

On 22nd November 1988 a certain defendant was convicted at Leicester Crown
Court of the rape in August 1986 of a certain complainant and was sentenced
to 12 years’ imprisonment. On 13th November 1989 Mr. John Black of counsel
was assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals to represent the
defendant on his appeal. Mr. Black, in an advice dated 9th January 1990,
set out a number of matters that needed to be investigated. That resulted
in legal aid being extended to cover the services of a solicitor, Messrs.
Greene D’Sa, to assist upon that limited basis. Mr. Black’s instructions
were that not only had the complainant not identified the defendant (the
Crown’s case had been based upon DNA evidence) but that the complainant
knew the defendant and might be able to help. It was thought that she might
be able to provide fresh evidence. Mr. Black instructed Messrs. Greene D’Sa
to see if the complainant would agree to be seen for the purpose of
ascertaining whether she could help.

On 28th March 1990 the applicant called at the complainant’s home. What
happened there led to his arrest on 3rd December 1991. The complainant,
after the applicant had left, telephoned WPC Jones who telephoned Messrs.
Greene D’Sa to confirm that the applicant was from that firm. No statements
were then taken from the complainant or her boyfriend who had arrived while
the applicant was still at the complainant’s home. At that stage no further
action was taken. By letter dated 31st March 1990 the applicant wrote to
Mr. Black recounting the details of his visit to the complainant’s home three days earlier,
confirming that the defendant was the right man and explaining that the
complainant had identified the defendant at the identification parade not
by picking him out at the time, because she was too frightened to do so,
but by telling the two policemen present after the parade that it was No.
4, the defendant. On 6th December 1990 the complainant was visited at her
home by police officers, when she made a statement. In it she complained
that a man came to her door, introducing himself as a representative of
Greene D’Sa, solicitors. This was some time in March 1990. Her statement
continues:

“He began by telling me that he had been asked to call on behalf of a
client who had been ‘wrongly put away for 12 years’. I said, ‘I assume we
are talking about the defendant.’ He confirmed this and said that the
defendant was appealing against his conviction. I cannot recall the exact
conversation that followed but he started to say that I had been ‘paid a
lot of money to keep my mouth shut and then a lot of money to keep my mouth
open’.”

The man had suggested that the police had lied about the forensic evidence.
The complainant’s statement continued:

“The whole purpose of his visit to me seemed to be with the intention of
getting me to change my evidence. At some stage my husband returned home
and was present during part of the conversation. As a result of this visit
I was very distressed and in fact cried. I then immediately telephoned
Detective Policewoman Jones and informed her of this visit.”

Again no action was taken, although the Deputy Chief Constable’s letter
dated 11th December 1991 to the Solicitors’ Complaints’ Bureau did refer to
“other matters which are still under investigation”. On 25th November 1991
a further statement was taken from the complainant at her home. It reads:
“I have been asked again by the police about this. There had been no
warning or any notification from anyone prior to the man visiting me.
During the conversation he spoke of me first being paid to keep my mouth
shut and then open. I cannot now, and could not then, think of who he was
referring to as paying me to keep my mouth shut, but the insinuation was
that it was the police who paid me to open it. This conversation was tied
up with him saying that the police had lied about things. As I stated
previously, the visit by this man upset me considerably.”

A statement was taken on the same occasion from the complainant’s
boyfriend. His statement reads:

“I arrived home and found there was a man in the house talking to the
complainant. I immediately saw that the complainant was distressed by the
attitude of the man and this distress had been caused prior to, and then
during, my presence. The man repeatedly asked the complainant if she was
‘sure’. He certainly mentioned the identification parade and wanted to know
if the complainant had picked out the right man. I recall that he said that
the police had lied about the forensic evidence against the defendant. The
overall impression that I got was that the man thought that the defendant
was innocent and was convinced of that fact. He was trying to convince the
complainant of the same and this was upsetting her. I would like to add
that after the man left our house the complainant started to cry and her
distress became worse. I was very annoyed by this visit which as far as I
know was without prior appointment.”

