Questions from the commissioners
on the submission of Tony Hyland
Questions: Have you any idea when the ADG was formed?
How is "reasonable force" to be determined? Have you
any information on the ADG and do you think unreasonable force
was used in the circumstances?
Tony Hyland: Up until the death of Joy, the activities
of the Alien Deportation Group were absolutely secret. However,
during the course of the Old Bailey case, where the three ADG
officers stood trial for manslaughter, a certain amount of information
began to surface about this police unit. If the statements of
the defence lawyers are to be believed, the Alien Deportation
Group actually existed as far back as 1971. One of the defence
lawyers claimed that it was created out of the Immigration Act
of 1971 which gave special powers to the Home Secretary to deport
individuals. This makes it even more implausible that the Home
Secretary or the Home Office were ignorant about the activities
of the ADG, if its specific purpose was to assist the Home Secretary
in deportations that he was empowered to decree.
Regarding the definition of "reasonable force", I
said in my submission that the regular police are officially obliged
to log the use of handcuffs because they are only supposed to
be applied as a last resort. So if the police are forced to log
this they have to substantiate on what basis they were forced
to this last resort. This did not apply to the ADG, even though
we are talking about a police unit that was not just using handcuffs
but was using mouth-gags and body-belts. They were in no way obliged
to log their use, so there were no guidelines whatsoever. It was
basically no holds barred.
It was said in the trial that the body-belt used against Joy
was actually created by someone out of the ADG, who was financially
rewarded for his endeavours. This was in the early 1980s, so we
can safely assume that this belt had been used several times over
the intervening period. I would also like to make quite a simple
point -- the reason why there had been no recorded complaints
of its use. This is because those who were subjected to this were
in the process of being deported, so they were not to be heard
from again in this country. The difference is that in this case
it took place in someone's home and led very directly to the death
of Joy Gardner.
In the course of the trial many former ADG officers were called
up and they stated that the mouth-gag was used quite regularly.
When the prosecution asked one senior member of the ADG why he
felt that they were exempt from the procedures that apply to police
in terms of the logging of restraints, he said: "We deal
with different people, not people at large". In other words
as far as they were concerned they were dealing with non-people.
You begin to get a picture of a police department that was given
a free hand to apply these restraints whenever they deemed fit.
I think it is true to say that they were a law unto themselves.
Regarding how regularly restraints were being used, in 1992
-- the year before Joy died -- out of the 139 deportations that
were carried out, 102 of these involved the use of handcuffs.
That means a great majority of deportations were carried out by
the use of force. These are official figures and this is probably
a conservative estimate because there was no procedure of recording
the use of restraints.
The official explanation of the ADG's existence was to carry
out deportations if immigration officers were confronted with
violence. This statement was for public consumption. The reality
is that they were being used more and more to deport people who
were trying to go through legal processes to achieve residency
in the country. I am sure there is a causal connection between
the way in which immigration laws were being tightened, severely
curtailing legal rights, and the fact that the ADG were carrying
out the type of deportation raids that resulted in Joy's death.
Question: You referred to the Home Secretary signing
Joy's deportation order and to the ADG being set up specifically
to aid the Home Secretary. Am I to understand that the Home Secretary
was involved in authorising deportations and is therefore responsible
for what takes place on those occasions? Would that be a correct
interpretation of the relationship?
Tony Hyland: The Home Secretary does authorise a deportation,
that is not disputed. He has to sign the actual deportation paper,
so the Home Secretary did order Joy's deportation and was responsible
for what then transpired.
Question: You referred to positional asphyxiation. Could
you elaborate on this?
Tony Hyland: I am not a medical expert, but one of the
things that emerged out of Joy's death was a review of
the way in which deportations were carried out. It is quite ironic
that although they deny that any of the procedures followed by
the police caused her death, all these issues are supposed to
be reviewed in the new procedures for deportations. The review
refers to the fact that officers should be trained on the phenomena
of positional asphyxiation, which as far as I understand it, is
a situation where someone is lying face down on the floor with
their arms behind their back, making it virtually impossible to
breathe.
