jeremy: The phone rings in Thames Valley Police Station. There's a burglary underway in Berkshire and the theft of a quad bike. Constable Andrew Harper responds to the call in a police car. But as the officers reach the site of the crime, Harper leaps from the car and attempts to chase down the suspects before they can escape. He's tangled in the strap used to tow the quad bike and the thieves drive away with him lassoed. to the rear of the car. They drag him for more than a mile down country lanes. Harper is pronounced dead at the scene. All three teenagers were found guilty of manslaughter. It was a landmark case and led to the passing of Harper's Law, as it's called, a decision that meant life imprisonment for those who murder emergency workers in the line of duty. But now with the early release scheme up for debate, his killers may have their sentences dropped. A decision that's led to outcry from Harper's family. His mother said it would be a sickening choice, a slap in the face. Is releasing prisoners early a necessary evil of overcrowding? Or should we be taking other measures to ensure violent offenders don't end up back on the streets? Today we discuss the tragic death of Andrew Harper and what it could mean for justice if at least two of his three killers are released. So there's that. I'm going to pause and I'll put your mic back on, And then when I think you're, I'm going to guess that you're back on because she's monitoring. So you do the intro, Mark, if that's okay.

Mark: Hello and welcome back to 30 Minute Crime. I'm Mark Williams Thomas and with me is Jeremy Vine. Jeremy, what are we going to talk about today? This is a case that has come back into the headlines again.

jeremy: Yes it is, it's the case of Andrew Harper. He's a police officer. By all accounts, a very, very brave young man. Had been in the force not even 10 years. And arrives at a crime scene and he does that instinctive thing of trying to intercept the people stealing the quad bike. And, well you're a former officer, Mark, you can, I imagine much more easily than me, put yourself in his shoes.

Mark: Do you know as I started to research this and I was aware of it when it took place, I was able to watch the video, which is the video of the car police car turning up. And as they turn up, the offender's vehicle is there and they're trying to hook on this rope to the the vehicle they're trying to steal. But I was there. I would actually have been in those locations so many times. And the police officer gets out of the car, Andrew Harper gets out of the car with the intention of confronting the offenders. And of course, what took place then is absolutely horrific. He goes to the back of the vehicle. As he does that, the vehicle starts to drive away. And he gets his foot caught in the rope that they were trying to steal this vehicle from. And as a result of that, his feet get caught up on it. And the vehicle pulls away at speed with him attached. And as I watch this video of the police officer, his colleague, who then goes into reverse and starts to go back as quickly as he can, turns around. But then it's shocking because as he starts to drive away, he starts to find items of Andrew Harper's clothes on the road.

jeremy: Yeah, well, they clocked the car at 42 miles an hour. Andrew was dragged for more than a mile. I think it's fair to say even a fit guy like him would have had no chance of surviving. And of course, then the question is, did the three men, boys in the car, know they were dragging the police officer? And that's the crucial question. And there were so many very strange elements to this case. So for example, The court case begins in March 2020 and we're about to go into lockdown for COVID. And the very first thing that happens is somebody on the jury gets COVID and then the case is dispersed and they have to stop it and start it again. And then during that, because there's an element to this where the three lads fled to a traveler encampment. And so there's that sort of undertow in the case. There were then accusations. taking care how I say this, but there were accusations that criminals had tried to influence the jury. And those accusations never really went away. And the whole issue was, was it murder? Did they know? Or did they drive away and accidentally kill Harper as he ended up entangled in this this tow rope? And looking at the case, I just can't believe they could be driving a car with a human being at the back of it. They know the quad bike isn't there. The noise that must have made and for them to say, sorry, we didn't know seems incredible.

