REPORT OF INQUIRY HELD BY T. HOLLIS WALKER, ESQ., K.C., AND C. DE COURCY PARRY, ESQ., C.B.E., UNDER THE TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921. . Whereas it was resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it was expedient that a tribunal should be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance that is to say the matters of complaint that have arisen between the Watch Committee of St. Helens and the Chief Constable of the Borough Police Force touching the administration of the Force, and whereas by writing under his hand bearing date 29th February, 1928, the Right Honourable Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Bt., M.P., appointed in pursuance of the said resolutions Thomas Hollis Walker, K.C. (Recorder of Derby), and C. de Courcy Parry, C.B.E. (one of H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary) to inquire into the said matter, and directed that the said Act should apply, Now we the said Thomas Hollis Walker and C. de Courcy Parry having inquired into the said matter in pursuance of the said appointinent and in accordance with the said Act report as follows: On divers days in the months of March and April, 1928, at the Town Hall, St. Helens, we held a public inquiry into the matters of complaint that have arisen between the Watch Committee of St. Helens and the Chief Constable of the Borough Police Force touching the administration of the Force. With our consent both the Watch Committee and the Chief Constable appeared before us by counsel. The matters of complaint made by the Watch Committee against the Chief Constable were detailed in a series of documents entitled particulars of complaints" and delivered by the Town Clerk to us and to the Chief Constable from March 6th to March 13th (inclusive). 1. The Chief Constable's dealings with the Watch Committee and the individual members of it. 2. His conduct before the St. Helens Bench of Magistrates. 3. His dealings with the other members of the St. Helens police force and their lawful organisations. 4. His behaviour towards members of the public. 5. His personal honour. 1. The Watch Committee. Mr. Arthur Robert Ellerington joined the East Riding Police Force as a constable in 1891. His rise was rapid, on many occasions he was specially commended for good work, and in 1902 he became Chief Constable of Margate, being still under 30 years of age. In December, 1904, he was appointed Chief Constable of St. Helens and took up his new duties in January of the following year. No At that time the condition of the St. Helens police force was far from satisfactory; it was badly regulated and discipline hardly existed. Mr. Dixon-Nuttall and Dr. Bates, who interviewed the candidates for the post of Chief Constable, told us that they looked for a strong man to carry through the drastic alterations which the situation called for. There can be no doubt that Mr. Ellerington was a strong man young, full of zeal and vigour, and with a commanding presence, he introduced great and valuable changes, which inevitably aroused a certain amount of hostility among those who preferred the easy-going past. doubt his régime was severe and his discipline strict, but there was not the slightest evidence before us to suggest that in his early days at St. Helens his management of the force was not entirely satisfactory to the Watch Committee, or that his relations with the Watch Committee were not perfectly cordial. From time to time his work received special commendation, and the committee, recognising the value and success of his efforts, gave him their full support. The Chief Constable himself stated that friction first arose in 1918, but for some years after that there is no sign of serious trouble, and but for the events of the last few years we do not think that the present complaint would ever have arisen. That complaint is one of general discourtesy and incivility to the committee and of specific occasions of misbehaviour towards individual members. It was supported by the evidence of five members of the committeeAlderman Waring the present Mayor (who joined the committee in 1921), Alderman Boscow, the present chairman (1923), Alderman Peter Phythian (1909), Councillor Dodd (1922), and Councillor Thackray (1926). These five constitute the subCommittee of the Watch Committee appointed to formulate the case against the Chief Constable, and it is beyond question that they are now actively hostile to him and anxious to get rid of him. The first allegation of Alderman Waring had reference to a time before the war, when he was not a member of the Watch Committee at all. The Chief Constable mentioned to the alderman the fact that complaints had been received about the conduct of a club in which the latter was interested, and this occurred just before a council meeting at which some question affecting the Chief Constable's salary was to be discussed. No proceedings were contemplated or threatened, but Alderman Waring jumped to the conclusion that this was a wicked attempt to influence his vote at the council meeting, 66298 A 2 and he has more than once said "I felt that I was in his power.' We are satisfied that there is no justification for this sinister inference, but the incident serves as an example of the distrust and suspicion which have long characterised Alderman Waring's feelings towards the Chief Constable. Alderman Waring next took us to September, 1924. During that year he had been made a magistrate, and on September 8th he was a member of a court which tried a charge of assault brought by P.C. Drysdale against a man named Plimblet. The case was dismissed, and two days later Alderman Waring brought the whole subject of Drysdale's conduct before the Watch Committee. Alderman Waring complained that P.C. Drysdale had unnecessarily interfered with the common liberties of the people-dispersing groups who were doing no harm, interfering with dancers at Gaskill Park, persecuting women who picked rubbish from the waste tip, and using bad language to children—and he especially condemned the constable's conduct in connection with the Plimblet case. These allegations were derived from information given to the Alderman by his own son and daughter and by other persons some considerable time before. At the meeting of September 10th the chief constable stated that there was a feeling among the force that the Alderman had exercised undue influence against Drysdale at the magisterial hearing two days before. In the particulars the complaint against the Chief Constable is that he accused the Alderman" of sitting as a magistrate on the Bench, alleging he was not on the rota.' In fact he was on the rota for the day, but not upon the printed list which had been drawn up before his name was placed upon the commission. The only note of the meeting of September 10th is obviously incomplete, but it is clear that the subject of rota was mentioned by somebody, and it was never made clear who that somebody was. In our opinion this is not the material point; the essence of the matter is the suggestion that Alderman Waring was biassed