DIEU

INQUIRY

IN REGARD TO THE INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF MISS SAVIDGE.

Report

of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

Presented by the Secretary of State for the Home Department
to Parliament by Command of His Majesty
July, 1928.

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;

or through any Bookseller.

1928

Price 9d. net.

Cmd. 3147.

WARRANT OF APPOINTMENT.

WHEREAS it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a Tribunal 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 action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on May 15, 1928;

Now I, the Right Honourable Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Bart.. M.P., hereby appoint in pursuance of the said Resolutions:

The Right Honourable Sir John Eldon Bankes, G.C.B.,

Mr. Hastings Bertrand Lees-Smith, M.P., and

to inquire into the said matter and direct that the said Act shall apply.

Whitehall,

May 24, 1928.

W. JOYNSON-HICKS,
One of His Majesty's Principal
Secretaries of State.

NOTE. The expenditure on this Inquiry, other than the cost of printing and publishing this Report, will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund. The estimated cost of printing and publishing this Report is £30.

Inquiry in regard to the Interrogation by the

Police of Miss Savidge.

Report by the Right Honourable Sir JOHN ELDON BANKES, G.C.B., and Mr. JOHN J. WITHERS, C.B.E., M.P.

To the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS, Bart., M.P., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State

SIR,

for the Home Department.

1. By the Warrant of Appointment dated May 24, 1928, we, the undersigned, the Right Honourable Sir J. Eldon Bankes, G.C.B., and Mr. John J. Withers, C.B.E.,M.P., were appointed, together with Mr. H. B. Lees-Smith, M.P., a Tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the police in connection with their interrogation of Miss Savidge on May 15, 1928.

2. In pursuance of that appointment the Tribunal has held, in public, an Inquiry extending over six days, at which both Miss Savidge and the police were represented by Counsel. Evidence was heard from witnesses called on behalf of Miss Savidge and from witnesses called on behalf of the police and also from such further witnesses as the Tribunal itself desired to hear. A list of the witnesses is given in the Appendix. Having considered the evidence and the arguments of Counsel we now present our Report. Mr. Lees-Smith presents his Report in separate form.

3. We find the material facts which led up to the interrogation of Miss Savidge to be as follows:

On the evening of April 23, 1928, Sir Leo Money and Miss Irene Savidge were arrested in Hyde Park by two Metropolitan Police Constables of the "A" Division detailed for duty in Hyde Park for behaving in the park in a manner reasonably likely to offend against public decency, contrary to Regulation 24 of the Regulations made under the Parks Regulation Acts with regard to Hyde Park.

This charge was investigated by the Magistrate sitting at Marlborough Street Police Court on May 1 and 2, and after

66950

A 2

hearing the evidence of the two police constables, and that of Sir Leo Money, but without requiring Miss Savidge to give evidence, he stated that he had come to the conclusion that the defendants were not guilty, and dismissed the charge with 10 guineas costs against the police.

4. On May 7, 1928, a question was put to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons in reference to the above proceedings in the police court, and the Home Secretary in reply stated, inter alia, that he had to consider with the appropriate authorities whether the police officers concerned were guilty of perjury or of any breach of duty.

5. On May 9 the shorthand notes of the proceedings in the police court together with the Home Office files, copies of Parliamentary Questions and Answers, the official records of the two police officers and their original reports on the abovementioned occurrence in Hyde Park on April 23, 1928, were sent by direction of the Home Secretary to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The directions on the Home Office files referred the whole case to the Director for his consideration after full investigation, and pointed out that if no proceedings against the officers were taken the Secretary of State must be in a position to satisfy Parliament that in the view of the competent authorities there was no case for such proceedings, or that application for process had been made and had been refused by a Magistrate. The envelope enclosing the papers was marked Urgent.'

6. On May 11 after reading the papers the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Commissioner of Police in the following terms:

My dear Commissioner,

66

May 11, 1928.

The Money case as you know has been referred to me by the Home Office. The Secretary of State in the House of Commons mentioned perjury-by the officers-and into this aspect of the matter I wish for some inquiry to be made.

The case has not gone through my registry here-hence my writing to you personally. I should like one of your most experienced C.I.D. officers to be deputed for the matter. Perhaps you would let me know which you propose to select. Yours sincerely,

A. H. BODKIN."

and he received from the Commissioner a letter of the same date :

My dear Bodkin,

66

May 11, 1928.

Anderson told me yesterday that he had passed the Money case over to you, and I know it is the wish of everybody concerned that you should investigate it. I am glad. I think the

best man we have for the work would be Chief Inspector Collins, and I have told Mr. Wensley to detail him to go and see you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

W. T. HORWOOD."

7. Owing to a misunderstanding as to which should first communicate with the other Chief Inspector Collins did not see the Director until May 14, on which day the Chief Inspector was summoned to the office of the Director, and received from him definite and detailed instructions as to the inquiries he should make and the order in which he should make them.

8. It may be convenient at this point to refer to the object of the inquiry and the matters into which it was necessary that inquiry should be made.

In order to satisfy himself whether a prosecution of the two constables for perjury could be properly brought, it was obviously neccessary that the Director of Public Prosecutions should ascertain exactly what the evidence of Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge would be on the matters in question, as, apart altogether from the question of the corroboration which the law requires in a case of perjury, it is obvious that unless both Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge were called as witnesses for the prosecution, the result would be an acquittal of the constables. It was also necessary, in view of the good records of the two constables, that he should ascertain, if he could, not only what were the characters and reputations of Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge, but also the whole eircumstances of their association, as unless they, as the principal witnesses for the prosecution, could stand crossexamination on these points, it would be useless to commence proceedings against the two constables.

9. Sir Archibald Bodkin instructed Chief Inspector Collins first to see the Inspector of the Hyde Park police, and obtain all information from him as to the officers' repute, then to see the officers, caution them, and take any statements which they might desire to make, then to see Miss Savidge, then Miss Egan, the lady who was stated to have introduced Sir Leo Money to Miss Savidge, and then Sir Leo Money. The material portion of the Director's instructions in his own words is as follows

"I then told him that the question I was concerned with was whether these two officers, or either of them, had committed perjury in making an absolutely false charge against the two accused persons; that it was a matter of grave importance not only to the public but also to the officers; that at present it appeared that it was a case of oaths against oaths, or, rather, oaths against an oath, as the shorthand notes. disclosed that the Magistrate had stopped the case after Sir Leo Money had given evidence and before Miss Savidge was called; and in these circumstances I should want the

66950

A 3