Mark: Well, they clearly, when they drove away, they knew a police officer got out of the car and the police vehicle was there. So they knew there was a police vehicle, they knew a police officer got out of the vehicle and then they drove away at speed. Obviously, he gets hooked up at the back. Now, at any stage they were capable of stopping. They obviously would have known I have no doubt that they knew that there was somebody being pulled along behind because of the weight difference that there would have been. And they would have been it they would have been looking in their rear view mirror. Because of course they would have not wanted the police vehicle to be following. So they weren't just looking straight ahead. They were looking behind them in the rearview mirror. There were three of them in the vehicle. So there was the driver, there was a passenger in the front, and there was one in the back. Even if the driver wasn't fully aware of looking what was behind, they have no doubt the two others were there. But there's quite a lot of issues come out of this. And one of them, of course, is the three individuals were. At a young age, you know, 17 and 18, but even at that stage, they'd almost become career criminals at that stage. They were out looking to steal vehicles. They were out looking to steal agricultural items, but also quad bikes. Those were the two items they were specifically looking for. And so when they were confronted, of course, they then react and to drive, knowing, I'm sure they did know, with a police officer touched on the back. Horrific. And one can only imagine the the tr trauma and the torment would have been going through his head. And the problem was, of course, he couldn't release his leg. He was being pulled along and he couldn't release his leg. But of course,

jeremy: Yeah.

Mark: the issue was when we got to court, was this issue with regards to murder and manslaughter? Because the issue was, well, was this intended? Or was it an accident as a result that the individual li the police officer died? And of course those being the key points that the jury had to decide upon.

jeremy: And when you mention the criminal background of these three, who were all named despite their ages, we should say, in the car there was an axe, three crowbars and a hammer. And the investigators thought that they were firstly to actually acquire stolen property, quad bike, break into a shed, but also... to fight if somebody intercepted them. So there was an implication of potential violence there. And then the second thing is you've got to, think within the law, the question of murder is tricky because you've got to be able to say, look, you knew that what you did would kill the person and you did it deliberately and with malice. So there's quite a lot in,

Mark: Yeah. Men's Ria.

jeremy: men's rear, the guilty mind, exactly. Now, there's all kinds of mitigations. You could say it's self-defense. You could not in this case, but that's one. one reason you might get away, literally get away with murder. You could also say in their case, and this was the argument, is that we maybe thought someone was there, but we were all panicking and driving quickly and we didn't realize we would kill somebody attached to the back of the car. I that's the kind of, so we were as shocked as anybody when we discovered there'd been a police officer attached to this strap at the back of the car. just, I mean, I don't know, I've had a weak, you know, a broken exhaust once. It made such a racket. I do not believe you can drive a SEAT, It's not even that big a car. It's a Seat Toledo with a man, you know, an adult male attached to the back without thinking there's something very, very wrong here. And so I think the families, the wife and mom, Lissy, and Andrew Harper's mom have always believed it was murder. They always believed that the sentence was too light. And that's why we're getting onto this case again, because it's come up as a result of this. early release of Prisoner's Scheme. So the maths on the early release scheme is really complex and I'm tempted to say, do you understand it? see if you can explain. I think I've got it, but you go ahead if you know better than me.

Mark: Yeah, I mean, I think just to backtrack slightly, of course, the the sentence that was initially given was one of 16 years imprisonment. But the state believed that that was too lenient to sentence and managed to get that actually increased. So, in terms of the driver, Henry Long, his in his sentence was increased from the 16 years to the 21 years. and then subsequently the two passengers, they got the 13 years. But I have no doubt. I have absolutely no doubt, as you say, they would have known that there was a person behind the vehicle, there was a weight difference, and they knew they hadn't have taken they weren't hooked up to the quad bike, so they didn't have the quad bike on the back.

jeremy: No, Exactly, the strap was, we should be clear here, they got the strap on the back of the car. I mean, this would have been a hard getaway for them anyway, because they've nicked this quad bike, which is a big old thing. It's obviously got brakes on and everything else. And they've got this fabric strap, this toe strap as it's called, which is going to wrap around the quad bike. And I don't know how they even think they're gonna make progress with that given that the brakes are on. They're gonna lift the front wheels maybe. But also it seems to me from reading the accounts that they were stationary when the police passed them in the the direction, the police think, we've got them because they were on a surveillance job in Reading that night, Andrew Harper and his colleague. They were sent to a burglary in action. So they turned up at what seemed to be the perfect moment. They caught them red-handed. But actually, disaster happened. yeah, you're right. mean, they, yeah.

