The Drugs Trial of the Rolling Stones
Baines Law – The Drugs Trial of the Rolling Stones
To listen to this episode on Baines Law please go to the following page on this website: Podcast – Barry Baines
Transcript
Hello, this is Barry from Baines Law. Today I am going to give you a little insight into The Swinging Sixties, a period of time in the mid to late 1960s, which were a stark contrast from the preceding drab post-war years and the manifestation of cultural change.
In my late teens and twenties youth rebelled, found its voice and seized its rightful place in society. London was at the heart of it. The King’s Road, Kensington and Carnaby Street were its icons. Mini-skirts and winkle pickers were in fashion. The Beatles, the Who, the Kinks, the Small Faces, and the Rolling Stones burst on to the pop scenes. Pirate radio stations like Radio Caroline, which had to operate offshore, threatened the fuddy-duddy culture of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
It was a period of sexual liberation. Youngsters weren’t so coy about the subject or their attitudes to it. It was a time for freedom of expression and recreational drug use.
But it didn’t please all parts of the establishment, nor the tabloid newspapers. The News of the World, which was being sued by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, mounted a campaign against Jagger and his girlfriend, Marianne Faithfull, a couple who, to many, represented everything glamorous about London’s Swinging Sixties but to others were a threat to the very fabric of the society they knew.
In 1966, Jagger’s schoolboy friend and fellow Rolling Stone, purchased Redlands, a country home in West Wittering, Sussex, for what was then the enormous sum of £20,000. This characterful fifteenth century house (which the press described as a mansion) was complete with moat. It wasn’t long before Richard added the cottage across the road for a further £5,000.
Just about then the Rolling Stones were being hounded by the news media over their recreational drug use, and the News of the World ran a feature Pop Stars and Drugs: Facts that will Shock You which described LSD parties hosted by pop stars such as Donovan.
The attitude of the authorities to possession of even a trace of cannabis resin (hash or Indian hemp as it was also known) would at that time merit, and usually receive, an immediate sentence of imprisonment, something which now may not even attract a police caution.
Times were different. People were easily shocked. They wouldn’t accept that free love, rock’n’roll and drugs, were changing lifestyles of the young. The olds were outraged and felt threatened by the new order of the Swinging Sixties. Youngsters needed to be kept in their place.
Their ire was directed at the long-haired unkempt pop groups in their strange clothing who were seen as the degenerate leaders of this movement. The Rolling Stones with their wild, so-called music (the like of which had ever been heard before), in the eyes of many establishment figures, needed taking down a peg.
Who better to do it than the News of the World who were on the wrong end of libel proceedings initiated by Mick Jagger? The reporter behind the story spent an evening at a posh London night club where he claimed that a member of the Rolling Stones took several Benzedrine tablets, displayed a piece of cannabis and invited friends back to his flat for a smoke.
In his article he reported that this was Mick Jagger, but this was wrong, and Jagger had an alibi. His eavesdropping had been on another member of the group. The suggestion was made at the time that this was not an innocent mistake, but the naming of Mick Jagger would increase the newspaper’s circulation.
For the Rolling Stones who travelled widely, the allegations were serious because their ability to retain visas for travel to the United States could be withdrawn.
The News of the World stepped up its surveillance. More dedicated reporters were assigned to the case. The Stones claimed they were followed, that vehicles were parked outside their houses all hours of the day and night, and that their telephones were bugged, for they heard clicks and echoes during their conversations.
Then, one evening in February 1967, the news desk received a tip off. It was immediately passed on to the police: there was, in this summer of love, to be an orgy at Redlands – and there would be drugs!
On Sunday 12 February Redlands was raided. Led by Chief Inspector Gordon Dineley in full uniform, the police turned up mob-handed – 18 officers (including two women officers) in case they needed to strip-search Jagger’s girlfriend, Marianne Faithfull.
After the raid rumours were rife, particularly around Marianne Faithfull who was reported to have had a naked erotic episode with Jagger and a Mars bar. Not enough to make anyone bat an eyelid these days even though the stories were far-fetched.
In any event, the police searched the premises, interviewed eight men and one woman (undoubtedly Marianne Faithfull) and seized tablets and other substance which was sent for scientific examination.
