Morning:
13°c
Met Chief in Kate Moss drugs storm
Justin Davenport and Anne McElvoy06.06.08
A call by Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair for celebrities who are filmed apparently taking drugs to be put on trial prompted an angry response from Britain's chief prosecutor today.
The Scotland Yard head is calling on prosecution lawyers to review the practice which means people are not charged because police cannot prove which substance they are taking.
In an exclusive interview with the Evening Standard, Sir Ian cited the case of Kate Moss. Police and lawyers were unable to take action after she was pictured snorting lines of white powder.
Today Sir Ian said he wanted juries to decide if drugs had been used, saying the defence that they were merely taking another substance - such as talcum powder - should be put to the test in a court.
But the call provoked an extraordinary response from the Director of Publ ic Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, who accused the police chief of misunderstanding the law. He said: "I'm extremely surprised by comments attributed to Sir Ian Blair. He appears to have completely misunderstood the law. The issue was not whether the white powder that Kate Moss was snorting was cocaine or talcum powder.
"The law required us to prove that it was either a class A drug or a class B drug. We could only base our case on one of these options. It was impossible for us to do this since cocaine, a class A drug, and amphetamine, a class B drug, are both white powders.
"The analysis attributed to Sir Ian Blair is therefore completely wide of the mark. Any suggestion that the Crown Prosecution Service does not prosecute celebrities is completely untrue - we will prosecute when the police provide us with sufficient evidence to do so."
Prosecutors are also angry about Sir Ian's comments because of his implication that they rather than Parliament, which passes legislation, are responsible for the way the law on drugs operates.
Sir Ian, however, stood by his remarks. In a statement issued this afternoon, Scotland Yard said: "As is clear from his comments the commissioner understands the current law relating to drugs.
"He has asked for it to be explored whether there are other options that can be used to put such matters before juries or whether this requires a change in the law. The commissioner has not criticised the CPS, he is reflecting a view of many ordinary people about how the law stands in dealing with what is sometimes apparent and obvious drug use."
Privately, senior Yard sources described the DPP's comments as an "extraordinary over-reaction".
One said: "The issue in not whether it is talcum powder, Class A or Class B, he is simply saying we need to review where we stand. This may well need a change in the law but at least let's have some discussion to see if there is anything more we can do."
Kate Moss escaped charges because police could not prove the substance she was taking was cocaine, leading to criticism of the nine-month investigation. In two other cases - video footage of Amy Winehouse with what appeared to be crack, and Peaches Geldof handing money to an alleged drug dealer - police and prosecutors faced the same legal loophole.
Today Sir Ian told the Standard he wanted juries to decide if drugs had been used. Judges would then be able to sentence offenders to prison terms, although non-custodial sentences and treatment are more likely.
He said: "I have asked for discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service. My position is that a sensible jury would not expect people to be sniffing talcum powder. I think it is reasonable for a jury to say 'You convince me that you are taking talcum powder' because it is an unusual way to take it."
In a wide-ranging interview, Sir Ian reiterated his view that tackling youth crime was the biggest challenge facing the Met, aside from terrorism. He spoke of the new police initiative to tackle knife crime - Operation Blunt 2.
He also confirmed he had ordered a review of thousands of unsolved cases of harassment and assault in a bid to identify possible future killers. It follows the killing of Arsema Dawit, 15, who was stabbed despite threats against her being reported to police.
WHY CPS IGNORED KATE'S 'COKE SHAME'
THE decision not to charge Kate Moss was taken because of legal rules that require prosecutors to prove the class of drug that an offender was taking - and not because of any doubt that she was consuming an illegal substance.
In a statement last June, the CPS said that it accepted film of the supermodel gave an "absolutely clear indication that she was using controlled drugs and providing them to others" - but the way legislation was written made it impossible to prosecute. The white powder she was filmed taking could have been ecstasy, a class A substance, or amphetamines - a class B drug - as well as the class A cocaine she was widely believed to have been snorting. There was no forensic science or witness evidence.
A prosecution for taking a class A or class B substance with penalties imposed for the lesser offence on conviction would need a law change.
Reader views (28)
"It is reasonable for a jury to say: 'You convince me that you are taking talcum powder' because it is an unusual way to take it."
Er NO - it is your job to prove it, not anyone's job to prove innocence. Perhaps if you did your job more effectively we would all be a little safer. If anyone is foolish enough to take untested, unknown substances that is their problem. They damage themselves, but they are not stabbing other people".
You think that drug addicts do not go around stabbing other people? Drug addicts will kill people for a few pounds just to buy another fix.
- Pat, Essex
Hey, why don't we just let all celebs do what they want. After all there just celebs, why pick on them? What fine examples they can be, such an inspiration to our children, not!
