For the first time in fifty years the judges’ rules on the questioning of suspects have been revised. Police officers are indignant that they were not consulted and contend that the task of dealing with professional criminals organised in gangs will become much more difficult. There is no arguing that the number of such criminals has been steadily rising in the past decade. Lawyers fear that the new rules may encourage perjury on the part of the police.
The changes in the rules can be set out briefly. A suspect (he is described here as a person “helping the police in their inquiry”) must now be cautioned as soon as a police officer has sufficient evidence which could give reasonable grounds for suspecting that the man has committed an offence. To caution a suspect means he is told that he need not answer any question which might incriminate him. Under the old rules the police could interrogate a man repeatedly without cautioning him until they had decided to prefer a charge against him.
If any suspect is questioned or makes a statement after being cautioned a record must be kept of the time taken, of the place and of all those present. When a suspect is charged the caution must be repeated in these words; “Do you wish to say anything? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.” Persons in custody are entitled to have their attention drawn to notices describing their rights, one of which is to speak to their solicitors and friends.
Rules Revised
The judges have revised the rules after considering the changes for two years. As such it is difficult to say to what extent the judges have been influenced by the recent outcry against the police. The police invited widespread criticism at the time of the trial of Dr Stephen Ward, central character in the Profumo scandal last year. It was felt that the police had gone out of their way to secure his conviction.
Then came the disclosures about the special squad in Sheffield using the rhino whip to extract confessions. This shocked the people and senior officers in Sheffield were retired. In the midst of this scandal broke another. It became known that some of the persons convicted in connection with demonstrations at the time of the controversial visit of the Greek King and Queen had been framed. Brickbats allegedly found in their hands were brought by the police.
These were no doubt exceptions that prove the rule which is that the police force, overworked and undermanned, does not resort to thumb screws. Till the terrible disclosures last summer, no one would have believed that the police violated the well-known principles of British justice to secure conviction. In fact most people agreed with the former Labour Attorney-General, Lord Shawcross, when he protested that “our system falls over backwards to save the criminal from conviction” and pointed out “in over three-quarters of the crimes known to the police no criminal is arrested.” It is interesting that the protest against the new rules should also have come from the Labour Party, traditionally the party of protest and champion of civil liberties. The division between the “we” and “they” has indeed become thin here.
On the face of it, the new rules give the lie to the charge that even in Britain, traditionally the land of liberty, the judges were becoming too executive minded. This criticism also came to be voiced last summer when the Lord Chief Justice sent two reporters to jail for failure to disclose their sources of information on the plea that the interests of the State were supreme. Torn out of its context, it reads like a quotation from Mein Kampf.
Stiff Lesson
The other side of the story that last week is Lord Denning read out a stiff lesson to the Home Secretary for claiming privilege for police documents. All the same, Lord Delvin, till recently one of Britain’s outstanding judges and now lay chairman of the Press Council, admitted that judges were no longer carrying on a war against the State in defence of the individual. British institutions appear to be undergoing a subtle process of change.
Currently a record is on sale here which seeks to hypnotise smokers out of the habit. The doctor who uses hypnosis to stop very hard cases from smoking has meanwhile given some discouraging figures. Of 25 cases he cured, 10 substituted overeating and put on between one and three stones (14 to 42 pounds). This form of substitution can be fatal in a community where six per cent of the male and 11 per cent of the female population are already overweight. Three of the patients consumed more alcohol and five suffered a lot of depression. In Britain over 30,000 attempt suicide every year and 5,000 succeed. Only seven of the cases had no side effects.
The Ministry m Health is worried. Hundreds of doctors are prescribing the so-called anti-smoking pills under the National Health Scheme and some of the pills cost one shilling each. The pills of course are far from effective but the Ministry cannot prevent doctors from prescribing any drug available in the market. On past evidence the hypnosis record and the pills are likely to be forgotten soon enough and the British, like everyone else, will continue to smoke.
It was 23 months ago in March 1962 that the Royal College of Physicians published its report which said 80 per cent of the deaths from lung cancer were caused by cigarette smoking. It received a truly massive coverage and in two days cigarette sales went down by 20 per cent. Tobacco shares fell on the stock exchange. It was estimated that two per cent of the population gave up smoking then. But in course of time the scare died away. Neither the pipe nor the cigar in its various sizes could replace the cigarette.
Last year cigarette sales went up from 109 billion in 1962 to 110 billion and in the last quarter the expenditure on tobacco went up to £335 million, eight million more than the previous quarter. About a dozen new brands were successfully launched during the year. One change has been that the consumption of tipped cigarettes has risen to 95 per cent, from 10 per cent in 1958.
The American report has not caused anything like the scare which was created by the Royal College of Physicians. In the first week or two tobacconists reported a greater demand for pipes than cigars and in some cases even some women took to cigar smoking. But this time there has not been even a temporary drop in the consumption of cigarettes. The manufacturers have not shown any sense of remorse or anxiety.
In the last two years a number of surveys have been conducted which show that in schools 35 to 55 per cent of the boys and 20 to 40 per cent of the girls over 12 smoke. Their explanation is “we smoke to relieve tension caused by our love affairs.” It may be equally true that smoking is considered an essential part of love making. This at any rate is the essence of advertisements on television. One has to see these advertisements to realise how suggestive they can be and over ten million pounds are spent on the advertisements by tobacco companies. The total budget for the anti-smoking campaign is £26,000.
The Times of India, 9 February 1964