The other question dealt with is the mouth-gag. The review
states that it should no longer be used. So two factors -- positional
asphyxiation and the mouth-gag -- that figured so importantly
in Joy's death are now "officially" proscribed because
they are known to be life threatening. Yet, it is still claimed
that neither the police or the Home Office are in anyway responsible
for carrying out dangerous practices that led to death.
Question: The prosecution stated that the second tape
was used not because Joy was trying to bite, but purely to shut
her up. Dr. Harris stated that no teeth marks were on the tape.
In your opinion, are the biting allegations exaggerated or not
true?
Tony Hyland: PC Colin Whitby was the ADG officer in
charge of the whole operation, he was the one who commanded all
the restraints. PC Whitby changed his version of events during
the course of the trial. During the trial he claimed that the
reason why the tape was applied was because Joy had bitten PC
Adamson, but in his original statement he made no such reference
to PC Adamson being bitten. This removes one of the central justifications
for the use of the mouth-gag.
PC Adamson, who claimed he was bitten, was wearing a short
sleeve shirt at the time. But he said that when he went to check
his injury he found no skin broken. There was no proof that he
had been bitten. There was no proof that any officer had been
bitten.
In the court, PC Whitby, who'd claimed that Joy was lashing
out, punching and kicking, was asked which officers were struck.
His reply to this question was -- "None". There were
no punches or kicks landed against any of the officers.
The role of Bernie Grant and Bill Morris
Question: You said that in her fight to stay Joy Gardner
made representations to certain people, one of whom was Bill Morris
and the other Bernie Grant. Can you shed any more light on the
issues put to them and their response.
Tony Hyland: I would like to submit as evidence letters
that were written by Joy which call on Bill Morris to make representations
on her behalf against deportation. This was in 1992, after the
first appeal had been turned down. I think that this is very relevant
to everything we are raising in the inquiry. It would not have
been possible for such a brutal deportation to have been carried
out if it didn't have the acceptance of those in the leadership
of the working class. You have to bear in mind that the Transport
and General Workers Union up until recently had something like
one million members. The letter speaks for itself. It was dated
February 7, 1992. This is from the letter to Bill Morris: "...I
am writing to you with tears in my eyes and I am a nervous wreck.
Me and my 4 yrs old son is in danger of being deported at any
moment and would like you to intervene as this is very urgent
and critical".
As far as we know the T&G took up no campaign on Joy's
behalf as a response to this letter, but we did approach Bill
Morris to clarify this issue. We received a letter from him dated
October 12, 1995. He says, "Despite a thorough search of
our files we are unable to find the specific correspondence to
which you refer. This may have been mislaid in our recent move
from Smith Square to Palace Street". I think that gives you
some kind of indication of the seriousness that the Transport
and General Workers Union attached to Joy Gardner's appeal.
In relation to Bernie Grant, who was her local Labour MP at
the time, we have a copy of a letter that was written by the Immigration
Minister to Bernie Grant on October 17, 1992. So it is evident
that he did make a representation on Joy's behalf. This was turned
down by the Immigration Department.
From the very inception of the Workers Inquiry we made numerous
requests for Bernie Grant to make public any information he had
regarding the case of Joy Gardner. We sent two letters, the first
being as early as July which didn't receive any reply. Eventually
at a public meeting on September21 in Manchester, we received
an undertaking from Mr. Grant that he would make this information
available. He agreed that if we phoned his office he would make
the necessary arrangements for us to view whatever documents he
had. We did this, his secretary refused to make this appointment
and told us that they were under no obligation to give any information
to our "so-called tin-pot inquiry".