If you are guilty you are guilty .... celeb or not. Quite simple really
- Mic, bromley, kent
I wonder what would have happened if an 'ordinary' person had been filmed.
- Mark, Milan, Italy
I can't believe it! No one can be free!
- Angelo, London
Yes that's right Sir Ian, while we have armed gangs roaming London killing innocents(and each other)lets make a big fuss over a few celebs being celebs.
Oh yes that's right more window-dressing rather than the real policing London needs, wants & deserves.
- Billybob, London
Well you can spot the Druggies in the room can't you.
If there is video evidence of you snorting a white powder substance or sticking a needle in your arm then I'd say that's good evidence.
Upon arrest the offender will be drug tested and any trace of that substance found in their system...waaayheeey more proof.
I think celebrities on drugs are a 'blot on our civilisation' don't even get me started on 'rappers' professing violences through their lyrics.
...Also, Mikko, you seem quite rabid of opinion. Find me a quote from Sir Ian Blair saying that it was okay to shoot someone. At every opportunity he has publicly apologised. No an apology doesn't make it right before you start foaming at the mouth but at least the Met are willing to learn and have sat down with the family and tried to answer their questions.
Would that have happened in Brazil?
You also might be aware that a trial found the Met Not Guilty of charges arising from an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation. So um...get over it, to coin a phrase in the parlance of our times.
Back on subject, the CPS aren't known as the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.
- Matt, London, UK
Sir Ian Blair clearly has no understanding of the burden and standard of proof required by the Crown in bringing prosecutions under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
If the Crown prosecute a defendant, supermodel or otherwise, under the above legislation, then the Crown must prove each and every element of the charge contained in the indictment. To prove that a substance is a controlled drug under the Act, the Crown must adduce expert evidence in the form of a statement from a forensic scientist. In the case of Ms Moss, no substance was ever seized as evidence by the police, so there would never be any prospect of proving any narcotic content. Ms Moss is under no legal obligation to answer questions
either at the police station or at trial. The case would never reach the trial stage in any event, since the defence would simply mount an application to dismiss, on which the judge would rule in their favour.
If Sir Ian Blair wishes to reverse the burden of proof in criminal cases, so that it is up to an accused person to prove their own innocence, then perhaps he would like to lobby Parliament, whose members I am sure would be less than impressed at such an Orwellian suggestion.
I am surprised that the Director of Public Prosecutions has remained so restrained in his comments.
As London's most senior police officer,Sir Ian Blair's comments show such a paucity of knowlege and judgement that his ability to remain in his post has to be called into question.
- G.Lloyd, London UK
Sir Ian obviously doesn't care about or understand the law. If it can't be proven - it cannot be used as evidence to convict. We may not morally agree with role models getting away with it but if you start bending the law to fit your needs then it's the thin edge of the wedge for justice. Sir Ian should not be allowed to continue in his position, if this is his stance. He has to be the worst Met Chief that's ever been appointed.
- Andy, London
The law could be changed where the defence would have to show that the substance was not controlled as it does in some aspects of British Criminal Law.
- Bill, Durham
The fact remains the UK is awash with illicit drugs and the escalation began in the early 1960's with the first signs of cannabis usage in the country. This has now culminated in a situation where drug abuse fosters about 70% of our criminal activity and this along with the brass necked celebrity use of illegal substances is tainting the health and normal aspirations of our young. The rehabilitation programme is not working as generation after generation continue to succumb and a more draconian approach is needed. The Commissioner has unfortunately demonstrated his ignorance as to the burden of proof in criminal cases. However, there has always been more than one way to skin a cat, and he should deploy his officers accordingly.
- Robert , Hull, East Yorks.,
-and to think it's fools like this who will be given the right to detain suspects for 42 days ?
Will someone please sack this incompetent, intemperate man before he causes more damage.
- Simon Dewolf, London, UK
Frankly, the likes of Moss, Winehouse et al can snort themselves to death for all we care. We certainly back Sir Ian, not Mr Macdonald: the CPS (Criminal Protection Society) is by and large incompetent and useless. Those - including lawyers, the police, witnesses etc - who have to attend court, be it magistrates or crown, will no doubt agree.
- Annabelle, London
The only answer is for police to do huge amounts of undercover work in clubs etc., gathering tiny samples and other evidence. This is so labour-intensive that it is usually not worth doing.
- John, London
Why should we trust Sir Ian on 42 days when he shows no grasp of civil rights. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt and not the defendant to prove innocence. Will he be keeping suspects locked up for 6 weeks until they can prove their innocence?
