| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER FOURTEEN - continued THE SECOND SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER 14.41 The nature of the surveillance operation and the processing of its products is the topic of a separate chapter in this Report (Chapter 18). To the extent that Mr Weeden was in charge while the operation took place he must share the blame for its deficiencies. Indeed he was prepared to accept that it was extraordinary that there had not been the fullest investigation and identification of those who appeared in the photographs and their cars at an early stage. He believed that the lack of action taken, until later on, was probably caused "because it was either overlooked or because people were overstretched". He is directly involved in this failure. 14.42 Information could have been obtained by a careful and full analysis of these photographs as to persons connected with the suspects. Furthermore, and fundamentally, the lack of the ability to investigate what was being removed from the property speaks for itself. And even more eloquent is the known fact that in interview following his arrest Mr Dobson denied knowledge of David Norris, and yet these most important photographs showing them together were never made available to the officers who interviewed Mr Dobson, nor was a further interview set up of Mr Dobson in which these photographs could have been put to him to show that he was telling palpable lies. 14.43 In the result Mr Weeden's attitude appears to have been that the failures in respect of the surveillance operation and the use of its products were the result of lack of manpower. He said that " with everything else that was happening during that pretty hectic period it simply didn't get done". This is plainly a condemnation of this part of the investigation. 14.44 As to the red Astra car it is also palpable that the team failed properly to follow up that aspect of the case. When statements were eventually taken from three of the occupants of the car Kieran Hyland told the interviewing officer on 8 June 1993 that there had been five people in the car which visited and re-visited the murder scene soon after the killing had taken place. The other two occupants Messrs Copley and Goatley had said that there were only three people in the car which, so they said, passed the murder scene by accident. Mr Weeden accepted that the investigation was certainly unsatisfactory in this respect. 14.45 That is in our view an understatement. We fully understand that these people might not have "supplanted the prime suspects", as Mr Weeden put it. But who knows what information might have been obtained if the matter had been pursued energetically at the relevant time. Nothing may have emerged, and there may have been no direct connection between the red Astra and its occupants and the murder. But it is not surprising that Mr & Mrs Lawrence feel that the failure to stop the car at once and to investigate the matter fully and at once betray inadequacies in the investigation of this case. 14.46 The next suggestion made to Mr Weeden was that the ultimate decision to make the arrests, which took place on 7 May, was simply made on the spur of the moment because Mr Weeden and his team had become concerned about extraneous pressure, in particular the visit of Nelson Mandela to the Lawrence family and a planned demonstration in relation to racist murders and activity which was to take place on 8 May. In addition, it was suggested that Mr & Mrs Lawrence's meeting with Mr Ilsley on that day added to the pressure which resulted in the decision to arrest. 14.47 Mr Weeden says that by 6 May he was extremely disappointed at the progress that had been made, and that on that day he decided to make the arrests because his judgement was that additional matters had come into consideration which made it justifiable to arrest. 14.48 The three matters to which he referred were the finding of a knife in Wendover Road, the evidence of a lady who indicated that she had heard somebody call out "J or Jamie" on the night in question, and the arrival of the E-fits which had been compiled by Joseph Shepherd. 14.49 Mr Weeden says that the 13:30 meeting on 6 May, which makes no reference to any decision to arrest, was held so that he could review the evidence with his senior team members. After that meeting Mr Weeden says that he spoke with Mr Bullock and told him to bring forward and finalise the arrest, search and interview plans. Thereafter he was to indicate to his team in the afternoon that the arrests were to take place. 14.50 More than one member of the team indicated to us that they were completely taken by surprise by the decision to arrest made on that day, and Mr Bullock's note of the meeting of 6 May gives no indication that a decision to arrest had been made. 14.51 The suggestion made to Mr Weeden was of course that the arrests which were made on 7 May were simply a "sham to satisfy the pressures". Thus Mr Mansfield roundly criticises the decision and doubts the justification for that decision, namely the arrival on the scene of the three somewhat tenuous strands to which we have already referred. 