On 26th November 1991 WPC Jones, then no longer employed as a police
officer with the Leicestershire Constabulary, made a statement. She had
been involved in the original rape investigation and had stayed in contact
with the complainant. In her statement she said that about 18 months
earlier she had received a telephone call from the complainant regarding a
visit to her home by somebody from the defendant’s solicitors. The
complainant was upset. She then telephoned Messrs. Greene D’Sa who were the
defendant’s solicitors. Her statement continues:

“I do not remember the name of the person I spoke to, but I do know that it
was he who had been to see the complainant at her home. The man was evasive as to why he had been round to the complainant’s home and he made out that the matter had been
unimportant. I told the man that he had upset the complainant and that if
he needed to see her again he should contact the police officer in the
case, Detective Sergeant Davis, or myself, in order that one of us could be
present.”

On 3rd December 1991 the applicant was arrested at 7.28 a.m. outside his
home on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice relating
to the case of the defendant. The applicant was kept in custody and
interviewed at length throughout the day. The applicant was given no
explanation as to why the matter had not been pursued for some 21 months.
The applicant was bailed to return on 9th January 1992.

On 24th December 1991 a Mr. Harrison of Greene D’Sa wrote to the respondent
commenting about the considerable delay before the police had taken any
action. That letter included this paragraph:

“You will appreciate that we wrote to your Department on 22nd November and
that our Mr. Greene informed your office on the telephone on 25th November
1991 that the judicial review proceedings were being issued. We totally
accept the investigating officers’ assurance that they knew nothing of the
judicial review proceedings and that this conjunction of matters on the
same day is purely coincidental. It is however unfortunate that the
investigations into matters which raise significant questions of law (quite
apart from any disputed allegations of fact) were not completed before the
High Court considered the application for leave on 16th December 1991.”

There was further correspondence between the parties not before the Court
which culminated in a letter from the Deputy Chief Constable dated 9th
January 1992 to Messrs. Greene D’Sa setting out the reasons for the delay
in arresting the applicant. That letter, so far as material, reads:
“Initial contact was made by the complainant with former Detective
Policewoman Jones (now retired) as a consequence of which the officer
contacted your office and spoke to Mr. Henning who admitted that he had
approached the complainant. It was not until later in the year (September
or October —I will endeavour to ascertain the exact date) that further
contact was made by the complainant (who was upset and concerned) this time
with Sergeant Davis, and fuller details of the form and nature of Mr.
Henning’s approach to her became known. He contacted the Crown Prosecution
Service for advice and in due course arranged for an officer unconnected
with the particular defendant’s case to see the complainant and take a
statement from her. This was done on 6th December 1990. This statement is
being made available to your counsel by our counsel, it is hoped this week.

“This material, together with other information, was in due course
submitted to counsel for his advice. In accordance with that advice, no
steps were to be taken in respect of Mr. Henning in relation to the
complainant’s complaint until after the trial of Frank Beck, for two major
reasons. One was that no opportunity was to be given to Beck to raise any
further spurious allegations that his case or defence was being interfered
with or handicapped, and the other was that your firm should in no way be
hindered by the consequential arrest of Mr. Henning and his interview at a
time when he was involved on your behalf on a daily basis during the trial
of Frank Beck. The two major reasons are of course inextricably linked.
Though I appreciate what you say in certain paragraphs in the second page
of your letter, it was not for obvious reasons possible to alert you to the
position.

“The complaint of the complainant was, when fully known and the
implications understood, treated very seriously. Any delay (if there has
been such) was occasioned by the need to have regard to the sensitive
aspects of the Beck trial.”

I then come to the grounds on which relief is sought, which may be
summarised as follows:

1.That the Deputy Chief Constable’s decision to send the circular of 29th
August 1991 and/or his alleged decision effectively to exclude the
applicant from police stations in the Leicester area, and/or the decisions of individual inspectors to do so, were all unreasonable within
the * Wednesbury * principle generally, and specifically by reason of
irrelevant considerations having been taken into account;

2.That the Deputy Chief Constable’s decisions were made in bad faith.

