CHAPTER NINETEEN

DETECTIVE SERGEANT JOHN DAVIDSON
AND THE
HANDLING OF CERTAIN WITNESSES

19.1 The PCA Report rightly stresses that top priority should have been given to all the valuable and telling information which came to the Incident Room particularly in the early days. Between 23 April 1993 and January 1994 39 separate anonymous calls referring to one or more of the suspects were documented. The PCA Report points out that there are no recorded attempts to identify the callers, and no analysis was made to cross-check or properly to investigate the calls in a quest for fuller information. Failure to follow up the anonymous callers is plainly a matter for criticism.

19.2 It would be pointless to try to deal with every part of this aspect of the investigation but some matters stand out and must be covered. There was and still is a lack of satisfactory evidence, but there was a generous flow of information from the start. Some of the information was second or third hand. It is a feature of the case that many of those who have been seen and interviewed were known to each other, and obviously there was much exchange of information and rumour on and around the Brook Estate after the murder. Prompt and efficient pursuit of such information can lead to evidence, and to further lines of investigation.

19.3 We have already pointed out that the Acourts and David Norris were named in the first anonymous message at 13:50 on 23 April.

19.4 At 19:45 on Friday 23 April the man who was supposedly registered as an informant and who was given the pseudonym James Grant came to the police station. From time to time, and notably in the Barker Review, it has been said that this man was an anonymous source. This is not the position. His identity was known from the start. Grant was first seen by DC Budgen, who had joined the team on 23 April.

19.5 DC Budgen says that he at once told Mr Bullock about Grant, but that Mr Bullock seemed to show some lack of interest in the information. DC Budgen said that this did not surprise him. DC Budgen said that if he had "recovered the Crown jewels it would not have made any difference". Mr Bullock simply told DC Budgen to put the message on a "green sheet", so that it would enter the system in the usual way. It did enter the system and actions were certainly allotted as a result of that.

19.6 That message was not seen by Mr Crampton, the SIO, until Saturday 24 April.

19.7 DC Budgen says that he told Grant to contact him daily, and Grant was given telephone numbers for this purpose. Grant next came to the station on Saturday 24 April probably at about 16:30. On that day Detective Sergeant John Davidson joined the team.

19.8 DS Davidson was an experienced detective officer. He retired in March 1998. He was a self-willed and abrasive officer who more than once became excited and angry in the witness box. Against him there were strong allegations made on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. Mr Mansfield alleged that DS Davidson was guilty of a combination of failures and mistakes which if unexplained were "sufficiently fundamental that they provide a basis for inferring either gross negligence, or worse an attempt to thwart the effectiveness of the investigation". In those circumstances it is not surprising that the exchanges between Mr Mansfield and DS Davidson were acrimonious.

19.9 DS Davidson's duty state shows that he came on duty at about noon on 24 April. He was engaged in reading statements until 14:00. There is a record that at 16:30 he was "engaged re informant". DS Davidson told us that he was in fact ordered to see the informant Grant with DC Budgen, since Mr Bullock regarded it as necessary for DC Budgen's activities to be monitored. DS Davidson told us that on 24 April Grant reiterated the information he had given on 23 April. He says that he questioned Grant as to where he had obtained his information and how he came by it, and that he checked as to whether or not Grant had any ulterior motive in visiting the police station. In general terms DS Davidson said more than once that he gave Grant a hard time during his contact with him in order to make certain that the information that he was being given was indeed genuine.

19.10 DS Davidson says that there must have been a docket or folder which would have contained notes made of that interview on 24 April. He says that DC Budgen would have taken the notes and entered them into the docket. DS Davidson said that both that meeting and any other meetings at which he was present would have been recorded in this way. These documents have totally disappeared, or alternatively no notes were made other than those entered into the system. We believe that the latter explanation is more likely to be true. 