14.52 To our mind the decision made on 6 May and the reasons given for it are further unsatisfactory features of the case. Virtually nothing had changed between 26 April and 6 May. While it was right that these men should be arrested the lack of any real change of circumstances by 6 May indicates and supports our conclusion that Mr Weeden did not properly review the strategy nor the decisions made as to arrest in the earliest days of his tenure of command. 14.53 If outside pressures did not contribute to the decision, there was no fresh reason to make the arrest and the justification for it is feeble. The probability is that by the afternoon of 6 May outside pressures did bear, even if unconsciously, upon Mr Weeden's mind, and we are not satisfied that the additional material could have been the spur which made it right to arrest on 6 May as opposed to 26 or 27 April 1993. 14.54 Before turning to the important topic of family liaison it should be mentioned that Mr Weeden was asked for his opinion about the discontinuance of the prosecution of Neil Acourt and Luke Knight by the CPS in July 1993. It is apparent that Mr Weeden disagreed with the decision, in the sense that he believed that in spite of all the problems faced by his team there was a viable case to put before the court. Particularly as to Mr Brooks' evidence he believed that this would stand up in court, in spite of the obvious inconsistencies set out in Mr Brooks' series of statements, and in spite of his contact with DS Crowley. 14.55 Mr Weeden accepted that the decision was ultimately one for the CPS, whose task it was to put the case before the Court and to justify its prosecution. He realised that whatever his views might be it was in the discretion of the CPS to decide whether the matter should go ahead. In this context it should be noted that the discontinuance in July 1993 by the CPS was not in any event final. The CPS themselves indicated that the matter must be kept under review. The investigation team continued its investigations, as we shall see. In fact no further valuable evidence did emerge, with ultimate fatal consequences when the private prosecution was pursued. But in 1993 it is right to indicate that Mr Weeden still thought that there was life in the case, even though the CPS were not prepared to proceed to committal. 14.56 Mr Weeden's part in the DS Crowley affair and the undermining of Mr Brooks' evidence is of significance. It is examined elsewhere (Chapter 22), but it is right to indicate that while Mr Weeden supports the version of events given by Mr Crowley in respect of the making of his statement on 3 June, he has indicated and does still indicate that he believed that DS Crowley might have misunderstood what Mr Brooks was saying so that he maintained his confidence in Mr Brooks as a witness. 14.57 It is difficult to see how there was in fact any room for misunderstanding, since Mr Brooks' evidence and the indication given in his statement on 4 June was that he had not said all that DS Crowley reported him to have said. We do not understand Mr Weeden to be saying that he disbelieved DS Crowley, and in one sense his belief about the matter is of little consequence. The fact is that eventually the contest between DS Crowley and Mr Brooks has been held twice elsewhere, at the Magistrates' Court and the Central Criminal Court. We did not have the advantage of hearing the evidence of Mr Brooks being tested in cross examination before this Inquiry. We are thus left with the relevant inferences to be drawn and with the full account of the cross examination both of Mr Brooks and Mr Crowley at the Central Criminal Court, upon which we comment later in some detail. 14.58 Mr Weeden's evidence has a bearing on the dispute between Mr Brooks and DS Crowley. But in one sense the bearing is an indirect one. What can be said is that Mr Weeden confirms DS Crowley's evidence in connection with his arrival at the Incident Room and his instruction that a statement should be made there and then. On the other hand Mr Weeden's recollection was that what occurred might have taken place in the car on the way back to the Incident Room and not at Southwark Police Station itself. This was a misapprehension, since both DS Crowley and Mr Brooks (in his statement of 4 June) indicate that the material conversation that did take place between them was at the office at the Southwark Police Station after the identity parade. Mr Weeden instructed his officers to take statements on 4 June from Mr Brooks in respect of what DS Crowley had said, and it is evident that this was done. Mr Weeden believes that the officers may have visited Mr Brooks on 3 June and taken the statements on the next day. This was confirmed by the officers who visited Mr Brooks on 4 June, when two statements were taken from him, as we have already observed. 14.59 One of the fundamental complaints of Mr & Mrs Lawrence is that nobody actually kept them up to date with the progress of the investigation during the first two or three weeks after their son's death. Mr Weeden's position in this respect is that he gave instructions to the family liaison officers to do precisely that, and he says that he was regularly reassured that this was being done. He directed that they should not give individual names, but he says that he instructed DS Bevan and DC Holden generally to offer what support they could, and if there were any contentious areas to let him know. 14.60 He indicated to us that the most beneficial way of advancing family liaison would
