21. After the examination was over, Miss Savidge was driven home accompanied by Chief Inspector Collins and Sergeant Clark On arrival at her house the Chief Inspector accompanied her into the house and was introduced to her mother. A short friendly conversation took place in which Miss Savidge joined, and when the Chief Inspector left Miss Savidge was apparently not unduly tired, and gave no indication whatever that she had any complaint to make of her treatment during that afternoon.

22. The Chief Inspector's object in accompanying Miss Savidge when she was driven home was that he might interview Miss Egan, who lived in the same neighbourhood, that evening.

Miss Egan had been informed by Sergeant Chambers on Chief Inspector Collins' instructions that he was coming for that purpose, and she indicated to Sergeant Chambers that if Chief Inspector Collins wanted to see her he must come to her house. Sergeant Chambers assented, and in due course the Chief Inspector, accompanied by Sergeant Chambers and Sergeant Clark, called at her house, where a statement was taken from her by Chief Inspector Collins, the method adopted being the same as that in the case of Miss Savidge. During the taking of this statement Miss Egan's brother was present by her request.

23. When Miss Egan was informed by Sergeant Chambers that Chief Inspector Collins was coming she requested her brother to telephone to Sir Leo Money and inform him of the fact. When this information reached Sir Leo Money we do not know, but at 11.44 p.m. he sent a telegram to Miss Savidge in the following terms:

"Please call Syrett & Sons, 115, Moorgate Street, E.C., 11.30 to-morrow, Wednesday. I will be there. In the meantime please do not give information to anyone.-L." The telegram was not delivered until next morning, but at about midnight Sir Leo Money unexpectedly arrived at Miss Savidge's house. What exactly happened at the interview which followed is not clear, except that Miss Savidge threw a box of matches at Sir Leo, and then collapsed, and had to be carried up to bed by her father. On the following morning Miss Savidge attended by appointment at the office of Messrs. Syrett & Sons, the solicitors who had acted for her and for Sir Leo Money at the police court. A clerk took Miss Savidge's statement down in the same way as it had been taken by the police except that the summarised answers were taken down in shorthand. The statement purports to give a full account of what had happened at Scotland Yard the previous afternoon, and it contains the serious charges against Chief Inspector Collins which. were relied on at the hearing before us.

24. On May 16, Chief Inspector Collins at 5.45 p.m. telephoned to Sir Leo Money's house in order to ask him whether he would make a statement. He was stated to be out. Sir Leo

Money appears then to have communicated with his solicitor, Mr. Syrett, who telephoned to Chief Inspector Collins at 5.55 p.m. that he refused to let Sir Leo Money go to Scotland Yard, and said that if he wished to see him he could see him at his office on the next day, and an appointment was accordingly made for eleven o'clock on May 17.

Chief Inspector Collins attended with Sergeant Clark on that day at Messrs. Syrett's office and saw Sir Leo Money with Mr. Syrett, who intimated that he would not allow Sir Leo Money to answer roving questions as to his past history and his acquaintance with Miss Savidge.

Chief Inspector Collins reported this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who wrote a letter to Messrs. Syrett & Sons on May 17, setting out his views and saying that he "insisted " upon Sir Leo Money sparing a little of his time to give to the officer acting for him full information upon such matters as he thought were material for him to consider; asking them to give an opportunity for the interrogation, and stating that if they declined he must take other steps" to procure what was essential for him to have before him. As regards Sir Leo Money's examination no further steps were taken.

66

25. On the evening of May 17, 1928, the attention of the House of Commons was drawn to the matter, and the adjournment of the House was moved by Mr. Johnston for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely :— The circumstances under which the Metropolitan Police conveyed a young woman named Miss Savage to Scotland Yard and without giving her the opportunity to communicate with her friends or legal advisers subjected her to close and persistent examination regarding a case already tried and dealt with by the Court."

As a consequence of that Motion the Tribunal of which we are members was constituted.

26. Before expressing any opinion on any part of this case it is necessary to deal with the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions and with what appears to be the accepted practice of Scotland Yard with reference to the taking of statements from persons who are in a position to give information which may be useful to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the police in the discharge of their duty in relation to the discovery or punishment of crime.

27. So far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned his position is a statutory one. He has no staff for conducting such inquiries as he desired to have made in the present case, and he informed us that his practice and that of his predecessors in the office for over fifty years has been to hand over the making of the necessary inquiries to the police.

Whether it is desirable that the Director should be provided with staff for the purpose of conducting such inquiries it does not come within our province to decide.

28. So far as the practice of Scotland Yard is concerned we were told that while a distinction is of course drawn between taking a statement from a witness and taking a statement from a person who is accused or suspected of crime and to whose case therefore the Rules known as the Judges' Rules are applicable, no distinction is ever drawn between taking a statement from a person who is for instance a mere witness of some occurrence with no personal interest in the matter, direct or. indirect, and taking a statement from a person whose character or reputation may be the very matter to be inquired into, or may be involved in the inquiry.

Once an apparent willingness to make a statement is obtained the practice appears to be to make the fullest possible inquiry, and to obtain all possible information even though it may be obvious to the person taking the statement that the person making it is quite unaware of what the consequences to himself or herself may be, and even though the inquiry may proceed far beyond the limits which could be covered by an assent originally given. Under these circumstances the effect of the prevailing practice is that the police follow the line of least resistance in obtaining statements, and the method of approach to the person whose statement is required will vary according to the position of the person and the value of his or her statement, but will always be the one which appears to be most likely to avoid opposition.

