This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/21/orgreave-files-reveal-anxiety-trial-collapse-could-warrant-inquiry-miners-strike

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Orgreave files reveal concern trial collapse could warrant inquiry Orgreave files reveal concern trial collapse could warrant inquiry
(35 minutes later)
Margaret Thatcher was told of serious Home Office concerns that flaws in police evidence could lead to an investigation into the Orgreave clashes the day after the collapse of the first major trials into the incident in 1985, newly released Whitehall files show. Margaret Thatcher was told of serious Home Office concern that flaws in police evidence could lead to an investigation into the Orgreave clashes the day after the collapse in 1985 of the first major trials into the incident.
Public order files from the 1980s show the Home Office gave serious consideration to setting up a French-CRS-style paramilitary riot force in the aftermath of the miners’ strike. Newly released Whitehall public order files from the 1980s also show the Home Office gave serious consideration to setting up a French CRS-style paramilitary riot force in the aftermath of the miners’ strike.
The Home Office files seen by the Guardian were released after the home secretary, Amber Rudd, last month ruled out a public inquiry into police actions against striking miners during and after the “Battle of Orgreave” at the height of the strike in the 1980s. The Home Office files, seen by the Guardian, were released after the home secretary, Amber Rudd, ruled out a public inquiry last month into police actions against striking miners during and after the 1984 “Battle of Orgreave” at the height of the strike.
They show that Thatcher was also advised to rule out a public inquiry into the collapse of the Orgreave trials despite being told there were serious problems.They show that Thatcher was also advised to rule out a public inquiry into the collapse of the Orgreave trials despite being told there were serious problems.
“You asked for a note for No 10 for Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon. I attach a draft. I have made it more supportive of the police, on the lines we discussed,” says the note between two senior Home Office officials on 18 July 1985, the day after the first trial collapsed. “You asked for a note for No 10 for Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon. I attach a draft. I have made it more supportive of the police, on the lines we discussed,” says the correspondence between two senior Home Office dated 18 July 1985.
“I ought, however, to sound a cautionary note: we do not know any details of the cases, and I understand that some of the police evidence broke down in circumstances that may lead to an investigation. Also, some of the Orgreave riot charges have still to be heard, and there is a possibility that they may be withdrawn before hearing.”“I ought, however, to sound a cautionary note: we do not know any details of the cases, and I understand that some of the police evidence broke down in circumstances that may lead to an investigation. Also, some of the Orgreave riot charges have still to be heard, and there is a possibility that they may be withdrawn before hearing.”
The draft briefing note for Thatcher, however, advised her to tell MPs: “I see no ground for a public inquiry … Any allegation of misconduct by the police would be investigated in the usual way.” Thatcher was in fact not challenged in the Commons that day over the collapse of the first Orgreave trial and so the draft response was never used. The draft nevertheless advised Thatcher to tell MPs: “I see no ground for a public inquiry … Any allegation of misconduct by the police would be investigated in the usual way.” Thatcher was not in fact challenged in the Commons that day over the collapse of the first Orgreave trial so the draft response was never used.
The previously secret Home Office files also show that the prosecuting counsel involved in the miners’ strike riot cases insisted that the South Yorkshire chief constable, Peter Wright, hold “an inquiry into the strength of police evidence” before pressing ahead with the rest of the trials. The previously secret Home Office files also show that the prosecuting counsel in the Orgreave cases insisted that the South Yorkshire chief constable, Peter Wright, hold “an inquiry into the strength of police evidence” before pressing ahead with the rest of the trials.
A total of 95 picketers were charged with riot, unlawful assembly and other offences as a result of the clash between the police and strikers on 18 June 1984 at Orgreave, South Yorkshire. But all the trials collapsed because of unreliable police evidence. Ninety-five picketers were charged with riot, unlawful assembly and other offences after clashes between the police and strikers at the South Yorkshire coking plant on 18 June 1984. All of the trials collapsed because of unreliable police evidence.
The files also show that the South Yorkshire chief constable complained to the Home Office about the defence tactics used in the first major Orgreave trial, which saw the withdrawal of all charges against 14 defendants after a seven-week hearing. Wright claimed, in particular, that excessive defence challenges to potential jurors, combined with asking them if they had six weeks to spare for the trial, had led to a “jury tending to be composed of unemployed people from mining areas”. The files also show that Wright complained to the Home Office about the defence tactics used in the first major Orgreave trial, which saw the withdrawal of all charges against 14 defendants after a seven-week hearing. He claimed, in particular, that excessive defence challenges to potential jurors, combined with asking them if they had six weeks to spare for the trial, had led to a “jury tending to be composed of unemployed people from mining areas”.