Mark: Well, was a head-to-head situation. So the the the offender's vehicle was here, the quad bike was behind, they were out of the vehicle, one of the persons was out of vehicle trying to hook the quad bike on. The police vehicle turns up, they're obviously aware it's a police vehicle, they all panic and then actually try to get around the police vehicle, which they managed to do. And that is when, of course, it then hooks Andrew Harper's leg onto the strap and then they made away. And then the you see the police vehicle reversing at speed and then trying to then turning round and then following. And then as you can see, he then moves away. I think the first thing they find is is a is an item of his clothing, then they find his jacket. It had ripped off his body armor, and then it comes to an end, and you hear him say, and there's a body in the road. And so at that point they clearly knew what they were doing. And I think the attitude of them afterwards also paints a very clear picture in terms of whether they were they were you know sad for what they'd done, where there was any remorse in any way at all. There was absolutely zero. You know, these people.

jeremy: Good point, good point. No, they were laughing, they were photographed laughing, they were photographed laughing in the police van, they were photographed laughing when they were taken to court. weirdly, there were a couple of incidents with the jury. One of them where one of the jury members said, bye-bye boys, like that, and had to be sent home. So was a lot of chaos around the case and COVID as well. But the thing I remember is these pictures of the two. the two or three of them laughing. think mainly it was a picture of two of them. But the thing about this is you've got two categories of crime here and you rightly point out we've got all three accused of murder, all three acquitted of murder, let off if you like. And then you've got the driver is going to be punished more than the two passengers. And for that reason, because the driver is given a minimum term and because it's then referred to the attorney general and even increased, he's not part of this whole scandal about early release. It's the two passengers who, as things stand, unless Andy Burnham properly cancels it, are going to get out very early. And that's why it's the two passengers who are in the news and the family have understandably kicked off in the most extraordinary way, because they cannot believe it.

Mark: Yes, and of course, this is the problem. If they'd have been in for murder, then there would be no early release scheme element. It is because they've obviously got this conviction for manslaughter and their sentence was 13 years that it means they're eligible for the early release scheme. Now, of course, that's been put on hold because of the uproar from not just in terms of the family, and and let's be really clear, you know, Andrew had only been married four weeks. Prior to his death. So he was, you know, he was having the most amazing time of his life. And but as a result of this early release scheme, which I know there's been not only a lot of criticism across the board in the criminal justice system, but you have, you know, there were samples whereby the politicians were even laughing about it. Now they tried to explain that away as it was a it was a previous joke.

jeremy: dreadful. How do they? I I saw that. Why on earth? they were having a kind of conflab as the new cabinet and where Streeting says, not to Shobana Mahmood, but to the attorney general, you're the one who's responsible for letting everyone out and they all start laughing. know what a, it's just a terrible moment. I know it was just a joke, but it fell into this whole story, didn't it?

Mark: And I think, you know, jokes are meant to be funny. You know, and I've got this really strong view that if you say something that isn't funny and actually then try and wrap it up as a joke, it's like, no, I'm sorry, hang on a minute, that's totally unacceptable. You're a politician, these are people's lives you're dealing with. You know, you you you are on duty all the time. Have some respect for these people. Absolutely shocking to to be saying that because there are always victims on the end of a crime. You know, those victims in relation to Andrew Harper, and not just in relation to his his wife, but actually his mum and his family. So we have had, I think, you know, let's listen. We had the Harper's family come out, we had the Thames Valley chief constable come out, the police and crime commissioner, the police federation. You've all come out very clearly and said this is absolutely unacceptable. And I think across the board we've Andy Burnham, as a new prime minister, has got to get a grip of this and actually say, Do you know what? Is the early release scheme the right thing that we would do it, we should do? I believe we have the wrong people in jail. I absolutely believe that in many ways. Let's keep the people who are dangerous in jail and let's release the people who aren't dangerous, who can have some impact in the community. Because the problem with jail now, and you know, this is actually a we should do this as one. Podcast. I did a channel four program a number of years ago where we looked at the amount of contraband coming into prisons. And by that I mean drugs, mobile phones, alcohol, whatever it is. But the amount that's coming into jail effectively is that these jails now are free for all. You get mobile phones, you get drugs, more so than you can probably get outside. And where does that come

jeremy: I mean, well, the other day there was a prison where a guy had five guys delivered by drone, a five guys burger delivered to his window.

Mark: Yeah.

jeremy: I I can't believe how insecure prisons are. You may be right. think there's, we will come on to talk about nonviolent crimes and how punishable they should be. Cause at some point we should discuss, you know, the stalking and all that, all that kind of thing is, you know, very modern. Yeah.

