SIO Stephen Fulcher and Christopher Halliwell essay PDF

Preview

Summary

The SIO in Halliwell (Steve Fulcher) has suggested that the failure of the courts to admit evidence against Halliwell makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. Critically discuss his point of view in light of the Dirty Harry Problem, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law....

Description

The SIO in Halliwell (Steve Fulcher) has suggested that the failure of the courts to admit evidence against Halliwell makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. Critically discuss his point of view in light of the Dirty Harry Problem, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law.

In 2011, Christopher Halliwell was sentenced for the murder of Sian O’Callaghan following her disappearance after leaving a night club. The senior investigating officer in charge of the case was the well renowned Stephen Fulcher, an experienced officer of many years. Despite the later, successful conviction of Christopher Halliwell, Fulcher’s methods throughout the investigation were met with much criticism. Due to his unorthodox techniques of attaining a confession, alongside other issues revolving around the media and his scare tactics, Fulcher was met with accusations of breaching the human rights act, the rule of law and following actions that coincide with the Dirty Harry Problem (Morris, 2012). The Human Rights Act was put in place in 1988 in order to protect society and allow everyone to defend their rights to enable fair treatment, respect and dignity and is a vital act for society to run smoothly and fairly (The Human Rights Act, 1998). The rule of law refers to the fair application and enforcement of the laws that society are accountable to, keeping all of society fair, equal and safe (Bingham, 2011). The relevance of these two concepts is to highlight Stephen Fulcher’s controversial methods and correlation with the dirty harry problem – a term for when ‘good ends can be achieved by dirty means’ i.e. potentially unlawful actions that contradict policy (Klockars, 1980). Since these claims against Fulcher surfaced, he was quick to defend himself and his actions through emphasising how the failure of the courts to admit evidence against Halliwell made a mockery of the criminal justice system. This point of view, in conjunction with Fulcher’s justification of his methods, through emphasis on the human rights act, can be discussed alongside the issue of the dirty harry problem, human rights and the rule of law in order to clarify whether Fulcher deserved such criticism or if it was indeed evidence of failure from the criminal justice system. The case of Sian O’Callaghan’s disappearance and the inquiry into Christopher Halliwell was controlled by SIO Stephen Fulcher. Although there was a successful conviction for the murder of Sian O’Callaghan, Fulcher was heavily criticised for a few of his methods, particularly once it surfaced that Sian may not have been the only victim of Halliwell’s. Not

only did Stephen Fulcher come under criticism from the family of Becky Godden, his involvement of the media meant that he was an easy target for them as he had already shared information with them, however, the more serious criticism came from the IPCC and the Home Office as these stakeholders would much more impact his life in terms of keeping his job. The first issue with Fulcher’s actions throughout the trial was his questionable use of the media, whereby he released a statement claiming that the police were “very close to identifying Sian's whereabouts” in order to potentially encourage Fulcher to return to Sian O’Callaghan, dead or alive (Morris, 2012). Although this deception was not unlawful, it leads onto the concept of the dirty harry problem and where Fulcher was perceived to have gone wrong during the investigation. As previously explored, the dirty harry problem is a concept that derives from a film with the same title, used to describe the actions of potentially corrupt officers who choose not to follow protocol or policy and use controversial or even unlawful techniques to gain information or progress in a case – “good ends can be achieved by dirty means.” (Klockars, 1985) The main problem with Stephen Fulcher’s investigation that was so heavily criticised was the manner in which he attained Halliwell’s confession. Section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 covers the rules revolving around obtaining a lawful, admissible confession: a policy that Fulcher disregarded in this case (PACE, 1984). Instead of cautioning the suspect and taking him to a police station in order to question Halliwell and attain a reliable, recorded confession, Fulcher instead decided to follow his own initiative in order to speed up the process. The correct procedure would have been to take Halliwell to the gable cross police station in Swindon, he instead convinced his officers to drive Halliwell to the rural location of an iron aged fort called Barbury castle. The unofficial questioning began leading to a full confession of the murder of Sian and the eventual discovery of her body. Shockingly, Halliwell then went on to say, “do you want another one?”, which then took officers to the body of Becky Godden, who Halliwell admitted to murdering in 2003 (Lewis, 2017). On the surface, the attainment of such a confession would be seen as an amazing example of police work and an ideal piece of evidence to convict Halliwell and close the case of Sian O’Callaghan’s disappearance, providing justice for her and her family. However, the informal nature of the questioning was in breach of code c of the police and criminal evidence act which covers the questioning and detention of individuals and their rights throughout the procedure (PACE 1984). Fulcher’s methods were accused of being manipulative and scaremongering, in addition with his

