letter to David Cameron from Jill Saward

An open letter to David Cameron on the rights of victims of crime
from Jill Saward, 6th July 2008

The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Leader of the Conservative Party
Conservative Central Office
25 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0DL

6th July 2008

Dear Mr Cameron,

On Friday night’s Any Questions, David Davis said there was “no difference whatsoever” between him and you on the issues he is campaigning on in Haltemprice and Howden by-election.

With that in mind, I’d like to ask you just a few short questions in the hope that you will be able to clarify Conservative Party policy on these important issues.

Rape – Sentencing and Rape Crisis Centres

In a general response to my campaign, David Davis says that during his tenure as Shadow Home Secretary, the conservatives launched a review of rape sentencing and pledged additional funding for Rape Crisis Centres. The review was promised in your speech to Conservative Women’s Organisations last November. Could you please let me know when this review will report?

A review of sentences in rape cases is much needed. A few months ago the Court of Appeal halved the already-low four-year sentence imposed on the rapist of a 10-year-old girl in Plymouth on the basis of his “good behaviour” between arrest and sentence. It is cases such as this which lead to victims assuming the criminal justice system has no interest in them.

But a review of sentences can not be conducted in the absence of a much wider review looking at how rapes are dealt with at all stages of the criminal justice system. Before sentencing comes conviction - and in rape cases it is increasingly difficult to obtain a conviction without a guilty plea. And there have even been cases of police forces dealing with rapists and other sex offenders through police cautions – trivialising such a major crime into a minor public order issue.

In your speech you also highlight the difficulties Rape Crisis Centres face in attracting sufficient funding to continue their vital work. Your pledge to introduce three-year funding cycles is welcome. But your promise of additional funding must be seen against a backdrop of little or no existing funding.

The Rape Crisis centre which covers Haltemprice and Howden receives no funding at all from the Conservative-led East Riding of Yorkshire Council. How effective can your promise be when your shadow home secretary is unable to persuade even his own district council to support this vital service?

Civil Liberties, CCTV and the DNA Database

In your speech you also say: “We have a situation where rapists think they can get away with it, while victims fear not being believed and wonder what's the point of pursuing the criminal process. This represents a real challenge to the British criminal justices system. Of course, this means doing all we can to help the police catch criminals.”

I agree with what you say here. It is a pity that David Davis does not.

David Davis does not want to help the police catch criminals. He wants to make their job harder in the name of “civil liberties”. His disagreement might explain why he had so little to say about issues of sexual violence and violence against women while he was Shadow Home Secretary.

This week, when questioned on Any Questions, Davis said there was “not even a bus ticket” between him and you on these policy issues.

As Davis’s statements about CCTV and the national DNA database are contrary to your promise to do “all you can to help the police catch criminals”, could you please clarify some issues.

CCTV Cameras

David Davis has dressed up his concern over CCTV by saying that 80 per cent of footage is unusable. But that isn’t a civil liberty issue and that isn’t his real concern. His real concern is what he calls “the growth of the surveillance society.” He cites statistics claiming that there: “is a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens.”

It is clear that he is not calling for the “80 per cent” to be upgraded, but for a radical cull of existing CCTV cameras.

Is David Davis right to say that there is no difference between him and you on this issue?

Is it Conservative policy to reduce the number of CCTV cameras? How would you decide which ones to remove and what criteria would you follow before allowing new CCTV cameras to be installed?

The DNA Database

David Davis has said he is concerned by the inclusion of “innocent” people on the DNA database. The inclusion of such people – whose DNA is taken when they are arrested on suspicion of having commited offences but who are later cleared or not even charged – is clearly controversial. Members of the public are naturally concerned to ensure that “innocent” people are treated as such.

However, the inclusion of such “innocent” people’s DNA on the database has led to the detection of 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 other sexual offences, 119 aggravated burglaries and 127 drugs offences.

The inclusion of such “innocent” people on the DNA database clearly helps the police. And as you want to do “all you can” to help the police I would have thought you would not want to remove this useful tool. But this is what David Davis is campaigning for in Haltemprice and Howden.

Do you agree with David Davis on this issue, or do you wish to help the police detect and solve crime?

David Davis says he wants to add to the DNA database people who have committed serious crimes in the past – long before the DNA database came into being. Whilst understanding the sentiment this is clearly a proposal which has not been fully considered.

