| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER FOURTEEN THE SECOND SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER 14.1 Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden gave evidence before the Inquiry for the best part of three days. When he was interviewed in 1997 by the Kent Police his interviews appear to have spanned four days. There is therefore a wealth of material available to the Inquiry dealing with Mr Weeden's involvement in the Stephen Lawrence murder. 14.2 In 1993 Mr Weeden's senior officer summarised Mr Weeden as being "highly competent, sensitive, conscientious, thoughtful and caring". Our impression of Mr Weeden is that he was a meticulous and fastidious man, who took upon himself much of the detail and burden of the investigation. But he was prepared to accept the situation handed over to him by Mr Crampton on 26 April 1993 without exercising his own critical faculties in order to test whether the right decisions had been made by Mr Crampton, both in connection with the strategy to be applied to the murder investigation and in connection with the allocation of tasks for which Mr Crampton had been responsible. Thus he perpetuated the wrong decisions made in the vital early days. 14.3 On the morning of 26 April there was a long meeting of the Area Detective Superintendents, and later a handover by Mr Crampton to Mr Weeden. The nature of Mr Weeden's attention to detail can clearly be seen in the very full and careful notes made by him both on 26 April and thereafter. Much reference has been made to these notes which set out factual developments in the case, and which itemise each and every action which Mr Weeden required himself to perform. When a task was achieved he would rule a line through relevant action, to show that he had performed it. 14.4 Sometimes Mr Weeden's own thoughts are echoed in his notes. They form a revealing insight into Mr Weeden's mind. Part of the reason for making such detailed notes was, as Mr Weeden told us, his doubt as to the efficiency or efficacy of the HOLMES system which was set up to provide the full computerised record of actions taken and information gleaned and intelligence received in connection with this investigation. 14.5 Mr Bullock had been appointed Deputy Investigating Officer. Mr Bullock was not HOLMES trained. Mr Weeden himself indicated that after speaking to Mr Bullock, who was not previously known to him, he appreciated that "accessing the HOLMES database was not going to be easy or certainly not possible in the early stages but he [Mr Bullock] was an officer with wide practical operational experience and I had hoped that in due course we may be able to perhaps get some in-house training so he would be able to use it even to a basic level". An inauspicious start, considering that the HOLMES system was at the heart of the recording and processing of all information received and actions to be taken by the team. 14.6 As to the manning of the investigation Mr Weeden's attitude was that he simply had to get on with the manpower which had been allotted to him. Like all the other officers he indicated that the team was undermanned, both in outdoor and indoor terms, although Mr Weeden agreed that in relative terms the Stephen Lawrence murder team was if anything generously empowered compared with other murder investigations current at the time. 14.7 Mr Weeden was told, although this is nowhere reflected in his notes, that Mr Crampton had during his short tenure of office, positively decided that there should be no arrests. He was also told that the surveillance operation was formally to start on the following day. He also knew of course that DS Bevan and DC Holden had been appointed as family liaison officers. 14.8 In effect what Mr Weeden did was simply to adopt and continue the negative strategy, so far as arrests were concerned, which had been instituted by Mr Crampton. There is no indication that Mr Weeden brought his own judgement or instinct to bear in connection with the most basic decision of all, namely not to effect arrests at once. 14.9 In the earliest hours of his command of this investigation there was available to him a full and detailed statement from Stacey Benefield, which provided the clearest evidence of the serious and almost fatal stabbing said to have been perpetrated by David Norris backed up by Neil Acourt. Mr Weeden was asked early in his evidence why that distinct case did not prompt arrests. His answer was that "such a step would have made absolute nonsense of the surveillance operation. To have been seeking to establish associates of the known suspects while you have one or two of them in custody is going to frustrate the surveillance operation rather than assist it". It seems to us that this reveals a basic misjudgement and a mistaken assessment of the relative importance of arrests and the opportunities that arrests would potentially provide, namely searches for evidence at the suspects' premises, and encouragement of other witnesses by the removal of the suspects, as compared with the surveillance operation with its limited objective of trying to establish association between some of the suspects. 