They also took away a number of items which included Chinese joss sticks said to be masking the sweet smell of cannabis resin, as well as pudding basins holding cigarette ash.
Shortly afterwards Mick Jagger and Keith Richard (each then aged 24) were charged with criminal offences: Mick Jagger with illegally possessing four tablets containing amphetamine sulphate and methylamphetamine hydrochloride; Keith Richard with permitting premises (Redlands) to be used for the purpose of smoking cannabis.
In May they appeared before the Magistrates’ Court and were released on bail to appear for trial at the West Sussex Quarter Sessions the next month.
With them was their friend, 29 year old Hugh Fraser, who was facing a charge of possessing heroin.
Quarter Sessions is to most practising lawyers these days an historic term. But in 1967 there was no Crown Court. That didn’t emerge until 1972 following the 1971 Courts Act.
Before then the jurisdiction of what is now the Crown Court was undertaken by Quarter Sessions and Courts of Assize.
Assize courts were held in the main county towns and presided over by judges who visited each of the six judicial circuits those being geographical areas established in the 12th century.
They dealt with the larger civil disputes and the more serious jury trials for crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and causing grievous bodily harm.
The lesser crimes sent for jury trial (larceny – what we now call theft – housebreaking and burglary and less serious assault charges) were sent to the appropriate Quarter Sessions Court.
Quarter Sessions could be County Quarter Sessions or City or Borough Quarter Sessions (held, at least in theory, four times a year).
Borough Quarter Sessions were presided over by a Recorder. The Recordership of a Borough was a civic appointment, usually an experienced barrister who practised as such when he was not presiding at the Quarter Sessions. Sitting as Recorder he would wear wig and gown.
So, for example, on the Western Circuit, Bristol, Exeter, Winchester, Bournemouth, Poole, Southampton and so on had their own Recorder.
County Quarter Sessions, on the other hand, were presided over by a legally qualified Chairman and two magistrates (who assisted solely for the purposes of sentencing).
A Chairman of Quarter Sessions was usually also an experienced barrister but could sometimes be someone as eminent as an experienced and retired Law Lord or High Court Judge. The Chairman did not sit in wig and robes, but just in a lounge suit like his colleagues.
There were, however, some peculiar and interesting local customs. For example, the Chairman of the Dorset Quarter Sessions always appeared in full morning dress complete with top hat.
The large County of Sussex was split into two. East Sussex Quarter Sessions in Lewes; West Sussex Quarter Sessions in Chichester.
That is where, on 22 June 1967, the main event took place before His Honour Judge Block and a jury.
Sparing no expense in their efforts to nail these upstarts, the prosecution was led by Malcolm Morris QC. The Stones, though, had the sense to take advice from Lord Goodman, solicitor and adviser to leading politicians like Harold Wilson, and in court they were represented by Michael Havers QC, later to become Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor.
Havers came from a distinguished legal family. His father was Sir Cecil Havers, a High Court Judge, his sister became known as Lady Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division of the High Court, and his sons are Philip Havers QC and Nigel Havers the actor.
The police account of the happenings at Redlands on the night of the raid are nothing if not amusing.
DS Cudmore gave evidence:
As we approached, I heard loud strains of pop music. When I entered the room there was a television on but the pop music drowned the sound of the television. There were nine people, two of whom I thought were women. Jagger and a woman were sitting on a couch some distance away from the fire.
He went on:
The woman had wrapped around her a light-coloured fur rug which, from time to time, she let fall showing her nude body. Sitting on her left was Jagger, and I was of the opinion he was wearing make-up.
Sitting on her right was a person I now know to be male but at the time I had thought was a woman. He had long fairish hair and was dressed in what would best be described as a pair of red and green silk pyjamas. I searched him and this was all he was wearing.
I formed the opinion he too was wearing make-up. At the time I was in the house there was a strong, sweet, unusual smell in all rooms.
Evidently keen to shock judge and jury by these unseemly events, Police Constable Evelyn Fuller added to the account already given:
I looked in through the window and I saw a number of male persons and one female. She was sitting on a settee wrapped in a fur rug with several male persons. As I entered the house I noticed an unusual smell. It was not the smell of burning wood.