How would you include such people on the database?

By definition, the only reason they are not on the database is because they have not been convicted of any offence, or otherwise come to the attention of the police, for a number of years.

If you argue that the mere inclusion on the DNA database of people cleared or not charged is a form of punishing the innocent – as those objecting to the DNA database on civil liberty grounds appear to be saying – then surely it follows that adding records of people simply because they had previously been convicted of an offence would be re-punishing people who have already served their sentence. Surely such a draconian move would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

David Davis said that these two steps would save a million pounds a year – but doesn’t indicate how this money would actually be saved. Has he taken into account the cost of tracking down the individuals concerned? Has he taken into account the legal costs associated with the court challenges that would inevitably follow such a move?

Surely, if you want to do all you can to help the police you would want to expand the DNA database rather than reduce it.

“Peaceful” Protes

David Davis is also concerned about the “security powers that clamp down on peaceful protest”. While peaceful protest is a fundamental principal of any democratic society, the right to peaceful existence is also a fundamental right. Scientists involved in life-saving research for many diseases which affect us will tell you of their experience of “peaceful protest”. David Davis hasn’t gone into too much detail about exactly what his concerns are; but there is nothing “peaceful” about having protestors outside your house several times a day over a number of years because protestors won’t accept that they can’t have their way.

There comes a point when “peaceful protest” ends and unlawful harassment begins. How much police time is taken up protecting people from “peaceful protests”? Is it Conservative policy to undo the recent laws designed to make it easier for the police to protect private houses from such protests?

Local Authorities and Snooping

David Davis complains that “councils and quangos conduct 1,000 surveillance operations every month, using powers that ought to be the preserve of law enforcement agencies.” While some of the examples that have come to public attention clearly suggest the system is being abused (abuse which the Local Government Association is already seeking to clamp down on); the new powers local authorities have are essential tools in the fight against anti social behaviour.

For example, littering may be considered small-beer when compared with murder, rape and violence; but it can have a major impact on local residents – especially when the “littering” amounts to wholesale fly-tipping and dumping of rubbish. The same applies to dog fouling, graffiti and other anti-social activity.

There are also families who terrorise whole housing estates with their constant drip, drip, drip of anti-social behaviour. Local authorities and housing associations now have powers to clamp down on this behaviour through anti social behaviour orders and, in extreme circumstances, to evict trouble makers.

These powers are giving the streets back to innocent people and are vitally important. But in order to use them local authorities need to gather evidence.

If this gathering of evidence against trouble makers, those who seek to bully and terrorise neighbourhoods, and those who make people afraid in their own homes is called “snooping” then I’m in favour of it. And I would hope that a party that wants to do “all it can” to help the police; and who wants to cut down on crime would be in favour too.

Could you please clarify – is it Conservative policy to take these important powers away from local authorities? If so what tools will you give local authorities to protect the law abiding majority from those spread fear?

Haltemprice and Howden

This is the first time I’ve stood for election. It’s an odd experience. Not least because just about everybody who tells me they are voting for David Davis tell me they are doing so through loyalty to the Conservative Party or loyalty to David Davis and to thank him for the work he has done as their MP in the past; rather than through support of his stance.

I have met nobody in Haltemprice and Howden who agrees with David Davis’s decision to stand down and cause this expensive by-election.

And I have met very few people in Haltemprice and Howden who agree with David Davis’s stance on 42 day detention, CCTV, DNA and other security issues.

I have met lots of people in Haltemprice and Howden who are increasingly frightened about crime; and they want the police to have all the tools possible to prevent crime in the first place, or to be able to detect and prosecute when crimes have happened.

I’d be very grateful if you could clarify the points I raise in this letter and provide answers which may help to answer the concerns of the people of Haltemprice and Howden who tell me they don’t understand why the Conservative Party is putting the interests of those who would do harm above the interests of decent, innocent and law abiding people.

At present, the message they are getting from David Davis’s campaign is that the Conservative Party want to do away with or limit these important security tools on the grounds that they “infringe our liberty”.

The people I met over the course of the past week support my campaign for “True Liberty” and want the right to feel Safe at Home, Safe at Work and Safe on the Street.

Yours faithfully,
Jill Saward

From: True Liberty