have been for him to meet the family himself. He said that he created the opportunities
for that, but that the opportunities were simply not taken. On 27 April Mr Weeden says
that he wrote a letter to Mr & Mrs Lawrence, at the same time that he wrote to both Mr
Brooks' parents, which indicated in plain terms that DS Bevan and DC Holden were the
liaison officers, but that if Mr & Mrs Lawrence wished to see Mr Weeden at any time
all they needed to do was to say so. He says that the calendar of the first week involved
on 26 April a verbal invitation to 14.61 Mr Weeden says that he had received two letters, two faxes and probably two telephone calls from Mr Khan asking that the liaison should be through him. Thereafter on 30 April another family representative communicated with Mr Weeden indicating that the family were going to be away for the weekend and that they did not want to be disturbed. He says that he had to balance his wish to make direct contact with the family's requests, coupled with the fact that it was likely to be seen as provocative and perhaps insensitive to sideline Mr Khan by going directly to the family. 14.62 Mr Weeden says that probably on 28 April he telephoned Mr Khan's office and spoke to Mr Ratip, a solicitor working for Mr Khan, indicating that he would like to speak with Mr Khan. Mr Weeden believes that he made a considerable number of approaches and efforts, and he much regrets that they were not taken up. He believes that there was little co-operation and communication to ensure that this was achieved. 14.63 When Mr Ilsley met Mr & Mrs Lawrence on 6 May the arrests were imminent. Mr Weeden says that he tried to contact Mr Ilsley, probably at his office, but he was unable to do so before the meeting took place. So that after the decision was made to arrest, Mr Ilsley was not in a position to inform Mr & Mrs Lawrence that this was to happen. In Mr Weeden's notes there is an entry saying "inform them re arrests". But Mr Weeden also told us that it was never his practice to tell a victim's parents that an arrest was going to take place on the day before, presumably in case there was some leak of that information. 14.64 He says that he relies upon his notes of 7 May which indicate that the family representative was informed at 07:15 that the arrests had taken place only three quarters of an hour before. There is confirmation of this in a CAD message from DC Holden, although the timing of the entry of that message into the system is on the evening of the day of the arrests. It does however indicate that a message was sent at 07:15 . Mr & Mrs Lawrence say that they did not hear of the arrests until they saw the television or heard the radio announcement that they had taken place. 14.65 Mr Gompertz on behalf of the Commissioner put to Mr Weeden the content of two long briefing notes dated 13 July and 8 September 1993. The first briefing note was sent to the Commissioner to enable him to prepare for the proposed meeting with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community. The second briefing note was prepared to enable the Commissioner to respond to points raised in a letter dated 1 September 1993 from Mr Peter Bottomley MP. 14.66 Those notes were self serving explanations of what had taken place in particular in connection with family liaison. Mr Weeden indicated that problems had arisen because of the large number of people surrounding Mr & Mrs Lawrence which tended to "complicate and confuse matters". Furthermore, Mr Weeden indicated in the first note that it was in his view extremely rare for solicitors to act for a victim's family in such circumstances and that Mr Khan had been "bombarding the Incident Room by letter, fax and telephone seeking detailed written information and so on". 14.67 Indeed he said that the demands for information became such a distraction to the investigation team that on 30 April Commander Raymond Adams was enlisted to write to Mr Khan to ask that future inquiries should be addressed to him rather than the SIO and his officers. 14.68 Mr Weeden stressed in the first note that there had been many cancellations of meetings after 6 May, when Mr Ilsley and Mr Philpott had begun a series of weekly liaison meetings. 14.69 The later note, dated 8 September 1993, referred to the family liaison arrangements and said that "in truth the family and their representatives have been dealt with sensitively, courteously and patiently by police throughout the inquiry and this will continue. The family and their representatives have had every opportunity to express their concerns and the two Chief Superintendents in particular remain receptive to anything the family have to say". This was not the true picture which has emerged during this Inquiry. 14.70 Mr Weeden told us that he had tried himself to see the family but had failed so to do, and that in addition to trying to see them at home he had offered them an invitation to come to the Incident Room on their own, without their solicitor, so that he could meet them face to face and without the intervention of any other parties. 