Tweet
It has been suggested on this board that PC Mizen might have faced a misconduct, or neglect of duty, charge for continuing to call up (or knock up) residents when he was told there was a body lying in Buck’s Row. When I looked at the police regulations on calling up, however, I was surprised to find that calling up residents would have been an important part of PC Mizen’s duty. The regulation in force at the time in respect of "calling people up in the morning" (based on a PO of 9 Feb 1853) stated:
"The Police are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants and any neglect is to be reported, and will be punished".
This regulation appears in the General Orders for both 1873 (MEPO 8/3) and 1893 (MEPO 8/4) and was thus in force in 1888.
What constables were not allowed to do was accept payment for this service. Thus it was stated:
"No money or other gift is to be received by the Police for calling up persons in the morning".
Previous to this, the police were paid for calling up - but from 1853 onwards the practice of payment was outlawed.
So Mizen would hardly have got in trouble for being engaged in the mere act of calling up. In fact he could have got in trouble had he neglected to call up the local residents that morning.
It has also been suggested that Mizen should have taken the names of the men who informed him of the body in Buck’s Row but there was no regulation in force of which I am aware that says he should have done so.
The Police Code (of which I have consulted the 1886 and 1889 editions) stated in 1888 that an officer would face a misconduct charge for "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or case of accident" but Mizen was not informed by Cross and Paul that a crime had been committed (it is common ground that they did not say a woman had been murdered) and was in no position to know if there had been an accident. So it does not seem that Mizen was in breach of the Police Code in allowing Cross and Paul on their way. Furthermore, as set out below, Mizen was only allowed to leave his beat in cases of emergency and, that being so, he could not possibly have been expected to take any names or addresses in such a situation otherwise that would have delayed his response to that emergency.
In another thread, Monty has helpfully explained the regulations in respect of an officer leaving his beat but it does not harm to set out the actual wording in the regulations. They stated:
"Constables may leave their beats to act in cases of fires, accidents, or other emergencies, but they are to return to them as soon as possible".
I think it will be helpful if I set out a little of the history of this regulation which first appeared in the 1873 General Orders.
Historically, a constable was not supposed to leave his beat at all. When new police instructions were issued in September 1829, as reported in the Times, it was stated that a constable was:
"not to quit his beat during his tour of duty."
However, this was not absolute. He was allowed to take a prisoner whom he taken into custody to the police station but he was supposed to go to a pre-arranged spot and be replaced by another constable before he did so. It was acknowledged that there were "some other" circumstances which might render it necessary for him to quit his beat but these were not spelled out.
In the preamble to the instructions, however, it was stated that for all police rules "something must necessarily be left to the intelligence and discretion of individuals".
One reason that was specifically excluded as a reason for a constable leave his beat was fire. Thus it was stated:
"No man at any great distance from the fire should leave his beat, for depredators might take advantage of his absence on such an occasion."
Shortly after these instructions, on 13 October 1829, the following Police Order was issued as follows:
"The Constables are not to refuse to give their assistance for the protection of persons and property near their own Beat, if called for in any case requiring immediate attention but the Constable is always to return as soon as possible to his own Beat."
So now, constables were specifically allowed to leave their beat both to conduct a prisoner to the police station and to protect people or property outside but near their beat.
An example of why constables were not normally supposed to leave their beats can be found in a story in the Daily News of 18 July 1854 reporting a hearing at Marlborough Street Police Court of one James Anderson, charged with breaking into premises at 214 Regent Street and stealing expensive musical instruments. The report said:
"Inspector Lestor C Division informed the magistrate that the plan of operations in committing the burglary had been most cleverly conceived, as a woman with whom the prisoner cohabited was placed in an adjoining street to the prosecutors in a filthy state of intoxication and refused to walk to the station house, [PC] Hawkes and another constable were therefore obliged to leave their beats and carry her, and during the absence of the constables the entry to the premises was effected."
The cunning plan was foiled because PC Hawkes heard a suspicious noise before he left his beat and returned to the property but the point was that there was a real fear that if constables left their beat this would allow criminals to break into properties in their absence.
However, on 26 June 1858, a further Police Order arguably provided another reason for a constable to leave his beat:
"In all cases of accident or illness in the streets, where the Police are called to take persons to a Hospital, they are to be taken to the nearest Hospital unless there be some special reason for taking them to another."
