Truth behind Jagger drugs claim

Mick Jagger: mixed with bad company
Daily Mail11 April 2012
The Weekender

Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for exclusive competitions, offers and theatre ticket deals

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

As a knight of the realm, he regularly rubs shoulders with the great and the good.

But Sir Mick Jagger, it is said, once mixed with far less wholesome company.

In 1969, after he claimed that detectives had tried to plant drugs on him, police were distinctly unimpressed.

Secret files released yesterday to the National Archives show that an internal inquiry by Scotland Yard dismissed the allegations, saying the Rolling Stones singer was caught up in 'the world of users of dangerous drugs'.

His main witnesses were described as 'the dregs of society'. The allegations followed a raid on Jagger's home in Cheyne Walk in Chelsea on May 28, 1969, led by the head of the local drugs squad, Detective Sergeant Robin Constable. A quantity of cannabis resin was seized by the police.

The allegation that Constable had tried to plant some 'white powder' on Jagger and then demanded a £1,000 bribe to drop the charges only surfaced some weeks later when Jagger and his girlfriend Marianne Faithfull - who had also been present at the time of the police raid - were filming in Australia.

After Faithfull was rushed to hospital with a drugs overdose, she told the Australian detectives who came to interview her that she 'hated coppers' because of her recent experience in England.

The claims against Constable were to form the basis of Jagger's defence when he was charged with cannabis possession at Marlborough Street magistrates' court.

Jagger also went on to allege that the cannabis seized in Cheyne Walk had 'shrunk' while in police possession from a half-pound block to just a third of an ounce - the implication being that it was sold by corrupt officers.

Although he was found guilty and fined £200 and ordered to pay 50 guineas in costs, Scotland Yard bosses felt they had little option but to investigate Jagger's claims.

The police distaste for the case - and particularly some of the minor drug dealers Jagger and Faithfull called as witnesses - was plain.

Commander Robert Huntley, who oversaw the inquiry, noted: 'The private persons interviewed during the course of this investigation represent extreme ends of the scale. At one end are public figures whilst at the other are the dregs of society. It is interesting to note that those who purport to give first-hand evidence in support of the allegations are at the lower end of the scale, being drug users or trafficking in them.'

In a statement to the police, Jagger described how Constable had allegedly tried to plant the drugs - apparently heroin - in a piece of folded-up paper he produced from a box in the house.

Jagger said in his statement: 'I think he put the box down and opened the folded paper. He said, "Ah, ah, we won't have to look much further". He showed me the paper and I saw it contained some white powder. I said, "You bastard, you planted me with heroin".'

Jagger then went on to claim that Constable had tried to solicit a bribe in order to drop the case. However, after interviewing all those involved, the Yard's investigating officer, Detective Chief Inspector William

Wilson, said the claims came down to Jagger's word against Constable's.

'Michael Jagger is an intelligent young man and doubtless is on the fringe, if not embroiled in the world of users of dangerous drugs,' he noted.

Wilson was less than impressed by Faithfull, saying: 'Throughout the interview she said several times "Is this what you want me to say?" as though seeking reassurance that her version was what was required. I would not be prepared to place any reliance at all upon this woman.'

In contrast, Constable was described as a ' hard- working and competent police officer'.

Huntley was adamant that the inquiry had failed to back up Jagger's allegations, but reluctantly conceded that the papers would have to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, the DPP ruled that no action should be taken against Constable or his officers.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in