14.10 When he was cross examined by Mr Mansfield, Mr Weeden readily admitted that there had been a series of errors and omissions over the 14 month period when he was SIO. When asked whether there was anything that he might have changed, looking back on those months, he said this:- "Well, with the benefit of hindsight I regret that the strategy which was developed during the weekend of 24/25 April and which I adopted and continued from Monday, 26 April was unsuccessful. At the time I honestly and firmly believed that the strategy of securing evidence before arrest was the right one, and offered the best opportunity of securing sound and successful convictions in the case. I had never before in any murder case arrested anyone for murder without evidence as opposed to information". He added that he shared the view that the best opportunity for securing scientific evidence had passed, and that there was a strong possibility that there could be witnesses who would give direct evidence, apart from the eye witnesses who had already been interviewed. 14.11 This line of questioning led Mr Weeden to accept, with some reservation, that arrests could indeed have taken place certainly by 26 April, if not earlier. Almost in the same breath he said, "I have always looked for some means of corroborating evidence corroborating information, and I have usually sought some evidence, but I do accept and without reservation that the position which exists is that there was reasonable ground for arresting at an earlier stage and arrests could have been affected". It also led to the astonishing situation revealed during the Kent inquiry, namely that Mr Weeden had told the Kent officers that he believed that he did not have the power to arrest until he had firm evidence. 14.12 If it was right that Mr Weeden believed in 1993 that he did not have the power to arrest upon the disclosure of reasonable grounds for suspicion then, as Mr Mansfield pointed out, it was indeed disturbing that a senior officer did not recognise "a basic tenet of criminal law". Mr Weeden would not even accept that it was disturbing that this situation might have pertained; he indicated that he thought that it was regrettable. This was indeed an understatement. 14.13 On the second day of Mr Weeden's evidence he sought to clear up what he called his "thought processes" and the answers given to Kent about his knowledge of his powers of arrest at the relevant time. He indicated to this Inquiry that the truth was that in 1993 he knew perfectly well what his powers of arrest were under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the criminal law, but that he simply chose not to arrest, continuing the strategy developed and agreed by Mr Crampton. 14.14 When seen by Kent Mr Weeden explained that since the decision about the delay in arrests had been the subject of much concern and criticism over the months and years that followed he had allowed himself to give a mistaken explanation of his state of knowledge as to his powers of arrest to Kent. He said that he had allowed his views in this connection to become distorted over the years, to the extent that he gave that wrong explanation. 14.15 The picture is indeed confusing, and Mr Weeden has only himself to blame for the criticism and publicity heaped upon him as a result of his indication to Kent that he believed that he could not legally arrest upon reasonable grounds of suspicion. There seems to us to be a considerable degree of self justification by Mr Weeden, both in this respect and, as we shall see, in other fields. 14.16 The truth in any event is that Mr Weeden was both on and after 26 April, far too ready simply to accept the situation handed over to him by Mr Crampton. It may well be that his meticulous nature made it difficult for him to see the wood for the trees. It was essential, since he was from the morning of 26 April onwards in command, that he should review what had taken place and reach his own positive and correct decision as to what should be done. What in fact he did was simply to accept that the surveillance operation, with its very limited objects at the time, was an operation which should not be prejudiced. In fact there was a mass of information as to the association of the suspects, and positive evidence of their association if only as a result of Stacey Benefield's damning statement. Furthermore the surveillance operation was itself badly flawed, and Mr Weeden never exercised adequate supervision or control over the surveillance. 14.17 The right course would have been to strike down the strategy which Mr Crampton was seeking to pass on to him, and to arrest at once. By 26 April of course yet more time had elapsed while Mr Weeden was "reading himself into the case". We accept that as each day passed there was a greater risk that weapons and clothing would have been disposed of. But at least the opportunity could have been taken to make proper searches well before they were in fact made, and identification parades and interviews on or immediately after 26 April might well have been more productive. Furthermore, although this can never be established for certain, it seems to us more likely that witnesses would have been prepared to come forward if they knew that the arrests had taken place early on. 14.18 The failure to make early arrests is, as in the case of Mr Crampton, the most fundamental misjudgement made by Mr Weeden. We will never know what the consequences might have been. We accept that it is possible that early arrests would have borne no more fruit than did the arrests ultimately made on 7 May. But at least, as we have already indicated, arrests on 26 or 27 April would have been markedly less subject to criticism, and might have ensured either that the case did indeed strengthen, or that it could be shown that the police had acted with sensible expedition. 