There is an additional ground, namely, that the Deputy Chief Constable’s
decisions, and thus those of the individual inspectors, were based upon
errors of fact. This is not an appeal from the Deputy Chief Constable’s
decision or those of the individual inspectors. In the absence of bad
faith, errors of fact are immaterial. At all events, there is no credible
suggestion that the dossier sent with the circular on 29th August 1991
contained material which was not reasonably believed by the Deputy Chief
Constable, and the officers concerned in compiling it, to be accurate.

Mr. Thwaites submitted that once the facts were challenged by Mr. Greene in
his letter dated 3rd October 1991, and once Miss Rudder had suggested in
her letter dated 4th November 1991 that a copy of Mr. Greene’s letter
should be circulated to the sub-divisional commanders, the Deputy Chief
Constable should either have instituted a proper investigation without
delay or at least have taken up Miss Rudder’s suggestion.

Mr. Thwaites submitted that the first, third, fifth, sixth and seventh
incidents have nothing to do with hindering the investigation of crime.
They were all conversations, in his submission, alleged to have taken place
between the applicant
and police officers, and on one occasion in the presence of a detained
person (third incident) and were, in his words, “entirely irrelevant to the
Codes of Practice”. As to the second incident, Mr. Thwaites made detailed
submissions to the effect that the applicant’s comments were capable of
alerting the police to the dangers of calling the witnesses in question. As
to witness C, there was some evidence available to the police by 4th
September 1991 (see page 108) that he had been involved in armed robberies
in the Manchester area. Frank Beck may have had difficulty in remembering
witnesses. It must have been the applicant’s primary purpose in
interrupting the tape-recorded interviews as he did to assist Frank Beck’s
memory, with the incidental benefit to the police of their being alerted to
difficulties they might have with their witnesses. As to the fourth
incident, Mr. Thwaites submitted that what the applicant had said to the
first defendant in the private consultation was to prevent the police
interviewing him without first rearresting him on suspicion of stealing the
cassette player contrary to section 37, sub-section 2, of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act. In any event, the incident was trivial and was as
long ago as 28th September 1990, and nothing had been said to the applicant
about it at the time. What the police had done, in Mr. Thwaites’
submission, was to dredge up whatever could be found against the applicant
in order to make out a case against him for ulterior motives, there being
no genuine belief that the applicant would actually hinder the
investigation of crime. No complaint had been made about any of the incidents to the applicant at the time.

That this was a case of bad faith was, in Mr. Thwaites’ submission, borne
out by the way in which the Deputy Chief Constable had approached the
matter after he had sent out the circular in: (i) refusing to provide a
copy to Mr. Greene of his letter of complaint to the Law Society; (ii)
refusing to give proper details of the allegations against the applicant;
and (iii) refusing to send to divisional sub-commanders either Mr. Greene’s
letter of 3rd October 1991 or Miss Rudder’s letter of 4th November 1991.

Mr. Thwaites made further submissions as to the proper interpretation and
effect of paragraphs 6.9 to 6.13 of Code C. They may be summarised as
follows:

1.Paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 provided exclusively for the circumstances in
which a solicitor’s clerk could be excluded from a police station, in the
sense that paragraph 6.13 was to be interpreted as limiting the ambit of
paragraph 6.12 and as providing for the only matters which were permitted
to be taken into account in exercising the discretion given by paragraph
6.12.

2.The words “of suitable character to provide legal advice” in paragraph
6.13 were to be read restrictively as not including previous misconduct of
any kind short of conduct resulting in a relevant criminal conviction or,
for example, conduct resulting in a finding by the Law Society of relevant
professional misconduct. Paragraph 6.13 and thus paragraph 6.12 did not include a reference to previous misconduct at
interviews; that was provided for exclusively in paragraph 6.9.