The 1862 General Regulations, Instructions and Orders for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force summarised the basic position which was essentially unchanged since 1829 as follows:
"He is not to leave his Beat during his tour of Duty, unless under the circumstances already mentioned [i.e. taking a prisoner to the police station], or others which may make it necessary."
The regulations repeated that fire was not a sufficient reason for a constable to leave his beat:
"In case of a fire taking place, the constable on the spot is to give immediate alarm by springing his rattle…No Constable who is at any great distance from the fire should leave his beat."
The regulations appeared to add a further reason for a constable to leave his beat saying that for a felon or a person accused of felony:
"he may be immediately followed wherever he goes [by a Constable]."
However, a constable could not follow someone simply suspected of possibly being about to commit a crime. The Pall Mall Gazette of 2 December 1868 complained about this (on the basis of a report in the Times) in the following terms:
"The Times, referring to a case in yesterday’s police reports points out that when one of the public servants specially retained for the defence of our lives and property comes upon three men of this well-known stamp…and watches them apparently plotting an immediate crime in the heart of the Metropolis, he is not permitted to stop them unless the crime is begun. If they happen to observe him and choose to go oft to some other locality, he is powerless to prevent them. He cannot even leave his "beat" in order to follow them. Can it be wondered that under such a system as this crime is rife?"
There was further criticism of the police’s inability to leave their beats in the Law Journal in September 1869, following an assault on a woman, which was repeated in a number of newspapers of the time.
The Law Journal said:
"We read of an outrage in the south of London…and we learn that it was a long time before a policeman could be found, and that two policemen refused to leave their beats, though after a while one of them proceeded to the scene of the outrage…. Is the rule that a policeman should not leave his beat a true one? It was intended to prevent a cry of wolf raised in one district leaving another district a prey to thieves. Surely there might be a discretion so that the evil-disposed might not be able to depend upon not being molested by policemen from adjoining beats. If the force in the Metropolis is not large enough, Colonel Henderson may reply upon having more men placed at his disposal….the refusal of a policeman to interfere where violence was being used by a woman or other helpless person should be regarded as a most serious offence.”
In 1871, an Instruction Book for Candidates and Constables (MEPO 4/36) appeared to offer a new reason for a constable to leave his beat (although not expressly):
"If a Constable receives information that a serious crime has been or is about to be committed he must go at once to the spot and prevent violence or apprehend the offender if the crime is committed."
It also stated that:
"If an accident occurs and any person is injured or insensible, he must send some one or go himself to the nearest Medical Man…"
This, however, does not seem to involve him leaving his beat.
Still a constable was not allowed to leave his beat unattended to assist at a fire (at least one at a distance) and this caused some controversy after a fire broke out in a house in Campbell Grove on 26 December 1871. A neighbour wrote to the Times to complain on 28 December saying that the servants in the adjoining house, having been alarmed by the smell of smoke and a crackling noise "appealed to a policeman to break open the door and see what was the matter" but "he said he had no authority to enter the house and could not leave his beat to give the alarm".
This incident appears to have caused The Thunderer to comment a few days later: "according to our correspondent, the police refuse to leave their beat when a fire breaks out".
It should be mentioned that there had been some leeway provided a few years earlier in Police Order of 5 August 1868 which cancelled all previous orders on the subject of fire and somewhat enigmatically stated:
"Whenever Constables are called away from their beats on any sudden emergency, the utmost exertion will be made to supply their place from the Reserve, and to prevent the commission of any offence during the temporary absence, and to prevent the commission of any offence".
That did not expressly and unambiguously allow constables to leave their beats to assist at a fire but, coming under the heading of "Police Duties and Arrangements at Fires", seemed to have that effect. However, there was a need to try and find someone to cover for them while they were gone.
The complaints in The Times appear to have led to a change – or at least a clarification - of the rules. Thus, in the 1873 General Orders we find this (as already quoted above):
"Constables may leave their beats to act in cases of fires, accidents, or other emergencies, but they are to return to them as soon as possible".
The Police Code also repeated that a constable was: "Not to leave the beat, except in cases of fire, accident, or other emergency, returning as soon as possible" and that misconduct would involve: "Leaving a fixed point or beat improperly".
