CHAPTER TWELVE
I ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE OF SENIOR OFFICERS
II THE HOSPITAL
III ARRIVAL OF THE CID 

12.1 While the local officers and the TSG personnel were at the scene performing their limited activities there arrived a series of senior officers and members of the CID. The Kent Report indicates that a large number of officers and some more senior officers did come to Well Hall Road. Some of them were in the witness box for considerably longer than they were present in and near Well Hall Road.

12.2 The first of these more senior officers to give evidence was Chief Inspector Jonathan McIvor. He was the most senior uniformed officer on duty for 3 Area during the night of 22/23 April. He indicated that his role was "essentially a public order role". He said that unless there were public order implications he would not have any direct responsibility in respect of a murder that might happen on his Division whilst he was on duty. He was also manager at Plumstead Divisional Headquarters. He heard that there had been a stabbing in Well Hall Road at about five minutes to midnight. The CAD message seeking him is timed at 23:51. He arrived at the scene probably between 00:15 and 00:30.

12.3 The first policemen seen by Mr McIvor were stationed at a cordon at the junction of Well Hall Road, near the Welcome Inn Public House. As a result of talking to Mr Jeynes, who was already present, Mr McIvor became aware that Mr Benn, a Chief Superintendent, had been at the scene already and had "made some arrangements, or had added to the arrangements for area searches".

12.4 Mr McIvor states that he satisfied himself that all local enquiries were being carried out, or had been carried out, and this appears to refer to some house-to-house enquiries about which he had been told by Mr Jeynes. Mr McIvor thought that the scene "appeared to me to be well conducted, with Mr Jeynes in charge." He was aware that a Senior Investigating Officer had been called and was on his way. He indicated to the Inquiry that he was essentially superfluous at that time, and that he had his own duties to perform away from the scene.

12.5 This is a matter of considerable surprise since we regard Mr McIvor as an important person in the chain of command. As the senior Divisional uniformed officer on duty it is our view that Mr McIvor was the man who ought to have taken charge and ensured that there was co-ordination and correlation between those present as to the steps which were being taken at the scene.

12.6 Mr McIvor said that a formal document referred to as a Scene Log was, in his experience, not a document in existence or use in the MPS at that time. He says that comings and goings to a scene in 1993 were usually recorded on the CAD messages.

12.7 Mr McIvor appears to have been preoccupied with the possible public order and local community relations aspect of the case. He said that he spoke to Mr Philpott, when he came to Plumstead Police Station, in order to discuss what response needed to be made in respect of possible public order consequences. That was the concentration of Mr McIvor's thoughts on the night of the murder.

12.8 Mr McIvor had only been at Plumstead for about four months, but he does seem to have been less aware than we would have expected of other racist incidents and violence which had taken place on his Division. The position seems to be that Mr McIvor thought that things were under control, although he received little information from others present at the scene. For example, he did not know that there had been an eye witness to the murder. He knew that TSG carriers were on the scene, as he had seen one in Well Hall Road and understood that there had been a full search.

12.9 As to dealings with the family, Mr McIvor said that "whoever is in charge of the investigation at the time" should have the responsibility of ensuring that the victim of this or any murder should be identified and should ensure that the victim's family were contacted and properly informed of the circumstances.

12.10 It is a matter of surprise to us that Mr McIvor stood back from the management scene and concerned himself only with possible future public order implications. Exactly what these were it is difficult to establish. He left the scene at about 00:55 and returned to Plumstead Police Station.

12.11 Mr McIvor clearly sought to distance himself from any operational responsibility for the incident on the night by defining himself as a "manager" with a purely Area responsibility for public order matters and therefore no Divisional operational responsibility. He used the phrase and concept of "manager" rather like a shield to defend himself from any suggestion of operational responsibility.

12.12 Mr McIvor did in our view fail to meet his responsibilities and to co-ordinate action at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The fact that he had such responsibility was made clear by his Divisional Chief Superintendent, Mr Philpott, who under direct questions on these issues stated that Mr McIvor's role was for the Area in relation to public order and "to take over uniformed ground control of that [the Stephen Lawrence] incident".

12.13 Despite the fact that he was actually on duty physically in Plumstead Police Station and contactable by radio or telephone he did not arrive at the scene until after Mr Jeynes who was called out from home.

