CHAPTER NINE 

THE STACEY BENEFIELD CASE

9.1 On 18 March 1993, and thus before Stephen Lawrence's murder, a young white man named Stacey Benefield was stabbed in the chest whilst he was walking in an Eltham street. At the time he was with another young man named Matthew Farman. Later Mr Benefield named and identified David Norris as his assailant. He also said that Neil Acourt was with David Norris at the time. It appears that David Norris accused Mr Farman of calling him names, and produced a miniature sword about nine inches long. Mr Farman ran off, and Mr Norris and Mr Acourt chased him. Mr Benefield followed, asking what the problem was. Mr Norris at once told Mr Benefield to shut up and stabbed him in the chest. Neil Acourt was described as standing by and watching.

9.2 Neither Mr Benefield nor Mr Farman were prepared to give statements or to help the police at first. Thus although the attack was reported no arrest could be made. It is suggested that the reason for the young men's reluctance may be that they knew that David Norris' father was Clifford Norris. Both witnesses may have believed that if they helped the police there would be some form of retribution meted out to them by or on behalf of the Norris family.

9.3 Information reaching the Stephen Lawrence investigation team included the allegation that the Acourts and David Norris were responsible for the attack on Stacey Benefield. In particular this information came from the informant known as "James Grant" who walked into the police station on 23 April. This information was repeated in other messages received.

9.4 DS Davidson saw Stacey Benefield on Sunday 25 April, and Mr Benefield made a statement which named David Norris as his attacker and Neil Acourt as his accomplice.

9.5 David Norris was identified both by Mr Benefield and Mr Farman as the attacker at an identification parade held at Southwark on 13 May 1993. Neil Acourt was also identified by both witnesses as having been with David Norris at the time of the attack. They were both charged on the same day with attempted murder.

9.6 David Norris and Neil Acourt faced committal proceedings on 27 May 1993. Only David Norris was sent for trial. After some delay the trial of David Norris started on 15 November 1993 at the Central Criminal Court, before His Honour Judge Richardson, who has since died, and a jury. 

9.7 Meanwhile, shortly after David Norris was charged, both witnesses were approached by a man named Raymond Dewar, who was known to both of them. Mr Dewar wanted the witnesses to meet somebody else who, he said, "wished to make things right", and who would give them money in order that they should not support the charge against David Norris. Both men resisted these approaches, but Mr Benefield eventually gave way, and was taken by Mr Dewar and another man to Eltham Park where he met a man who is believed to have been Clifford Norris.

9.8 This man made a veiled threat to Mr Benefield, and he then handed £2,000 in cash to Mr Benefield saying that there would be more to follow and intimating that he wanted the case against David Norris dropped. He used the following expression, "this is how I sort people out not by shooting them", or words to that effect. A further meeting was arranged by Mr Dewar at which the same man, presumed to be Clifford Norris, demanded that Mr Benefield should contact a firm of solicitors whose name was given and change his story with a view to the prosecution being abandoned. A further sum of £3,000 was promised to Mr Benefield, which was to be paid when the charges were dropped. Mr Benefield said that he took the first £2,000 because he was too frightened to refuse.

9.9 Mr Benefield's evidence about the money is corroborated because officers including DC Tomlin, checked at various shops where Mr Benefield had told them that he had spent the money, which had been paid largely in £50 notes. Mr Benefield paid £500 to Mr Farman.

9.10 Mr Dewar approached both witnesses thereafter, and a further meeting was held between Mr Benefield and the man presumed to be Clifford Norris at the Black Prince Hotel in Bexley. On this occasion the man was even more insistent that Mr Benefield should follow his instructions.

9.11 After this meeting Mr Benefield decided that he had to bring the events to someone else's attention, and before contacting the police he spoke to a local councillor and to others. Eventually the matter was reported to the police on 12 June 1993. After that both Mr Benefield and Mr Farman were treated as protected witnesses. SO10 (the Special Operations Group of MPS) were informed of the facts, but in the end the protection of the two witnesses was conducted by officers from the Stephen Lawrence murder team, with liaison from SO10.

9.12 Mr Dewar was arrested on 19 June 1993 and he was charged with perverting the course of justice. On 9 December 1993 that case was heard and he was found not guilty.

9.13 The trial of David Norris started at the Central Criminal Court on 15 November 1993. The prosecution were represented by Counsel, and David Norris was defended by Mr Stephen Batten QC, who was instructed by Mr Henry Milner.

9.14 The prosecution case was opened and both Mr Benefield and Mr Farman gave evidence, and the remainder of the prosecution evidence was read to the Court. David Norris gave evidence in his own defence but called no witnesses. The trial, excluding the Judge's summing up, was completed by lunch time on Tuesday 16 November 1993.