We see that the emphasis in the regulations on a police constable leaving his beat is strongly on emergencies with the only two emergencies spelled out being fire and accident. But leaving fire aside, how was the constable to know there was an emergency outside of his beat at which his presence was required? Well obviously he would be called by someone, either by the sound of a rattle or whistle, or by a flashing lantern or by a message being passed on by another constable, perhaps via a member of the public. Perhaps that explains why PC Thain told the Coroner at the Nichols interest that he could not leave his beat "unless called", something which doesn’t appear to have been strictly true but was no doubt the practical effect of the regulations.
So the police could leave their beat for a variety of limited reasons but it basically needed to be an emergency. On 31 August 1888, Jonas Mizen was told that there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row. That was all he says he was told about her (although, according to Cross, he told Mizen the woman was either dead or drunk). Was that a sufficient to constitute an emergency?
It seems not. The London Standard of 16 September of 1882 reported on an inquest held by the Coroner of Westminster into the death of female child whose body was found in Hyde Park. It said:
"Charles Sutherland, a tailor, deposed to finding the body. It was not wrapped in anything and two pieces of rag were close to it. Witness went to Marble Arch and told a constable but he said he could not leave his beat until his serjeant came round, and when the latter arrived he said witness had better take the child the police-station himself. He did so."
So we have an example of a very similar situation that Jonas Mizen found himself in and the constable here refused to leave his beat to go to Hyde Park – and he was backed up by his sergeant.
In "Capturing Jack the Ripper" by Neil R.A. Bell, the point is made that a fixed-point constable refused to attend the scene where Annie Chapman’s body was lying but instead told his informant, Henry Holland, to go to Commercial Street Police Station to gain help. Fixed-point constables worked to different rules to beat constables but here the fixed-point constable had been told about a murder having been committed whereas by contrast there is no doubt that, whatever Mizen was told, it was not that a woman had been murdered.
Now, with all the regulations in mind, we return to the real life situation that PC Mizen found himself in when two men told him there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row. Depending on whose recollection is correct he might have been told the woman was dead or drunk but might not have been. For the purposes of this exercise, let us assume that the evidence of Cross was correct and Mizen was not told that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck’s Row. At the time, Mizen was in the process of calling up. So what should he have done?
Based on the above information, I would suggest that there was a conflict for Mizen. If he stopped calling up he might be accused of neglecting an important duty. If he went to Buck's Row he could be accused of leaving his beat improperly. What if a burglary took place on his beat and he had absented himself from his beat on a wild goose chase to look for a possibly drunken woman who had already roused herself from her slumber and walked away? Or worse, if she had been faking.
So should he continue his calling up duties or should he leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row? There is no apparent emergency so it is arguable that he should not have left his beat. He could have asked Cross and Paul to go to the nearest police station in the same way that the constable in 1882 did to Charles Sutherland. He could also have sought instructions from his sergeant on his beat. Now, surely PC Mizen knew this - so, if Cross and Paul did not say that he was sought by a policeman in Buck’s Row, why would he have left his beat to go to Buck’s Row and put himself in potential trouble?
One might conclude that the fact that the constable did go to Buck’s Row means that he must have been told (or thought he was told) that he was wanted by another constable, otherwise why leave his beat at all?
However, one other possibility is worth considering. Perhaps PC Mizen completely ignored Cross and Paul thinking it was just a drunken woman and was not worth his trouble. Perhaps he did not do what he should have done which is tell Cross and Paul to go to a police station or ensure in some other way that action was taken, short of him leaving his beat. In that event, he might simply have continued his beat as normal after he finished calling up and this might have taken him down Baker’s Row at which point he saw PC Neil flashing him with his lantern and he then quickly realised that what Cross and Paul had told him was true. Furthermore, he realised that it was a very serious matter because a woman had been murdered. It would surely have occurred to him that he had been neglectful in not taking his informants seriously and doing anything about it. But when it came to his report to his superior officer he could not deny having received information about a woman lying in Buck’s Row. He had to confess that he was told about this by two men. But if he said he was told about it and went to Buck’s Row, he could have faced questions about why he left his beat under such circumstances. If he said correctly that he did not leave his beat, then he would have faced questions about why he did nothing at all. So the invention of a policeman into the story could have been helpful to him to explain (falsely) why he proceeded to leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row.
However, this explanation is rather convoluted and falsifying his account of his conversation with Cross would clearly have brought him into direct conflict of testimony with Cross (as it did) and perhaps Paul too if he was in ear shot at the time of the conversation. So the overall conclusion has to be that it is unlikely that PC Mizen lied about what Cross told him because he did not really need to.