- James Wilson, Huddersfield
If this hopeless buffoon spent as much time gathering evidence against drug-abusing celebrities as he does persecuting his own officers for crimes against political correctness, the CPS might actually be able to build a case that is presentable at court.
Boris promised to weed out the unnecessary dead wood from London's public bodies; I can't think of a better place to start than the top floor at New Scotland Yard.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster
This time round Sir Ian Blair is right. Other correspondents on this page are, I suspect, looking after their own interests.
- John Bennett, Exeter,Devon
"Of course celebrities should face consequences for their actions"
I agree, As should Sir Ian Blair.
- Martin, Telford England
It is no surprise that this man is one of the few law professionals who support the government's plan for 42 days detention without charge or trial. His criminally-negligent, callous response to the police-shooting of Jean-Charles De Menezes and his utterances over the years show how little he values human rights (or life) and liberties that make Britain a just and civilised society.
He is a fitting bed-fellow for our current authoritarian leadership, and would have lost his job long ago if the principle of democratic answer-ability had not been scrapped by this government.
- Colin, Manchester
What an embarrassment this man is to Britain and the reputation of British justice. He could only survive in office under a morally-bankrupt government such as the present one.
- Jr Gaffiero, Derbyshire, UK
Oh dear, this really does feed into that old adage about the police being a bit thick doesn't it. I man, if the commissioner of the met can't grasp a simple legal issue like this...
- Aidan Reid, London, UK
So, Sir Ian Blair would like to see people have to prove their innocence against allegations from the Police which are unsupported by hard evidence.
The reversal of one of our core "British values", the presumption of innocence.
Perhaps he would like to test this approach to justice by putting himself and his agents into Court to prove they were not responsible for the killing of J.C. de Menezes and the shooting of Mohammed Abdul Kahar.
- Sam_M, London
What an absolutely morally bankrupted disgrace of a man this Scotland Yard head is. He thinks it's okay to go around shooting innocent men in the head SEVEN times (like that poor Brazilian) while he couldn't even be bothered to stay at work when he heard and just went home for his tea.
And he has the sheer cheek and audacity to attack other people for allegedly taking a snort or two of drugs. The man is such an obnoxious waste of space that I cannot use the words I want to describe him with because they would be unprintable here.
Why has this incompetent and useless head of the Metropolitan Police not been sacked and criminally prosecuted long ago? The thought of this man getting a tax-payer stuffed pension for his incompetence and the death of at least one innocent under his watch makes me feel physically ill. He is a blot on our civilisation.
- Mikko Takala, Drumnadrochit, Scotland
Sir Ian Blair is either completely ignorant or is trying to get his name in lights. The law does not require defendants to prove their innocence, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime charged. To suggest that celebrities should be pilloried when the prosecution wants is outrageous and completely at odds with the legal system. The mere suggestion by the top police officer that people can be charged without evidence is so offensive and so prejudicial to the good administration of justice that this police officer should forthwith be sacked. He would no doubt condone people randomly picking up people off the streets and saying prove you didn't do x. Time to retire now Sir Ian.
- Douglas Potter, Melbourne Australia
Of course celebrities should face consequences for their actions. When they glamorise such behaviour/habits and get away with it, then fans will obviously follow suit.
- Deborah, London
Although I was one of those on the Police Authority who was often critical of Sir Ian, he is absolutely correct logically that if we have laws against cocaine use which make it a serious crime, and if people are appearing on the front pages of newspapers doing it, then the police cannot stand by. Arguments about whether something should be illegal or not are irrelevant. Frankly, who sits in a bar and snorts talcum powder? I sat on the MPA Drugs Scrutiny and it is clear to me that current laws do not work, but it also clear to anyone that drugs are connected with an extraordinarily large amount of other crime. There may need to be a serious re-think about every aspect of the law and drugs, internationally, but it cannot appear to the public that well known people can do openly what an average person would be arrested for and then receive a criminal record. But of course there are plenty of other excuses..."I was posing for a picture, M'Lud"...
- Damian Hockney, London, UK
Is Ian Blair still alive? He's been so quiet since the inquest of Mr DeMenezes I though the'd retired, perhaps he thought keeping his head down would help make people think that he wasn't utterly useless?
- F Barleymow, London
And serve Mr Freddie Flintoff with an ASBO for his drinking antics while we're about it.
- Peter Haldane, London
It is reasonable for a jury to say: 'You convince me that you are taking talcum powder' because it is an unusual way to take it."
Er NO - it is YOUR job to prove it, not anyone's job to prove innocence. Perhaps if you did your job more effectively we would all be a little safer. If anyone is foolish enough to take untested, unknown substances that is their problem. They damage themselves, but they are not stabbing other people.
- Richard, London
