When to draw a line

Tweet

 

The recent drama on the BBC, Steeltown Murders, was an example of how the emergence of new evidence can lead to the police re-opening old cases which were not solved at the time. (In passing, it also reminded me of the fact that I was, briefly, on the very, very long list of potential suspects, by dint of living in the south of Wales and owning a white Austin 1100, two facts which taken together were considered sufficient to lead to a visit from the boys in blue, a request for an alibi, and an examination of the vehicle in question.) In very general terms, there are two reasons why the police might re-open an old investigation – either there is new evidence, or else it becomes clear that the previous investigation was in some way flawed. Whether all crimes which fit into one of those categories should automatically be re-opened is another question; it is surely right to consider also the seriousness of the crime in question and the length of time which has elapsed.

It is hard not to conclude that the investigation by the Met into the various gatherings in and around Downing Street during the Covid lockdown was somewhat less than thorough and rigorous. Johnson ended up being fined for what always seemed to me to be the least serious of the events at which he was present, whilst getting off scot-free for events which seemed far more serious. Turning to Conservative HQ, it is beyond my understanding that the police could have looked at a photograph of 20-odd people, clearly not socially distanced and attending what was clearly a party and then claim that there was not enough evidence of rule-breaking. The video that emerged last week has, inevitably, led some people to demand that the investigation should be re-opened, since the case now clearly meets both the criteria referred to above – a less than thorough initial investigation coupled with new evidence. The Tories are clearly keen for the matter to be declared ‘closed’ and to ‘move on’, and in terms of an operational police decision, it would be hard to justify pouring significant amounts of time and resource into re-investigating this particular crime, no matter how inadequate and incompetent the original enquiry seems to have been.

It isn’t just about operational policing, though. The fact that Johnson received only one fine has allowed him to claim repeatedly that he was, in effect, ‘exonerated’ on all the other potential counts, adding to his sense that he is being unfairly targeted. Simply choosing to ‘forget’ past transgressions adds to the Johnson narrative (supported by Gove) that the privileges committee has reacted in an over-the-top fashion (even though they weren’t actually investigating the events themselves, merely the extent to which Johnson lied about them) to some minor misconduct. Given that compliance with the regulations was seen at the time as being essential for the protection of public health, allowing ‘them’ to get away with stuff for which ‘we’ would expect to have been fined (and many were) adds to a sense that there are two laws in operation and makes it harder to ensure enforcement in the event of a new pandemic. It’s hard to think of another crime where “This is an old story. We repeatedly apologised for this event at the time” would be considered adequate reason for taking no further action.

Perhaps the real question here is ‘who should decide?’ An overstretched police force is likely to be biased in favour of not re-opening investigations (or doing so in an under-resourced manner, something at which Steeltown Murders did more than hint). Victims and the public at large (and in the case of crimes committed by politicians, other parties) will tend to prefer a demand that ‘justice must be done’. Maybe we need a more transparent and independent way of assessing whether and when to re-open past cases and when to draw a line.