12.14 Mr McIvor had then immediately at his command resources from his own Division, CID officers from his and adjoining Divisions and the TSG who quite clearly required direction and co-ordination. He states that he made some cursory inquiries from Mr Jeynes regarding activity in relation to searches and house-to-house inquiries and then returned to Plumstead Police Station.

12.15 Mr McIvor states that he did not think about contacting the family, and that in any event that would have been the responsibility of Mr Jeynes and the CID. This is despite the fact that he knew prior to attending the scene that Stephen Lawrence had died. Mr Jeynes was not in fact so aware until 00:30 or later. Mr McIvor did not check that Mr Jeynes knew of Stephen's death, and that the duties in relation to the family were being discharged. He was not aware that the Lawrence family were at the hospital.

12.16 Mr McIvor was apparently not told of Mr Brooks' existence as either a witness or a victim, nor did he inquire about other witnesses or descriptions to satisfy himself as to the nature of the searches which had taken place. Mr McIvor did not make any notes personally at the time, nor did he ensure that an "incident log" (ie. a CAD or paper based record of actions and events) was kept. He did nothing in relation to checking whether a scene log was in place. Some five months later on 7 September 1993 he made out an incident report booklet apparently triggered by the fact that a review was taking place.

12.17 Mr McIvor must be criticised for a) his failure to obtain full information of the incident; b) his failure to co-ordinate activities at the scene; c) his failure to command and direct resources; d) his failure to record activities personally and to ensure that there was some form of log of activities taking place for those who would subsequently take command; and e) his failure to consider the family.

12.18 Chief Superintendent Christopher Benn is now attached to New Scotland Yard. In April 1993 he had recently been appointed Chief Superintendent in charge of the Operational Support Unit for the Area. His job included responsibility for Traffic, the Territorial Support Group, the Dog Section, the Mounted Branch and other support Units. Mr Benn had not been in uniform or on the operational side for some years. He happened to be accompanying a dog handler on duty during the night in question, as part of his learning process of the activities of those under his command. He told the Inquiry that he made some notes after the event, but these were what he called "purely personal development notes", which had no evidential value and were simply "for his own learning processes." They were destroyed later, so that he has no document to help him in connection with the activities of the night.

12.19 Mr Benn believes that he arrived at the scene probably at about  23:45, since he knows that the call received by his dog van was recorded at about 23:26. He went to the scene simply because he happened to be with the dog van and dog handler. When he arrived he was the most senior officer present. Mr Groves identified himself to the Chief Superintendent, and Mr Benn says that he dealt with Mr Groves on and off for the time he was there. It will be remembered that Mr Groves says that he wrote the Chief Superintendent's name on his clipboard notes when he was introduced to him.

12.20 In his statement, and in other documents, Mr Benn was very ready to accept that he personally was in command at the scene. He indicates that he bore responsibility for the actions of all officers who were there. At the bottom of the complaint form raised on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority, he indicated that "any omissions are my responsibility not theirs [that is the junior officers] and I propose to make a full statement under caution for this Inquiry at any time".

12.21 In a sense Mr Benn was too ready to accept responsibility, since he was only present by accident, and he was not truly in the chain of command of the operational or CID officers who attended the scene. He had little knowledge of Plumstead and its problems and of the area generally, since he was acclimatising himself to his role which covered a wide area of south-east London. He received little information about what had happened at the scene, and, for example, he had no knowledge of what Mr Brooks had said to any of the officers present, although he knew that he had been a witness of the murder. Mr Benn deserves some credit for having at least temporarily inserted himself into the chain of command and encouraged some actions which were sensible. But he failed to bring together the officers who were present. As a result there was no cohesive action.

12.22 When Mr Benn left the scene he went back to Plumstead Police Station in order to scan the CAD printout, and also in order to speak to Mr Brooks, who was obviously the most important person in connection with the investigation of this case. He did not take this or any further action at Plumstead, because he spoke to the Divisional Chief Superintendent, John Philpott, who was by then at Plumstead, who told him that the local officers would "take it from here".

12.23 Mr Benn indicated that while he was at the scene he had been able, with Mr Groves, to "check and verify everything that had been done up until that stage". For example, he ensured that the search of the area with the lights and dogs was properly carried out before he returned to Plumstead.

12.24 Mr Benn believes that both Acting Inspector Little and DC Pye were acting responsibly at the scene, and that Mr Groves was co-ordinating what was happening. He said that part of his briefing with Mr Groves was to go through what the officers had already done, for example in connection with looking for suspects. He was also surprisingly congratulatory or thankful in respect of Mr Groves' visit to the Welcome Inn.

