Heaven's Door Read online

  “Well, it could be any number of things, I suppose. For example, how was it possible to achieve so many of the changes in so short a time? And under that umbrella question, of course, there are so many individual success stories, I guess you could pick any half-dozen and still barely scratch the surface. Where would you like to start?”

  “As I said, Home Secretary, I think you know which one I mean; the one which the prime minister announced at the conclusion of your report and which made most of the headlines yesterday evening and in this morning’s papers.”

  Sylvie paused. Tom waited for her to continue.

  “Okay …” She spoke very slowly. “What I want to talk about is the use of expulsion for convicted dealers in hard drugs.”

  She paused. Tom said nothing, his expression completely neutral.

  “This was unexpected, to say the least, and something I believe the prime minister is not totally comfortable with.”

  Tom raised his eyebrows in an expression of mild surprise.

  “Would you like to respond to that, Home Secretary?”

  Tom shrugged. “Well, I can’t speak for the prime minister, of course, although it seems unlikely, don’t you think, that he would say something at such an important meeting as yesterday’s – or at any meeting, in fact – that he didn’t agree with. So I’m not sure in what context he said those or similar words, but it would certainly not have been the context in which you’ve just implied they were spoken.”

  “His very words were …”

  “But what I will say, if this helps you out, is that being ‘comfortable’ in the sense of safe, cosy, relaxed, et cetera, was not what the overhaul of the justice system in this country was all about. To make the sort of changes we have seen involves a level of risk – calculated risk – acceptable risk – but risk all the same. And that comes with a certain level of discomfort, at least in the short term.”

  “Well, we agree on something, then – we three – you, me and the prime minister – that changing the laws for drug sentencing is a risk. Is that what you’re saying?”

  “That’s what you’re saying, but …”

  “Because it seems that in just a few short sentences yesterday the government changed the whole concept and rationale for expulsion; a concept which was extremely radical when it was proposed and which the public bought into on the basis of the very specific circumstances under which you explained it would be applied. To use your own words at the time, Home Secretary” – she picked up the sheet of paper from the table in front of her and read from it – “‘the introduction of facilities such as Platform Alpha will provide a place for serially disruptive elements of our society whose presence adversely affects the community as a whole and individuals within it. These facilities will offer both an alternative environment where they can no longer pursue their extreme antisocial tendencies and, at the same time, a significant deterrent for their doing so. They are not designed for criminals in the literal meaning of the word, in the sense that they need not have committed a specific crime. Their banishment will be on the basis of their consistent rejection of the communities in which they live.’

  “That statement could not be any clearer. I repeat, your words –‘these facilities are not designed for criminals’. My understanding is that dealers in hard drugs are criminals. Or are you going to surprise us again, Home Secretary, with the news that this government will be decriminalising cocaine and heroine?”

  Tom drew in a deep breath.

  “Everything you quoted from your notes was absolutely correct at the time it was stated. This change is an extension to the use of expulsion to address another – you might say the next – priority issue that is affecting the safety and security of our streets. Like a Pareto analysis, you tackle the biggest thing first, and then when that’s sorted, you move onto the biggest of the things that remain.

  “And let me remind you that this comes under secondary legislation, which, as you know, enables the government to make changes using powers conferred – in this case in the Act of Parliament which includes the NJR Directive – without going through full parliamentary procedure. The debate on Monday is merely a vehicle to enable the members to air their views, but is not a stage in an approval process. This extension, in fact, was in the Party’s manifesto, which was embraced by the largest majority of voters in any election for over ninety years. So I hardly …”

  “Except that it wasn’t actually part of the manifesto, was it, Home Secretary? It was mentioned in the manifesto as a possibility for the future. I think that’s true, isn’t it?” Tom thought the words sounded surprisingly familiar.

  “Well, if we’re playing with semantics, then I think it’s true to say that today is the future in relation to when that statement was made. So, however it was included in the manifesto, what we have done is consistent with our promise.”

  “Very well, but let’s recap on the distinction between those currently qualifying for exile status and a convicted criminal, because that is where this change is inconsistent. The principle is that someone may find themselves exiled if they continuously or repeatedly disrupt their communities. It is all about behaviour, is it not?”

  “That’s right, and exactly what we promised …”

  “I think that is clear to everyone. Mr John Deverall put it very succinctly in his famous – and oft-quoted – speech from the dock.” She read again from further down the same sheet. “He said ‘the fundamental question should not be are they guilty or not guilty? It should be would society be better or not without these people in it? If the answer is ‘better’, then it is the law’s duty to make it so by removing them.’” She looked up from the sheet. “Whether one agrees or not with the means of removing them, the argument for doing it is perfectly logical.”

  “So are you saying,” said Tom, shuffling in his chair, “that such a rationale should not apply to dealers in illegal drugs? Is there any doubt, in fact, that society – the world – would be better without these people?”

