Members of the House of Lords argued yesterday that an investigation into former UK prime minister Ted Heath’s alleged sexual offences – which included accusations made in the Channel Islands – should be the subject of an independent inquiry.
But in his response, the Home Office’s representative defended the UK government’s position not to reopen the case.
Operation Conifer, an investigation involving police forces across 14 jurisdictions including Jersey and Guernsey, found in 2017 that if he had still been alive, Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution over six alleged offences.
Yesterday, the House of Lords will asked UK government to consider the possibility of holding an independent inquiry into the investigation.
Lord Loxden, a life peer who has raised the question a number of times, cast doubt on the quality of the investigation and said: “Do we not owe it to the memory of a dead statesman, the only First Minister of the Crown ever to be accused of serious criminal offences, to get at the truth of this grave matter?”
He, along with other members, argued that the former Prime Minister's reputation had unnecessarily been tarnished by the investigation.
Baroness Doocey was the only member to bring up the victims' rights, saying: "To leave the Heath allegations hanging in the air does not just affect a former Prime Minister’s reputation.
"More importantly, it puts the credibility and seriousness of investigations of child abuse more generally at risk—and that is surely the worst injustice of all."
But they were refuted by the UK Home Office’s representative in the chamber, who sought to reassure them that Wiltshire Police had already been scrutinised on multiple occasions.
Lord Sharpe, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office, told them: “Of course emotions run high in this case — indeed, it is laudable that noble Lords show their loyalty and long-term commitment to the cause of their friend and, as my noble friend Lord Cormack noted, a great statesman — but the Government cannot and should not be guided by emotion, nor by the status of individuals.
"It is certainly not a unique situation that a deceased individual has allegations made against them to which they are unable to respond, and there can be no justification for treating that individual differently because he or she was a former Prime Minister.
"There are important principles at stake.
"It is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until they are proven guilty.
"To maintain that Sir Edward’s reputation is besmirched by the fact that unproven allegations have been made about him is to undermine that precept."
Lord Sharpe added that reviewing individuals’ evidence “would be a matter for the local force if it considered it to be appropriate”.
He did promise to take the matter back to the new Home Secretary, James Cleverly.
Operation Conifer, an investigation involving police forces across 14 jurisdictions, including Jersey and Guernsey, found in 2017 that if he had still been alive, Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution over six alleged offences.
Wiltshire Police, which led the investigation, stressed at the time that this did not mean that Sir Edward was guilty of the offences.
One of those was said to have taken place in Jersey in February 1976 when he was MP for Sidcup – an alleged indecent assault of an adult male “during a chance encounter at a public event”.
Another was said to have taken place in Guernsey in 1967, when Sir Edward was MP for Bexley and Leader of the Opposition. He was alleged to have “indecently assaulted a 15-year-old male, not known to him, during a chance encounter in a public building”.
The investigation drew some criticism, including a lack of evidence and criticism of how it was launched and publicised as well as how it was carried out.
In his call for an independent inquiry, Lord Lexden also argued that Sir Edward had not been able to respond to the allegations and that Mike Veale, the police officer who led Operation Conifer, was barred from serving in 2023 after he made unwanted sexual remarks to colleagues.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.