Counsel Attacks Police Inspector’s Actions

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31082, 10 June 1966, Page 3

Counsel Attacks Police Inspector’s Actions

Bruce Edward Jesson, aged 21, a university student (Mr B. McClelland) pleaded not guilty in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday to charges that he wilfully damaged fences and walls at the Addington Raceway on April 22 and that he attempted to damage the Royal dais in Cambridge terrace.

Mr H. J. Evans, S.M. reserved his decision till Monday. Jesson was allowed bail.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr C. M. Roper, withdrew the original charges that Jesson was a rogue and a vagabond in that he frequented Victoria square with felonious intent and that he unlawfully entered the Addington Raceway with intent to commit a crime.. *

Charles James Anderson, superintendent at the Addington Raceway, said he had inspected the raceway soon after 9 p.m. on April 22 and found the slogan, “Oppose British Royalty,” painted in white on a green fence with 3ft letters. The next morning he had found other slogans such as “Queen Mother go home.” The cost of repair was estimated at £3B.

Murray Noel Williams, a university student, said he went with Jesson and another youth, Goring, to the Addington Raceway where they had painted anti-Royal slogans. After Jesson and Goring left him in a car parked in Kilmore street he went home.

Derek Garrard Goring, a university student, said he went to the Addington Raceway where he thought they took turns at painting the letters. They had then gone to Kilmore street.

Jesson had painted two letters on the floor of the Royal dais but the aerosol paint spray can had jammed. They left but were stopped in Kilmore street by two constables.

Cross-examined, he said that when stopped they had been asked what they were doing. Jesson had replied that he had to give the constables only his name and address. When asked to go to the police station, Jesson asked if he was under arrest and said if he was not he would not go. The constable replied that they were not under arrest but they were being detained for questioning. Jesson had been prevented from leaving and they were kept till Inspector Silk arrived.

Jesson, said Goring, had asked the inspector if he was under arrest and he had said he did not intend going to the station if he was not. Mr Silk had said they were not under arrest but if they did not go to the station he would arrest them. Saw Search He had also seen Mr Silk search Jesson in Kilmore street, looking in all his pockets and running hands over his clothing. He could not remember Jesson objecting or saying the police had no right to search unless they had a warrant or he was under arrest.

lan Leslie Kington, a constable, said Jesson replied that all he had to do was to give his name and address. He noticed a paint spray can in Jesson’s pocket. Jesson had refused to hand It over. Cross-examined, witness said he could not recall Jesson being told that although he was not under arrest he was being detained for questioning. While in Kilmore street he had seen Inspector Silk search Jesson who was not under arrest. Robert Peter Silk, an Inspector. said that the Adding-

ton Raceway had been searched. Road blocks and mobile patrols were set up and police dogs were called in. Later he had seen Goring and Jesson in Kilmore street Both told him they were connected with the Committee Opposing Royal Tours. Jesson said he had only to give bis name and address. Silk said he told Jesson that he had seen the antiRoyal slogans at the Addington raceway where white paint was used, that Jesson had been seen kneeling on the floor of the Royal dais in Cambridge terrace. The letters “OP,” the start of the word oppose had been found. Jesson had replied that all he had to do was give his name and address. He was a fourth year law student. No Reply Silk said he told Jesson he was a suspected person loitering with intent and asked

him for an explanation. Jesson made no reply. He produced an aerosol paint spray can taken from Jesson’s pocket. He interviewed Goring at the police station then told Jesson Goring said they had painted anti-Royal slogans on the Addington raceway, that they had followed the Royal route and painted another slogan in Fitzgerald avenue and had begun a slogan on the floor of the Cambridge terrace dais when the can jammed and was that correct? Jesson had replied: “You're telling me. You should know.” When asked where the car was, Jesson replied that he was a fourth year law student and that he did not have to answer the questions, Silk said.

When told he had white paint specks on his face and clothing and asked how they got there, Jesson had said about two hours previously he had used the paint on some old placards for a demonstration. When it was pointed out to him that about two hours previously the slogans had been painted at Addington raceway, Jesson had replied: “You’re pretty clever aren’t you. I’ve said too much already.” Soon after than Jesson was arrested and charged.

Tenor Of Slogans Cross-examined, SHk said that the tenor of the slogans made him take the matter seriously. Inquiries would have been carried out even if the message had been complimentary or if the slogans had read “Vote Labour” or “National.” At Kilmore street Jesson had said he did not have to answer the questions and did not have to go to the station When it was put to the witness that he was asking the Court to accept that Jesson had gone voluntarily to the station after having asked a short time before whether he was under arrest and whether he could go home, Inspector Silk replied he had said to Jesson he would like him to go to the station to clear the matter up and Jesson had gone. Asked if he had searched Jr Jon, Silk said he had removed a can of paint from Jesson’s pocket. Asked the same question, he replied that he did not consider removing a can of paint from a pocket searching. He also said he padded Jesson’s pockets. Silk said he had a right to “frisk” Jesson before he was arrested. Quoted Law At the station before his arrest, Jesson had quoted some law at him in reference to case law and the Judges' Rules, said witness. He agreed it was something to do with the rules on interviewing one accused and then presenting that person’s statement to another. He said he remembered Jesson asking for a solicitor, but that was after he had been arrested. He had withheld permission for Jesson to use the telephone as there was a third person involved and he did not want that person warned. He had told Jesson that he could use the telephone when the third person was in the station.

Mr McClelland: You therefore took it upon yourself to deny him one of his rights. Silk: I took it on myself to deny him that right at that time till I had made a car trip and returned.

Silk said he had knowledge of Jesson’s associates and he had had grave doubts as to what the outcome of the night was going to be. Mr McClelland: In view of that you broke the rules? Inspector Silk: I broke the rules.

He agreed that he had wanted Jesson locked up during the Queen Mother’s visit, but only if it could have been achieved within the law. He denied that the charge of unlawfully entering had been laid to ensure Jesson was locked up during the visit. The charge had fitted the circumstances.

Mr McClelland said he had to criticise the police and In-

spector Silk in particular. Inspector Silk had wrongly searched Jesson in Kilmore street. On his own admission he had taken the can from Jesson’s pocket and at first denied searching him. Later he had said he “frisked” Jesson.

Mr McClelland said Inspector Silk was not telling the truth and he asked the Court to accept the evidence of the constable and of Goring. It was clear beyond all doubt that at the police station Inspector Silk had broken the Judges’ Rules which prohibited putting what had been gained from cross-exam-ination of one person before another.

Although the result in this instance was not serious that did not alter the fact that a senior police officer broke the rules deliberately and knowingly. It was also clear Inspector Silk, had denied Jes-

son the right to see a solicitor. What was worst, two charges which were not correct had beer laid and later withdrawn and Jesson had • been denied the right to see a solicitor and had been locked up for three days. The police should be told that such conduct would not do. Mr McClelland said that if either of the charges was proved Jesson should be discharged under Section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act. A conviction could have a serious effect on Jesson’s career. Mr Roper said the Judges' Rule which it was said had been broken related to persons charged and in custody and at the time Jesson had not been charged. Two wrongs did not make a right but Jesson ha< shown a singular disregard for the rights in law' as they affected others but was jealous of his own rights. “As he has some time yet to finish his law it will give him time to consider how he is going to take his oath of allegiance to the Crown,” Mr Roper said.