19.11 Part of the follow up performed by DS Davidson took him to Stacey Benefield, who was mentioned specifically in the information coming from Grant. DS Davidson saw Mr Benefield on Sunday 25 April. Mr Benefield had complained about a stabbing committed in March 1993 but he refused at first to say who had assaulted him. We now know that Stacey Benefield says that he was stabbed by David Norris. On 25 April Mr Benefield gave this information in a comprehensive but short statement giving a description of the attack made upon him by David Norris who was in the company of Neil Acourt. Mr Benefield appeared to DS Davidson to be a credible witness 

19.12 DS Davidson was satisfied as an experienced detective that quite apart from the information being received about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the information set out in that statement from Mr Benefield would have justified the immediate arrest of David Norris and Neil Acourt. DS Davidson has no explanation for the delay in making the arrests, which was not his responsibility, but he believed that one of the reasons the arrests were held back was because it had been believed that Mr Benefield was reluctant to make or sign a statement or to give evidence 

19.13 In parenthesis it is established that DS Davidson did visit Lee Pearson, whose name was also mentioned in the Grant information as having been involved in an attack. He appears to have seen Mr Pearson on 30 April and also later. Mr Pearson gave a verbal account to DS Davidson of the incident, but was "very reluctant to give a statement". Matthew Farman was also reluctant, but he did eventually provide a statement on 28 April which corroborated the evidence of Stacey Benefield 

19.14 DS Davidson again saw James Grant on Tuesday 27 April. This was a meeting at a public house, together with DC Budgen. The CAD message in connection with that meeting is available. No further note or written information about the meeting exists, although DS Davidson says that in respect of each meeting with Grant there would have been a note made which would have been contained in the docket. That meeting is set out in Message 152. It reads as follows:- "Met with informant known as James Grant in local public house. He states that the person who was approached by some blacks to find out the Acourts address then was threatened by the Acourts not to tell them. The lad in question is BB who lives in [address protected]. He also stated that CC saw four assailants run past the house (ie. Dickson Road) after the assault. He left tasked to find out any more that he could. Grant then rang to say that he thinks he may have found a witness who stated to him that Neil stabbed him in the bottom part and David stabbed him in the top part. He said that this witness was on a bus, he is going to firm up the info and contact us on 28 April 1993. He stated earlier that the Acourts and Norris would probably say nothing and Dobson would crack up and probably tell all. He also said that there was a fifth blonde unknown kid present." 

19.15 DS Davidson said that between 27 April and 6 May he is confident that he saw or communicated with Grant, but once again there is no document to support this nor any information as to what was said. At some stage DS Davidson says that Grant gave him a first name and a street name in connection with Witness B.

19.16 The next recorded message from Grant is dated 6 May 1993. DC Budgen completed that message 276. That reads as follows:- "The above person stated that the Acourts have asked on numerous occasions whether they could purchase knives. They have a fascination with knives, that they usually hide them under the floorboards, that Lee Pearson was stabbed by Neil Acourt, also a Stacey was stabbed by Neil's friend. He is described as white 5'8" medium build mousy hair, curly. They the Acourts haven't been seen in the Well Hall area since the murder." That message is the source of information given to the team meeting on 6 May by DC Budgen in connection with the hiding of knives under floorboards. It is relevant in connection with the actions of all those involved in the arrests of the suspects 

19.17 It is now necessary to refer to a most vexed part of the evidence in this case. DS Davidson says that he and DC Budgen decided that Grant should be registered as an informant. He was not strictly an informant in the ordinary sense of that term at all. He was somebody who was giving information, but there is no indication that he was habitually or even on this occasion seeking to give information for reward. However he wished to remain anonymous, and DS Davidson told us that he believed that he might be useful in the future, since he was so forthcoming in connection with the Stephen Lawrence murder. Be that as it may both DS Davidson and DC Budgen say that they assembled the papers, including such contact sheets and notes as had been created when Grant had been seen by them, and that they took them to Greenwich Police Station where Detective Chief Inspector Leslie Owens was in charge. 