  “Well, you’ve asked two different questions there, Home Sec …”

  “Well, give me two different answers, then.”

  “Alright, answer to the second one – of course, the world would be better without them. Okay? Your first question – I paraphrase – should the ‘better or not’ criterion apply to them? Well, collectively, yes, but individually, no.”

  Tom leaned forward in his chair.

  “Let me ask a different question at this point, Home Secretary. Are there any contingency plans in existence that would allow you to retrieve Exiles from the off-shore facilities – like Platform Alpha – once they have been put there?”

  Tom paused.

  “No,” he said. “This was a decision taken to ensure that such a step was irreversible and we have made this very clear to the public from the beginning. We felt it was essential that offenders – or potential offenders – were aware of the finality of this step. Their actions would, in effect, seal their fate forever. But I will say again that we envisage it will apply only to a very small …”

  “You don’t have to justify your reasons to me, Home Secretary, or, it seems, the electorate. It was made perfectly clear at the time; people knew what they were voting for. But that was based on the certainty of the people on Alpha deserving to be there. ‘Long term extreme disruption and intimidation in their communities’ – another one of your quotes. Long-term – incessant – unrelenting – never-ending – you’ve applied all these adjectives at some time or another. But adding illegal drug dealing only makes sense if those same two essential criteria are met.”

  “Which two?” Tom asked.

  “Well, one – the certainty that they should be there. That is not always absolute in a ‘guilty or not guilty’ situation – that’s the flip-side of the point John Deverall was making. And two – will these also be long-term offenders, and if so, what constitutes long-term? My understanding is that much of the hard drugs scene is now with very short-term dealer
s, who can quickly make a lot of money but must, for their own safety and freedom, get in and out of the market very quickly. Are you proposing to put, say, first time offenders on Alpha?”

  Tom leaned back.

  “Well …”

  “And one last point, Home Secretary, will you be extending the guidelines for setting the dates for trial? Currently, the period from charging someone under threat of expulsion to their actual trial is two weeks. This seems just about manageable in a situation where there is an accumulation of evidence over a long period of time prior to the charge being made. But for drug dealers in a more traditional criminal trial, surely this would be far too short, given the finality – the irrevocability – of the sentence.”

  Tom waited a few moments before answering.

  “Well,” he said, “let me address that last question right away. Although you have chosen to home in on one element of the NJR, that of expulsion, the changes were designed to address every aspect of the law and justice system. And this specifically included taking out of it time-consuming, over-administrative and, hence, unnecessarily costly functions across the whole judicial process. These included long delays in bringing people to trial, delays that bred inefficiencies and over-elaboration in preparing those cases for the courts. The two-week period you referred to is a guideline, not a rule, although we have encouraged magistrates and the CPS to stick with the recommendation as much as possible.

  “As I’m sure you are aware – like everyone else – this period can be extended by the courts at the request of either counsel providing they can substantiate that request with genuine expectations that such an extension will add value to their case – or both their cases. In exceptional circumstances, a further period of up to six weeks may be granted if the court believes this would be necessary to benefit the cause of justice. So in the specific example you cited – that of drug dealing – it may be necessary in some cases – perhaps in many cases – to provide more time to ensure the right conclusion is reached. But by setting a very short period as the official guideline, this will keep the focus on concluding each case in the most cost-effective and time-efficient way.”

  He waited for a response, which was not forthcoming, so he continued.

  “If I interpret your other comments correctly and can summarise them simply, you seem to be saying that with a traditional criminal case, it is possible to make a mistake – where evidence for and against is being weighed in order to make a decision. You are, quite rightly, contrasting this with the situation where a record of an extended history of wrongdoing has been compiled to arrive at a conclusion. Your argument being that if we banish someone in the former category and later discover a mistake has been made, then it is too late; whereas in the latter case, it is virtually impossible to get it wrong.”

  Sylvie gave him a brief smile.

  “That is exactly right, Home Secretary, thank you for putting it so succinctly.”

  “Then we come back to the question of risk. The hard drugs market is a festering global sore. Many third world countries are virtually controlled by cartels whose members are getting unimaginably rich by peddling misery to all parts of the world, and doing so with a ruthless, sickening contempt for the lives of the users themselves and the people who are part of their own business empires. That situation can only prevail if the supply chain to the end users can be maintained. Break that chain anywhere down the line and the market folds.

  “That, of course, is a massive over-simplification. The whole structure needs to be dismantled eventually to rid the world of this insidious malady. But anything that can be done to chip away at the issue will help, and taking the last-stage suppliers off the streets would be a big step – more than just a chipping away, in fact. There is a lot of support already in place for the end-users, so we are ready to deal with the fall-out of depriving them of the source that fuels their addiction. And now we believe we have a more effective means of deterring these street criminals who predate on that dependency, and we intend to use it.

  “To your point about making mistakes, then I accept we need to apply the most extreme diligence to reach correct decisions to rid ourselves of the right people. But in any serious conflict, there may well be innocents caught in a crossfire. There may well be collateral victims. Such possible eventualities are the calculated – the acceptable – risks I referred to before.”

