Oh, the irony. As we are told that Leicestershire Police are
rationing resources by investigating your burglary vigorously only if your door
number happens to be odd, as Sara Thornton doubts whether police could or
should visit burglary victims anyway, what happens? Five forces embark upon another series of resource-intensive
investigations which cannot possibly result in the suspect being prosecuted. Because he is long dead.
The one senior police officer to
get it anything like right this week was Sir Peter Fahy when he tweeted:
“Just
because we are there 24 hours a day does not mean that we are always the best
suited to deal with vulnerable people after 5pm”
At least I think he did. If I have interpreted the tweet correctly it
fits exactly with a principle growing ever-stronger in my thinking: That Police
must concentrate what they have on policing, that they must pull in the
tentacles which have been stretching ever-further for the last 30 years and
stop filling in for deficiencies in other public services. As unpalatable as that appears for an
organisation which, as a whole and through its individuals, actually does care.
How does this fit with the Edward
Heath story? I will explain. Ignore the strong possibility that the
politically-motivated, the insane and the spiteful might make false
allegations. Let us assume there is
something in the claims. In the
situation where 70000 officers have apparently been lost, where residential
burglary is being placed on the back burner, where officers of all ranks are
squealing every day about their inability to police the community properly,
what is the point in spending time and money looking into allegations of crimes
many years ago where the alleged perpetrator is dead and therefore no
prosecution can follow?
“The victims”, I hear the
resounding cry. Yes, of course. If there are victims they need caring for. Indeed
– and I promise this is without cynicism – they might also need
compensating. Is the best way to meet these needs really as
by-products of a criminal investigation which cannot possibly achieve the
outcome for which that process actually exists?
That is of course, identification of the offender and adjudication on
his guilt of innocence, followed by sanction if it is found proved.
Victimisation comes in different
forms. We tend to think immediately of
the criminal justice system as the first call to help victims simply because
crime produces more of them than negligence, faulty products breach of contract
and the like, or indeed than accidents and natural disasters. But there is no doubt that non-criminal acts do
leave us with victims – who also need support and compensation. And for which there are mechanisms in place –
counselling, social services, charities and of course litigation. That is where the support and redress for any
victims of Edward Heath should lie.
Consider a person going to see a
solicitor, saying I was abused by Edward Heath in the 1970s and I want to sue
him. How might the solicitor
respond? I suspect that professional ethics
would mean a referral for counselling and support, and a judgement would be
made about the possibility of a successful claim against his estate balancing
the likelihood of acquiring sufficient evidence to prove the case and other considerations
such as time limitations. If the lawyer
thought the claim must fail then that would be the answer. I much prefer this as the sensible way for any
Heath victims to seek assistance.
Why then use police resources to
facilitate help for victims of historical crimes where the suspect is
dead? Because the perception is there is
nobody else? Because only Police can
investigate? Of course not, once more it is police leaders making decisions
because they lack the courage to say no.
Because they fear the consequences (to themselves, their reputation and
career) of a clamour of criticism if they point out the truth - That any
investigation must go nowhere, that the sensible thing to do is to direct the victims to those who can help them and to concentrate what is left of their investigative capacity on
current child-abusers who not only might one day end up gripping the rail at
the Crown Court but more importantly present a current and future danger to our
children. Which is the vital thing for us to get right.
Please do not think in any of
this that I am showing any contempt or lack of compassion. We know people were abused in the past, both
by the famous and by the unknown. We must acknowledge that, offer assistance to those who have suffered and
learn so we can prevent abuse going forward.
There is a judicial inquiry in to child sex abuse already established. Perhaps the sensible thing to do is to widen
its remit so that the Heath allegations are looked at there? As that inquiry progresses it is likely that
it will uncover evidence of offences committed by persons who are still alive;
of course it is right that those offences are referred to the police for
investigation and action. That would be very worthwhile, there would be an
obvious reason to do that.
But let us not detract from the
ordinary, necessary, policing of our communities by diverting resources to
pointless investigations which can be adequately and thoroughly dealt with
elsewhere. On this, as with many other
extraneous demands, Police need to learn to say “No”.