12.25 Mr Benn indicated that Mr Groves would have had the management of the scene all the way through the time they were both present. His job on arriving at the scene was not to take that away from Mr Groves, as Mr Groves seemed to be someone who was well versed in what he was doing. Mr Benn saw his role as being to check and verify what had been done and to "add those bits which I felt I could add".

12.26 Mr Benn was present at the scene for about 45 minutes. DC Pye did not remember seeing him at the scene at all. It does seem that Mr Benn concentrated his attention upon Mr Groves and his activities. Mr Benn did not, as was elicited in cross-examination, follow up any possible lines of information or intelligence while he was there. Indeed, perhaps understandably, it was his contention that since there was an experienced Detective Inspector, namely Mr Jeynes, present at the scene, that was a matter for the CID.

12.27 One of the steps taken by Mr Benn was to stop any further house-to-house enquiries, after the end of what he referred to as the dog search. He says that he was concerned about scientific evidence and its preservation, and that Mr Groves knew that it was his wish that there should be no further enquiries made from house-to-house. There was, as we have already indicated, only a limited house-to-house operation during the night, focusing on the area of Well Hall Road and the junction with Dickson Road and progressing into Dickson Road itself. This decision to stop further inquiries is strangely in conflict with Mr Jeynes' evidence which suggests that such inquiries were in fact "widened". This reflects the essential failure to bring together the other officers, who were to all intents and purposes acting independently.

12.28 Mr Benn said that he believed that he had taken responsibility more than adequately for the scene management while he was present, but that he was neither competent nor qualified to carry out further detailed investigation, that being a matter for the SIO. Mr Benn indicated that he had been given a reasonably comprehensive account of what had happened by Mr Groves, including the information that this was an attack by white youths on two young black men, and that the white youths had made off along Dickson Road. There seems to be some doubt as to the source of any information given to Mr Benn, and certainly he had no fresh or further information to assist him in adopting the responsibilities which he says fell upon him at the scene.

12.29 Mr Benn summarised the position, namely that he was "very keen and very thankful that Mr Groves had carried out the work that he had done before his arrival". He also seemed satisfied that everything that should have been done on the night in question, insofar as he was concerned with it, had been properly done.

12.30 We feel bound to say that we were not as impressed as the Kent inquiry seems to have been in respect of the evidence of Mr Benn. He himself indicated that he probably should not have been adopting an active role at the scene but that he should have been at Plumstead Police Station, presumably liaising with the senior officers there. The result is, as we see it, that Mr Benn's presence at the scene added little to the control or co-ordination of all that took place.

12.31 Mr Benn had no real role as a link in the chain of command at the scene. He can take credit, to a limited extent, together with Mr Groves, for the dog and dragon light search, which seems to have been reasonably carried out. But like the other officers, he did nothing to extend at once, and energetically, the search for suspects and the collection of intelligence and information which might have been used. Nor did he provide or ensure co-ordination of the activities of all the officers present.

12.32 In summary we feel compelled to say that Mr Benn's part in this affair was no better than the somewhat unsatisfactory parts played by the other senior officers who were present. We are surprised that the conclusion of the Kent Inquiry was that everything during the initial response phase of this matter was properly carried out, and that Mr Benn played a distinguished part in it. Our conclusion is contrary to that of the Kent Police. All of us, having seen the relevant officers for a considerable time in the witness box, have to record this dissatisfaction.

12.33 Inspector Ian Little was called before the Inquiry. He was promoted to Inspector in 1997. On 22 April 1993 he was a Police Sergeant at Plumstead, and he was Acting Inspector on the nightshift. Plainly Mr Little had limited experience at the time, although it was his job as Acting Inspector to take overall control of the uniformed officers on his shift at the Police Station. Mr Little was referred to the relevant CAD messages which were coming in after the attack, for example the message at 22:51 from the scene asking that the arrival of the ambulance should be speeded up.

12.34 He says that he arrived at the scene after the ambulance had left, but probably before 23:15. He remembers that the information given to him on arrival was that it was believed that the victim had been struck on the head, and he says that he was aware at some stage, although he cannot remember when, that the assailants were five or six white youths who had apparently run off down Dickson Road. When he got to the scene Mr Little says that he did not see anybody else who appeared to be in charge.