He also complained that the defence counsel was regularly giving press interviews while the prosecution and police regarded the case as strictly sub judice, which had led to a “very biased picture to the press and public”. He also complained that the defence counsel gave regular press interviews while the prosecution and police regarded the case as strictly sub judice, which had led to a “very biased picture to the press and public”.
Wright was also concerned that the defence had successfully secured the partial disclosure of the confidential manual on police public order tactics that had been used at Orgreave. The particular extract involved included references to using police shields to “incapacitate” those causing a disturbance. Wright was also concerned that the defence had successfully secured the partial disclosure of a confidential manual on police public order tactics that had been used at Orgreave. The particular extract involved included references to using police shields to “incapacitate” those causing a disturbance.
While the Home Office took his complaints seriously about jury challenges and the pressure to disclose the rest of the tactics manual, the officials did however note that the “prosecution case broke down as a result of the cross-examination of police witnesses”. Home Office officials took his complaints seriously, but noted that the “prosecution case broke down as a result of the cross-examination of police witnesses”. They also noted that the seven defence counsels had held a press conference calling for a public inquiry and claiming the police evidence had been concocted, but that the judge awarded costs out of central funds and not against the police.
They noted that the seven defence counsel had held a press conference calling for a public inquiry and claiming the police evidence had been concocted. The Home Office did, however, add that the judge award costs out of central funds and not against the police. The file also includes a copy of an unpublished 1985 Labour party inquiry report by the future prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the former home secretary Merlyn Rees, which called for a inquiry into violence by the police and the miners along the lines of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots. The Home Office called it “carefully written and on the whole moderate report”.
The file also includes a copy of an unpublished 1985 Labour party inquiry report by the future prime minister, Gordon Brown, and former Labour home secretary, Merlyn Rees, which called for a inquiry into violence by the police and by the miners along the lines of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots. The Home Office called it “carefully written and on the whole moderate report”. It also contains a separate contemporary report by a South Yorkshire police committee, including a preface by its Labour chairman, George Moores, which alleged: “The message to the police was go in and hit them hard. The use of dogs and horses was terrifying. The government appeared to be wanting to give the working-class striking miners a good hiding and be beaten [sic] into submission. The government also contrived the confrontation at Orgreave by producing a media spectacle, and then blamed the violence on the pickets.”
It also includes a separate contemporary report by South Yorkshire police committee, included a preface by its Labour chairman, George Moores, which alleged: “The message to the police was go in and hit them hard. The use of dogs and horses was terrifying. The government appeared to be wanting to give the working-class striking miners a good hiding and be beaten(sic) into submission. The government also contrived the confrontation at Orgreave by producing a media spectacle, and then blamed the violence on the pickets.” A separate Home Office file released earlier this month shows that the then home secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave serious consideration in November 1985 to setting up a British paramilitary riot force along the lines of the French CRS.
A separate Home Office file also released earlier this month shows that the then home secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave serious consideration in November 1985, after the miners’ strike, to setting up a British paramilitary riot force along the lines of the French CRS. Ministers were told that if the miners’ strike had happened at the same time as the 1982 inner-city riots, “there is little doubt that the civil police could not have coped” and suggested a force of 5,000-plus officers would be used to “go in hard to deal with a riot quickly and efficiently”. The official Home Office assessment concluded that a British riot police force might “have a role in dealing with Orgreave-type situations but its use more routinely could exacerbate disorder”.
Ministers were told that if the miners’ strike had happened at the same time as the 1982 inner-city riots, “there is little doubt that the civil police could not have coped” and suggested a 5,000-plus-strong force would be used to “go in hard to deal with a riot quickly and efficiently”. The official Home Office assessment, however, concluded that a British riot police force might “have a role in dealing with Orgreave-type situations but its use more routinely could exacerbate disorder”. The public order files are among a batch transferred this month to the National Archives. Rudd said on Sunday that her department holds a further 30 paper files on the strike, some of which related to Orgreave, which are yet to be released. One key file, Policing the Miners’ Strike, 1984, was released at the National Archives, but has since been returned to the Home Office.
The newly released Home Office files are among a batch of public order files transferred this month to the National Archives. The home secretary said on Sunday that the Home Office holds a further 30 paper files on the strike, some of which related to Orgreave, which have yet to be released. One key Home Office file, Policing the Miners’ Strike, 1984, was released at the National Archives but has since been returned to the Home Office.