Mark: Let me just tell you about prisons though. One thing about prisons. So the prison service now has been predominantly privatized. So obviously still some state prisons, but the government thought let's privatise prisons. And one of the things they do is if you are a prison prison provider, and part of your process is to search prisoners' cells to see if there's any contraband, and I use that in a broadest context. If there is, you get penalized for finding contraband.

jeremy: What?

Mark: So it is not, it is not in favor of the private prison service to notify finding contraband. It

jeremy: I see.

Mark: is completely the wrong way around because actually what we should be doing is incentivizing private prisons to find contraband. And actually, when you find that, it reduces your you know, you certainly don't get fined. It should be some benefit in money kind. It's totally wrong. And what ends up happening is people bring in stuff. That's why American prisons actually have. Far less because prison visits are behind screens, whereas prison visits in the UK are contact. And the other thing is prison officers. Prison officers, you know, overwhelmingly prison officers are you do the brilliant job, but there are prison officers there who are bringing in items every single day. And I tell you what I would be doing is I would be stopping and searching every single prison officer when they come into a prison. And I would be searching properly every single visitor. I'd be putting behind screens and I tell you what, that will reduce straight away the amount of contraband coming to prisons.

jeremy: That's fascinating. mean, looking at this sentencing act, let's just go into a bit of detail here.

Mark: Yeah.

jeremy: essentially, it was announced that if you're not somebody who's such a serious criminal that you've got a minimum term fixed by the judge, and we've had examples of some of those on this podcast, you've got two categories. You've got people who God's Determinant sentences, but they or is it indeterminate actually is the phrase they use I think meaning that the sentence will

Mark: Yes, indeterminate. Yeah.

jeremy: vary according to good behavior and so on and they're in the non-violent category and then you've also got those people who are in a higher category of violence and sexual assault and so on so the initial story on the Sentencing Act was and this wasn't just labor. This was the concert is as well We've got to let people out early because the prisons are full and it started but they said don't worry It's not going to be stalkers. It's not going to be violent people. It's not going to be rapists. It's going to be just the people who shouldn't have been there in the first place, arguably. And they start with... We're now in a situation where they're looking at a two-thirds reduction in their sentence. So if you go to prison for nine years because you're a financial advisor and you had 200 clients and you stole all their money and spent it on a yacht, which to me is quite a serious crime, actually, you're out in three years. even though your sentence was nine. So that's bad enough. And you could see this thing coming down the track. They were about to say, look, we're now making this apply to all sentences, not on a fixed term, which the judges laid down. that as this came, it's about 10 days ago, the mail ran a story saying, here we go. It's going to be now applied to violence and other prisons. They weren't going to get the two thirds reduction, but they would get a 50 % reduction on their sentence. So Andy Burnham, is, just, well, I'll never understand this, is gonna walk into Downing Street and he's gonna stand there and the whole, for once, just for one day a year, everyone, even though we have had five prime ministers in four years, everyone's gonna listen to what he says. So it's really important what he says. And he says, I'm here to give hope. And he talks a bit about the homeless and stuff and credit to him, you know, it's a very positive message. I did think before he did it, and it was obvious he was gonna become prime minister, this thing is gonna blow up so big. it's going to just overshadow everything. And what he needs to do when he arrives in Downing Street on his first day is say, look, normally I'd make a speech, but I've got a job to do. And the job I've got to do is to go through that door of number 10 and reverse this crazy policy which says we're going to let violent rapists out of jail.

Mark: Mm-hmm.

jeremy: after serving half their sentence. So excuse me, I'll see you tomorrow. Now, he would have gone up 10 % in the polls if he'd done that. I don't mean

Mark: Yeah.

jeremy: to be, I mean, that's me talking as somebody just watching politics and thinking, the power of that. Obviously,

Mark: Mm.

jeremy: you then have to decide what happens when the cells are full. We're in a situation where, as he's now done, he's done it late, but he's done it, you cancel the scheme, you've got full prisons, you've got people coming out of court who may not have a cell. That's how problematic this is. You may

Mark: Yeah.

jeremy: have to do what Norway does, which is you say you're convicted, you go home and we'll ring you when we've got a cell for you. So it's kind of crazy, isn't it?