19.18 Both DC Budgen and DS Davidson have entries in their duty states which show that they did go to Greenwich on 28 April. Exactly what they did there is a matter of much dispute. DS Davidson said, both in his evidence early on before the Inquiry and when he was recalled specifically on this topic, that the documents were in fact given to Mr Owens for registration. He is adamant that this took place. Mr Owens for his part is equally adamant that he did not and does not know DS Davidson, and that no documents were ever left with him. If the matter rested solely upon the evidence of those two officers we would unhesitatingly prefer the evidence of Mr Owens. It is palpable that in fact there was never any registration of Grant as an informant. Nobody has ever seen the documents in this connection, and we are wholly satisfied that there never was any registration. If there had been, the documents should have gone through the proper channels and they would have finished up with the relevant officer in Mr Ilsley's department, and at New Scotland Yard. 

19.19 The key to the matter may in the end be the evidence of DC Budgen. He says that he did go with DS Davidson to Greenwich Police Station with the papers which were in an envelope. He met Inspector Alan Buttivant, who was known to DC Budgen, and they were directed by Mr Buttivant to Mr Owens. They went to Mr Owens' office, but he was busy with somebody else. Therefore they went to the canteen and waited for some time and then the papers were taken down and left on Mr Owens' desk. DC Budgen says that there was no explanation given to Mr Owens, but that the documents were left there since they assumed that he would deal with them thereafter. There is some confirmation for this version of events since Mr Buttivant does remember seeing DC Budgen at Greenwich on that day. He had no idea why DS Davidson and DC Budgen were there, and no documents were given to him.

19.20 It is difficult to establish what motive DS Davidson may have had for giving us the clear picture of a formal registration which we do not accept. Even on DC Budgen's account of the matter the whole episode was lax and highly unsatisfactory, since sensitive papers in connection with an informant must always be handled with the greatest care. Whatever may be thought of DS Davidson in this regard we do not believe that DC Budgen has invented his version of events, and it is thus possible that there were documents which have gone missing simply because they were left without any explanation on or near Mr Owens' desk.

19.21 Later as has been established over and over again, DS Davidson wrote a letter to the SIO, Mr Weeden, suggesting that a reward should be paid to Grant. Mr Weeden endorsed this suggestion and proposed the sum of £50. These documents appear in an unregistered folder which contains the two documents. This folder with the two letters was found in the Finance & Resource filing system at Eltham Police Station during the course of the PCA inquiry.

19.22 Before us DS Davidson indicated that it was his belief that money was allocated to be paid in respect of his request. He told us that the money was available but that he refused to collect it because he thought that the sum was paltry. There is no evidence whatsoever that the money was in fact allocated. Mr Ilsley told us that he saw the request but that he did nothing to further it since he did not believe that the information given by Grant was particularly valuable since information of a similar nature had come from elsewhere.

19.23 The whole episode of this alleged registration is highly unsatisfactory. It reveals certainly a woeful lack of attention to the steps which ought to be taken in respect of an informant, assuming that DS Davidson and DC Budgen genuinely believed that this man was an informant who needed to be registered. If he was registered on the 28 April any further contact with him ought to have been very carefully controlled and no contact should have been made with him without reference to the controller, a designated officer.

19.24 Undoubtedly the episode reflects badly upon DS Davidson. On the other hand he is able to say that if he was in fact sidelining Grant, and that is the allegation made, he would surely not have sought a reward for him at all. Writing the letter asking for a reward would simply have highlighted at once the fact that Grant had not been registered. One strange feature of Mr Owens' evidence was that he did appear to have some recollection of a conversation in connection with the registration of an informant in a different case at about the relevant time. His written statement suggested that there might have been some connection with the Stephen Lawrence case in this regard. When he gave evidence he accepted that there was some room for confusion in this respect, but he reiterated that he had no recollection of seeing DS Davidson or DC Budgen at all.

19.25 What can and must be said is that it is plain that Grant was dealt with fairly roughly by DS Davidson. He said at one stage in insensitive but perhaps typical terms that "this was simply a case of a skinhead turning up at a police station when a black has been murdered and wanting to know what is happening." He repeatedly said that he had done his best to extract from Grant the name of the source of his most valuable information. Over and over again he said that he had never been given that information by Grant. Later when Grant was seen by Kent he indicated that he had told DS Davidson about the source, namely Witness K, while he was in contact with the team in April 1993. There is no record that this information was given by Grant on the system, and DS Davidson says that if the identity of the source had been given to him by Grant he would without doubt have followed it up and recorded it at once.