14.19 A further area of concern in connection with Mr Weeden's early days of command concerns the turning of information into evidence. Mr Weeden was on 26 April fully aware of the large amount of information which existed in connection with the suspects. At the heart of that information there was the man James Grant. As we know, Mr Crampton and Mr Bullock had passed this man over for investigation and research to DS Davidson. Mr Weeden was ready to accept both that he knew that James Grant was not an anonymous informer, and indeed that his information might have provided the key to the solution of the case in quick time. This was because James Grant's source was close to the suspects, if he was not involved with them himself. Both Witness K and Witness B could have been vitally important links in the chain. Eventually both of them were to make statements but they were not 'processed' properly by the right people at the earliest opportunity. 14.20 The action allocated to DS Davidson to see Witness K was raised on 5 May. It is apparent that DS Davidson saw Witness K probably for the first time on 13 May. The statement made by Witness K was in fact made to DS Davidson on 17 May 1993. It is apparent from the Kent inquiry that James Grant was seen and interviewed by the Kent officers, and he told the Kent officers that he had told his handler, DS Davidson, the identity of his source at an early stage. When Mr Weeden was given this information in 1997 he said that he was "staggered" at the news. If that was true, and if the matter was not at once followed up there would indeed be grounds for heavy criticism. Since if DS Davidson was told that the source of Grant's information was Witness K that must have led to immediate action by Mr Crampton or Mr Weeden. 14.21 DS Davidson denies that James Grant gave him direct information as to his source. DS Davidson positively said that Grant would not disclose that information, and in this he was supported by DC Budgen. Furthermore if that information had come to Mr Weeden he could not have failed to have acted upon it at once. 14.22 We believe that it is most unlikely that James Grant did in fact tell DS Davidson who was the source of his information. DS Davidson told us that in his quest for development of information he gave James Grant a hard time, and that Grant staunchly refused to take the matter further. It seems to us that this is likely to be true. As we have already indicated the information was so important and revealing that it should have been followed up by more senior officers, or at least by officers with characteristics different from those of DS Davidson. 14.23 DS Davidson was a strong character, and he was given the heavy tasks in this investigation. Both in connection with James Grant and the other young and hesitant potential witnesses involved in this case much more care should have been taken in the selection of those allocated to develop the relevant lines of inquiry. For example, contact was made somewhat later in the investigation with Mr Noel Penstone of the Greenwich Council. He is known to be a man who is able to deal with members of the community who may be reluctant to communicate directly with the police. More co-operation with Mr Penstone and use of other more sensitive officers might have produced further evidence or fruitful information. 14.24 As to Witness B DS Davidson was tasked on 6 May 1993 with finding and investigating him. He was a witness who was reported to have said that he had seen four men running into Rochester Way when he was on top of a bus around the time of the murder. DS Davidson was, so his evidence has shown, given "a name and a street in connection with B", by James Grant on a date which has never been established. Eventually as the official record shows, DS Davidson saw Witness B, but indicated on 19 May that he was a "Walter Mitty" and that his information suggested that Witness B's evidence would be of little value, since he was according to his mother a habitual liar. 14.25 Mr Weeden pointed out that a message on 4 May indicates that the girl who provided information about Witness B was going to try and find out his name on or after that date. This would be inconsistent with DS Davidson having already discovered the identity of Witness B by about that date. Mr Weeden said that it was "crazy to suggest that we are raising actions to try and identify somebody who we already know". The suggested "craziness" of these conflicting actions may reflect the inadequate operation of the HOLMES system, and the lack of knowledge and control of information which resulted from inefficient use of the system. The counter to that assertion is the suggestion made by Mr Mansfield to Mr Weeden that the investigation of these witnesses was "all a complete fudge" and that the police were simply neither seeking nor indeed wanting to develop the information given by James Grant. Mr Mansfield alleged that the whole matter of James Grant and his information was being "marginalised in importance and kept in the wings". Such are the stringent allegations made on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. 