failure to caution Halliwell prior to his detention and offer his rights to speak with a solicitor (Lewis, 2017). This is a prime example of the dirty harry problem as Fulcher achieved a great piece of information but through poor methods. Due to the style of his investigation and actions, the confession gained about Sian O’Callaghan and Becky Godden’s murders was unreliable, unlawful and therefore inadmissible in court when the case came to trial, leading to the SIO facing the loss of his job due to gross misconduct (4 NEWS, 2014). Section 76 and 78 of PACE cover confessions and policy around gaining a lawful one that will hold up in court. Unreliable confessions arise from several issues throughout the investigative process such as; failure to caution, failure of the appropriate adult to act properly, confessions obtained as the result of inducement as well as a few others (The Crown Prosecution Service). Fulcher was guilty of all of these and the confession gained from Halliwell was seen as unreliable due to a number of procedural failures, causing it to be inadmissible. This highlights the vast importance of following policy and the rule of law. Although it is agreeable that policy and law exists to protect society and must be followed at all times to ensure fair treatment to all, it may be argued that loopholes should be allowed in certain circumstances where policies and acts conflict against one another. This is the defence Fulcher offered for his actions following his suspension. Stephen Fulcher suggested that the failure of the courts to admit evidence against Halliwell made a mockery of the criminal justice system (Fulcher, 2017). Despite his dirty harry style work, potential breach of human rights, the rule of law, policy and procedure, the failed admission of a crucial confession allowed a sadistic serial killer to evade his proper conviction and justice to not be served for the lives of two young women. Fulcher’s defence was the manner in which policies often contradict each other. Article 2 of the human rights act emphasises the right to life, whereby life should be safeguarded by the government through protective laws etc. (Human Rights, 2016). Fulcher used this as evidence to protect his actions, actions that he believed were entirely appropriate. In many statements given by Fulcher about the investigation, he stressed that at the time of Halliwell’s arrest, he believed that there might be a chance that Sian O’Callaghan may still be alive, therefore needed to take the necessary risks in order to speed up the investigation with hopes to protecting her ‘right to life’. What kind of world do we live in that priorities the rights of a serial killer over an innocent woman’s right to life? This was Fulcher’s argument when asked why he did what he did. It

may be argued that the courts simply followed procedure and in any other case, the in admission of such a confession would have been correct so as to potentially avoid miscarriages of justice or any unfair treatment. In addition to this, far less was known about Christopher Halliwell when he was first under investigation in comparison to what is known today. i.e. his potential links to other disappearances in the area and his strange obsession with other serial killers such as Myra Hindley in conjunction with his now whole life sentence (as opposed to his one life sentence for the murder of Sian O’Callaghan, not Becky Godden) (Duell, 2016). However, it may be argued that there should have been a certain level of trust in such a long serving, successful SIO as Stephen Fulcher but it is understandable why policy still had to be so strictly followed. In conclusion, the issue of human rights, the dirty harry problem and the rule of law are all vital factors in the case of Christopher Halliwell and SIO Stephen Fulcher and all contribute to whether the courts were right to reject the confession or whether the whole investigation and the courts failure to admit crucial evidence does indeed make a mockery of the criminal justice system. On one side of the argument, the confession not being used in court is a shocking failure of the criminal justice system and a well renowned SIO such Stephen Fulcher should have been trusted and offered a loophole to a certain extent, particularly when concerning such a major crime and potential serial offending. On the other hand, all arguments revolve around hindsight and if people saw with hindsight, the world would be a very different place. For example, its easy to criticise the courts for not using a confession of murder against a now convicted serial killer but at the time of the trial, Halliwell was to be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the judges, lawyers and all others involved were simply following policy and procedure in order to stick to the rule of law and maintain fair treatment. However, it is still arguable that Fulcher should not have received the treatment that he did following the investigation as he had some strong points to defend his actions and raises a valid issue that aspects of the police and criminal evidence act should be altered or at least addressed if they lie in contradiction to aspects of other policies such as the Human Rights Act, particularly one’s right to life. Overall, although shocking, the courts did everything correctly in terms of policy and PACE and cannot be criticised too heavily for their actions and although SIO Stephen Fulcher did heavily disregard correct

practise and procedure, he should not have come under fire and dismissed for simple following his gut in order to potentially save a life. “Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.” – Harry Day 1898-1977 (Fulcher, 2017).

4 NEWS. (2014). Guilty of gross misconduct – but detective keeps job.Available: https://www.channel4.com/news/steve-fulcher-gross-misconduct-halliwell-goddenocallaghan. Last accessed 15th Nov 2017. Bingham, T, (2011). The Rule of Law. 2nd ed. London: Penguin. p3-8. Duell, M. (2016). How double killer Chris Halliwell was obsessed with Myra Hindley - as ex-cellmate says he is sure he HAS murdered more women. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3799624/Double-killer-Chris-Halliwellobsessed-Moors-Murderer-Myra-Hindley-ex-cellmate-says-sure-murdered-women.html. Last accessed 20th Nov 2017. Fulcher, S (2017). Catching a Serial Killer: My hunt for murderer Christopher Halliwell. London: Random House. p1-10. Human Rights. (2016). Article 2: Right to Life. Available: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life. Last accessed 20th Nov 2017. Klockars, C. (1980). The Dirty Harry Problem. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 452 (1), p33-47. Klockars, C. (1985). Dirty Harry Problem. Moral Issues in Police Work. 4 (1), P 55-71. Lewis, T. (2017). ‘How I caught a serial killer – and lost my career in the police’. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/jun/25/catching-a-serialkiller-stephen-fulcher-police. Last accessed 15th Nov 2017. Liberty. (n/a). The Human Rights Act. Available: https://www.liberty-humanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act. Last accessed 10th Nov 2017. Morris, S. (2012). Sian O'Callaghan murder: the detective's dilemma.Available: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/19/sian-ocallaghan-murder-detective. Last accessed 10th Nov 2017.

PACE. (1984). Section 76. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/part/VIII/crossheading/confessions. Last accessed 15th Nov 2017. The Crown Prosecution Service. (N/A). Confessions, Unfairly Obtained Evidence and Breaches of PACE. Available: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_ evidence_act/. Last accessed 15th Nov 2017....