1 (Plain)

'2 Report}


.. Apartheid



ieference to Papers

dihQQ/69A232m?

M.P.-89-32571I20M W1 12 (2)

 

0m 
31 1' SPECIAL BRANCH

 

 

-11? . LFV

. 
1. On 30th January 1970 Mr. J. Deputy 

Under?Secretary of State, Home Office, handed to the Deputy'
Assistant Commissioner, Special Branch, for appropriate
action, two letters.addreSsed privately to the Rt. Hon.

L. James CALLAGHAN, M.P., in which questions of police
practice and propriety.in regard to public meetings were
raised by Members of Parliament connected with the Anti-
Apartheid Movement.

2. The letters, th dated 26th January 1970, were:?

  
 

(1) From Fra UDD M. P., questioning the
expenditure of ice me sporting speeches_ by Members
of Parliament and others at public meetings of the Anti-
Apartheid Movement, particularly those he addressed at
Portsmouth on 21st Januar 1970 and Bournemouth on
23rd January 1970, and (b asking to what other organisations
it was the practice to devote similar attention, and 

(2) From Mr. JUDD jointly with M.P. and
Frank HOOLEY M. ., (a questioning po of
i?fbrmati so 0 tained being communicated by police
officers to Press, particularly in the case of an 
article, headed "Cricket Raids: the men.who stayed silent",

ublished in the "Daily Express" on 22nd January 1970, and
fb claiming to have evidence that officers of Special
Branch had passed information concerning other organisations
to ?The Times".

3. Urgent enquiries, as directed, have been made with
a view to answering the issues raised in the letters, as
follows:-

Meetings of the Anti-Apartheid Movement (an
egalitarian organisation founded in 1960 wi?h the object of
influencing. public Opinion in favour of a general boycott of
South African produce) have not ordinarily been of 
sufficient interest to police to warrant their attendance on
grounds other than the preservation of public order.

However, through extension of the boycott carpaign
to other South African activities abroad, notably sporting
events, opportunities have developed for reaching a wider
public and among certain elements of the Movement emphasis
has shifted from attempts at mere discouragement of public
support to attempts at actual disruption of the events 
themselves.

:19 l. tiff?r'r IIUI 

This trend reached practical expression in the
formation in October 1969 of the Stop the 'Seventy Tour
Committee (referred to in the "Daily Express" article), an
ad-hoc offshoot of the Movement preper, the declared aims of
which in respect of the coming visit of a South African
cricket team are touched upon in the article mentioned,
which was no doubt prompted by the recent incidents of
damage and disfigurement at county cricket grounds.r

With regard to the employment of police at meetings
of the Anti-Apartheid Movement currently, this practice is
a precautionary one necessitated by past incidents of
disorder or possible disorder involving large-scale police
attendance at sporting events, particularly those of the
present South African rugby foctball tour, and is designed'
to obtain information on future events likely to bear on
public order, a-s well as to detect possible offences by

those participating.

With regard to the meetings addressed by Mr. JUDD,
it has been established that the earlier, at Portsmouth, was
not in fact attended'by police or anybody acting on their
behalf. The second, at Bournemouth, was attended by an
officer of the Dorset and Bournemouth Constabulary whose
duties, in addition to those outlined in included
ensuring that the speakers were not prevented from 
delivering their speeches and the identification of likely
trouble-makers for that and future occasions. 

With regard to police practice generally, public
meetings of any organisation a peering( to merit attention on
any of the grounds set out in fd) and will normally?be
attended by police in furtherance of their duties under
Common Law and the various enactments governing the holding
of meetings and the expression of Opinions in public.

With regard to the suggestion in the second letter
that information obtained in this way might possibly be
communicated to the Press, it is, of course, expressly .
ferbidden under the terms cf the Official Secrets Acts fer
police to make?unauthorised disclosures of anything learned'
in.the course of their duties and officers are especially
mindful of the need for caution in?dealing with employees of
public information media.