Mark: Yeah. I think the problem is, yeah, the problem is, is the is the government have yeah, as is always, is they've never the no one has looked at this in terms of a long term through the Ministry of Justice and said, actually how do we tackle prison overcrowding? Because this isn't something that's happened overnight. You know, prisons have been full now for the last five years, ten years. I've been looking at this for a long time. And what we need to do is we need to change the way that we put people in prison. We need to bring community service back into an effective way. And we need to just put the most dangerous people in jail. What's going to happen here is that they'll stop the scheme for a while and then they will bring it back in again. I have no doubt about that because they're going to have to do something to tackle the issue of overcrowding. And what they'll do is that it'll all go quiet until something like this happens when a violent criminal criminal is released, we're not told about. They commit a further offence again and then it'll all come back into the into the limelight. So what we've got is we've got a Prime Minister who at the moment seems to be more interested in going out and partying than actually doing anything in terms of you know, setting down some very clear policies.

jeremy: Harsh, I mean, I would say that's harsh in the sense that he's, you know, he's come in with a particular agenda, but as always happens, you get blindsided. And the funny thing is this shouldn't, he shouldn't have been blinkered to this one, because it's been so obvious it's been coming. But anyway, I'm just kind of got that classic thing where I'm trying to be fair here. In the end, what you can't do is have Mrs. Harper, by which I mean his widow and his grieving mum, both stand up and say, you've got this wrong. because he's not going to win that argument.

Mark: No, no, he's not gonna win this argument. And and rather he shouldn't win the argument. You know, these are people's lives that have been lost and and these are families that are affected. And I think what we've got to do is understand what he's got to do is kind of understand that the the feeling and the emotion that goes behind this and actually go, do you know, what is it we can do that provides a better service to victims? And I think we as a society we we we we go it's a bit of a pendulum, you know, we say, we you know we're really victim focused, but ultimately We're not that good at victim focus. We tend to be offender focused much more than victim focused, particularly down the road once people are convicted. You know, as far as I'm concerned, you know, if you've committed some of those crimes, you know, your your your your quality of life rightly has to be effective. And we should look at the victims and long-term look at the victims, not just in terms of the crime that it happens where it is. And I think Rehabilitation, I think understanding. I mean, these people are they they they went to jail smiling and I'm sure their attitude hasn't changed very much in that approach. And when you look at it, you go, Okay, so we're gonna give these people the opportunity to release. If you sat down with them and went through a proper assessment with you, I bet you'd come away if you did it properly, I bet you'd come away and go, Do you know what? They haven't changed their attitude at all. They're no different to it. They haven't r they're not remorseful in any way.

jeremy: definitely. Well, yeah, I mean, they they're young, so they might do. And I do sort of think I believe in rehabilitation, but I don't think necessarily the prison is the vehicle for that. But I also think like you that the victim needs to see justice done. They need to feel the state is on their side. And one thing I think that has been a really big step forward in our justice system is victim impact statements. I

Mark: Yes.

jeremy: think they've got a different name now, but I just think. There was a colleague of mine at the BBC, John Hunt, who's one of the worst murders I've ever been aware of in this country, where an ex-boyfriend of one of his daughters kills a daughter, her sister and John's wife. And he gave the most extraordinary victim impact statement in the court, which, you know, the killer had to listen to. And I think that's, that, you know, that really helps. victims of crime, survivors of crime. And I think in this case, what we've got now is the victim impact statement going on after the case, almost eight years later, because now they're saying, wait, can everyone, before these guys get out, can you just have a look at what it's done to our lives? And so we're now seeing the mum, the widow, the father, the father's got a tattoo, it's really moving, a tattoo on his arm with Andrew Harper's police service number on it. you know, just to say they'll never forget they've had a police horse named after him. So it's one of these crimes where for us it's not fish and chip paper, but it's done on the day and you look at it and you think that's terrible and then you sort of park it because we're not involved. And now because of this policy, we're all looking at it again and it's made me go back to the victims. and look at their accounts of it because they're speaking and thinking, my God, they might as well be the day after. They'll never get over it. They can never put it behind them. And it's just a reminder that when you kill a young police officer, you sort of kill his family as well.