19.26 Information about Witness K came, as we know, from sources other than Grant. At one stage it did appear that DS Davidson was saying that he had heard about Witness K both from Grant and from other sources. This seems to have been an error, since DS Davidson consistently denied that Grant had told him personally who his source was. During his questioning DS Davidson had difficulty in remembering whether he had in fact seen Witness K or not. It is evident looking at the documentation that he did see him, and indeed he took a short statement from Witness K on 17 May 1993.

19.27 In connection with another witness, Witness B, there was more criticism of DS Davidson. He was the witness described by James Grant on 6 May. A name and a street were given to DS Davidson, so he said, by Grant at a later date and DS Davidson in fact traced Witness B. DS Davidson saw Witness B together with two other officers on two occasions. It is apparent that he formed a low opinion of Witness B, and the CAD message recording his visit indicates that he thought that Witness B was a "Walter Mitty", and that he was most unlikely to speak the truth. Indeed he says that Witness B's mother indicated that he was open to suggestion. Witness B gave a version of the incident, namely fighting followed by his view of one of the Acourts and David Norris. He indicated that the incident took place near the Welcome Inn which is of course a considerable distance away from the location where the murder took place. DS Davidson's view was that Witness B was a very young witness who was prone to lie, and that this was confirmed by his mother. In fact Witness B was seen later by DS Kirkpatrick who took a statement from him which indicated that he knew David Norris quite well. Ultimately Witness B's evidence was wholly discredited at the committal proceedings because of his varied version of the events, and his failure to identify David Norris at a specially convened identification parade.

19.28 Mr Mansfield also criticised the handling of two potential young female witnesses by DS Davidson. One was Michelle Casserley. Entries found in her diary relating to the Acourts and others suggested that she might have some evidence to give, as did information received when her house was visited on the house-to-house inquiries. DS Davidson visited her and according to him in front of her mother she used "the most venomous language I have heard from a young girl". This verbal abuse came apparently unprompted, and DS Davidson decided that he would make no progress with Miss Casserley. Incidentally Miss Casserley was seen later by a representative of J R Jones, Mr Khan's firm, when the private prosecution was launched in 1995. She then indicated that she could give no useful evidence and that it was not true that she had ever told anybody that she saw the Acourts on the day of the murder. She told the representative that she may have written the suspects' names in her diary because she knew those people and because everyone was saying that the Acourts and others had committed the murder.

19.29 It seems doubtful whether she would have been a useful witness, but it must be said that it is likely that the general approach of DS Davidson was unhelpful. An over-robust senior detective was unlikely to be the best person to obtain information from young and reluctant witnesses.

19.30 Another young witness visited by DS Davidson was Emma Cook who was said to have walked past the bus stop shortly before the murder. DS Davidson says that her father would not allow her to make a statement under any circumstances. In both these instances Mr Mansfield suggests that DS Davidson was marginalising or belittling the possible contribution to be made by the witnesses as part of his general lackadaisical approach to the case. Mr Mansfield alleged that DS Davidson dishonestly or alternatively for racist reasons was not bothering about the furthering of the investigation.

19.31 DS Davidson arrested Gary Dobson, and he interviewed Gary Dobson. Mr Dobson never made any admissions, but he did answer all the questions put to him by DS Davidson. A feature of those interviews involves a passage in which DS Davidson appears to be encouraging Mr Dobson by a suggestion that the murder had not in fact been a racist killing. DS Davidson explains this by saying that Mr Dobson appeared to be upset about the suggestion that he might have been a racist, so that the interview was conducted in order to go along with Mr Dobson in this vein in the hope that he would open up and eventually make some useful admission. This was a pragmatic stance in order to try to achieve an admission or information about the murder. On the other hand the method employed laid DS Davidson open to criticism in connection with his own misguided views about the motivation for this crime. It must also be noted that the Mr Dobson interviews were subject to criticism by Detective Sergeant Mould, an expert who examined all the interviews. He criticises the preparation of the interviewing officers, and in the Mr Dobson case he rightly points out that the questioning was "confirmatory", and not interrogatory in the true sense.