9.15 When the Court reconvened at 14:00 Counsel were informed that a juror had approached one of David Norris' escorts, who was employed by a private company, and told the escort that the verdict would be one of not guilty. The escort brought this matter to the attention of the Clerk of the Court who made a note of the events, which was passed to the Judge. Counsel then saw the Judge in his Chambers. Counsel later informed DC Hughes, who was the officer in the case, that the Judge had stated that he would discharge the juror should the defence make an application to do so, but that he would "think hard" about it should the prosecution make such an application.

9.16 DC Hughes reminded Counsel of the history of the case, particularly stressing the Dewar aspect. Understandably he told Counsel that he suspected impropriety, and asked that the application to discharge the juror should be made. Counsel declined to make the application, but the matter was adjourned until the next day in order that DC Hughes could seek advice. At this point DC Hughes contacted Mr Bullock who then spoke to Mr Medwynter of the CPS. Mr Medwynter's view was that application should be made for the juror to be discharged. It was agreed that a conference should be held on the next day after all parties had received relevant advice.

9.17 Mr Bullock attended the conference and told Counsel that the police view was that an application should be made to the Judge to discharge the juror, or alternatively to arrange for a completely fresh trial. After further consultation it appears that the Judge was told what the police view was, but no application was made to discharge the juror or for a fresh trial. Accordingly the trial continued. The Judge summed up, and David Norris was acquitted.

9.18 The juror involved was in fact the foreman of the jury. Inquiries revealed that that man was arrested in September 1993 and that he was suspected of dishonestly handling a cheque for £23,000 at his place of work. The juror "surfaced" during our Inquiry, in the sense that he gave an interview to a national newspaper. In that interview he indicated that the jury had simply been impressed by David Norris as a witness. He did not respond to a request to provide further information.

9.19 On 18 November 1993 Mr Bullock was again contacted by the escort who told him that at the end of the trial, after David Norris had been released from custody, the same juror had again approached the escort and asked to be furnished with David Norris' home address so that he could offer him employment.

9.20 The whole incident is plainly most disturbing. Unfortunately His Honour Judge Richardson has since died. No further information is available as to the reason why no formal application was made to him.

9.21 From the point of view of this Inquiry the most sinister aspect of the case concerns the bribery of Mr Benefield. We do not know, and presumably we will never know, what in fact prompted the juror to act as he did. Nor will we know what led the jury to acquit David Norris. The matter of most concern is whether or not the clear evidence of the payment of money by Clifford Norris supports the suggestion that his evil influence must have been brought to bear on the Stephen Lawrence investigation. His presence in the background clearly raises much suspicion.

9.22 On the other hand it is apparent from the Benefield case that if Clifford Norris was involved his chosen technique was bribery of witnesses. There is no indication that he approached the police or that he made contact with any police officer directly or indirectly in that case.

9.23 This is perhaps not surprising, since Clifford Norris was on the run in connection with very serious crimes. Even he might not have been willing to compromise his position by approaching police officers directly or indirectly. Furthermore it is apparent that the police officers involved in this case were keen that the Benefield case should be put right, if possible, either by discharging the juror or by arranging for a new trial. It seems to us that these steps ought to have been taken.

9.24 It must further be stressed that after David Norris had been arrested both in connection with the Stephen Lawrence murder and the Benefield case no further steps were taken against him in the Stephen Lawrence case until he was arrested in April 1995 in respect of the second investigation leading to the private prosecution. After his arrest in May 1993 he refused to answer any questions about the Stephen Lawrence murder. He was not identified, and he was not in fact charged with murder at that stage. Later the case was discontinued against the two men who had been charged, namely Neil Acourt and Luke Knight.

9.25 Therefore David Norris was not in direct peril of trial during 1993 or 1994 while Clifford Norris was still at large. Furthermore there is no evidence of any approach being made to the witnesses in respect of the Stephen Lawrence murder. The only witness to identify anybody was Duwayne Brooks, and he has never indicated to us that there was any kind of approach made to him.

9.26 Nor is there any evidence that any approach was made by Clifford Norris to any of the police officers connected with the Stephen Lawrence murder. It would be most unfair and unjust to draw any conclusion against any of those officers in the absence of any indication or allegation that they have been involved or connected with Clifford Norris except as indicated in the Chapters of this report dealing with the individual officers.

9.27 The sinister nature of the Stacey Benefield case and of Clifford Norris' involvement are self evident. But there is in our view no evidence to support the suggestion that the Benefield case should cast a direct adverse shadow upon anybody involved in the Stephen Lawrence investigation, either witnesses or police officers, in order to support allegations of collusion or corruption in connection with the Stephen Lawrence case.

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 24 February 1999