14.71 That invitation was turned down by Mr & Mrs Lawrence. They say that they had no wish to go to the Headquarters or to the Incident Room. Thereafter it is apparent that Mr Weeden lost patience with the Lawrence family, and in particular with their solicitor, Mr Khan. For example, he says that on Tuesday, 7 September, when arrangements had been made for a liaison meeting at Plumstead Police Station, Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Khan were in fact giving an interview to LBC radio, and during that interview they were making "the usual untrue complaints about police failures, disinterest and prejudice. This diatribe was accompanied by threats to sue the police". The note ended with the following statement, "Until recently the Senior Investigating Officer and his team have shown considerable understanding and forbearance in respect of the continuing irresponsible and damaging comments which have been made by the family and their representatives on radio, television and in print. However patience is now beginning to wear very thin in the face of frequently repeated slanderous and libellous remarks by the non family group especially Mr Imran Khan". 14.72 Indeed Mr Weeden brought libel proceedings against a newspaper in connection with some of the publications said to have stemmed from remarks made by Mr Khan. An award was apparently made in his favour, but the publication went into liquidation and he did not receive his costs or his award. 14.73 Those briefing notes grated upon the ears of the members of the Inquiry, since they show that Mr Weeden lost patience with the family, and in particular with Mr Khan. Mr Weeden's intentions may have been good to start with, but he never took positive steps to approach Mr Khan or indeed the family direct in order to ensure that a satisfactory meeting took place between them. 14.74 As we have said in connection with the evidence of DS Bevan and DC Holden, the family liaison in sensitive and difficult cases of this kind has to be handled with great care and understanding. Things obviously went wrong from the start, and it was the duty of the senior officers in particular to take their own steps to ensure that alternative methods were followed in order to see that the family were kept properly informed and that their relationship with the investigation team was a healthy one. This they signally failed to do. Whatever the difficulties and whatever their cause the onus clearly lay upon Mr Weeden and his officers to address them. They did not do so. In particular Mr Weeden never met the family face to face until over a year after his appointment as SIO. Mr Weeden allowed himself within days of taking over as SIO to be put off by Mr Khan. He wrongly assumed and said that Mr Khan was an Anti Racist Alliance member with his own "secret agenda". He distanced himself both from the family and Mr Khan when Mr Adams took over the correspondence with Mr Khan. He in turn must be said to have failed to act appropriately and professionally in connection with this grieving black family and their solicitor. He too readily allowed himself, as his own briefing notes show, to become involved in the negative and hostile stereotyping of the family and Mr Khan. He must be said to have been infected by unwitting racism in this regard. The formal intervention of Mr Ilsley into the liaison from 6 May cannot protect Mr Weeden from this measure of criticism. 14.75 This aspect of the case, namely family liaison, is one in which important recommendations will be made since it is an essential part of the relationship between the police and the public that family liaison in cases involving racist incidents and crimes should be smooth, satisfactory and professional. 14.76 In parenthesis it should be noted that Mr & Mrs Lawrence, during the course of this Inquiry indicated that they never received the letter of 27 April which Mr Weeden sent. There is some curiosity about this suggestion, since reference is made later to a discussion of that letter with Mrs Lawrence, when no allegation was made that the letter had not in fact been received. DS Bevan told us that he had delivered the letter by hand. It seems likely that the letter was actually delivered, but it seems also to be plain that Mr & Mrs Lawrence did not digest it. Even if the letter was delivered and received the lack of any approach or response by Mr & Mrs Lawrence ought, as it seems to us, to have encouraged Mr Weeden to greater personal efforts to see Mr & Mrs Lawrence in order to make sure that the relationship between them and the police was satisfactory. There is no doubt that the relationship was from its earliest stages difficult and unhappy. This situation should never have been allowed to develop or to be maintained. The responsibility for this must be with Mr Weeden in his supervisory role in connection with family liaison. 14.77 In answer to Mr Macdonald, on behalf of Mr Brooks, Mr Weeden agreed that he had always said that Mr Brooks was both helpful, truthful and co-operative. He said that to us, and he said it during the Kent inquiry. Mr Macdonald did however suggest that Mr Brooks was being patronised by Mr Weeden, because he had written two letters to Mr & Mrs Brooks on 27 April, indicating that he wished to make it clear that the police did not suspect Duwayne of any criminal involvement in this case whatsoever, and repeating that he has proved to be a helpful and truthful witness. It is not a valid criticism of Mr Weeden that he wrote those letters to Mr Brooks' parents, despite the fact that Mr Brooks was 18 years old. Mr Weeden said that it was indeed absurd to suggest that he was going over Mr Brooks' head and thus marginalising him. 14.78 Mr Weeden accepted, as had other officers, that the first statement made by Mr Brooks to PC Gleason had never been put before him. Comment has already been made about this unsatisfactory lack of processing of that first statement. 