12.35 He says that his priority was first of all to establish the extent of the scene, and he discovered that there were "two separate locations" with which he had to deal, namely the place where Stephen Lawrence fell and the mouth of Dickson Road. He says that his initial reaction was to ensure that the scene and the immediate vicinity were contained for forensic examination. Mr Little has very little memory of Mr Groves on the night, although he believes that he did see him. He can remember no conversation with the Inspector, so that the amount of liaison between him and Mr Groves was plainly minimal. He says that the officers under his command and present at the scene were in the main on the cordons, and that the TSG men were elsewhere in the side streets so that he had no people under him to conduct house-to-house enquiries.

12.36 Certainly Mr Little gave no directions about any enquiries which should be made, and he seems to have concentrated on the very limited activity of the preservation of the two sites in question.

12.37 Mr Little was probably only at the scene for about half an hour. It must be said that there is considerable conflict as to the time when he left the scene and went to the hospital. He says that he was aware that PC Gleason had left the scene with the ambulance and was at the hospital on his own. He went to the hospital because information had been received after 23:30 to say that Stephen Lawrence had been certified dead and to say that some people had arrived at the hospital and that there was a potential witness there with PC Gleason as well. That, of course, was Mr Brooks. He says that he went to the hospital initially in order to support PC Gleason and to establish what the situation was there and to help PC Gleason with the people who had arrived at the hospital. Mr Little felt that there was nothing more that he could personally do at the scene since everything appeared to be under control. His contribution to what happened at the scene was very small, even on his own account.

12.38 Mr Little was cross-examined at length both about the hospital and about his presence at the scene. He remembers no part of any conversation that he may have had with PC Bethel, and it is apparent that he failed to acquire any of the necessary information in order to discover for himself what offence had taken place. Both before the Kent inquiry and at the Inquest he has never been able to recall anything said to him by anybody at the scene. Questioning by Mr Mansfield did seem to establish that Mr Little did not have until much later any idea that there had been a group attack on Stephen Lawrence. When he was questioned by the Coroner at the Inquest Mr Little said that when he spoke to Mr Lawrence at the hospital he did not know about the group of men who were alleged to have attacked Stephen. When questioned about this he said "No, not at that stage. We knew there had been an attack, but the details were extremely sketchy at that time, so we had to close everything". Certainly, he accepted that he never said to Mr & Mrs Lawrence, even if he spoke to them, that there had been a racist attack.

12.39 Mr Little, in common with most of the other officers, made no record of his own at all. As was pointed out to him, he did not know how the matter was going to develop, either at the scene or at the hospital, and it is most unfortunate that no record was made by him of anything that took place.

12.40 As to his presence at the scene Mr Little's recollection is extraordinarily vague. He says that he saw one TSG carrier, and that he recalls speaking to a TSG Sergeant, but he cannot recall his name or the task that he was asked to perform. He has no recollection of how many officers he had under his command or available to him. He does say that TSG Units were "directed through me through the Control Room to go around the streets". He made no house-to-house enquiries because he said that he did not have the manpower immediately with him at the scene in order to perform this task. Even though he believes now that this was a racist attack he himself did nothing to activate any information gathering or intelligence sourcing which might have assisted.

12.41 Mr Little had no knowledge at all of any sighting of the red Astra car to which reference has already been made. Once he returned to the Police Station with Duwayne Brooks he indicated that he dropped out of the picture, since he went back to his general duties as Acting Divisional Inspector.

12.42 We have to say that we were unimpressed by the evidence of Mr Little. He added virtually nothing to the activity at the scene, and certainly he exercised virtually no control over what took place there. Initially he indicated that he had not spoken to Mr Groves. We believe that he probably did see and speak to Mr Groves, but without much effect or purpose. Mr Little was, as we see it, another weak link in a weak chain.

THE HOSPITAL

12.43 As to Mr Little's visit to the hospital there is a fundamental conflict of evidence between himself and Mr & Mrs Lawrence. Mrs Lawrence was distraught and remembers little about any police officers or police activity at the hospital while she was there. That is wholly understandable, and is in no sense any kind of criticism of her. Mr & Mrs Lawrence both deny that any officer spoke to them at any time during their stay at the hospital. Mr Little says that when he arrived he discovered from PC Gleason that some property found on Stephen Lawrence's body had indicated that he was "related to Mr & Mrs Lawrence outside, which is how things were beginning to develop together". He says that he spoke to both Mr & Mrs Lawrence and in his own words "basically I identified myself to them and explained the situation, namely we've got a youth in the resuscitation room who has died and the indications were that he was their son, but we need a confirmation".