This is well exemplified in the present case by the different methods of approach adopted in the cases of Miss Savidge, Miss Egan, and Sir Leo Money.

The conclusions at which we have arrived in reference to the action of the Public Prosecutor in instituting the inquiry and in reference to the action of the police in bringing Miss Savidge to Scotland Yard to be examined are as follows:

(1) That having regard to all the circumstances the Director of Public Prosecutions was under the duty of endeavouring to obtain a statement from Miss Savidge.

(2) That in taking the course he did he was following the accepted practice, and indeed the only one open to him.

(3) That due and proper care was taken in selecting the person to make the inquiry, and that Chief Inspector Collins was in the opinion of the authorities the most suitable officer available for the purpose.

(4) That the scope of the inquiry directed by the Director of Public Prosecutions was not wider than was necessary.

(5) With regard to the action of Chief Constable Wensley, Superintendent Savage and Chief Inspector Collins, who are collectively responsible for bringing Miss Savidge to Scotland

Yard and for the means adopted for bringing her there, we consider that they are not to blame because, and only because, they were following what is apparently the established practice at Scotland Yard, a practice which must be taken to be known to and approved of by those in higher authority than themselves.

Though we acquit these officers of blame in this respect we do not approve of the application to this particular case of the practice which was followed, as it was obvious that the statement required of Miss Savidge must involve an inquiry directly affecting her character, since it was to be directed to her association with Sir Leo Money and to what was alleged to have occurred in Hyde Park on the evening of April 23, and it was equally obvious that her character might be indirectly affected in the event of a prosecution for perjury following upon her statement, whatever the result: as a prosecution ending in a conviction of the constables would again make public her relations with Sir Leo Money, and a prosecution ending in an acquittal would go far to discount the moral value of her acquittal by the Magistrate. It is outside the scope of this Inquiry to express any opinion except as to the particular case to which our reference is limited, but in this particular case we are clearly of opinion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, Miss Savidge should have been approached in the first instance through her parents, or, if this course was not adopted, that she should have had her position explained to her, at her home rather than at her place of employment, before she was asked to make any statement.

6. We have left to the last the question of what occurred during the interrogation at Scotland Yard. There is a serious conflict of evidence between the two police officers and Miss Savidge as to what occurred. Miss Savidge alleges :

(a) That the Chief Inspector terrorized her, and gave her to understand that she must tell the truth and that nothing more would be heard of the matter.

(b) That the Chief Inspector dismissed Miss Wyles from the room in order that he might conduct the interrogation without a woman's interference.

(c) That he made to her a most improper remark about not having had connection with a man.

(d) That in an improper and indelicate manner he carried out a demonstration of the way in which he suggested that she and Sir Leo Money were sitting in Hyde Park.

(e) That he inserted in the statement things she never said, and distorted what she did say to serve his own purpose.

(f) That owing to the length of the interview she was so tired that she did not care what the police put down. If Miss Savidge's statement on these points is accepted, there is no doubt but that Chief Inspector Collins was guilty of improper conduct.

In arriving at a conclusion as to the accuracy of these charges it is necessary to bear in mind the circumstances under which

they came into existence: namely, after the midnight interview with Sir Leo Money, and a night for reflection upon the effect of the statements contained in the document which she had herself signed as proof of their correctness; and to bear in mind. also the two personalities chiefly concerned, namely, on the one hand Chief Inspector Collins, a man beyond middle age, married and with a family, possessing an unblemished record of 32 years service during which he has been commended by Judges upon 93 occasions for skill and ability in the performance of his duties and for rendering public service, and, on the other hand, Miss Savidge, a young woman of 22 years of age, intelligent, of quick perception and of considerable acuteness, quite capable of taking care of herself, though highly strung. We are satisfied that she was put quite at her ease by the tact and friendliness of the Chief Inspector and that he gained her confidence. feel sure that whatever her inward feelings may have been (and we have no reason to believe that they were different from her outward appearance) she did not, from the time she arrived at Scotland Yard until the time she reached her home after the interrogation was over, give any indication that she was ever distressed, or ill at ease, or exhausted, or that she was in any way objecting to any questions that were being put to her. It should be added that Miss Savidge is singularly youthful and childlike in appearance and manner, and that the Chief Inspector treated her in an almost paternal manner, which explains a good deal of what might otherwise appear curious, as, for instance, his addressing her by her Christian name, to which she offered no objection.

We

Sergeant Clark, who was the third person present, is an officer of many years experience and has an excellent record. The conclusions at which we have arrived on this branch of the Inquiry are as follows:

(a) Miss Savidge was not intimidated into answering questions. Chief Inspector Collins and Sergeant Clark gained her confidence and at their request she answered their questions freely.

(b) Miss Wyles's presence during the interrogation was only dispensed with because Miss Savidge expressed herself as quite content that it should proceed without her.

(c) and (d) The alleged demonstration did not take place nor was the alleged remark made. Miss Savidge was treated by Chief Inspector Collins and Sergeant Clark with no lack of propriety.

(e) Miss Savidge's answers were not misconstrued or improperly recorded. She approved them at the time.

(f) No doubt Miss Savidge was tired, having been at work since eight o'clock that day, but she had had lunch and tea and was quite competent to understand what was said and done, as is shown by her detailed statement made to her solicitors next day.