14.26 It is a feature of this part of the case that no documents exist in connection with the purported registration of James Grant as an informant. Nor is there a log of authorised visits which should exist if an informant is registered. DS Davidson and DC Budgen indicate that there was in existence an informant's docket which would have set out in some detail all that had taken place in the very early days in connection with the interviewing and testing of James Grant. They both say that the information was indeed properly and formally set out in a docket, and that the relevant papers were handed to the proper officer in connection with the registration of an informant, namely Detective Chief Inspector Leslie Owen at Greenwich Police Station. 14.27 From there, as we were told by an expert in the field of informants, namely Detective Inspector Michael Barley, relevant inevitable steps would have resulted in that file being transmitted to the Area office, and from there at least a profile of the informant would have gone to New Scotland Yard. Searches have not revealed any documentation at all in connection with the registration of James Grant as an informant. This is a serious aspect of the James Grant affair, which creates obvious difficulties from the police point of view. If there were no proper documentation or registration that does support the suggestion made by Mr Mansfield that Grant's information was not properly dealt with. 14.28 Later Mr Weeden did at the suggestion of DS Davidson forward a recommendation that £50 should be paid to James Grant, which Mr Weeden hoped might keep him interested and encourage him to provide further information for somewhat larger sums in the future. That action might be thought to support the suggestion that Mr Grant had indeed been registered. But as we will show the truth is that no registration was ever properly made, and DS Davidson appears wrongly to have been allowed a free hand to see James Grant without proper control. 14.29 We accept that Mr Weeden was himself to be criticised in connection with the processing of the James Grant information. He was too ready to accept that DS Davidson was the right and the only person to be left in charge of that part of the investigation. We are not satisfied that Mr Weeden purposely ignored or delayed the investigation of Witnesses K and B and of James Grant's information, or that he did so for any ulterior motive. Whatever else may be said of Mr Weeden we are wholly convinced that it was his objective that the suspects or those involved in this terrible murder should be brought to justice. Mr Weeden's honesty and integrity are not impugned. 14.30 Mr Mansfield pointed out correctly that during Mr Weeden's long interview with Kent the criticism was being made with justification that Mr Weeden did not reassure himself or take any positive action himself in connection with the James Grant information. As Kent pointed out this man might have been himself with the prime suspects at the time of the attack. Neither Mr Weeden nor his predecessor took any personal steps to focus upon James Grant. Coupled with the lack of any documentation from DS Davidson this gave Kent cause for concern. Energetic and direct contact by senior officers with this man should have been made as early as Friday, 23 April in the case of Mr Crampton, or Monday, 26 April in the case of Mr Weeden. Both SIOs were hoping for a witness or witnesses to provide them with evidence rather than information. Potentially James Grant could himself have been such a witness, or he could have taken the team to Witnesses K and B much earlier on. 14.31 Prioritising James Grant and the earliest possible development of the evidence of Witnesses K and B might have led to the provision of some satisfactory evidence. In the end the evidence of Witness K as set out in the only written statement taken from him was of limited value, and he totally refused to co-operate thereafter. It has not been suggested that any further statement or information has been obtained from that witness which could have been used either in the original proposed proceedings or eventually in the private prosecution. Mr Mellish confirmed that Witness K was elusive and unco-operative. But he should have been seen and sensitively handled early on. 14.32 As to Witness B, his statement which was not available until November 1993 did suggest that he might provide valuable evidence, since he indicated that he had seen Neil Acourt and David Norris near the murder scene at the relevant time from the top of the bus. As it turned out this witness' evidence was virtually eliminated at the committal proceedings. He was unable to say that the Acourt seen by him in the street was Neil or Jamie. He indicated that he knew David Norris well and that he had seen him in the street. When an identification parade was arranged during the hearing at the Magistrates' Court Witness B was unable to pick out David Norris on the parade. 