12.44 In his interview by the Kent Police Mr Little said that he did not recall actually speaking to Mrs Lawrence, but that he had spoken to Mr Lawrence who was plainly the calmest of the group of relatives and friends who were present. In that interview these words appear, "....... certainly one of us said to him [Mr Lawrence] 'we've got a young lad in there, he is dead, we don't know who he is, but we would like to clarify that point. If it is not your son then all well and good, but we do need to know. I am sure you would like to know as well'."

12.45 If these were his words then it has to be said at once that this was a grossly insensitive and unsympathetic approach. Although Mr Little agreed that any dealings with Mr & Mrs Lawrence in the circumstances needed careful, delicate and sympathetic handling he did not seem to realise that the approach made by him (if it happened) was insensitive and clumsy and only capable of misinterpretation and difficulty. Mr & Mrs Lawrence, particularly Mr Lawrence, says that nothing was said at all by Inspector Little to him, and that he never made any visit to the resuscitation room either with one or two police officers in order formally to identify his son.

12.46 PC Gleason had accompanied the ambulance to the hospital, and he says that he was the only officer there, until Mr Little joined him. Later on PC Bethel and DC Pye went to the hospital, and dealt with Stephen's clothing and exhibits.

12.47 No instructions were given to PC Gleason as to what he should do or how he should deal with the bereaved relatives who were inevitably going to attend. PC Gleason accepts that at no time during his stay at the hospital did he speak to Mrs Lawrence. She was understandably in a state of extreme distress. He does say that he spoke to Mr Lawrence, and that he can remember speaking to other members of the family as they left the hospital later in the morning.

12.48 We should say at once that it does appear to us that PC Gleason probably did attend the resuscitation room with Mr Lawrence at 00:02. The visit may have been very short, and simply an extension of an earlier visit which had been made by the family when the body was seen after the doctors and nurses had done all that they could. There is an entry in PC Gleason's pocket book showing that he did go to the resuscitation room in order that there could be an identification of Stephen Lawrence. We can see no reason why PC Gleason should have invented that evidence, and made up that entry, nor any motive for so doing. Indeed there was no evidence before us of any formal identification made in the presence of hospital staff or police officers other than that short visit at 00:02 hours. The likelihood is that it took place but, wholly understandably, Mr Lawrence has no memory of it now. The events of that night must have excluded his memory of what took place.

12.49 It should be noted that PC Gleason spent more than half an hour at the hospital with Mr Brooks. He was still distressed and upset, for obvious reasons, and he was at first silent. When he heard that Stephen Lawrence was dead he did almost literally "climb the walls" of the hospital in his anguish. Later PC Gleason indicated that he managed to calm Mr Brooks down and he took a statement from him which is recorded in his pocket book. This is the first statement made by Mr Brooks and it is a most important document, since it contained the first full, or reasonably full, information as to what had taken place. There is no need to record the terms of the statement, which was recorded there and then in PC Gleason's notebook. That short statement contained a description of one of the youths seen by Mr Brooks. He said that "one of the youths who had blue jeans, his hair was bushy light brown and stuck out, he was about 19 or 20". He further said that he saw that youth, who was in front of Stephen, strike down with one of his arms on Stephen's head. This may well have been a mistaken impression of the actual stabbing of Stephen Lawrence. PC Gleason says that he passed that information over his radio. No message has been traced indicating that this was done

12.50 Later on in May 1994, PC Gleason was asked about his dealings with Mr Brooks and he indicated that Mr Brooks was highly excitable both at the scene and in the hospital, and that to start with he was very unco-operative with police until he, PC Gleason, was able to obtain a statement from him in his pocket book at the hospital.

12.51 Although Mr Little in his evidence adopted the short entry in PC Gleason's notebook indicating that the identification had taken place at 00:02, it has to be noted that he had not countersigned the note and had no note of his own in order to refresh his memory. He said that he spoke to Mr Lawrence outside the resuscitation room and that Mr Lawrence said "Well, what happens next?" Then Mr Little says that he explained to Mr Lawrence as gently as he could what needed to be done during the coming hours, and indicated that a post mortem would have to take place. He says that he took the opportunity "to explain to him [Mr Lawrence] briefly leaving out the lurid details that the body, clothing etc would have to be preserved for the investigation." Mr Little says that Mr Lawrence then looked him directly in the eye and said "Do what you have to do". He did say that there was little more conversation, but that he offered perhaps a few words of comfort. He could not recall the conversation word for word and he had no contemporaneous note to help him, nor any statement made very close to the time. Mr Little did accept that "like anything, I am sure what I done could have been a little bit better, but I felt I had done a reasonable job if you like without wishing to impose on their grief any more than necessary".

