DILU DROIT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE CASE OF EX-INSPECTOR JOHN SYME (of the Metropolitan Police). Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, July, 1924. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses Imperial House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 28, Abingdon Street, London, S. W. 1; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff; 120, George Street, Edinburgh: or through any Bookseller. 1924. Price 9d. Net. Cmd. 2193. The expenses incurred in the preparation of this Report are estimated at £302 6s. 10d., including £27 for printing and publication. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE CASE OF EX-INSPECTOR JOHN SYME (of the Metropolitan Police). I RICHARD BURDON VISCOUNT HALDANE OF CLOAN, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, hereby appoint THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TALBOT (Chairman), HIS HONOUR JUDGE J. J. PARFITT, K.C., and RAYNER GODDARD, Esquire, K.C., Recorder of Poole, to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Inspector John Syme from the Metropolitan Police Force, to report whether wrong was done to that Officer, and, if it was, to indicate the measure of the redress due in equity to him. Dated the 30th day of April, 1924. To the Rt. Hon. Viscount Haldane of Cloan, MY LORD, 1. Your Lordship was pleased, on April 30th last, to appoint us to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Inspector John Syme from the Metropolitan Police Force, to report whether wrong was done to that Officer, and, if it was, to indicate the measure of the redress due in equity to him. 2. We have accordingly held an Inquiry, which was attended by Mr. Syme; by Counsel for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police ; and by Sir Ernley Blackwell, K.C.B., representing the Home Office. Mr. Smillie, M.P., and Mr. Laverack, M.P., attended with Mr. Syme. Our proceedings lasted for five days and we have now to report the result to your Lordship. We should add that before the proceedings began Mr. Syme furnished us, at our request, with a statement of the heads of his complaint, which will be found in Appendix I to this Report (page 16). 3. The history of the circumstances connected with Mr. Syme's dismissal begins with August 17th, 1909. In the early morning of that day two men were brought into Gerald Road Police Station by two Constables named Osborne and Lowder on a charge of wilfully and wantonly disturbing a Mrs. Costa, of 134 Warwick Street, by pulling the door bell and knocking at the door without lawful excuse (2 & 3 Victoria, Chapter 47, Section 54, (16)). Mr. Syme, who was the Inspector on duty at the Station inquired into the matter, and having come to the conclusion that the facts did not justify the charge, (B 3/788)Q A 2 liberated the men. His principal reason seems to have been that it appeared that the two men were living at the house at which the disturbance occurred and could not, therefore, be said to be knocking and ringing there without lawful excuse. 4. In Mr. Syme's report (August 17th) on the case the following passage occurs: "Whilst refusing the charge I considered that the P.Cs. were justified in arresting the accused under the circumstances. Mrs. Costa, as far as known to the police, was justified in declining to admit them, and when asked by the P.C. they declined to satisfy him as to their right beyond saying they lived there. In this way the men had their own obstinacy to blame for what occurred. 66 The Constables were placed in an awkward position; knowing Mrs. Costa did not intend to admit the accused and presumably having a right to so refuse; and the men themselves declining to justify their action or right; and on the other hand a number of angry and excited neighbours, prevented from obtaining sleep at this hour of the morning owing to the conduct of these drunken men, gradually becoming more excited and angry and likely to break out into a serious disturbance. "Even were the P.Cs. not altogether justified in their action (which I do not personally question) I beg to submit that under the awkward conditions of the case, their action, if considered wrong, should be looked at leniently and as an error of judgment, made by them conscientiously in the belief that they were acting properly and in the best interests of law and order." 5. The two Constables having been reported by Sub-Divisional Inspector Reed for improperly arresting the two men, were brought up as "defaulters" before Chief Inspector Shervington, Acting Superintendent. Mr. Reed's Report (August 17th) contains the following: "The Constables, owing to the continued disturbances, were in a difficult position, and anxious to put a stop to the annoyance, they without doubt acted as they thought best under the circumstances, but in the absence of complaint from occupier and there being no one to prosecute, there is nothing to justify the arrest of the men on the charge preferred against them." 6. It is the ordinary practice that, when Constables are brought before the Superintendent for an improper arrest, the Station Officer who has refused the charge made by them should attend. Accordingly, when the Constables were brought before Mr. Shervington, Mr. Syme was present. Mr. Reed also was present. In the formal" Report of the Proceedings," signed by Mr. Shervington, Mr. Reed and Mr. Syme are described as witnesses. The conclusion of the Acting Superintendent was as follows: "The Police Constables were undoubtedly placed in an awkward position, but the men were both on private property, and the action of ringing the bell and knocking at the door was |