14.33 Thus his evidence was rendered virtually valueless from that time onwards. He was, as we understand it, available at the Central Criminal Court. But once Mr Brooks' evidence had been rejected by the Court Mr Mansfield was not able to rely upon Witness B or upon any other evidence in order to go ahead with the case against those involved. Witness B had in addition told a wholly false story about the murder in his first account, so that his evidence was generally suspect for that reason alone. Again however he should have been seen earlier and should have been dealt with sensitively and carefully. 14.34 It must be further said that even if Mr Weeden is subject to criticism as to the delayed arrest and in connection with the processing of the information available to him, there is no ground for alleging that these failures occurred because the victim of this murder was black or because Mr Weeden was in some way involved in collusion or corruption. Throughout the many questions put to him on the topic of racism and its possible impact on this case Mr Weeden rejected any suggestion that for racist reasons he had dragged his feet. We see no basis upon which it can properly be alleged that Mr Weeden acted improperly in his investigative duties because of racist attitudes. We were persuaded by Mr Weeden himself that he would not tolerate overt racism, and that he was not unconsciously motivated by racist prejudice in what he did or failed to do as SIO in his investigative duties. Different considerations plainly arise in connection with family liaison, as we will see. 14.35 Furthermore, there is no ground in the case of Mr Weeden for any suggestion that he was in some way fearful of or linked to Clifford Norris. His evidence was that he knew from 26 April about David Norris' father, since his notes make positive reference to that fact. Thereafter he knew about Clifford Norris' involvement in serious crime, particularly because he indicated that Clifford Norris should be arrested if he was available when the arrests of the young men took place on and after 7 May. At least Mr Weeden realised that Clifford Norris should if possible be arrested. Strong action such as that taken by Mr Mellish in 1994 was required. 14.36 Mr Weeden said that he did not know about Clifford Norris, and had no knowledge of him or his family until he took over on 26 April. Mr Mansfield suggested to Mr Weeden, as he did to Mr Crampton, that it was inconceivable that he had no knowledge of Norris as a criminal name in south east London. But we accept that Mr Weeden's answers in this respect were true. It was pointed out that to the Kent officers Mr Weeden had accepted that he was "aware of his David Norris' father", but there is no indication that he told the Kent police that he positively knew of the existence of Clifford Norris before 26 April. 14.37 In 1974, when Clifford Norris was 16 years old, Mr Weeden did in fact sign a document which effectively cancelled an arrest warrant in connection with Clifford Norris. This however was purely an administrative function which took place after Mr Norris had been arrested, so that the warrant inevitably had to go. It should also be said that the record of Clifford Norris, as set out in the criminal records, is not as substantial as one might imagine. He was being investigated by police over the years, and in 1983 or 1984 an intelligence marker was placed against him because he was suspected of being actively engaged in serious crime. Thereafter, from 1987 or 1988 he was plainly involved in high level crime, and he was on the run from 1988 until he was eventually arrested by Mr Mellish's team in 1994. 14.38 We are not persuaded that the suggestion made by Mr Mansfield, namely that it was "inconceivable" that Mr Weeden had never before this case heard of Clifford Norris, has been established. Once he did know about Mr Norris, after 26 April, there is no indication that the existence of Clifford Norris or his influence in the case, and his part played in connection with the Benefield case, had any sinister impact in connection with Mr Weeden's part in this investigation. 14.39 Having seen Mr Weeden for such a substantial time we are convinced that he would not be a likely candidate for recruitment into a conspiracy to "throw the case of David Norris and the other suspects". Mr Weeden himself described the allegations with some scorn as "some ludicrous conspiracy theory", and it does seem to us wholly unlikely that Mr Weeden would have been involved in such a conspiracy. We conclude that Mr Weeden was an honest man. 14.40 Furthermore, as Mr Weeden himself pointed out, positive steps were taken by his team to try to ensure that David Norris was prosecuted in connection with the Witham assault; and a re-trial had been demanded in the case of the unsuccessful prosecution in connection with Stacey Benefield. Clifford Norris' impact upon that case was disastrous. There is no evidence in our view that his influence affected Mr Weeden's actions in connection with this investigation in any way.
|
