The Power of the Paedos - another high profile case hits the 'never happened' wall?

[Jan Klimkowski]

The reality of Power. Again.

Historic links between PIE and what is now "Liberty".

Affiliation to the NCCL

By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage" and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions". Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would "increase censorship".[3] NCCL had excluded PIE by 1983.[4]

PIE and "Henderson" aka Sir Peter Hayman

[edit] Legal action against members

In the summer of 1978, the homes of several PIE committee members were raided by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE's activities; as a result of this inquiry, a substantial report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.

In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in Magpie which were calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.

Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies. It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up: Mr "Henderson" had worked for MI6 and been a high commissioner in Canada. Mr "Henderson" was later revealed via Private Eye to be Sir Peter Hayman. In 1981, Geoffrey Dickens MP asked the Attorney-General "if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail". The Attorney-General, Michael Havers (Baron Havers of St Edmundsbury, who represented the Crown in the trial and appeal of the Guildford Four and also of the Maguire family (known as the Maguire Seven), all of whom were wrongfully convicted) replied, "I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' (Sir Thomas Chalmers Hetherington QC) advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence."[5] Dickens asked, "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highliy sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?" He also asked the Leader of the House (of Commons) to investigate the security implications of diaries found in the diplomat's London flat which contained accounts of sexual exploits"[6] There was much debate and condemnation in the World's press of these events.[7]

Here is some of the Parliamentary nonsense and obfuscation that Geoffrey Dickens MP had to deal with.

HC Deb 19 March 1981 vol 1 cc139-40W139W

§Mr. Dickens
asked the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail.


§The Attorney-General
In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of an obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons. Altogether a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under section 11 of the Post Office Act 1953 or for any other offence. Among the considerations he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited.

Subsequently the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence 140W with a tenth person. The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene section 11 of the 1953 Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post.

It has been suggested that Sir Peter Hayman was considered as a possible defendant following the police investigation into the conduct of the Paedophile Information Exchange which led to the recent trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.

I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions and I remain determined that, where the evidence justifies it, prosecutions will be brought in cases involving sexual acts with children or offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978indecent photographs of children.

HC Deb 08 April 1981 vol 2 c298W298W

§Mr. Stokes
asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on 19 March, Official Report, col. 13940, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions gave special treatment to Sir Peter Hayman by taking steps to prevent his indentity being revealed in court.


§The Attorney-General
No special treatment was afforded to Sir Peter Hayman and no steps were authorised or taken to protect his identity in evidence given to the court during the trial of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of Paedophile Information Exchange. I made this clear in answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on 6 April[Vol. 2, c. 68283.]to which I refer my hon. Friend.

Furthermore, although the indictment in that case was amended before trial, this was because Treasury Counsel had doubts, following a preliminary hearing, as to whether the wording of the original charges might, as a matter of law, be open to objection. The amendment did not arise from any wish to protect the indentity of any person.

The material of a pornographic nature found in the possession of Sir Peter Hayman was not relied on by the prosecution at the trial. There was, so far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware, no evidence whatsoever of Sir Peter Hayman having received or sent by post any obscene photograph of a child or young person or of his having taken such photographs or of his having committed any other act which might have been an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The mere possession of obscene material whether relating to children or adults is not in itself a criminal offence.

The Director's decision not to take proceedings under the Post Office Act against Sir Peter Hayman and others was taken in January 1979 before he received any papers relating to the activities of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of PIE.