against Drysdale and ought not to have adjudicated. We do not doubt that the Alderman could give a just decision on the evidence notwithstanding his suspected leanings, but we can also see that many people would think, and not unreasonably, that it would have been better if he had stayed away. We believe that members of the force had expressed to the Chief Constable their feeling that with Alderman Waring's influence on the Bench the trial had not been satisfactory, and we do not think that the Chief Constable was to blame for mentioning this feeling at the meeting of September 10th. On the facts we do not find that he did more than this. About a month later (October 6th) Alderman Waring brought to the Chief Constable a letter which he had just received containing a similar charge against the same constable. It purported to be signed by four persons, but was obviously all in one handwriting. The police took statements from these persons and every one of them denied all knowledge of the letter. October 11th the Chief Constable wrote to Alderman Waring inviting him to call and see these statements and asking to be allowed to retain the letter. A few days afterwards there was a short conversation in the street, in which the Alderman asked to have the letter returned to him. and the Chief Constable said that he could call for it, but on October 20th the Chief Constable wrote that in view of certain developments he should be obliged to retain it. This produced an indignant demand from the Alderman, dated October 21st-" I shall have that letter " which was followed by an interview between him and the Chief Constable on November 4th, at which it was alleged in the complaints that the Chief Constable said that he was the most unscrupulous man he had ever met. Early in that interview the Alderman asked for the letter; his reason for this request is not clear. In the statement which he sent to the Home Office he suggested that he wanted it to refresh his memory so that he could the better understand the reports which the Chief Constable offered to show him, but in the witness box he told us that he had no particular reason but that he thought it was due to the people who brought it to him that he should not let it go out of his possession. He certainly asked for it, and the Chief Constable, mindful of the letter of October 21st, replied, "Will you give it back to me?" The Alderman, according to his own evidence, then said, "I shall get that letter when I do get it honestly.' He told us that he meant that the Chief Constable was dishonest, but he now objects because he in turn was called unscrupulous. We are driven to the conclusion that the Alderman, who all along had a shrewd suspicion as to the origin of this letter, was anxious that the Chief Constable should not find it out. He intended to obstruct the Chief Constable's legitimate inquiries, he provoked him by offensive suggestions of dishonesty, and we do not take a serious view of the fact that at the end he himself was described as unscrupulous. There appears to be in St. Helens a peculiar tenderness shown to anonymous letter writers, and in the course of the inquiry another striking instance was brought before us. In March, 1926, two anonymous letters were received, one by Colonel Pilkington and one by Alderman Boscow, containing a charge against a constable. The matter was investigated and the constable was exonerated. The Chief Constable had ground for suspecting another member of the force (named Kitchen) of being the author, and in the case of the letter received by Colonel Pilkington this man was ultimately convicted of the offence which such an act undoubtedly constitutes under the discipline code. Clearly the letter received by Alderman Boscow would have been of material use in the investigation of this charge, but Alderman Boscow persistently declined to produce it. It is clear to us that notwithstanding that his attention was called to the fact that the charge was in respect of a breach of the regulations, Alderman Boscow, then Vice-Chairman of the Watch 66298 A 3 Committee, was trying to prevent that charge from being investigated, and that he deliberately obstructed the Chief Constable. These incidents throw light upon the attitude adopted by these two members of the Watch Committee and the difficulties which the Chief Constable has had to meet at the hands of two of his principal accusers. After a In the autumn of 1926 police had been drafted from Liverpool into St. Helens to assist the local force in a time of trouble, and there were murmurings of charges carried too far and other unnecessary violence. At a meeting of the Watch Committee held on October 15th, after the Chief Constable had emphasised the delicacy of the situation, especially in dealing with a foreign force, it was finally decided that the men should be addressed on the need for care and discretion. The whole force was to parade in three sections to avoid taking too many off duty at once, and only the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the Chief Constable were to speak, though other members of the Committee were to be at liberty to attend. At the first two parades the Chairman and the Chief Constable addressed the men in carefully prepared terms, but just before the third was due Alderman Waring appeared upon the scene, accompanied by Councillors Dodd and Thackray, and announced that he had come to address the men. The Chief Constable was naturally surprised and annoyed, and though memories are not very clear as to the exact course of events, it appears to be common ground that an angry altercation arose. time Councillor Dodd managed to declare his disagreement with the proposals of Alderman Waring, but this did not bring peace. Tempers had been lost, and recriminations continued, in the course of which it is now alleged that the Chief Constable described Councillor Dodd as a liar and a twister, to which Councillor Dodd replied that the Chief Constable was himself the biggest liar and twister in St. Helens. The Chief Constable alleges that the order was reversed and that the words were in the first instance applied to him by Councillor Dodd. The Chief Constable's account is at least as likely as the other, but, whatever the precise order of words, the incident only shows that the Chief Constable is human enough to be able to lose his temper under provocation. In connection with Alderman Peter Phythian the Chief Constable lost his temper badly. The Alderman had unsuccessfully opposed the provision of a car for the Chief Constable, and when the latter had had an accident with it he found the Alderman exhibiting photographs which he and his daughter had taken of the battered vehicle. He found or thought himself the subject of ridicule, and addressed the Alderman in violent, insulting and inexcusable language. He subsequently offered an apology, which was accepted. This happened in the year 1920, and it was suggested that this apology closed the matter, and that it ought not to have been brought before us. We did not entirely concur. It was certainly rele |