If anyone who has managed to wade through the above has any thoughts I would be interested to read them.
"The Police are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants and any neglect is to be reported, and will be punished".
This regulation appears in the General Orders for both 1873 (MEPO 8/3) and 1893 (MEPO 8/4) and was thus in force in 1888.
What constables were not allowed to do was accept payment for this service. Thus it was stated:
"No money or other gift is to be received by the Police for calling up persons in the morning".
Previous to this, the police were paid for calling up - but from 1853 onwards the practice of payment was outlawed.
So Mizen would hardly have got in trouble for being engaged in the mere act of calling up. In fact he could have got in trouble had he neglected to call up the local residents that morning.
It has also been suggested that Mizen should have taken the names of the men who informed him of the body in Buck’s Row but there was no regulation in force of which I am aware that says he should have done so.
The Police Code (of which I have consulted the 1886 and 1889 editions) stated in 1888 that an officer would face a misconduct charge for "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or case of accident" but Mizen was not informed by Cross and Paul that a crime had been committed (it is common ground that they did not say a woman had been murdered) and was in no position to know if there had been an accident. So it does not seem that Mizen was in breach of the Police Code in allowing Cross and Paul on their way. Furthermore, as set out below, Mizen was only allowed to leave his beat in cases of emergency and, that being so, he could not possibly have been expected to take any names or addresses in such a situation otherwise that would have delayed his response to that emergency.
In another thread, Monty has helpfully explained the regulations in respect of an officer leaving his beat but it does not harm to set out the actual wording in the regulations. They stated:
"Constables may leave their beats to act in cases of fires, accidents, or other emergencies, but they are to return to them as soon as possible".
I think it will be helpful if I set out a little of the history of this regulation which first appeared in the 1873 General Orders.
Historically, a constable was not supposed to leave his beat at all. When new police instructions were issued in September 1829, as reported in the Times, it was stated that a constable was:
"not to quit his beat during his tour of duty."
However, this was not absolute. He was allowed to take a prisoner whom he taken into custody to the police station but he was supposed to go to a pre-arranged spot and be replaced by another constable before he did so. It was acknowledged that there were "some other" circumstances which might render it necessary for him to quit his beat but these were not spelled out.
In the preamble to the instructions, however, it was stated that for all police rules "something must necessarily be left to the intelligence and discretion of individuals".
One reason that was specifically excluded as a reason for a constable leave his beat was fire. Thus it was stated:
"No man at any great distance from the fire should leave his beat, for depredators might take advantage of his absence on such an occasion."
Shortly after these instructions, on 13 October 1829, the following Police Order was issued as follows:
"The Constables are not to refuse to give their assistance for the protection of persons and property near their own Beat, if called for in any case requiring immediate attention but the Constable is always to return as soon as possible to his own Beat."
So now, constables were specifically allowed to leave their beat both to conduct a prisoner to the police station and to protect people or property outside but near their beat.
An example of why constables were not normally supposed to leave their beats can be found in a story in the Daily News of 18 July 1854 reporting a hearing at Marlborough Street Police Court of one James Anderson, charged with breaking into premises at 214 Regent Street and stealing expensive musical instruments. The report said:
"Inspector Lestor C Division informed the magistrate that the plan of operations in committing the burglary had been most cleverly conceived, as a woman with whom the prisoner cohabited was placed in an adjoining street to the prosecutors in a filthy state of intoxication and refused to walk to the station house, [PC] Hawkes and another constable were therefore obliged to leave their beats and carry her, and during the absence of the constables the entry to the premises was effected."
The cunning plan was foiled because PC Hawkes heard a suspicious noise before he left his beat and returned to the property but the point was that there was a real fear that if constables left their beat this would allow criminals to break into properties in their absence.
However, on 26 June 1858, a further Police Order arguably provided another reason for a constable to leave his beat:
"In all cases of accident or illness in the streets, where the Police are called to take persons to a Hospital, they are to be taken to the nearest Hospital unless there be some special reason for taking them to another."
The 1862 General Regulations, Instructions and Orders for the Government and Guidance of the Metropolitan Police Force summarised the basic position which was essentially unchanged since 1829 as follows:
"He is not to leave his Beat during his tour of Duty, unless under the circumstances already mentioned [i.e. taking a prisoner to the police station], or others which may make it necessary."