19.32 We have already pointed out that DS Davidson was deprived of a most valuable piece of information during his interview with Mr Dobson, since he was not given the photographs showing Gary Dobson and David Norris together. As to this DS Davidson said that he was "very annoyed, because whether it would have made a difference I don't know, but it would certainly have given me more of a lever when questioning him when he was denying association".

19.33 DS Davidson was also involved in the arrest of Luke Knight, and he conducted the interviews with Mr Knight. Initially those interviews were conducted in the presence of Mr Knight's mother. Thereafter his mother indicated that she might be an alibi witness, so that it was unfortunate that she had been allowed to accompany Mr Knight to his interviews.

19.34 A significant feature of DS Davidson's evidence concerns his view of the nature of this terrible murder. He was closely questioned as to this aspect of the case. He said that he realised that the initial description given to him might constitute a racist attack and he said that there was what he called a "call out" of a racist nature. On the other hand from the information which he obtained during the investigation he said that he believed that the persons involved were persons who would have killed anyone who had been in Dickson Road at the relevant time. Throughout his evidence he made it emphatically clear that he refused to recognise that the attack was purely racist. He accepted that there was a racist shout before the attack and that one essence of the attack was racist. But he added that "because these lads had attacked whites before, very very similarly with a similar knife I believe this was thugs. They were described as the Krays. They were thugs who were out to kill, not particularly a black person, but anybody and I believe that to this day that that was thugs, not racism, just pure bloody minded thuggery". 

19.35 This is the same attitude shown by DC Budgen, DS Bevan and DC Holden. Officers indicate that as many as 50% of those involved believed that this was the true analysis of the case.

19.36 The reason for stressing the racist aspect of the incident was, as Mr Mansfield put to DS Davidson, that where there is a racist attack it is vital to identify it as such because it will be important to look at what connection this attack may have had with other similar attacks or persons involved in such attacks. Mr Mansfield roundly suggested to DS Davidson that this attitude and the failure to follow up intelligence in connection with attacks was in itself an area of neglect. DS Davidson pointed out that other victims of these young men namely Stacey Benefield and Lee Pearson were white, and he said that he had only recently discovered that another young man attacked, namely Kevin London, was black. He says that he did not know when he was interviewing Mr Dobson that Kevin London was black and he said that Mr Dobson had not told him that that was the case.

19.37 This attitude of DS Davidson and of other officers is to be deplored. Where any person alleges racist motivation it must have or should have been known to them all that the ACPO definition required the matter to be dealt with as a racist incident. The basic trouble with the officers' attitude is that any suggestion that this was not a purely racist murder is understandably anathema to Mr & Mrs Lawrence and indeed to the black community. They know, and so do we, that this was a totally unprovoked racist murder and consequently the obdurate attitude of DS Davidson and of other officers who took and expressed the same opinion must be severely criticised. It is insensitive and untenable to suggest that this was or might have been a motiveless crime or even a crime of mixed motives. To suggest that the crime was not purely racist can only lead to a conclusion in the minds of Mr & Mrs Lawrence that proper concentration was not brought to bear upon the investigation of the racist murder of their son, and that such an approach must have skewed the nature and direction of the investigation.

19.38 The senior officers, namely the SIOs, plainly regarded this as purely a racist murder. We simply do not understand why DS Davidson and others were unable to accept that this was the simple and uncomplicated position. We consider that their inability to accept that the murder was racist is a manifestation of their own flawed approach and of their own unwitting collective racism. DS Davidson and all the other officers indicated that within their limits they did do all that they were required to do and all that they could possibly have done in order to try to solve this murder and bring the perpetrators to justice. Unfortunately their attitude in regard to the racist motivation of this crime belittles their efforts in connection with the many actions which they were tasked to perform. 