  “That would all sound perfectly fine, Home Secretary, if it hadn’t just appeared out of left field as a sort of knee-jerk, if I can put it that way.”

  “Jackie Hewlett, the then Shadow Home Secretary, made the point in a speech in the House of Commons nearly three years ago – on the 21st July, to be exact – so how this can be termed a ‘knee-jerk’ is beyond me, quite frankly. She told the country on that day that our proposals for dealing with the people who terrorise our streets could be extended to cover other offenders, and of half a dozen examples she quoted, drug dealers were at the top of that list. Since that time, the previous government has decriminalised the selling of soft and recreational drugs, and removed the taking of hard drugs as a crime. We totally agreed with those steps, as we showed in the way we voted, and that left a clear route open to tackle the selling of hard drugs. This is part of our plan to do just that.”

  “But I must say, Home Secretary, taking it in isolation …”

  “Is the wrong thing to do.” Tom leaned forward suddenly in his chair causing Sylvie to instinctively retreat further back into hers. “It is totally misleading to take this one item out of context, ignoring the impact of what has been achieved over the past two years or so. Were it not for the fact that we have delivered on all fronts – against the most challenging agenda and timescale for change ever seen in British politics – we would not be justified in proposing this extension of the qualifying criteria for Exiles. But we have delivered …”

  Tom clenched his right hand in front of him and began counting, opening out his fingers one by one.

  “Increased the number of police officers across the country by 12%, at the same time reducing the amount of lower value administrative work; enhanced powers of arrest and retention; introduced trained, paid jurors serving a period of up to three years; installed a series of police hubs across the country and established Fast Reaction Teams for deployment across traditional police area boundaries to enable resources to be moved quickly into priority areas; reduced – already – the cost to the community of vandalism and social disruption by 35% – and bear in mind that around 75% of police time is spent dealing with these sorts of issues.

  “That cost saving plus the introduction of the loan tax for high earners is already easing the burden of the implementation costs of the NJR, which we know will have a positive financial payback, albeit over the long term. And possibly the most remarkable achievement of all, establishing the first of the offshore platforms, fully functional and, as we speak, receiving its first Exiles, just twenty-one months after the votes were counted at the last election. There are far more points than I’ve got fingers – and toes.

  “These were all commitments we made in our manifesto – most of which our critics doubted we would ever meet, let alone in the very short timescale we set ourselves. Making expulsion work for convicted hard drug dealers is a relatively small challenge – albeit with an element of risk – compared with our catalogue of success to date.”

  He leaned back in his chair. Sylvie did not respond for several seconds and when she did she spoke slowly and quietly.

  “The saying goes, Home Secretary, that if your favourite tool is a hammer, there is a danger that the entire world will start looking like a nail. Isn’t the danger in your case that you’ll be wanting to put everybody into exile; that it will become the routine catch-all for all criminals?”

  Tom looked at her with deliberate incredulity and shook his head very slowly.

  “Two things, Ms Hanker. One – the saying actually goes ‘if the only tool you have is a hammer …’ and we have many tools.
And, two, if you yourself had listened to what I’ve said twice in the last twenty-four hours, you would know that what I want is to put nobody into exile, not everybody.”

  *

  The leading rider raised his arm to slow the small convoy of three vehicles as the gates opened ahead of them. He pulled to the side to let the main vehicle through and turned his motorcycle through a tight half-circle, positioning himself on one side of the opening, facing the way they would leave. He reached for his radio to report their arrival exactly on time at 10.00 am, as the second rider took up the same position on the other side of the entrance.

  The gates closed with a loud clunk as they locked together automatically.

  The security ambulance was a standard emergency vehicle with an extra skin of steel down each side and an additional pair of heavy metal doors at the back. It was completely black. The driver reversed it to within a couple of yards of the hospital wing’s rear entrance. The police officer in the cab next to the driver got out and opened the back doors. Three more men jumped down to join him and form a short corridor of two each side, facing outwards, holding their semi-automatic Heckler & Koch MP5s in readiness; a needless precaution under the circumstances, but instinctive standard procedure.

  The patient was wheeled from the building and raised into the vehicle on the chairlift. The prison doctor climbed in with him along with the same three officers and both sets of rear doors were closed, the outer one locked from the outside. The gates opened to allow it to leave and the two bikes tucked in, one leading and one behind, for the short journey to West Smithfield.

  *

  “I guess it was a bit too much to expect to get them together at such short notice.”

  “Well, to be fair, Jack’s actually got a careers forum – so it’s not even a social engagement. Katey’s going to a movie with Jason.”

  “Well, we can’t compete with that …”

  “But,” Mags interrupted, “they both suggested tomorrow night. I said yes, but that sort of scuppers our plans to get away for the weekend, unless we go early Saturday.”