After that we made two written requests and several phone calls
asking Mr Grant to honour his original pledge. The first letter
was sent on October 10 and we didn't receive a reply until two
weeks later on October 26. This letter was quite dismissive of
what we were trying to achieve through this inquiry. I would like
to quote a couple of excerpts from Mr. Grant's letter. It says:
"Dear Mr Hyland,
I am in receipt of your letter of October 10 in relation of
your so-called 'Workers Inquiry into the death of Joy Gardner'.
I deeply resent the way in which your organisation conducts
itself,... as well as the unfounded allegations contained in your
recent letter.
If one takes these factors along with the libellous remarks
made about me personally in your publication, then I can only
say you have a very strange way of trying to secure your stated
aim of 'achieving truth and justice for Joy'.
I have much information about the death of Joy Gardner, and
as I have always been, I am committed to work with all those who
have a genuine interest in her case. If you would care to specify
exactly what information you require, which you have not yet done,
then I will certainly do my best to make it available to you,
provided that I have the agreement of all parties concerned, and
provided that I am not in breach of my duty of confidentiality
to anyone involved.
I await your response.
Yours sincerely,
Bernie Grant MP".
That didn't leave us a lot of time to reply, because this was
just a week before these proceedings. So we replied immediately
and specified exactly what information we would require. I would
like to quote the letter we wrote on October 27:
"Dear Mr Grant,
Thank you for your letter of October 26 regarding the Workers
Inquiry into the death of Joy Gardner. We are proud to say that
the Workers Inquiry has received widespread support because it
is the only independent inquiry interested in revealing the true
facts behind the death of Mrs Gardner.
The commissioners hearing is scheduled to begin next weekend,
Saturday and Sunday November 4th and 5th. Therefore we wish to
make our request for documents as specific as possible. Given
the fact that we are unaware of all of the information that you
possess, we would like to have clarification on the following
issues:
1. We have a copy of the letter from the Immigration Department
regarding your request that Joy be allowed to stay in Britain.
This letter was sent from the then Immigration Minister, Charles
Wardle, dated August 17, 1992. Could you send us a copy of your
original letter and also any other letters pertaining to this
issue?
2. We also have a copy of a letter sent from Joy Gardner to
TGWU General Secretary Bill Morris on February 7, 1992. This letter
was a request for representation concerning her appeal against
deportation. Could you provide us with the letters sent to you
by Joy regarding information on the progress of her appeal and
related issues?
3. In The Joy Gardner Campaign Information Bulletin it
was reported that as early as 11.30am on the July 28, 1993, you
were telephoned by Chief Inspector Mark Sanger informing you that
Joy had suffered a heart attack during the deportation attempt.
Could you expand on this discussion? What explanation was given
for this development?
4. On August 3, 1993 you were called to a meeting with Paul
Condon the Metropolitan Chief Commissioner. It was reported that
at this meeting the three officers of the ADGSO1(3) were suspended
and the activities of the unit were halted pending a review. When
you emerged from this meeting you were reported as saying that
justice would now be done. What type of investigation into the
ADGSO1 (3) had been promised? What was discussed that linked any
connection between the activities of the officers involved in
the events of July 28 and the general practices of the unit?
5. After Joy's death you stated that you would raise the issue
of her death in Parliament and initiate a campaign within the
Labour Party over Joy's brutal killing. What was the response
to this and what was the eventual outcome?
In answer to your statement of libel by the Workers Inquiry,
the disagreements we have raised are of a political character,
not personal. It is no secret that our party, the International
Communist Party, has major political differences with you and
the party you represent. In the process of making these differences
clear, we uphold the most professional standards in our approach
and certainly do not descend into lies and vituperation.
It would be wrong for these political differences to be used
to obstruct the uncovering of the truth of Joy's death.
Yours sincerely,
Antony Hyland
(Investigator for the Workers Inquiry)."
To this day we have received no reply and the initial pledge
for this information to be made available has never been honoured.
Previous
Article | Next
Article | Buy
the Book
|