The officer then spoke of going into a bedroom:
There were pink ostrich feathers lying on the bed and on a chair in the bedroom were items of clothing: a pair of black velvet trousers, a white bra, a white lace Edwardian blouse, a black cloth half coat, a black sombrero-type hat and a pair of mauve-coloured ladies’ boots.
I also noticed a large chest of drawers on the top of which were a number of books on witchcraft. One book was called “Games to Play”. On the floor was a large holdall which contained two or three dagger-type weapons.
After first going upstairs, I came downstairs and asked the woman to accompany me upstairs to be searched. She appeared to be in a merry mood.
The officer then spoke of going to different room where there was another officer with Mick Jagger.
Jagger was speaking on the telephone. She let the rug fall showing herself completely naked and said, apparently to Jagger, “Look, they want to search me”. Jagger burst into laughter. I said to her “We will go into the bathroom.” I searched her and then returned to the bedroom. I said to her, “Are these your clothes?” and she said “Yes.”
At the trial it was agreed at the outset that Marianne Faithfull would not be identified in evidence as the girl who was present at Redlands. She would be referred to throughout as Miss X.
That appeared to be a fine and sensible arrangement until Marianne Faithfull completely destroyed efforts to keep her identity under wraps by turning up at court to watch the proceedings. The press faithfully reported that the girl at Redlands was a Miss X, but accompanying the reports were photographs of Marianne Faithfull entering or leaving the court.
The evidence against Keith Richard was thin. DI Lynch testified that where you find incense and joss sticks you usually find people smoking cannabis.
His opinion was that cannabis acts quickly on the mental state, but its effects vary with personality. He said tranquillity and happiness were noted by users of the drug. Smoking cannabis produced effects similar to over-indulgence in alcohol and tended to dispel inhibitions. Taken in small doses, it first produced an agreeable effect, a sense of wellbeing and a desire to smile.
The proceedings took place over two days. On the first day, Hugh Fraser pleaded guilty to possessing heroin and was remanded in custody to be sentenced at the end of proceedings.
Michael Havers QC applied for separate trials of Jagger and Richard, an application that was granted and the court proceeded straightaway to swear a jury and try Jagger on the charge of possession of four amphetamine tablets which he was said to have purchased in Italy. They were no more than mild pep pills. They were not available without a prescription in this country but they were in Italy. There was unchallenged evidence from Jagger’s doctor that he would have been happy to prescribe the drugs if asked.
The case was over by three o’clock in the afternoon. Judge Block directed the jury (in terms that would not be acceptable today) that there was no defence to the charge. Very quickly they returned a verdict of guilty and Jagger was remanded in custody to await the outcome of Richard’s trial the next day.
I have already rehearsed the tenor of the following day’s evidence, most of which has no bearing at all on the guilt or innocence of Keith Richard. The evidence the Crown pointed to to support their evidence that he was guilty was a minute scraping of cannabis resin taken from an ashtray; no more, no less.
Keith Richard gave evidence in his own defence. I was able to observe and listen carefully because I was in a privileged position adjacent to the witness box taking notes.
Malcolm Morris for the Prosecution placed great emphasis on Miss X in the bearskin rug. He endeavoured to imply that Miss X’s nudity was probably the result of a loss of inhibition through cannabis use. He asked:
Would you agree in the ordinary course of events you would expect a young woman to be embarrassed if she had nothing on but a rug in the presence of eight men, two of whom were hangers-on and the third a Moroccan servant?
Not at all, replied Richard.
You regard that, do you, as quite normal?
Keith Richard’s reply which was immediately seized upon by the media (ludicrous though it may now seem) sealed his fate:
We are not old men. We are not worried about petty morals.
I peered around the court. There were a few gasps and looks of horror from jurors and officials. Keith Richard – if he needed to emphasise it at all – had just set himself apart from the norms of established society. It might just as well have been the trial of Oscar Wilde.
So a trace element of cannabis and a sweet smell and, more likely perhaps, his emphatic rejection of the establishment, were enough for the jury to find him guilty of allowing his premises to be used for the purposes of smoking cannabis.
