1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to take any further steps arising from the inquest on Mr. Jimmy Kelly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf for his absence this afternoon. I am sure that the House will understand and appreciate the reason.
After the most detailed examination possible of all the evidence, the inquest jury reached a unanimous verdict of death by misadventure, finding the cause of Mr. Kelly's death to be heart failure, brought on by acute alcoholic intoxication and exertion. It made no adverse comment about the police, and I understand from the chief constable that no additional evidence was revealed in the course of the inquest which in the view of the investigating officer would require him to make a further submission to the Director. In these circumstances, as my right hon. Friend has already announced, we are satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by setting up any further public inquiry or by taking any other action in the case.I am grateful for that answer, but is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is grave public disquiet and that many people do not accept that any trial by inquest can occur?
Rubbish.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman further accept that, despite the objections from the Government Benches, what I have said is the reality? Will he therefore ask his right hon. Friend whether there can be a public inquiry, because a large amount of the evidence was not given at the inquest? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the relatives of the deceased man feel that much more needs to be examined? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is also grave disquiet because large sections of the police are in conflict with the public on many issues?
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premises or conclusions. I do not believe that there is grave public disquiet. This is a serious matter, which has been looked into carefully and thoroughly at the inquest. I do not accept for one moment that there is material evidence of a substantial character that was not before the inquest. For those reasons it would not be right for me to suggest to my right hon. Friend that -there should be an inquiry of the kind suggested.
In view of the serious and unfounded allegations against the police, does my hon. and learned Friend intend to take an initiative to redress the balance of fairness? Will he take this opportunity to state that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated?
I am happy to make it clear to the House—as the verdict of the jury itself did—that what my hon. Friend has just said is absolutely the case.
Can one get justice for an individual through a public inquiry?
Underlying that question is the suggestion that the best way in which justice for the individual can be achieved is within the normal existing judicial procedures. I entirely agree with that and I believe that public inquiries should be reserved for the extremely rare situations in which matters of general consequence need to be examined, rather than rights between parties.