12.52 Thereafter Mr Little went back to Plumstead Police Station with Mr Brooks. It was roundly suggested to Mr Little that this was bad practice, and that Mr Brooks was effectively kept at the hospital and made to remain there without any comfort or assistance until he was taken to Plumstead. Indeed the lack of attention to Mr Brooks might have resulted in his departure, since he was left apparently entirely on his own. Certainly Mr Little did take Mr Brooks to Plumstead, and he indicated that during the drive Mr Brooks was reasonably calm, and nothing was said, apart from some small talk. Mr Little rightly indicated that it was better that he should not talk to the witness en route to the police station where Mr Little believed that a full interview was to take place. He said that Mr Brooks was fairly quiet, perhaps slightly agitated, but that he did not view him as any problem. He wanted to ensure that the CID officers had an opportunity to speak to him at length in order to obtain an accurate and a full statement from him.

12.53 The Inquiry is troubled indeed about Mr Little's evidence as to his contact with Mr & Mrs Lawrence. On his own account what he did and said was grossly insensitive and unsympathetic. All his actions portray a total lack of sensitivity in dealing with a bereaved family and coping with a situation such as that which pertained at the hospital. Whether Mr Little was put off by the comparatively large number of people who attended at the hospital is a matter which we will never be able to solve.

12.54 We have already said that it does seem likely that a very cursory visit may have been paid by PC Gleason with Mr Lawrence to the resuscitation room, since he spoke of this in his evidence and did indeed make one of the very few records in a notebook which has been put before the Inquiry. It is wholly understandable that Mr Lawrence has forgotten that visit, but we do believe that it took place. That note includes a specific entry giving Mr Lawrence's telephone number. It seems to us likely that this came from Mr Lawrence himself.

12.55 In the end we also conclude that Mr Little probably was also present at 00:02 when PC Gleason and Mr Lawrence paid their visit to the resuscitation room. It is pointed out that this is in conflict with the evidence of Mr Jeynes, who believes that he told Inspector Little to go to the hospital at or after 00:15. But Mr Jeynes' timings are unrecorded, and it seems to us that Mr Little's evidence, as confirmed by PC Gleason, cannot simply be rejected.

12.56 There is no explanation as to why he should say what he did if he was not present, particularly in view of the fact that if his evidence is wholly accepted it reflects very badly upon his own performance. The phrases used by him in evidence, and in his evidence to the Kent Police, were insensitive to a degree, and grated upon all who heard them when his evidence was given to the Inquiry. No wonder they have been excluded from Mr Lawrence's memory.

12.57 Mr Little was rigorously cross-examined about his treatment of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. He accepted that he took no steps at the hospital to check with the medical staff about the identity or condition of Stephen Lawrence. He believes that Mr & Mrs Lawrence were pointed out to him by PC Gleason, and he accepted that he took no further steps himself to ensure that he was speaking to the right people. No member of the hospital staff remembers any conversation with Mr Little.

12.58 When Mr Little left the hospital he made no arrangements himself with Mr & Mrs Lawrence as to what was to take place later. He says that he left them in the hands of PC Gleason, and expected that the PC would have made transport arrangements for them. This was a totally inadequate response by a supervising officer. There is no doubt but that the prime responsibility for failing to deal properly with the family at the hospital is that of Mr Little.

12.59 Mr Little was expressly taxed with one matter which looms large in connection with family liaison. A report reached officers at Plumstead that Mr & Mrs Lawrence were eventually going home and that they did not want to be disturbed at all during the night. When questioned specifically about this by Mr Mansfield, Mr Little said that the first he had heard of anything like that was during the Inquiry. Certainly Mr Little was never told that Mr & Mrs Lawrence were going home and that they did not want to be disturbed. Indeed, it is most unlikely in our opinion that this was said to anybody. Mr & Mrs Lawrence were keen from the start to know what had happened and to receive such information as was available. Somebody may have assumed that they did not wish to be disturbed, but certainly this was not their attitude, and they are rightly indignant that a message of this kind was somehow passed to headquarters when they had given no indication that this was their wish.

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