A POLICE FORCE did “absolutely nothing” to protect the life of a witness who was threatened and then shot dead by the man he was to give evidence against, the High Court was told yesterday.

Daniel Brougham should have been “banged up” to prevent him from endangering Giles Van Colle, his former employer, it was alleged.

Hertfordshire police were aware of the threats against Mr Van Colle in late 2000 as Brougham’s trial approached but did not offer him witness protection.

Brougham, who was due to stand trial for theft from Mr Van Colle and two others, remained free on unconditional bail, and in November 2000 shot Mr Van Colle, 25, with a silver bullet outside his optician’s shop in Mill Hill, North London.

In a landmark case, Mr Van Colle’s parents are claiming damages from the Hertfordshire force, alleging that it failed to protect his right to life under the Human Rights Act.

Irwin Van Colle, a senior Tory councillor in London, and his wife Corinne were in court to hear the opening of the trial. Monica Carss-Frisk, QC, for the prosecution, said that it was an exceptionally clear case in which the police had an obligation to protect someone who was particularly vulnerable because he had been asked to be a Crown witness.

Giles Van Colle’s car had been set alight and destroyed by Brougham and he had received two threats by telephone of which the police had been made aware.

In one call, Brougham said: “I know where you live. I know where your businesses are and where your parents live. If you don’t drop the charges you will be in danger.”

Mr Van Colle reported the incident to Hertfordshire police and said that he believed that Brougham had made the threat. He told officers that he had been “very shaken up”.

Ms Carss-Frisk said: “Despite a history of escalating instances of witness intimidation of which the police were well aware, they did absolutely nothing to protect the life of Giles Van Colle.”

She continued: “It is against that background that we say the police failed in their positive duty to protect life under Article Two [of the European Convention on Human Rights] and their duty to ensure respect for family life under Article Eight.” She said that the very least the police should have done was to arrest Brougham, take him to court and seek bail conditions requiring him to stay away from Mr Van Colle.

Mr Justice Wakerley, the judge, intervened: “One doesn’t sit in the criminal courts as long as I have and think that will do any good. If there is a real risk you bang him up. You remove bail — end of story.”

Ms Carss-Frisk said that that was what should have happened. “He should have been arrested, brought to court and banged up. But that didn’t happen. Nothing happened,” she said.

She denied that, if the Van Colles were to win their claim, it would “open the floodgates” to a rash of human rights claims against police forces.

Hertfordshire police have conceded that one officer, Detective Constable David Ridley, failed in his duty by not arresting Brougham. Constable Ridley was found guilty of a series of offences by a police misconduct panel in June 2003.

But the force argues that it is not liable as an institution for a breach of Mr Van Colle’s human rights.

Brougham, 36, was convicted of his murder and jailed for life in March 2002.

The hearing continues.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson