| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER TWELVE - continued 12.60 As to the Mr Little's race relations awareness, it was apparent that he had never undergone any course to assist him in this respect. He considered that it was a possibility, when he arrived at the scene, that this was a racist attack, and he treated the matter as "a murder". He did say that "everybody should be treated the same", and that he tried to be as sensitive as he could be with everybody irrespective of who they were. Although he had worked in multi-cultural societies and areas throughout his service and believed that he treated everybody in the same way his lack of sensitivity and his inaction, particularly at the hospital, betrayed conduct which demonstrates inability to deal properly with bereaved people, and particularly those bereaved as a result of a terrible racist attack. He failed to deal with the family appropriately and professionally. This was unwitting racism at work. 12.61 In connection with the evidence as to what happened at the hospital it is necessary to stress the testimony of Mandy Lavin. She was the Night Services Manager at the Brook Hospital in 1993. She was a qualified nurse, and she remembered that there was confusion, upon the arrival of Stephen into the resuscitation room, about the extent and nature of his injuries. Reports which initially reached the hospital indicated that he had been attacked with an iron bar and had head injuries. Later it became obvious that he was the victim of terrible stab wounds, and the staff in the resuscitation room did of course quickly appreciate what had happened. 12.62 Miss Lavin remembers seeing Mrs Lawrence at the hospital, in extreme distress. She remembers "quite a large number of people" attending the hospital, and the family being accorded access to the resuscitation room to see their son. Miss Lavin was very busy with her own duties, and she has no recollection of seeing or dealing with any police officers at the hospital. She has no recollection of giving permission for the identification of Stephen Lawrence to take place. Her recollection was simply of the more general visit to the resuscitation room by a number of members of the family. She remembered prayers being said and a hymn being sung during that visit. 12.63 We are not satisfied that Miss Lavin's evidence must mean that PC Gleason was inventing his visit to the resuscitation room with Mr Lawrence. As we have already indicated it seems likely that this did take place in company with Mr Little, and that Mr Lawrence has wholly and understandably forgotten the short insensitive incident. 12.64 Miss Lavin was asked a number of questions about her experience in connection with the treatment of the victims of racist attacks. She told the Inquiry, as she had indicated in her statement, that it was "true to say that on occasion I felt a general sense of unease about the police approach to such attacks in that the police tended to assume that such attacks were drug related and therefore of less importance than other assaults". Miss Lavin did give one specific example, namely the case of an Asian lady who had been subject to threats to kill and who had been doused with petrol. The difficulty of that evidence is that of course it is impossible to give a time or date for that incident, so that nobody can meet the allegation that the police did not view the incident with the same degree of seriousness as Miss Lavin. She said that she felt that the police approach was "perhaps more relaxed than I might have hoped" 12.65 Miss Lavin was referring incidentally in this context mostly to her contact with junior ranks of police officers. Generally it was the more junior officers with whom she had to deal at the hospital. THE CID 12.66 The first detective to arrive at the scene was Detective Constable Steven Pye. His first statement was made at 08:35 on the morning after the murder. At least he did make a reasonably contemporary statement. He says that he made some notes or consulted somebody else's notes in order to make that statement. There are no surviving notes to confirm this. Since DC Pye's statement contains, for example, a substantial list of named or numbered officers, there must have been some record even if it was scanty from which he may have helped himself to make his statement. On arrival at the scene, probably at about 23:15, DC Pye says that he spoke to a woman PC, presumably PC Bethel. He says that she "updated" him as to what had happened as far as she knew it. He had very little recollection of what he was told. He does believe that he may have been told that five or six white youths had run off down Dickson Road. 12.67 To the Kent Police DC Pye indicated that he felt that his responsibility at the scene would have been "scene preservation: try to identify witnesses: try to apprehend suspects, and searching for physical evidence". In essence, this probably was a summary of that which he could or should have undertaken. He said that there were a lot of uniformed officers present, and that parts of the scene had already been cordoned off, and that Mr Groves and Mr Little, "seemed to be in charge". 12.68 Undoubtedly DC Pye did transmit some information back to Plumstead. For example, he reported the possible evidence which might be available from one or more bus drivers; and it was DC Pye who relayed back the sightings of the red Astra car. Other than that which is recorded in his messages DC Pye said that he had some recollection of the night, but that there were areas which he just simply could not remember. He recalls that house-to-house enquiries were being done and that Mr Nugent was spoken to by some officers. But his understanding was that the only witness available at the time was indeed Mr Nugent. Referring to the house-to-house enquiries, DC Pye said that these were being done by uniformed officers "under the control of myself, Mr Groves and Mr Little". He believes that some record was made of what took place, but he made no record himself. 12.69 In due course he told the Inquiry that he heard of the death of Stephen Lawrence. He believes that at some point during the night he must have been told that Stephen Lawrence had been stabbed, but he could not remember when this knowledge might have been imparted to him. DC Pye was asked by the Kent officers about the chain of command, and he said that he felt "responsible towards the scene", but added that he was obviously not the highest ranking person there. He had a recollection of the presence of Mr Benn, and certainly he remembers the arrival of Mr Jeynes. He could not say whether he had been there a long or a short time when Mr Jeynes arrived. He told the Inquiry that he "updated" Mr Jeynes and indicated that from that point onwards Mr Jeynes would take control of the investigation. 12.70 Later DC Pye said that he was aware that Detective Superintendent Ian Crampton had arrived at the scene, but he had very little recollection of what was said or done by him. He did recall that both he and Mr Jeynes had briefed Mr Crampton as to what had happened and was happening at the scene. 12.71 Again the long and the short of it is that the Inquiry is unimpressed by what DC Pye was able to tell us about what he did during the three hours or more that he was present in Well Hall Road and thereabouts. At about 03:00 he went to the hospital, probably on the instructions of Mr Crampton. When Mr Crampton arrived DC Pye indicated that Mr Jeynes "would sort of hand over responsibility to him". At the hospital, as DC Pye's notebook in fact records, he saw the body of Stephen Lawrence in the resuscitation room and he collected all the clothing and other items which had been left there and catalogued them. These exhibits were later sealed and their details are set out in DC Pye's statement. 12.72 DC Pye was aware of the nature of a scene log. Its purpose is to record the names and details of those who pass through the boundaries of a cordoned area, in order to ensure that such entry is strictly limited, and that there is a record of those who do enter for cross-contamination purposes. DC Pye's memory was that he told an officer called Morony to keep a log. No such record is available in the system. 12.73 While he was still at the scene DC Pye says that he remembers that a message came through indicating that the family were at the hospital and that PC Gleason was requesting somebody to attend to assist him there. He says that he was told over the radio by somebody that the family had gone home for the night and did not wish to be disturbed. He gave this evidence after he had indicated that there seemed to have been some friction because of the length of time that PC Gleason had been at the hospital. There is some mystery as to what this "friction" was. It may be that PC Gleason or somebody on his behalf was complaining about the length of time that he had been left on his own at the hospital. 12.74 DC Pye agreed that he would have expected such a message about the family to have been recorded on the CAD system, since any operator receiving that information would wish to make sure that it was recorded. How this misapprehension came about is a mystery, as we have already indicated earlier. Certainly Mr & Mrs Lawrence never gave such an instruction or indication. Maybe PC Gleason himself concluded that this might have been their wish. It is an unhappy feature of the case and in particular of the family liaison. 12.75 In summary, when DC Pye was asked what he had actually achieved during the night, he said that he was "instrumental in arranging things that were happening along with Mr Groves and Mr Little". He said that he constantly liaised with both of them throughout the night, and to that extent involved himself in what took place. He also called out Mr Jeynes and the photographic and forensic personnel. He also ensured the recording and continuity of exhibits at the hospital. His understanding was that through the night Units were patrolling and he repeated in cross-examination that he acted in a sense as a team with Mr Groves and Mr Little. He was not aware of any records being kept by anybody, and certainly he had no memory of Mr Groves showing him any detailed set of notes. 12.76 As to his own knowledge of the area and other incidents that might have taken place which could have been relevant to this inquiry again DC Pye's evidence was vague. He believed that the Duggal case involved a fight and a murder that had happened after the Stephen Lawrence case. He realised that a wider search and more extended house-to-house enquiries might have produced more information, but he repeated that he acted in a sense in the shadow of Mr Groves and Mr Little who were senior to him and who had the necessary officers to do that which was done during the hours of his attendance at the scene. In cross-examination he indicated that it was his belief that the message about the family going home and not wishing to be disturbed had probably come from PC Gleason. He believes that he communicated that information to Mr Jeynes. No record of such a message appears in the system. 12.77 As to this officer's racism awareness it was established that he was accustomed to referring to black people as "coloured". He said to the Inquiry that he was not aware that this might be regarded by black people as insulting until he watched Mr Groves giving evidence on the screen at the Inquiry. This officer could not remember receiving any formal racism awareness training, although he said that he "seemed to remember some training in this regard when he was a probationer at Catford". This is yet another indication that the training of officers in this department of their activity and relationship with the community was almost totally lacking. 12.78 It is of some significance that DC Pye did not recall the arrival of Mr McIvor as a senior officer on the scene at all. Nor did he remember Mr Philpott being present. DC Pye indicated when asked whether he would do anything different as a result of his experience in April 1993 that he would have welcomed the presence of a second officer to work with him. His own colleague or partner on the night in question was in fact at court and was not permitted to work on that night. 12.79 All in all we were not assisted by the evidence of DC Pye. It is perhaps not his fault that so little investigative initiative was displayed at the scene. As we have already indicated, he was alone and inexperienced, until Mr Jeynes arrived on the scene. 12.80 Philip Jeynes was until October 1997 a Detective Inspector in the MPS. He started at Plumstead as a Detective Inspector in about 1992, and he retired after having completed 30 years service in 1997. 12.81 Mr Jeynes made a written statement on 1 October 1993. It was apparent while he was giving evidence that his memory of events was in many respects unclear. He had made no notes showing his involvement in the Stephen Lawrence case, and he was not asked to look back to the events of April 1993 until more than six months later. Mr Jeynes was the Duty Detective Inspector on 22 April 1993 and he was at home in bed when he was telephoned at about 23:30. He says that he arrived at Well Hall Road at about 00:15 on 23 April. He saw a uniformed Police Constable manning a cordon. Mr Jeynes was, like DC Pye, familiar with the concept of the scene log as a necessary requirement at a major crime scene. He said that it was "historical practice" to keep such a log, and that such a log was for "forensic purposes". Plainly such a log should have been kept and retained. 12.82 After seeing this uniformed officer Mr Jeynes went to speak to DC Pye. Mr Jeynes regarded himself at that time as the senior investigator at the scene, and he remained in that role until Mr Crampton arrived probably at about 01:45. 12.83 Mr Jeynes was asked by the Kent Police as to what would have been his priorities when he was thus in charge of the investigation side. He said that he would have to look "at preserving the scene, looking for witnesses, ensuring house-to-house enquiries are completed, making sure that all the forensic services are notified, arranging for families to be notified and arresting any suspects." 12.84 That is in a sense a comprehensive list of the things which ought to be done at once at the scene of a serious crime. Mr Jeynes has some recollection of being given a reasonably full account of what had happened to Stephen Lawrence and Mr Brooks. It is doubtful whether that full information was in fact given to him at once by DC Pye, since DC Pye was himself not aware of Mr Brooks' existence. He thought that Mr Nugent was the only available witness. Certainly while Mr Jeynes was at the scene he never knew that Mr Brooks had given a statement to PC Gleason at the hospital. So that he, in common with other officers, knew nothing of the description which Mr Brooks had given of one of the attackers. Such information was vitally important to those at the scene. 12.85 It is part of Mr Jeynes' evidence that he had a recollection of sending another officer, who must have been Inspector Little, to the hospital. Mr Jeynes is probably wrong about the timing of this order, for the reasons already given. 12.86 Mr Jeynes was told that there had been limited house-to-house enquiries done in Well Hall Road and that one man, namely Mr Nugent, was making a statement as to what he had seen and heard. He also knew from Mr Groves that a visit had been made to the Welcome Inn and that the relevant areas were cordoned off. 12.87 Mr Jeynes referred in his statement to some information that had reached him about PC Gleason being at the hospital and "having a bit of a problem down there". He has no recollection of what the problem may have been, but he did recall that he thought that it was not right that a PC should be dealing with the relatives by himself, hence his instruction, as he remembers it, to Mr Little to go to the hospital. 12.88 Mr Jeynes said that during the night, probably at about 01:15, he was told that the parents of Stephen Lawrence were going home and that they did not want to see anybody until the morning. Mr Jeynes indicated to us that he now positively recalls that the person who relayed that information to DC Pye on his radio was indeed PC Gleason. He says that he was standing beside DC Pye when the message came over the air. We do not believe that Mr & Mrs Lawrence ever said that they did not wish to see anybody until the following morning and PC Gleason denies creating such a message. The mystery as to the transmission of this information will probably never be properly solved. As there is no CAD message recorded it appears that a myth or rumour possibly started at the hospital and developed into a supposed fact simply by repetition. 12.89 Mr Jeynes said in his original statement, and indeed before the Inquiry, that he himself "widened the house-to-house enquiries", to include both sides of Dickson Road down to the first junction, as well as houses in Well Hall Road opposite to the Dickson Road junction. He was present and watched police officers going to the houses in Dickson Road. He remembered seeing officers walking down driveways or pathways to various houses, and says that this was done on his direction. He told us that the searching of the gardens with the aid of the dragon lights by the TSG personnel had been done before those house-to-house enquiries were made. 12.90 Later Mr Jeynes says that he saw that the scene had been photographed and that the relevant scientific work had been performed, after which he sent DC Pye to the hospital, and then he left the scene at about 03:00 in the morning with Mr Crampton, who had by then arrived. He went with Mr Crampton to the police station, where he was generally engaged with enquiries and dealing with the exhibits and paying a short visit to a room where he observed that Mr Crampton was speaking to Mr Brooks, shortly before a full statement was taken from Mr Brooks by DC Cooper. Mr Jeynes went off duty at about 10:00 and he played no other part in the actual investigation of the Stephen Lawrence murder. 12.91 His only other duty, on the instructions of Mr Philpott, was to contact PC Alan Fisher, who was the Racial Incident Unit Officer at Plumstead. Together with PC Fisher Mr Jeynes went to the home of Mr & Mrs Lawrence probably at about 08:45 on Friday 23 April. Mr Jeynes was off-duty between 06:00 and 08:30 and when he came back to the police station he left shortly after that to visit Mr & Mrs Lawrence. He remembers that visit as having lasted for five to ten minutes. 12.92 Mr Jeynes indicates that he answered such questions as he could, and told Mr Lawrence what had happened, so far as he knew the situation. By that time he had quickly looked at the long statement made by Mr Brooks at the police station, which was completed probably at about 05:00. Mr Jeynes had never seen PC Gleason's short notebook statement made by Mr Brooks until he was shown it before our Inquiry. He indicates that after a short time he thought that it was best that he should leave because Mr & Mrs Lawrence needed only their family around them. He told them where the Incident Room was going to be set up, and then he left. 12.93 The fact is that apart from confirming what other officers have told us about their actions at the scene Mr Jeynes did not initiate any investigative action himself through the Collator's Index or the Racial Incident Unit to seek intelligence which may have helped in connection with the pursuit of the suspects. 12.94 A much later survey of the houses in Well Hall Road and Dickson Road suggests that the house-to-house enquiries made shortly after the attack were inadequate. We are not persuaded that the reconstruction of this aspect of the case, as illustrated by the coloured chart which was used at the Inquiry, establishes much one way or the other. That chart was compiled from information obtained four years later when there had obviously been changes in the occupation of the houses involved. 12.95 The impression gained by the Inquiry is that once again the actions of Mr Jeynes, in common with the other officers, suffered from lack of co-ordination and direction and he himself failed to supply any leadership. He remembers various senior officers arriving at the scene from time to time while he was there, but there is no indication that he or anybody took control or arranged for a comprehensive meeting and discussion between the various commanders in order to extend the search, with the use of information which might have been available at the police station, and also with the use of information which might have been obtained from PC Gleason at any time after midnight. 12.96 We do not believe that Mr Jeynes was simply content to do nothing, or that he was positively influenced by the fact that he discovered some time after his arrival that this was a racist crime. We simply believe that he thought that other officers were doing what was necessary in their various departments, and his presence at the scene added little to the achievement of the police who were present during the night. 12.97 At the end of the questioning of Mr Jeynes, he was asked about the presence of the other officers, and in particular the arrival of Mr McIvor. Mr Jeynes agreed that logically he might have expected Mr McIvor to co-ordinate the Inspectors who were present at the scene. He indicated that historically it was in his experience left to the senior Detective at the scene to run the investigation, plainly in liaison with the uniformed officers who were there. 12.98 It should be recorded that Mr Philpott, the Divisional Commander, attended the scene, probably about two hours after the murder. He says that he spoke to Mr Jeynes, and obtained information from him, and that he was generally happy that everything seemed to be satisfactory. He also plainly failed to concern himself with any detail, including the care of the family, and in general terms seems to have contributed little to co-ordination and control during his brief visit. To that extent he too must be subject to criticism in connection with his limited part played in the early hours after the murder. 12.99 Overall the presence of all these more senior officers, and of the CID, added little to the investigation. The lack of co-ordination and control of the varying activities at the scene by senior officers stands out and must be roundly criticised. PC Bethel's vision of senior officers standing around with their hands on their hips may not literally be true, but in a sense it usefully sums up the situation as it struck all of us during the prolonged evidence given by these witnesses. 12.100 The scene of a murder may well be hectic and initially disorganised. But it is surely vital that more senior officers grapple with that disorganisation and attack the situation with energy and imagination. The senior officers of Inspector rank and upwards at this scene signally failed to act in this way. The lost opportunities for full and proper searches and investigation during the first hours after Stephen Lawrence's murder are to be deplored.
|
