SECOND INCIDENT Naming the now Chief Constable of Derby Mick CREEDON
This was on 28th November 1990 and was the subject of a report dated 21st
January 1991 from Detective Inspector Ashby to Detective Chief
Superintendent Carr, and by Detective Sergeant Creedon dated 24th January
1991 also to Detective Chief Superintendent Carr. This incident arose in
the course of a number of tape-recorded interviews with Frank Beck at
Wigston Police Station and consisted of a number of interruptions by the
applicant during the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh tapes of the day,
each concerning the statement of a witness who had made allegations against
Frank Beck. The three witnesses whose statements were put to Beck in the
the course of those interviews were those of, as I shall call them, witnesses
A, B and C. The interviews were conducted by Detective Inspector Ashby and
Detective Sergeant Creedon. Detective Sergeant Creedon’s report reads as
“During the fourth tape of the day I mentioned witness A and the
the conversation was as follows:
BECK: ‘I shan’t make any comments about this one at all. I have had contact
with [witness A] and I ——’
HENNING:’He’s been in contact with us and he had made a number of serious
allegations so I don’t think Frank should say anything about this one.’
D.S.:’There’s no point in reading it out then?’
D.I.:’Well no, I think we ought to at least give you the opportunity to
listen to what he has said.’
BECK:’I know what he said, I have a copy. I have seen a copy.’
HENNING’ How shall I say it, as a result of police officers visiting his
house he has made allegations of intimidation and assault and he admits to
making the statement and he has explained about his reasons why.’
D.I.:’Has he made a complaint against the police then?’
BECK:’And I’m aware of what he said.’
HENNING’Against a certain officer.’
“It was then agreed we would not read the statement.
HENNING’He said it’s not true.’
HENNING:’And has explained why it’s been written down, and he’s backed it
up with allegations and he says he’s got a witness to an assault which took
place on him.’
HENNING: ‘So we’ll leave that one.’
“As a result of the above conversation we moved to a further statement.
“CONCERNING WITNESS B: During the fifth tape of the day Beck initially
could not remember the boy although he finally did so.
D.S.:’Anyway we now know who witness B is we are talking about.’
BECK:’Yes, it is ——’
HENNING:’On that carry on talking about it, but witness B has been in touch
with us this past Monday evening, further to say that there is something in
the pipeline with regards to him.’
D.S.:’Well, I saw him.’
D.S.:’Well, it’s about me.’
HENNING:’No, your name wasn’t mentioned. We’re looking after you, mate.’
D.S.:’That’s because I do things properly.’
HENNING:’No, it’s something in the pipeline, but he’s made no complaint
“Despite Henning’s interruption witness B’s statement was still read.
“CONCERNING WITNESS C: His additional statement was read and the sixth
taped interview continued.
BECK:’This guy is about six foot something.’
D.S.:’Hang on, let’s not just assassinate his character yet, till the end
of the statement.’
“I read from witness C’s statement and Beck denied he had alleged witness C
was an armed robber.
D.S.:’No, you said that’ (directed towards Henning).
D.S.:’Has he committed armed robbery, rather than throw it in.’
BECK:’He didn’t say that.’
D.S.:’I am sorry, he did.’
D.S.:’You said armed robbery.’
HENNING:’I’ll tell you what I said, but I’ll enlarge on what I said.
Obviously I have talked to a lot of people, information, not from official
circles, from unofficial circles, that he’s heavily engaged in armed
D.S.:’Well, I think if you’ve got any duty at all, Ian, you should tell the
police about it rather than just chuck it in.’
HENNING:’I’ll tell you now all that I know. He’s a getaway driver for armed
robberies in the Peak District, that’s all I know.’
“I then had a brief discussion with Beck concerning witness C’s previous
As to witness A, Detective Inspector Ashby said this in his report:
“Witness A was visited by Detective Inspector Armstrong of the Devon and
Cornwall Police (he lives in Bodmin, Cornwall). Witness A confirmed that he
had contacted the defence but only to inform them he had made a statement.
He states that he was not happy with one of the Leicestershire officers who
interviewed him but he did not want to make a complaint. He was not
assaulted. He made the statement voluntarily and the contents were true.”
As to witness B, Detective Inspector Ashby said this in his report:
“As a result of the allegations made by Mr. Henning, I visited witness B.
He stated he had not contacted the defence and had no intention of doing
so. The defence had not contacted him.”
Detective Inspector Ashby’s report concludes as follows:
“These incidents raise a number of issues. Firstly, Mr. Henning has told
lies during the interview which affected the course of that interview.
Secondly, he has raised false hopes for his client and, thirdly, he has
caused extra work to our enquiry in investigating his allegations.
“In my view, he has acted improperly, both to his client and by obstructing
our interview. I have spoken with Roger Rock, senior Crown Prosecutor, who
states that it is possible to bar solicitors/clerks from interviews if it
can be shown they have acted improperly.
“I understand this is not the first time Mr. Henning has been criticised.
There are a number of other complaints, one of which also involved the Beck
inquiry and the report on this, by Detective Sergeant Tew, is attached.
“I respectfully suggest that a letter be sent to Greene D’Sa informing them
of our concern and that consideration be given to Mr. Henning being barred from attendance at police stations in our area.”
Detective Sergeant Creedon’s report concludes as follows:
“Quite clearly Henning has tried to influence the course of our interview
with Beck. As Mr. Ashby has reported, Henning has lied: witness A has not
made a complaint against the police, nor has he withdrawn his allegations
against Beck; witness B has never contacted the defence; witness C has no
convictions for armed robbery. I reiterate Mr. Ashby’s view about the
effect of Henning’s improper actions, and would add that if he were to
behave like this with more inexperienced officers he may be able to
adversely affect an interview, and ultimately the course of justice.”