With regard to the specific suggestion that
infermation obtained by police might have been passed to the
writer of the "Daily'EXpress" article of 22nd January 1970,
it may be stated that the meeting of the AntiAApartheid
Movement to which it principally refers was a private one
restricted to credential?holders and was not and could not be
attended by police. It is, indeed, stated in the article
and has been confirmed by enquiry paragraph that the
information on which it is based was derived from a
commercially?produced document copies of which are known to

11.. Mm 
.J 

- 
Raw? .1. . {g


any..- 

r.
a;

 

 



B. No. 

M.P.-63-81883I30M

 

Page 

have been in existence since November 1969. This ten-page
publication, incorrectly described in the article as a
transcript, is in fact a report, headed "Confidential" and
bearing the caption "Retrospect and Prospect, New Series
No.2", on the Annual General Meeting of the Anti-Apartheid
Movement held at the National Liberal Club on 26th October
1969, and is presented as an eye?witness account illustrated
with notes on the political affiliations and backgrounds of
the personalities named. Mr. JACKSON and Mr. JUDD are
mentioned in the list of elections to the National Committee.
Special Branch cannot comment on the accuracy of the
document, although the information it contains would appear to.
be of a nature reasonably accessible to journalistic methods,
whether the writer attended the meeting in person or not.

The name of the author is not given.

With regard to the immediate source of the cepy
reaching the_"Daily Express", it has been stated by Alain
CASS, joint anther of the article, in an interview with
Special Branch officers on 27th January 1970 in connection
with another matter, that the document was obtained from a
private source which he was not prepared to disclose.

Whether or not that source was the actual producer of the
document and whether or not the latter was obtained as stated
and on the date claimed in the article, it is evident that

- acquisition of-a'cOpy need present little difficulty to an

experienced journalist. Indeed, a copy held by Special
Branch since December 1969 was Obtained directly from a well-
tried source which is known to distribute such material
commercially and another copy, which came into the possession
of Sir John LANG, G.C.B., Adviser on Sport, Ministry of
Housing and Local Government, earlier this month was referred
to Special Branch for enquiry on 27th.January 1970 by Home
Office (their reference 101/1/7).

(3) With regard to the evidence said to implicate
Special Branch officersin the passing of information
concerning other organisations to "The Times", nothing is
known of this matter and no comment can usefully be made
without further details. .

    

Inspector

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~51
g"

 

 

I was exiled from South Afflca
lollowmsz a period of detention.
Elected to positions on he
that day were two
Labour M.P.s. Mr. Peter Jackson
(High Peak) and Mr. Frank
Judd (Portsmouth 
chairman and national commit-
tee. member respectively. Mr.
Ham was elected to the execu-
tive council. .
It was when the meetine dis-
cussed the setting no of the
Stop the Tour committee that
Mr. Paul Hodges, a~ national
organiser of the A.A.M., revealed

 

 

 

that lb Wino. 
316392335 no public1tyMOn the
issue involvmg the A.A. .

- of Mr. .
And full-tune

Alan

rooks. -.
groaniser. was crashed ?touthzoild
the agenda where 1

eared among those sponsoring

app the subject.

a motion on

0 report

Mrs. de Keyser also told the
meeting that the executive was
fully. aware of planned
aetiwties.?

 

unanimously.

  
  
 

ness of direct action
sphere of eport urges an exten?
sion of time kind of activity to
other ?elds."

yesterday 
meeting?but
name
election. 
mom 0 some forms civi
disobedience." 1
What forms."
berately not
that question."

Mr. Frank 
anti-avartizeid gr
mouth Polytechmgug.

a

For the ?rst time. 111?. many
years no re rt or the meeting
wasegiven the Communist?
own Morning Star.

A resolution was carried
It said: This
aware of the e??ctive?
zn the

0 CM.

MP. Mr. Peter Jackson said
?1 was not at the
I allowed ny
to no put forward for
I am certainly in

am deli-
commenting on

Civilised

M.P.. said

?44? 

absolutely


 

i

add.
after addressing the
at Rome