The Guardian view on the Harvey Proctor accusations: due process must be observed
|
Version 0 of 1. There is probably no political issue on which the Guardian ever agreed with Harvey Proctor. In the 1980s, the former Conservative MP was one of the most rightwing men ever to represent his party. Though he was forced out of politics after involvement with young male prostitutes that would not be illegal today, he was no loss to the House of Commons when he left in 1987. But when Mr Proctor returned to the limelight this week, he spoke words that should be listened to with care and concern. Mr Proctor’s house was very publicly searched by police in March as part of the Operation Midland investigation into allegations about a 1970s and 1980s Westminster paedophile ring. This high-profile search was part of a pattern. It included the police announcement, made outside Edward Heath’s home this month, that the former prime minister was being investigated too. Swoops on the homes of the late Leon Brittan and the former army chief Lord Bramall, who is still alive, received similar publicity. Highly publicised police actions have also marked separate investigations into Sir Cliff Richard. Allegations against public figures, especially when they allege child abuse, must be fully investigated. Yet proper investigation must respect the presumption of innocence. That is especially true if the case involves the kind of allegations about which Mr Proctor spoke this week, which, if proved, would rightly ruin anyone’s reputation. Yet police appear to be ignoring the presumption far too often. Mr Proctor is an unsympathetic figure; but if his denials are honest, which is for a court to decide, he would be a victim too. It is hard to avoid the perception that the police are playing post-Jimmy Savile publicity catchup. So is society more widely. For the many victims of child sex abuse who were ignored, or who felt in some way themselves to blame for their ordeals, there is a place for the big, symbolic gesture. It is important, in addition to the police investigations, that the Goddard public inquiry into allegations of an establishment cover-up will also allow survivors to give evidence of what happened and how it has affected their lives. But it is also important that the process of establishing the truth is not swayed by the need to meet victims’ and survivors’ understandable desire for justice or by any attempt by police, journalists or MPs to surf the wave of public outrage against child abuse. Any justice that involves destroying the lives of other innocent people is no kind of justice at all. Naming a person against whom allegations have been made may be justified in some circumstances if it encourages other witnesses. But it is another thing to helicopter in on a dawn raid, having tipped off a TV crew in advance. Due process ought to apply in all cases. But it is not due process when police issue a statement that untested allegations – which include immensely serious claims about which many outside observers remain sceptical – are “credible and true”. Truth is for a court to decide, not the police – and not the media either. Responsible MPs would not abuse their privileges on such matters either. The allegations may prove to be credible and true. But they may prove to be neither. There may be no charges. The claims may be shown to be false. In that event, police, media and MPs who should have known better and acted with more respect for the law would have much to answer for. |