THE TIMES
10th APRIL , 1976
This is not the end of the Peter Hain affair
After the trial, controversy grows around the law and the question of identity .
Mr. Peter Hain was found not guilty yesterday on a charge of theft after a 10 day trial at the Old Bailey.
Stewart Tendler gives the background to the case.
On the first day of Mr. Peter Hain's trial , Mr. Michael Corkery, for the prosecution, told the seven women and five men of the jury: " There are obviously many difficulties and dangers in identification." Mr Corkery had no forensic evidence or confessions to offer them, simply the word of four witnesses who identified Mr. Hain as a bank robber. His warning was apt, as the use of identification evidence has become the subject of controversy in recent years. Indeed, Mr. Hain's trial has taken place only a few weeks before publication of Lord Devlin's report on identification procedures. The report was commissioned in 1974 after the Court of Appeal had overturned several convictions based on identification.
Mr. Laszlo Virag was wrongly convicted of using a gun to resist arrest and wounding a policeman, although picked out of an identity parade. Mr. Luke Docherty was wrongly convicted of shoplifting after being identified in court after sitting among jurors. While Lord Devlin was working on his report, which the Home Secretary has, the trial of Mr. George Ince for the Barn Restaurant murder in 1975 raised further questions. Now Mr. Hain's trial, with all the publicity attendant on a famous opponent of apartheid and leader of the Young Liberals, has again tested the view of Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, who said two years ago that misidentification was "the most serious chink in our armour when we say British justice is the best in the world".
The Crown's case against Mr. Hain was, put simply, that he walked into Barclays Bank in Upper Richmond Road, Putney, on October 24 last year and snatched £490 in £5 notes after asking Mrs. Lucy Haines, a cashier, to change a £10 note. He ran from the bank, not far from his home, pursued by Mr. Timothy Hayne, a bank accountant.
Mr. Hayne lost the thief but the chase was observed by four schoolboys. They caught up with Mr. Hayne and learnt what had happened. The boys walked back towards Putney High Street, then saw Mr. Hain get out of his car and go into W. H. Smith's. Three boys thought he was the thief, took his car registration number and passed it to the police. Mr. Hain was arrested and charged by the police on the basis of the witnesses they had and the fact that he was near the bank about the time of the robbery. The identity parade was three days later Fingerprints on a £10 note and a bundle of £5 notes which were recovered did not match his fingerprints. In court the prosecution's 13 witnesses described the man they saw either in the bank or during the chase. All agreed roughly on points like the colour and type of hair, height and age. Some added that the thief looked foreign. However, only four of the 13, Mrs. Haines and the three boys, could swear it was Mr. Hain.
Mrs. Haines and the other adult witnesses thought he wore a white or light-coloured shirt and no glasses. The three boys said the thief was wearing a check shirt but differed over the colour of the shirt and other clothes. Damian Keady and Neil Lovelock said he wore dark- rimmed glasses like those Mr. Hain wore as he got out of his car. John Brewster said he did not. The boys were on the opposite side of Putney High Street when the chase passed them and they were strung out behind Mr. Hayne as he chased the thief. The Crown thus had four key witnesses who disagreed about what they had seen. Mrs. Haines told the court she picked out Mr. Hain at the identity parade, although his hair and build were different from the thief's.
Another witness picked out one of the volunteers for the parade. The police admit they were thrown into some confusion when a car they traced as belonging to Mr. Walter Hain, Mr Hain's father, yielded the enfant terrible of British politics. The detective who took charge of the case did not until then know Mr. Hain lived in the area. Mr. Hain was held and charged because the boys' evidence directly linked him with the theft and because he fitted descriptions of the thief, including a Photofit.
That picture was made because a Photofit expert, the most senior of four in Britain, happened to be at Wandsworth police station and was asked to see Mrs. Haines. The three boys were interviewed for several hours and the police felt they had a prima facie case. Then Mr. Hain was told he would be charged. That was not for three hours because some juvenile offenders were waiting to be charged first. While Mr. Hain was waiting, a report, at the suggestion of senior local officers, was sent to New Scotland Yard and read by Mr. Ernest Bond, then Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The divisional detectives were told that an identity parade must be held before Mr. Hain appeared in court. New Scotland Yard's press bureau had been told to keep the arrest secret. One national newspaper rang detectives on Saturday morning as Mr. Hain was leaving and the reporter was told his story was wrong. However, although the police and the defence had agreed to keep the matter quiet, the news leaked out and appeared in a Sunday newspaper.
The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted because a public figure was involved and authorized the prosecution. The decision to continue the case was taken after discussions with counsel. With Mr. Hain charged, it appears that the DPP felt the matter should go ahead. Government law officers could, informally, have been asked for their opinion and authority. They were not asked about the case and saw no papers. Even the police were surprised when they heard the case was to go to the Central Criminal Court. They-were told it was because the matter was of public importance. Presumably for that reason, the case was heard speedily and the most senior Treasury counsel available led for the prosecution. As the trial grew nearer, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe's problems became public, including the possibility that South African interests were trying to smear the Liberals, including Mr Hain. The defence chose not to bring into court the story told by Mr. Kenneth Wyatt.
Mr. Wyatt claimed he saw dossiers which included details of how Mr. Hain was framed. A double was flown to Britain from South Africa and the robbery timed by two-way radio, alerting the double that Mr. Hain had left his home.
The end of the trial will not be the end of the affair. A complaint about police procedure, such as the delay in calling the identity parade, has been lodged by the Young Liberals and passed to AO, the department dealing with complaints at New Scotland Yard.
No comments:
Post a Comment