Senior
Investigating Officers make hundreds of decisions, most of which are actually
of very little consequence. Of the few
that do really matter, some are surprisingly easy. At least I suppose that
many others will be surprised that they
are really what seem these days to be called ‘no brainers’.
A
strangely frequent no brainer is whether to secure some evidence of a serious
crime in circumstances where it is obvious that the admissibility of that
evidence might at some later date be called into question. My thinking in these situations was pretty
swift, and went along these lines: If we
don’t get the evidence now, we might not ever get it. It won’t then be available at court. If we get it but it is challenged, the learned
Judge might exercise discretion against us, and we might lose it. It won’t then be available at court. But he or she might just let it in, and we
will have it. So let’s get what we can,
and then let the court decide - the worst that might happen is that we end up in the same position we would have been in had we not secured it. There is nothing to lose. At least that was how it seemed.
But
this thinking relied upon two principles which we took for granted, but which
the shameful treatment of Detective Superintendent Steven Fulcher has now called into
question. First, our criminal justice
system eschewed the American doctrine of ‘the fruit of the forbidden
tree’. Essentially, evidence which was
obviously correct, which pointed to an incontrovertible objective truth, was
admissible even if procedure had not been followed in unearthing it. So a search without reasonable suspicion,
without a warrant, even an irregular interview, were of no consequence if they
yielded sound evidence.
Jurisprudentially, the concept of objective truth was accepted and it
trumped whatever procedural niceties the Judges’ Rules or then the Police &
Criminal Evidence Act threw up in the path that led to it. Secondly we, the SIOs, knew that our first
duty was to the community we served, and that we could justify decisions as
being faithful to that duty without fear for our reputation, career or
pension. Which is how it should of
course be, unless we want those who take the decisions in major investigations
to be putting themselves before the people they have sworn to serve.
The
awful and unwarranted predicament in which Steven Fulcher now finds
himself has cast serious doubts on all this; doubts which have terrible
implications for us all. When confronted
by a self-confessed murderer telling him of the location of a further victim,
Mr. Fulcher had to take a decision. But
it was a no brainer. He could comply
with PACE, return to the station, and commence an interview, at some point
after a solicitor had been summoned, advice given and the tape machine switched
on. If, as the result of advice, or a
change of heart, “no comment” was the result, the opportunity to find a body,
to resolve a case and most importantly to let a family know what had really
happened to a loved one, would have been lost.
The alternative was to carry on, to strike while the iron was hot and
allow the admission to be made and the body to be found. On the basis that, if the suspect were to
indicate the spot and the body to be found, it was pretty self-evident that the
suspect knew a great deal about it, an objective truth would have been
uncovered and the lack of strict procedural correctness therefore judged
irrelevant. Which is what Steven Fulcher
did, and which – I hope – any SIO worthy of the name would have done.
I
can just about understand the Judge’s ruling that the evidence of the second murder is inadmissible. I do not agree with it, however I am sure he was applying the law faithfully as he saw it. But what I cannot fathom is the decision - presumably
taken by the top team within Wiltshire Police - to suspend Steven Fulcher and
call in the IPCC. Because SIOs are going
to take note and inevitably factor their own career prospects in to similar
decisions in future, to the detriment of victims, their families and the
community. Which will equally inevitably
mean bodies not found, crimes not solved and victims not satisfied.
Police Officers who take money, who falsify
evidence, who are too lazy to act, who use excessive force – these are the ones
who should be suspended, investigated and dealt with. Those like Steven Fulcher, who do the best
they think they can, honestly, in a considered manner and prioritising the
interests of victims and the community, should be applauded, not suspended.