Mark: And I think one of the things that's two other things I think really important before we we wrap this up is that one of the things following on from your victim impact statements, you know, I'm very victim focused in an awful lot of the work that I do. And I think one of the things about the criminal justice system is that sometimes over the years it's lost the voice of the victim. Because by the time you get to court, of course you've got the victim's account, but you've then got overwhelmingly the fences that position in terms of saying, well, the victim's not telling the truth or this. What the victim impact statement does is it allows the court to refocus again on what the victim's impact is. And it kind of gives them the last word. And I think that's really, really important. And I think as a as a judge, as a jury, and people listening, the victim impact statements have been that they they paint a picture really of the individual's feelings. It's it's what it's meant to them. And I don't think when you've got police statements, when you've got police accounts, those are very different than vint victim impact statements. So I think probably one of the best things that's happened this century in the criminal justice system is the introduction of victim impact statements. I think absolutely massive.

jeremy: We should mention that Andrew Harper's name has been immortalized by the MPs because I think they could see something horrific happen, something quite exceptional happened here. And they voted through something called Harper's Law. And Harper's Law means that if you kill an emergency worker, police officer, ambulance worker, when they're responding to a call... you and it's manslaughter, if you're convicted of manslaughter it will be a mandatory life sentence. So those three would have got life. Funnily enough and strangely there's then some of the legal community saying wait a second that doesn't make sense at all because the judge needs discretion. But too late. That's come in and that will be the case for the next Andrew Harper. but not for this one because you can't, the law can't look backwards. And an ad-lum is the name of Andrew's mum. She's gone public with the letter she's received about the releases. And she says she's got a victim liaison office, so it's worth me just reading this. Who writes to her? As you may have seen reported in the news, the Sentencing Act 2026 will change how some prison sentences for adults are managed. These changes have been introduced following an independent review with the aim of improving the effectiveness of sentencing and better managing offenders in the community. I mean, that's obviously all guff. And it then says, understand receiving this information may be difficult and we recognize the lasting impact the offense may have had on you. I wanted to assure you there is no immediate action for you to take at this time. You will receive a further letter about this by the end of August, which will confirm if changes will or will not be made to the release date for an offender in your case. So that's obviously come off a photocopier somewhere because it's just a bog standard template. And Adlam, Andrew Harper's mum, says, we do not have an date for the loss of Andrew in such a horrifying manner. Learning to live without him is the hardest thing I've ever lived with and I will live with it for the rest of my life.

Mark: Do you know what? One that makes my blood boil, and I'll tell you why that makes my blood boil, is that they couldn't even have the decency of making it personal. They couldn't have the decency of making it rather than simply taking a template, making it personal, name the individuals, be clear in terms of it, explain how frustrating it is for them, have a bit of empathy. I tell you what, makes me so angry. When you write something like that. You know, that's one of the reasons I I just couldn't have continued to be a police officer, because I tell you what, I'd have gone, no, I'm not writing a letter like that. No. And the reality is probation service, you know, rehabilitation in the community. You haven't a laugh. You know, the r the probation service don't have the ability to do that. There is no rehabilitation in the community. And actually, prison service doesn't do rehabilitation because he's locked up in your cell for 24 hours a day, best part of. You know, you don't have the opportunity to go to classes and and rehabilitation. That's even if these people, these two wanted to do that. So I'm sorry, police force, wake up a little bit. Make something personal. I am furious that they would write a letter. And the police officer's written a letter should hold a head in in shame.

jeremy: So Mark, what are we doing next?

Mark: So it's a story that's massive, isn't it? It's a story that's that's captivated everybody. And it's captivated so many people because they've got their own views. Social media now is awash with views in terms of, you know, is this the right person? How do they manage to do that? And what we've got now is we've effectively got society trying to try somebody in the community whilst they're you know, whilst they're waiting a sentence. And what we've got. Is an update in relation to Anne Whiticom. Obviously, someone that was very close to you, Jeremy. And I think it's only right that we just give a clear update in terms of where the position is from the criminal justice system in relation to Anne Whiticomb, and just give some warnings in terms of what we should be doing in terms of when it's being spoken about.

jeremy: That's a great idea. think people really want to know and they also always wonder after an arrest and a charge why everything falls silent. within what we're allowed to talk about, will discuss where the case of Anne Whitcomb is, the murder of Anne Whitcomb, in our next edition.

Mark: Brilliant. Jeremy, as always, fantastic. You know, please do tell your friend too, please keep following and let's get a community going.

jeremy: Mark, thank you. We'll see you next week.

Mark: See you next week. Take care.