| Wannabe in my gang?
- Documents |
12/01/04 - Reply from Metropolitan Police Service
METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE
Specialist Crime Directorate
SCD2 Murder Review Group
Room 3.16
Westminster Police Station
1 Canon Row
London
SW1A 2JL
Telephone: 020 7321 7003
Facsimile: 020 7321 6752
E-mail: ian.delbarre@met.police.uk |
Your reference: Mr Courtney
Our reference:
Date: 12th January 2004
Dear Sir
Re: David John Courtney
Thank you for your letters regarding David Courtney's claims in his
book 'Stop the ride, I want to get off.
There is a limited amount of data that I am able to provide to you
personally regarding your 'allegations' about David Courtney.
The legal issues are as follows:
The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents disclosure to you. I can only
release information as defined in Section 4(2) Schedule 1 to other organisations involved
in detection of crime or statutory bodies like Social Services for the purposes of:
1) Prevention or detection of crime
2) Apprehension or prosecution of offenders
There is also a general principle of prevention of crime, which
allows the exchange of information.
Section 2 of the Act covers any personal data relating to Courtney.
The case stated is Durant -v- Financial Services Authority 2003 which the Court of
Appeal interpreted personal data as 'information that affect's the individuals privacy
whether in his personal or family life, business of professional capacity' Therefore
allegations of involvement in crime or intelligence that relates to criminal activities by named
individuals are considered to be information of a personal nature.
Section 56(5) of the Act creates an offence of disclosing information
without lawful authority of the data Commissioner.
I have no doubt a member of the public would justifiably feel that
to expose oneself on television series and in a book would negate the legislation, as an
individual has taken the steps to expose themselves. However the freedom to reveal personal
information in these circumstances does not legally apply to the Police Service.
You state that Mr Courtney boasted in his book that he confessed to
the murder and provided specific detail of the shooting after he was acquitted of an
allegation of murder thereby evading justice. If true, Mr Courtney cannot be prosecuted
again for same murder. This is called the 'double jeopardy' rule or 'Autrefois
Convict/Acquit'. The cases stated were Connelly -v- D of PP 1964 and R -v- Beedie 1997. However the
government is currently reviewing this rule.
Current status
Not with standing any of these legal issues, I can understand your
concerns. The Metropolitan Police Service had also recognised these concerns and in
July 2000 set up the Murder Review Group under Homicide Support command.
My Murder Review unit is staffed by serving, experienced murder squad
detective officers and retired senior accredited murder squad detectives. My staff
reviews all current undetected murders in London and sometimes in the elsewhere in the
UK. Secondly we also review all 'unsolved' murder investigations between 1988 until
2000. We also undertake other reviews when brought to our attention.
The purpose of all reviews is to:
1) to identify and develop investigative opportunities that will
progress an investigation
2) to act as a form of quality assurance in relation to both the
content and process of an investigation and
3) to identify, develop and disseminate good investigative
practice.
Accordingly we are currently reviewing 'unsolved' allegations of
murder. The priority system has already identified cases where we have developed an
investigative opportunity, which has resulted in re-investigations being
undertaken. I can say that ten (10) have been successfully re-investigated and the perpetrator
subsequently convicted. This process is still in progress but I am unable to comment on
individual cases.
However I wanted to re-assure myself that the Metropolitan Police has
taken into account your views in relation to Courtney's contention that he had 'got away
with murder'. The detailed research carried out by my staff has shown that this is
'just a book' and would, in some people's minds be used to elevate their status or sell a book.
The Metropolitan Police do not have jurisdiction to investigate a
murder in Holland. Accordingly, I will inform the Dutch authorities through Interpol of
Courtney's book and his admissions for them to take appropriate action.
Finally I have researched the whole circumstances in order to
investigate the circumstances of your complaint to establish that there is a
legitimate complaint and which officers this applied to. I have come to the conclusion that there is
no complaint against police as defined by The Police Act 1996.
The grounds for my decision are:
1) The police records do not match the account given in the book.
2) In any event an individual cannot be tried twice (double
jeopardy)
3) The police are reviewing all 'unsolved' murder enquiries.
4) The Metropolitan Police do not have jurisdiction in Holland
5) No officer has failed in his/her duty under these
circumstances.
I apologise for the delay in replying to you but the research
necessitated in a review of murder investigations on our 'old' Home Office Large Major Enquiry
System (HOLMES I) computer in order to establish the facts. The new HOLMES II system is
a significant improvement.
I hope that this satisfactorily has resolved the issues highlighted
by you and I would like to thank you for bringing them to our attention. It is a matter for you
to take up any other issues with the publishers.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Ian DELBARRE
Detective Chief Superintendent
OCU Commander |
| Back
to Documents |
|
|
|