3.The Deputy Chief Constable’s circular was fatally flawed because it not
only made no reference to paragraph 6.13 but referred to an out-of-date
memorandum dated 5th April 1989 which in turn referred to the old Code
which had been superseded by the new Code effective from 1st April 1991 and
which did not have the equivalent of paragraph 6.13 in it. The Deputy Chief
Constable thus substituted his own decision under the old Code for the
inspector’s discretion under paragraph 6.13.

4.Once a solicitor’s clerk was in the police station present at the
interview of a suspect, any conduct of his disruptive of the interview fell
to be dealt with exclusively under paragraph 6.9. There was no room for it
to be dealt with in any other way under Code C. Such conduct could not
later be deployed under paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 to exclude the solicitor’s
clerk from the police station. The exclusive remedy for misbehaviour by a
solicitor’s clerk during an interview was the removal of him from the
interview pursuant to paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10.

Mr. Seagroatt, on behalf of the respondent, made the following submissions:

1.As to bad faith, the circumstances giving rise to the arrest of the
applicant on 3rd December 1991 were set out in the Deputy Chief Constable’s
letter dated 9th January 1992. Mr. Seagroatt himself had given the advice that the applicant was not to be
arrested until after the completion of the Beck trial. That decision not to
arrest the applicant until then was made before the Deputy Chief
Constable’s decision to send the circular dated 29th August 1991. The
various allegations against the complainant were not set out in detail
until the Deputy Chief Constable’s letter dated 11th December 1991 for the
very same reasons as it was decided on counsel’s advice not to arrest the
applicant until after the Beck trial. The decision to arrest the applicant
was made on the basis of the complainant’s statement of 6th December 1990
and with some appreciation of the delay from March 1990 and of the fact
that the arrest was to take place after the Beck trial.

2.As to the submission that the circular was flawed, clearly the new Code
was relied on by the Deputy Chief Constable, if only because paragraph 6.14
which appears only in the new Code was specifically referred to by him in
his circular. Police officers would in any event have had regard to the
other paragraphs of the new Code which would have been familiar to them.
Paragraph 6.12 was the operative paragraph. Paragraph 6.13 set out the
matters to be taken into account in exercising the discretion given by
paragraph 6.12 and did not limit the mischief at which paragraph 6.12 was
directed. In any event, the words in paragraph 6.13 “of suitable character
to provide legal advice” were not limited to a consideration of criminal convictions or other established misconduct. In applying paragraphs 6.9 and
6.10, investigating officers had to exercise their judgment as to whether
disruption should lead them to stop an interview. It was not every
hindering disruption which would call for the application of paragraphs 6.9
and 6.10. Those paragraphs did not provide the only remedy within the Code
for disruption which hindered the investigation of crime.

3.The second incident went far beyond anything the applicant was entitled
to do. Regardless of what witness A had said, this was not an occasion to
divert attention away from matters being dealt with in the interview. The
applicant’s conduct in those interviews did hinder the investigation of
crime. The investigating officers had to exercise their discretion whether
to stop the interview; they were not obliged to do so. As to witness B,
this was a diversion of the applicant’s making. As to witness C, this was a
more extreme case. It did not matter what witness C’s antecedents in fact
were; they could be evaluated later in the course of preparing the defence.
This was a case of sexual abuse and not one of armed robbery. Mr. Seagroatt
pointed out a further example in the dossier of a further prolonged
diversion of an interview with Beck, this time on tape 7, where the
applicant persisted in making allegations of the intimidation of witnesses
by the police after Beck had shortly referred to that matter. The fourth
incident showed that after the defendants had been rearrested for burglary and after the first interview concerning the second defendant had
been conducted without objection by the applicant, the applicant
deliberately disclosed to the first defendant, who was yet to be
interviewed, what the contents of the interview with the second defendant
had been. Having rearrested the defendants for burglary, the police were
entitled to ask the defendants about their apparent possession of the
recently stolen cassette player. The third incident gave rise, at least, to
a risk of hindrance to the investigation. The other incidents concerned the
investigation of highly sensitive matters; the applicant’s conduct had been
indiscreet and unprofessional. The fifth incident was an example of the
applicant’s persistent claims that he had in his possession evidence
substantiating serious crime which he equally persistently failed to supply
to the police, despite numerous requests to do so. Mr. Seagroatt gave two
further examples of the applicant’s conduct which had given cause for
concern and which highlighted the concern which the incidents in relation
to the allegation against the M.P. had caused. Both examples arose out of a
chronology of events prepared by the applicant which had been sent to the
respondent and concerned that M.P. The first of those examples concerned an
entry in the chronology on or about 13th July 1991 referring to an alleged
occasion at Leicester Crown Court when leading counsel prosecuting Frank
Beck was asked why he had not called a particular witness, and leading counsel was alleged to have said, “I couldn’t; he was
as guilty as hell.” Leading counsel, in an affidavit before the Court,
deposed to the fact that he had made no such statement. The second example
concerned entries in the chronology for 16th and 17th July of 1991. Those
entries contained the plain implication that the applicant’s briefcase had
been stolen from the solicitors’ robing room at Leicester Crown Court by
senior police officers and the contents of it tampered with by them. Such
allegations were denied by those officers in affidavits before the Court.
Those officers were at the Leicester Crown Court on 16th July 1991, as they
deposed, for the purpose of obtaining the advice of leading counsel
specifically in relation to the activities of the applicant.