19.39 Criticism of DS Davidson and his dealings with the very important sources of information and potential witnesses and of his attitude is justifiable. Our conclusion is that he was the wrong man to have been given many of the tasks that he was given although it must be said that DS Davidson and the other officers undoubtedly worked long hours and performed many actions and tasks with a view to solving the murder. Furthermore we do not believe that there is any strength in the suggestion that DS Davidson was affected by the aura cast over the case by the presence of the unarrested Clifford Norris. We do not believe that it can be or has been established that DS Davidson was influenced by the presence of Clifford Norris or by any connection with Mr Norris in respect of any of the actions taken or not taken by him during the investigation. DS Davidson was not part of Mr Mellish's team in 1995. But he was one of a group of Regional Crime Squad officers brought in at the final stage to help with the arrest of Clifford Norris. Mr Mellish was surprised to see DS Davidson, who did become thus involved simply in the actual arrest.

19.40 The evidence of DS Davidson was undoubtedly unsatisfactory. Particularly in respect of his handling of James Grant and the registration, there is material upon which DS Davidson must be criticised. The question is whether any more sinister interpretation must be placed upon his conduct other than the comment that he was the wrong person to perform the tasks allocated to him. We are not convinced that DS Davidson positively tried to thwart the effectiveness of the investigation. It was he who took the statement from Stacey Benefield which effectively launched the prosecution of David Norris and Neil Acourt in respect of that gross stabbing of March 1993. He was in charge of the protection of the witnesses leading up to the trial of David Norris at the Central Criminal Court. That prosecution failed for reasons which cannot be attributed to any activity of DS Davidson. There is also no evidence that DS Davidson held back positively in respect of the lines of investigation which he followed in order to favour David Norris or indeed any of the other suspects.

19.41 There was an overriding need in this investigation to turn information into evidence and to turn reluctant witnesses into willing ones in order to obtain the fullest possible information and evidence. There is no doubt that the investigation team felt rightly that there were witnesses who were saying less than they actually knew. Most if not all of these witnesses were young people, sometimes with a basic antipathy to the police. In these circumstances a tactful and sensitive approach to witnesses was needed. This is evidenced by the message of 28 April 1993 from DC Hughes and PC Andrews in relation to Witnesses DD and EE stating "We both feel that a gentle approach when he is seen again would be the appropriate method of extracting information from him. He may also be responsible for the two notes to the Incident Room".

19.42 DS Davidson was simply not the right officer to apply tact and sensitivity in his approach. This should have been known and recognised by his senior officers who deployed him as well as by himself. Our clear impression of DS Davidson was of a strong, self-opinionated character who would be inclined to seek to dominate witnesses in order to obtain information rather than solicit it in a more sensitive and sophisticated way. We are critical of both DS Davidson himself and his senior officers for the manner in which witnesses were approached and the failure to recognise the need to take steps to implement more sensitive methods.

19.43 We do not consider that DS Davidson would wilfully cut off the investigation of witnesses with whom he was concerned or that he has pulled his punches or made any positive attempt to thwart the investigation. We do however firmly believe that his particular style of approach was likely to have been counterproductive in this case and that there was a failure to recognise and address this.

19.44 Equally DS Davidson's attitude to the definition of this crime as racist or otherwise may well have affected his approach to the case. This is also clearly true of many other officers and in particular some of those close to him in the investigation whom he undoubtedly influenced. For example DC Budgen states that he regarded the murder as racist but changed his view subsequently to that expressed by DS Davidson. If officers expressed the view that they did not believe that the case was purely motivated by racism, when it so clearly was, then the perception of the black community in particular, and of all who heard the evidence at this Inquiry is inevitably that such an unjustifiable stance reflects inherent racism in the officers involved and in the police service. DS Davidson and others have only themselves to blame for the perception that they were indeed "institutionally racist". This perception is justified in the sense that these officers approached the investigation in the wrong way and encouraged each other in their wrongful belief as to the motivation for the crime.

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