14.79 On 4 June 1993 Mr Weeden contacted Mr Medwynter of the CPS in connection with Mr Brooks' identification of Luke Knight and the trouble which had occurred in respect of the conversation between DS Crowley and Mr Brooks. Mr Weeden appears to have expressed the view to Mr Medwynter that notwithstanding the conversation between them Mr Brooks remained a credible witness. As we have indicated he gave his opinion that DS Crowley "misinterpreted whatever was said by Brooks". Mr Weeden indicated that Mr Brooks continued throughout to be co-operative and helpful, making nine statements and giving evidence both at the Magistrates' Court and at the Crown Court and at the Inquest. 14.80 As to the pro formas which were sent out by the CPS in 1994 inviting officers to record the details of their dealings with Mr Brooks, some of which contained uncomplimentary remarks about Mr Brooks, Mr Weeden said that he agreed that those remarks were contrary to the views which he himself had expressed about Mr Brooks. 14.81 It appeared later that these forms, which are most unusual, were sent out by the CPS in 1994 when an indication had been given that Mr Brooks was going to plead automatism at his trial in connection with allegations made against him of riotous behaviour in relation to circumstances unconnected with the murder investigation. It was decided that if this was so any possible comments as to Mr Brooks' attitude and behaviour should be obtained from all those officers who had been in touch with him. Mr Weeden commented that the officers in question were simply reflecting their own personal dealings, some of which had taken place in very difficult circumstances on the night of the murder when Mr Brooks' behaviour may have been much affected by the appalling trauma to which he had been subjected. 14.82 So far as Mr Weeden is concerned, those comments made by his officers cannot reflect against him. We do believe that Mr Weeden in his contact and dealings with Mr Brooks can be said to be the subject of some criticism. Mr Weeden did not positively offer special attention to Mr Brooks, because he believed that Mr Brooks was assisted by a solicitor early on, and he knew that later Mr Penstone became involved with him, so that he assumed that all necessary support was being provided for Mr Brooks. From October 1993 Mr Brooks was represented by Miss Deighton, who continued to be his solicitor during this Inquiry. Even if Mr Brooks was represented it was the SIO's duty to ensure that he was properly treated throughout. 14.83 Mr Panton, on behalf of the London Borough of Greenwich, indicated that it was the Borough's view that the team had perhaps not used Mr Penstone enough in their dealings with the reluctant or young and sensitive witnesses from the Brook Estate with whom contact was made. Mr Weeden's answer to that was that he did not believe that those witnesses, such as Emma Cook, EE, FF, B and K were witnesses who would have been prepared to speak with any third parties. Indeed there were threats being made from time to time that if the police tried to see some witnesses they would be contacting solicitors on their own behalf. Mr Weeden must be subject to criticism for failing to try an alternative sensitive approach. 14.85 Mr Yearwood established, as he had with most of the officers called, that Mr Weeden had not been given any specific racism awareness training during the whole of his career. Mr Yearwood criticised the appointment of DS Bevan and DC Holden as liaison officers, and queried whether Mr Weeden had done enough to try to ensure that officers trained in race relations were used for this sensitive task. Furthermore, Mr Yearwood suggested that the officers involved had not focused on the racist aspect of the case when they were investigating the suspects and taking statements from witnesses who might have been able to assist in connection with the suspects' attitudes. 14.86 In Mr Weeden's case the main criticisms to be made are that he failed to make his own decision on and immediately after 26 April as to the arrests and that he failed Mr & Mrs Lawrence and their solicitor. He worked very long hours and performed many detailed tasks in connection with the investigation, as his voluminous and meticulous notes show. But his decisions and his actions show lack of imagination and a tendency simply to allow things to drift in vital areas of the case. 14.87 To Mr Weeden's credit he stayed with the investigation until the summer of 1994, although he was due to retire in 1993. Little positive progress was made up to the date when he handed over to Mr Mellish in June 1994. 14.88 We take into account all that has been carefully and helpfully said on Mr Weeden's behalf. But he must accept the criticisms which are set out above.
|