4.As to the submission that there had in effect been a blanket ban upon the
applicant entering police stations in the Leicester area, the applicant’s
third affidavit plainly showed that there had been no such blanket ban. The
applicant had been allowed on many occasions into police stations in that
area since August 1991 without impediment, showing that the discretion of
station officers under the Code had been exercised.

5.The Deputy Chief Constable’s decision to send the circular had been made
reasonably upon the material before him and, in so far as the dossier
contained material not directly relevant to the question of hindering the
investigation of crime, it could not materially have affected the Deputy Chief Constable’s
decision.

The first question before the Court is whether, on the material before him,
including the fact that the applicant was to be arrested on suspicion of
attempting to pervert the course of justice after the Beck trial, the
Deputy Chief Constable acted reasonably in sending the circular dated 29th
August 1991. In my judgment, he did. The material showed that the applicant
had acted on a number of separate occasions in a manner which disrupted or
diverted interviews. He had acted quite outside his role properly to
represent his client. The Deputy Chief Constable was entitled, in my
judgment, to form the view that such misconduct had hindered the
investigation of crime. The majority of the incidents relating to
conversations about Beck were not irrelevant; they were part of the
relevant history which, taken together with the applicant’s constant
reference to evidence in his possession in relation to the M.P., leading to
the letter of 15th July 1991 calling upon him to supply it to the police,
showed at least that the applicant was prepared to lead the police to
believe that he had evidence substantiating serious crime which he was not
prepared to supply to them. The first, sixth and seventh incidents are very
much on the periphery. Whilst they helped to show the kind of man the
applicant was, they could not, in my judgment, on any proper view have
materially affected the Deputy Chief Constable’s decision to send the
circular. It could not, in my judgment, properly be said that they were
irrelevant considerations upon
which the Deputy Chief Constable’s decision was in any sense based. It is
clear to me that the Deputy Chief Constable’s only decision was to send the
circular; he did not make any decision that the applicant should be
excluded from police stations.

I reject Mr. Thwaites’ interpretation of paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 of Code
C. Paragraph 6.13 is not expressed in language which permits of an
interpretation that would limit the ambit of paragraph 6.12. The opening
words of paragraph 6.13, “In exercising his discretion under paragraph
6.12,” and the words “in particular” in that paragraph, make that clear. It
is not necessary (or, indeed, wise) to define the limits of the words
“hindering the investigation of crime”. I am entirely clear that they do
include, for example, disruptive conduct at the interview of a suspect
which has the effect of hindering the investigation of crime by improperly
diverting the investigating officer from pursuing a proper line of enquiry
at such interview. I do not accept that paragraphs 6.12 or 6.13 may be
invoked only in cases where a solicitors’ clerk has relevant criminal
convictions or where relevant professional misconduct has been established
against him after a full investigation. I see no reason why, for example,
paragraph 6.12 should not be invoked where, as here, a solicitors’ clerk is
suspected of having committed a relevant crime, such as attempting to
pervert the course of justice and/or is known by the police to have been
guilty of relevant past misconduct in the course of interviews.