The regulations repeated that fire was not a sufficient reason for a constable to leave his beat:
"In case of a fire taking place, the constable on the spot is to give immediate alarm by springing his rattle…No Constable who is at any great distance from the fire should leave his beat."
The regulations appeared to add a further reason for a constable to leave his beat saying that for a felon or a person accused of felony:
"he may be immediately followed wherever he goes [by a Constable]."
However, a constable could not follow someone simply suspected of possibly being about to commit a crime. The Pall Mall Gazette of 2 December 1868 complained about this (on the basis of a report in the Times) in the following terms:
"The Times, referring to a case in yesterday’s police reports points out that when one of the public servants specially retained for the defence of our lives and property comes upon three men of this well-known stamp…and watches them apparently plotting an immediate crime in the heart of the Metropolis, he is not permitted to stop them unless the crime is begun. If they happen to observe him and choose to go oft to some other locality, he is powerless to prevent them. He cannot even leave his "beat" in order to follow them. Can it be wondered that under such a system as this crime is rife?"
There was further criticism of the police’s inability to leave their beats in the Law Journal in September 1869, following an assault on a woman, which was repeated in a number of newspapers of the time.
The Law Journal said:
"We read of an outrage in the south of London…and we learn that it was a long time before a policeman could be found, and that two policemen refused to leave their beats, though after a while one of them proceeded to the scene of the outrage…. Is the rule that a policeman should not leave his beat a true one? It was intended to prevent a cry of wolf raised in one district leaving another district a prey to thieves. Surely there might be a discretion so that the evil-disposed might not be able to depend upon not being molested by policemen from adjoining beats. If the force in the Metropolis is not large enough, Colonel Henderson may reply upon having more men placed at his disposal….the refusal of a policeman to interfere where violence was being used by a woman or other helpless person should be regarded as a most serious offence.”
In 1871, an Instruction Book for Candidates and Constables (MEPO 4/36) appeared to offer a new reason for a constable to leave his beat (although not expressly):
"If a Constable receives information that a serious crime has been or is about to be committed he must go at once to the spot and prevent violence or apprehend the offender if the crime is committed."
It also stated that:
"If an accident occurs and any person is injured or insensible, he must send some one or go himself to the nearest Medical Man…"
This, however, does not seem to involve him leaving his beat.
Still a constable was not allowed to leave his beat unattended to assist at a fire (at least one at a distance) and this caused some controversy after a fire broke out in a house in Campbell Grove on 26 December 1871. A neighbour wrote to the Times to complain on 28 December saying that the servants in the adjoining house, having been alarmed by the smell of smoke and a crackling noise "appealed to a policeman to break open the door and see what was the matter" but "he said he had no authority to enter the house and could not leave his beat to give the alarm".
This incident appears to have caused The Thunderer to comment a few days later: "according to our correspondent, the police refuse to leave their beat when a fire breaks out".
It should be mentioned that there had been some leeway provided a few years earlier in Police Order of 5 August 1868 which cancelled all previous orders on the subject of fire and somewhat enigmatically stated:
"Whenever Constables are called away from their beats on any sudden emergency, the utmost exertion will be made to supply their place from the Reserve, and to prevent the commission of any offence during the temporary absence, and to prevent the commission of any offence".
That did not expressly and unambiguously allow constables to leave their beats to assist at a fire but, coming under the heading of "Police Duties and Arrangements at Fires", seemed to have that effect. However, there was a need to try and find someone to cover for them while they were gone.
The complaints in The Times appear to have led to a change – or at least a clarification - of the rules. Thus, in the 1873 General Orders we find this (as already quoted above):
"Constables may leave their beats to act in cases of fires, accidents, or other emergencies, but they are to return to them as soon as possible".
The Police Code also repeated that a constable was: "Not to leave the beat, except in cases of fire, accident, or other emergency, returning as soon as possible" and that misconduct would involve: "Leaving a fixed point or beat improperly".
We see that the emphasis in the regulations on a police constable leaving his beat is strongly on emergencies with the only two emergencies spelled out being fire and accident. But leaving fire aside, how was the constable to know there was an emergency outside of his beat at which his presence was required? Well obviously he would be called by someone, either by the sound of a rattle or whistle, or by a flashing lantern or by a message being passed on by another constable, perhaps via a member of the public. Perhaps that explains why PC Thain told the Coroner at the Nichols interest that he could not leave his beat "unless called", something which doesn’t appear to have been strictly true but was no doubt the practical effect of the regulations.