It is worth interjecting here that in 1967 the composition of juries in criminal trials was very different from today.
Now, those of 18 years of age and upwards and on the register of electors are eligible to be called and selected for jury service.
But that has been the case only since the early 1970s. At the time of this important trial, firstly, a juror had to be at least 21 years of age and, additionally, there was a property qualification. A juror had to be a householder in his or her own right.
Then there were few women householders (most properties being owned outright by a man) and very few young householders.
In the words of the famous judge, Lord Devlin, the consequence was that English juries tended to be predominantly male, middle-aged, middle-class and middle-minded. And I may add to that, very establishment-minded.
Having spent the night in prison awaiting sentence, the other two were brought to the dock to be sentenced.
For his admitted possession of heroin, Fraser was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. There was no quarrel with that and he didn’t appeal.
Jagger, though, for whom there was all the mitigation in the world, was sentenced to three months’ for possession of amphetamine tablets. He was visibly shaken by the sentence as he was taken down.
Richard, for what the court regarded as far and away the most serious offence, was sentenced to twelve months.
And off they went to Wormwood Scrubs for the night. The following morning, Michael Havers QC was at the Court of Appeal in London outlining his grounds of appeal, following which Jagger and Richard were released on bail pending full argument.
Enter William Rees-Mogg (father of Jacob), then Editor of the Times, clearly one establishment figure who was not impressed by Judge Block’s notion of justice in relation to Mick Jagger’s conviction. His leader, using a quotation from Andrew Pope, Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel ? posed a rhetorical question referring to an excessive amount of force applied to achieve something minor, unimportant or insignificant. He wrote:
Mr Jagger was charged with being in possession of four tablets containing amphetamine … These tablets had been bought, perfectly legally in Italy and brought back to this country. They are not highly dangerous or, in proper dosage, a dangerous drug at all. They are of the Benzedrine type …
He stressed that Jagger’s doctor said he knew and authorised their use but did not give a prescription as they had already been purchased and that this was an offence of a technical character. Millions of similar drugs were prescribed in Britain every year and for a variety of conditions. He went on:
One has to ask, therefore, how it is that this technical offence, divorced as it must be from other people’s offences, was thought to be so serious.
It is surprising that Judge Block should have decided to sentence Mr Jagger to imprisonment, and particularly surprising as Mr Jagger’s is about as mild a drug case as can ever have been brought before the Courts.
The editor then really grasped the nettle:
It would be wrong to speculate on the Judge’s reasons which we do not know. It is, however, possible to consider the public reaction. There are many people who take a primitive view of the matter, what one might call a pre-legal view. They consider that Mr Jagger has “got what was coming to him”. They resent the anarchic quality of the Rolling Stones’ performances, dislike their songs, dislike their influence on teenagers and broadly suspect them of decadence …
Rees-Mogg asked whether Jagger had received the same treatment if he had not been a famous figure with all the criticism and resentment his celebrity had aroused. If it had been anyone else, would it have been thought necessary to display him handcuffed in public?
He concluded:
There are elements of the same emotions in the reactions to this case. If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity.
It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr Jagger is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.
It was a well-considered and thought provoking leader and made the point well.
When, in due course, Jagger’s appeal was heard before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, and other judges, his sentenced was reduced to one of a conditional discharge for 12 months which meant he retained his freedom..
Richard’s appeal was allowed in full and his conviction set aside. The prejudicial effect of the evidence adduced in the case completely outweighed its probative value, and the mere scraping of cannabis from an ashtray was a million miles away from establishing that he had permitted his premises to be used for smoking drugs.
So they were both free to resume their musical careers and entertain the multitudes.
The judge’s attitude to the whole affair was probably encapsulated with a few words in an after-dinner speech he gave some time after the trial:
Of course, I have rolled a few stones recently
***
Thank you for listening to Baineslaw. Watch out for regular podcasts where we will be talking about items, and to people, of interest to the legal community. In the meantime, you can catch our website at www.barrybaines.co.uk and follow us on twitter @baineslaw (http://twitter.com/Baineslaw)