Paragraph 6.9, in my judgment, plainly does not exclude from further
consideration such disruptive conduct in interviews
falling short of that which would call for resort to paragraph 6.10 to
remove the solicitors’ clerk from the interview. To hold otherwise would,
in my judgment, defeat part at least of the object of paragraph 6.12. At
all events, it seems to me that the words “of suitable character to provide
legal advice” in paragraph 6.13 are not themselves limited to cases where
the solicitors’ clerk has relevant criminal convictions or where relevant
professional misconduct has been established against him after a full
investigation.

As to the allegation of bad faith, this arose at the hearing of this
application. Although arising so late in the day, leave to amend the
grounds in Form 86A was given without objection on behalf of the
respondent. I reject the argument that the respondent acted in bad faith,
whether in deciding to send the circular or in the timing of the
applicant’s arrest or in failing at an early stage to provide full details
of the allegations against the applicant. It is clear to me that once the
sensitive background of the Beck trial is appreciated as the reason for the
timing of the applicant’s arrest and for the delay in giving details of the
allegations against the applicant, there is no substance in the allegation
of bad faith. Indeed, acting on the advice of leading counsel, it is right
to say that the Deputy Chief Constable acted in difficult circumstances
with a proper concern that there should be no disruption of the Beck trial.
I find that the decision of the Deputy Chief Constable was in no sense
unreasonable or irrational within the * Wednesbury * principle, the
peripheral matters in the dossier playing no material part in that decision. The
Deputy Chief Constable’s circular was not flawed by its omission to mention
paragraph 6.13. That paragraph must have been familiar to the relevant
officers; after all, it had been in force since 1st April 1991. I reject
the submission that there was a blanket ban upon the applicant entering
police stations in the Leicester area; the third affidavit of the applicant
really makes it impossible to find otherwise.

Mr. Thwaites made a number of submissions that the applicant was entitled
to a hearing and/or an investigation into the allegations against him
before the Deputy Chief Constable could properly be in a position to send
his circular. I reject that submission. That was not the procedure which
was followed in the case of * ex parte Robinson * (supra ). Indeed, the
Deputy Chief Constable closely followed the procedure referred to in that
case of sending his circular, as he did, and then informing the applicant’s
employers of what he had done.

I emphasise again that this is not an appeal from the Deputy Chief
Constable’s decision or, indeed, those of the inspectors who did exclude
the applicant from certain police stations. I do not make, nor am I in any
position to do so, any finding that the applicant did in fact misconduct
himself. These proceedings have not been directed in any sense to that
issue. I have to ask whether it has been shown that the decisions of the
Deputy Chief Constable and of the relevant inspectors were unreasonable or
irrational within the * Wednesbury * principle at the time they were made
upon the material then available to them. I hold that no such thing has been established, nor has
it been established that any irrelevant consideration played any material
part in any of those decisions.

Accordingly, I would refuse this application for judicial review.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE : I agree. The application is accordingly dismissed

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C]  and Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.

Links

[1] Cathy Fox Blog 2015 May 8 [constantly updated] An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/

[C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/

[D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email cathyfox@bigfoot.com

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

Advertisements

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in #OpDeathEaters, #OpPaedoHunt, cathy fox blog, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Government, Leicestershire, MI5 MI6 Security Services, Police, Police Operations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Ian James Henning 3rd December 1993 Application for Judicial Review [Frank Beck]

  1. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court & Court of Appeal, EWCA Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathyfox blog

  2. Pingback: Leicestershire Child Abuse 1 – Frank Beck -working document | cathyfox blog

  3. artmanjosephgrech says:

    An excellent development

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s