So the police could leave their beat for a variety of limited reasons but it basically needed to be an emergency. On 31 August 1888, Jonas Mizen was told that there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row. That was all he says he was told about her (although, according to Cross, he told Mizen the woman was either dead or drunk). Was that a sufficient to constitute an emergency?
It seems not. The London Standard of 16 September of 1882 reported on an inquest held by the Coroner of Westminster into the death of female child whose body was found in Hyde Park. It said:
"Charles Sutherland, a tailor, deposed to finding the body. It was not wrapped in anything and two pieces of rag were close to it. Witness went to Marble Arch and told a constable but he said he could not leave his beat until his serjeant came round, and when the latter arrived he said witness had better take the child the police-station himself. He did so."
So we have an example of a very similar situation that Jonas Mizen found himself in and the constable here refused to leave his beat to go to Hyde Park – and he was backed up by his sergeant.
In "Capturing Jack the Ripper" by Neil R.A. Bell, the point is made that a fixed-point constable refused to attend the scene where Annie Chapman’s body was lying but instead told his informant, Henry Holland, to go to Commercial Street Police Station to gain help. Fixed-point constables worked to different rules to beat constables but here the fixed-point constable had been told about a murder having been committed whereas by contrast there is no doubt that, whatever Mizen was told, it was not that a woman had been murdered.
Now, with all the regulations in mind, we return to the real life situation that PC Mizen found himself in when two men told him there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row. Depending on whose recollection is correct he might have been told the woman was dead or drunk but might not have been. For the purposes of this exercise, let us assume that the evidence of Cross was correct and Mizen was not told that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck’s Row. At the time, Mizen was in the process of calling up. So what should he have done?
Based on the above information, I would suggest that there was a conflict for Mizen. If he stopped calling up he might be accused of neglecting an important duty. If he went to Buck's Row he could be accused of leaving his beat improperly. What if a burglary took place on his beat and he had absented himself from his beat on a wild goose chase to look for a possibly drunken woman who had already roused herself from her slumber and walked away? Or worse, if she had been faking.
So should he continue his calling up duties or should he leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row? There is no apparent emergency so it is arguable that he should not have left his beat. He could have asked Cross and Paul to go to the nearest police station in the same way that the constable in 1882 did to Charles Sutherland. He could also have sought instructions from his sergeant on his beat. Now, surely PC Mizen knew this - so, if Cross and Paul did not say that he was sought by a policeman in Buck’s Row, why would he have left his beat to go to Buck’s Row and put himself in potential trouble?
One might conclude that the fact that the constable did go to Buck’s Row means that he must have been told (or thought he was told) that he was wanted by another constable, otherwise why leave his beat at all?
However, one other possibility is worth considering. Perhaps PC Mizen completely ignored Cross and Paul thinking it was just a drunken woman and was not worth his trouble. Perhaps he did not do what he should have done which is tell Cross and Paul to go to a police station or ensure in some other way that action was taken, short of him leaving his beat. In that event, he might simply have continued his beat as normal after he finished calling up and this might have taken him down Baker’s Row at which point he saw PC Neil flashing him with his lantern and he then quickly realised that what Cross and Paul had told him was true. Furthermore, he realised that it was a very serious matter because a woman had been murdered. It would surely have occurred to him that he had been neglectful in not taking his informants seriously and doing anything about it. But when it came to his report to his superior officer he could not deny having received information about a woman lying in Buck’s Row. He had to confess that he was told about this by two men. But if he said he was told about it and went to Buck’s Row, he could have faced questions about why he left his beat under such circumstances. If he said correctly that he did not leave his beat, then he would have faced questions about why he did nothing at all. So the invention of a policeman into the story could have been helpful to him to explain (falsely) why he proceeded to leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row.
However, this explanation is rather convoluted and falsifying his account of his conversation with Cross would clearly have brought him into direct conflict of testimony with Cross (as it did) and perhaps Paul too if he was in ear shot at the time of the conversation. So the overall conclusion has to be that it is unlikely that PC Mizen lied about what Cross told him because he did not really need to.
If anyone who has managed to wade through the above has any thoughts I would be interested to read them.
Comment