Another voice
A Royal Commission?
Auberon Waugh
Minehead, Somerset In the reporting of committal proceedings at a magistrates court, the prosecution might be expected to have a field day, since no defence witnesses are called, and reporters have no idea what the defence will be or even how the defendants will plead if the case eventually goes to trial. Various clues may be deduced from defending counsel's postures in crossexamining Crown witnesses, but even if it were proper to speculate along these lines it might well be misleading. Mr John Matthew, QC, opening the crossexamination of Mr Besse11 on behalf of Holmes, stated it was not his intention at that stage to concern himself with the accuracy of allegations made against his client, merely to establish what they were. Mr Holmes appears to have restricted himself from quite an early stage to a succession of `no comments'. These give little clue to his real feelings about the matter, yet plainly his evidence, if there ever is a trial and he is called to give evidence at all, will be crucial.
Mr Thorpe has given us rather more idea of his attitude to the charges in three statements. Although his memory of the relationship may have shifted its emphasis a trifle between his famous Sunday Times statement of 14 March 1976, 'The lies of Norman Scott', when he spoke of Scott's original approach in the House of Commons — 'Scott approached me intermittently from time to time thereafter for further assistance' — and his National Liberal Club press conference of 27 October 1977, when he spoke of 'a close and even affectionate friendship', the essence has not changed: no sexual activity of any kind took place between them; he (Thorpe) had never paid money to keep Scott quiet; he (Thorpe) knew nothing of the correspondence between Besse11 and Scott, was not involved in the purchase of the correspondence for £2,500 and knew nothing of the purchase; was never a party to the hiring of Newton, or knew anything of it (this from his National Liberal Club press conference) and finally, was never a party to any form of cover-up.
Against these denials — and I must stress, we hear only the Crown case in Minehead — we have so far had Mr Bessell's evidence that Thorpe admitted a homosexual relationship with Scott to him, that he (Besse11) was reimbursed by Thorpe for sums paid to Scott, and that he (Besse11) was privy to earlier schemes, promoted by Mr Thorpe, for the murder of Scott. We have had Jack Hayward's evidence of being asked by Thorpe to pay two sums of £10,000 each to Mr Nadir Dinshaw for special election purposes. We have heard from Mr Dinshaw (at the time of writing) that he paid two sums of £10,000 at Mr Thorpe's request to Mr Holmes, the second payment being made in small bundles of cash. He also mentioned that Mr Thorpe had threatened him, in the event of this coming out, that he would be asked to leave the country. We have had Newton's evidence of being offered £10,000 by Holmes for the murder, and receiving £5,000 of this from Mr Le Mesurier after his release from prison. Finally, we have had Mr Scott's evidence of a prolonged and painful homosexual relationship with Mr Thorpe.
Defence cross-examination has tended to concentrate on the financial interest of these three key witnesses, BesseII, Newton and Scott — nobody has suggested Mr Hayward is lying — in securing a conviction. If nothing else demands a Royal Commission at the end of the day, defence allegations of 'cheque book journalism' influencing the course of justice surely require it. Should the case against Mr Thorpe prove, in his words, to be a 'tissue of elaborately woven mendacity and malice', then the very least the Government can do to restore confidence in our judicial system is to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the steps by which the Crown came to accept this tissue. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Crown will not have been taken for such a ride since Titus Oates.
If, on the other hand, it should prove to be the case at the end of the day that the Crown is right and the defendants are tried and found guilty, then one wonders whether even a Royal Commission would be enough to cover all the questions raised. Public confidence will need restoring not only in our judicial system — why was there no proper investigation of the buggery allegations long before any question of an attempted murder? — but also in our newspapers — why did the Sunday Mirror appear to sit on vital evidence while its editor, writing a leader on the Agony of Jeremy Thorpe, which appeared on 16 May 1976, announced truculently that `no evidence has been produced which would stand up in a court of law'? Why did the Sunday Times publish Thorpe's attack on Scott two days before the Newton trial? On top of this public confidence will need to be restored in the integrity of various politicians who will seem to have assisted in the cover-up, not to mention civil servants and even the Metropolitan police (Somerset and Avon police seem to have acquitted themselves with the greatest honour throughout) whose role.] will come to in a moment. Finally there Is, the question of why the Prime Minister 0' the day chose to announce in the House. ..,°f Commons, a week before the Newton Ilia" that there had been 'strong South African participation in recent activities relating t° the leader of the Liberal Party' whY (ter chose to resign a week later to make way —f an older man; and why, in defiance.° section 2 of the Official Secrets Act winch he. had been at some pains not to repeat, 4cie briefed two journalists to expose allege irregularities in MI5 a few weeks later. Even in Minehead, where few of the mighty issues have been allowed to face apart from Mr Bessell's allegatt°"j about Lord Goodman, which I discuss!, last week, one is aware of mystery:ill lacunae in the Crown case.Constant references are made to two collection;od documents — the first, allegedly Woe, by Scott to Chelsea police station 1962,the second found behind panelling in Mr Bessell's office in r Mall after he had fled the countrY. Two letters from the 1962 batch we'i eventually released by Scotland Yard Ins, year, and have been produced in een",; What has happened to the rest of theta' Is Scotland Yard withholding them fri.e: the Somerset police, and, if so, why? —re fate of the second batch is even 111%, mysterious. After photocopying tilie°.„-ar tents of this bulky file, the Sunday handed it to Mr Thorpe. Among tpe-19 letters was Scott's letter to Mrs 11,1.511,0 Thorpe, which has surfaced and veit readin court. According to pettethe i ' who interviewed the man who found It, ' r cache . also contained a vkalth a °then, material, including the letters taken It Scott's Scott's suitcase, allegedly by TlwrI3e.up beggars belief that attempts at a coverit-it should continue at this late stage, formal charges of a criminal consintau. have been laid, but none of these dr-te ments has yet been produced in °till. ot One man in public life Who comes °se, of the affair with a completely clean° d, on any reading, is Mr Callaghan. Intl,e,ein his nose seems to shine like the Dongly the great Gromboolian darkness>, resisted the demand for a Select legmittee into Mr Wilson's reported .8.1it is ations against MI5 in July 1977, arl6'g,of hard to disagree with him. The l° with .th Commons is scarcely to be truste°„1-001 these matters, even if its Speaker ha over been involved in earlier negotiations vete the buggery allegations, and even lf.ithwitli were not suspicions that it is riddleu., iit if homosexualists and Soviet agents. Ju—nos Mr Callaghan continues to resist detnase is for a Royal Commission when the carol over, he will be making a grave P°11witii miscalculation. He can play his Or but silvery squeaks as hard as he ".e‘,5; fOr the luminous nose will not 5)0'4—, are long if further attempts at a cover4t" made at this late stage.
Previous page
