| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE COMMANDER RAYMOND ADAMS 31.1 Commander Raymond Adams gave evidence to the Inquiry on two separate days. On 4 June 1998 he was questioned by Miss Weekes on behalf of the Inquiry. At the mid-day adjournment, before his evidence was completed, an application was made on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence to defer cross-examination of Mr Adams. Mr & Mrs Lawrence's lawyers wished to look into certain matters that had come to their notice. The application was at once granted. 31.2 Mr Adams came back on Thursday 16 July 1998 when he was cross-examined at length by Mr Mansfield. He was also questioned by Mr Doyle and Mr Gompertz. 31.3 It is of some significance that no questions were asked of Mr Adams on behalf of Duwayne Brooks. Notice had been given dated 3 June 1998 indicating that Mr Adams would be asked questions about the treatment of Mr Brooks "as a victim of crime or as a witness to crime". It was also suggested that Mr Adams might be asked a series of questions on behalf of Mr Brooks in connection with racist crime and complaints against the police. We considered this matter in advance of Mr Adams giving evidence, and ruled that it was inappropriate to ask general questions such as were set out in the proposed list. Accordingly, and quite rightly, Counsel for Mr Brooks did not question Mr Adams. There never was any suggestion that Mr Adams knew about Mr Brooks or that he had any contact with him of any kind. On 4 June there was no notice of allegations to be made on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. 31.4 On the 14 July 1998 a notice of issues and allegations was delivered to Mr Adams on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. As will be seen Mr Adams' evidence given in June was that he had literally played only one part in the murder investigation, namely to sign a letter dated 30 April 1993 to which reference will be made shortly. Mr & Mrs Lawrence's lawyers were sceptical of this, since it seemed remarkable that Mr Adams should have been involved in the case at all if he had, as he told the Inquiry, virtually no knowledge about the Stephen Lawrence case and certainly no involvement in it. The fresh notice served on 14 July indicated that "Given Commander Adams' seniority, his purported state of health and lack of knowledge or participation in the Lawrence murder investigation, it is not accepted that he would have decided to take on or been allocated the role of family liaison, nor that he would have been delegated the relatively menial task of drafting a letter on 30 April 1993 in the terms that appear". 31.5 The reference to "family liaison" refers both to the letter and to a Policy File entry dated 30 April which reads as follows:- "SIO/Cdr.(Adams) 30/4 Cdr. to deal with future contacts with solicitors representing the family - phone call and letter from Cdr. to family confirms this. To enable SIO to concentrate on progressing the murder inquiry." This entry appears in the Appendices to this Report (Decision No 17). Mr Adams did try to reach Mr Khan by telephone, but he was unable to make contact. We believe that this file entry did not indicate any intention to take over future family liaison by Mr Adams. It does refer to the letter, which specifies that future contact by the solicitor should be through Mr Philpott or Mr Adams. The terms of the letter appear below. There was never any proposal that Mr Adams should deal with family liaison as such. 31.6 The notice to Mr Adams went on to read as follows "in the absence of any sensible explanation for this incongruity it will be suggested that the nominal role masked another purpose. The suggested purpose was to influence the investigation so that the suspects named over the first week end were not arrested expeditiously. A potential channel for such influence arises from Commander Adams' previous links with Kenneth Noye who in turn has links with Clifford Norris. It is understood that Commander Adams took long term sick leave in May 1993 and retired in August 1993 on medical grounds. Since then has Commander Adams been in employment? If so please give dates and nature of work?" 31.7 We are satisfied that in fact the only part played by Mr Adams in the whole of this case was indeed the signing of the letter dated the 30 April 1993 which went to J R Jones, Mr & Mrs Lawrences' solicitors. It purports to be an answer to a letter written by Mr Khan to Mr Weeden dated 29 April 1993. That was the last of a series of letters sent by Mr Khan to the police, to which much reference has been made during the Inquiry. Those letters started on 26 April, and the effect of them was to seek information about the investigation in some detail. The comment has already been made that the steps taken were unusual, and plainly the SIO was upset and to some extent deflected by the course of that correspondence. Mr Weeden had already written a letter dated 27 April in palliative terms, suggesting that he was available to be seen by Mr & Mrs Lawrence if they so wished. The receipt of another letter dated 29 April, which followed a meeting on 28 April at Eltham Police Station, seems to have spurred Mr Weeden to recruit somebody else to help him in dealing with the solicitors' requests. At the meeting of 28 April it appears that "concern was expressed that the murder investigation team were being inundated with inquiries from the many parties interested in the progress of the inquiry. It was said that the level of inquiry was distracting the team from the task in hand". That is a quotation from the letter of 30 April, referring to the 28 April meeting. Apparently Mr Philpott asked on that occasion that all such enquiries should be channelled either to a Chief Inspector or to himself. 31.8 Mr Adams says that Mr Weeden came to him, on 30 April and asked for his assistance. Mr Adams tells us that he would not normally have been connected to Mr Weeden in the line of command. Mr Weeden would be responsible to the Commander (Ops) who was at the time Mr Gibson. He could go straight to Mr Gibson or to his superior who was Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osland. On 30 April Mr Adams believes that Mr Gibson was away, and that Mr Osland was not available. Therefore Mr Weeden came to Mr Adams. Mr Adams must now wish that he had turned his back on the whole case, since he had an unhappy time in the witness box before this Inquiry. He did not however turn his back and he told the Inquiry that together with a staff officer, probably Mr Osland's staff officer, and with Mr Weeden, a letter was composed which was eventually signed by Mr Adams. It reads as follows:- "Dear Mr Jones RE MURDER OF STEPHEN LAWRENCE In response to your recent letters and in particular that of 29 April 1993. As you are aware Chief Superintendent Philpott is the officer responsible for policing activity within Plumstead Division. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is being conducted on his behalf by DS Weeden. The appointment of a senior detective from the AMIP team is normal practise in these circumstances. In the overwhelming majority of murder investigations liaison with the family of the victim is direct. It is most unusual for the appointment of solicitors to represent the family interest as there is no conflict of interest or purpose. Police are of course fully aware of the private and public concern and distress over the murder of Stephen. To address these concerns DS Weeden appointed liaison officers from within his team to deal with enquiries and concern from both Mr & Mrs Lawrence. You are no doubt aware of the conference at Eltham Police Station on 28 April 1993 when Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osland, the officer commanding 3 Area, met with members of the Commission for Racial Equality, Bexley and Greenwich Councils. At the meeting concern was expressed that the murder investigation team were being inundated with enquiries from the many parties interested in the progress of the enquiry. It was said that the level of inquiry was distracting the team from the task in hand. Appreciating the genuineness of most enquiries Chief Superintendent Philpott asked that all such inquires be channelled to either Chief Inspector Whapham, Plumstead Police Station, or himself. On reading your particular correspondence it occurs to me that whilst many of your questions ask about the sort of information that is generally provided to families of victims some is not. In particular the information requested at 1. of your letter dated 26 April 1993 is not material that is normally released. I was concerned to read your comments in your letter of 29 April 1993 concerning the liaison arrangements with Mr & Mrs Lawrence. I have discussed this with Mr Weeden, the arrangements and briefing of the officers is being examined. We shall also be talking to both Mr & Mrs Lawrence to satisfy them of our earnest wish to do everything to keep them properly informed. I think you will agree with me that we must all do everything in our power to ensure that those responsible for the murder of Stephen are brought to justice I ask that you resist the temptation to enquire direct with the Senior Investigating Officer or his team. Chief Superintendent Philpott is available as well as I to assist you and other interested parties. I trust my comments assist you in your delicate task. Yours sincerely
R Adams 31.9 We set the letter out in full, because it does seem to us to show, from its terms, that Mr Adams' explanation of what happened is right. It is true that he does put himself forward as somebody who is prepared to assist, together with Mr Philpott, in the one but last paragraph. But by and large it does seem to us that this is a letter written simply to achieve what Mr Weeden sought, namely relief from dealing with the correspondence with Mr Khan which he plainly found irksome. Mr Adams over and over again indicated in evidence that this was literally the only step that he took and the only part which he played in the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. 31.10 He said that he had not even heard the names of the suspects at the time. He left Eltham on 4 May, and did not know the names of the suspects until he saw them much later in the 'Daily Mail'. 31.11 Mr Adams was asked many questions about the Norrises, both Clifford and the dead David Norris. He had dealt with David Norris as an informant, and he was reluctant to talk about that connection. But he repeatedly said that he himself had no contact with Clifford Norris, and that he simply did not know that one of the suspects was Clifford Norris' son. He did not even know the name Clifford Norris or anything about him until a few months before he came to give evidence. 31.12 It transpired that Mr Adams was unfit in April 1993. He had had continuous back trouble, perhaps stemming from an unidentified fracture in his spine, for a considerable time. We have seen his records and they bear out what Mr Adams said. He told the Inquiry that he had been to his doctor in the week before 30 April, and by coincidence when he came back on 4 May 1993, after the Bank Holiday weekend, he went to see Mr Osland and told him what the present situation was. Mr Osland told Mr Adams to stop working and to go on long term sick leave. Mr Adams did that, and the records show that on 7 May 1993 he was recommended by the MPS Medical Officer for medical retirement on the grounds of chronic back pain. On 7 June 1993 the records show that it was reported that Mr Adams was likely to be in hospital for the next three weeks. His formal retirement was recorded as being on 31 August 1993. Somewhat scathing cross-examination about Mr Adams' condition seems to us to have been misplaced in the circumstances. We have been presented with no significant evidence to show that there was anything sinister in Mr Adams' departure on 4 May 1993 from his duties. 31.13 Furthermore in spite of long and hostile cross-examination by Mr Mansfield we have no reason to conclude that Mr Adams gave evidence in connection with the signing of this letter which was otherwise than the truth. It is of considerable importance to note that during the whole of the cross-examination Mr Mansfield never put to Mr Adams the positive suggestions which had been set out in the second notice of allegations to be made against him. He was questioned at length about his possible knowledge of Clifford Norris, but it was never positively suggested to him that there was a sinister connection with Clifford Norris or the man Noye or indeed that what Mr Adams had done, namely signing the letter, was done in order to influence the investigation so that the suspect David Norris should not be arrested expeditiously. 31.14 Mr Mansfield did suggest to Mr Adams that the signing of the letter and his intervention was a sham, and a nonsense. But this was never followed up with any suggestion or any direct questions suggesting that Mr Adams had played a positive part in trying to slow down the investigation or arrests. It may be that this was not done advisedly, because there was no information which Mr Mansfield could properly use in this regard. At all events such suggestions were not made, and therefore the second notice was without question not substantiated. 31.15 We have looked with care at the whole of the evidence of Mr Adams. There are strange features to it - and it is indeed surprising that an officer of his status came into the case simply in connection with this one letter. In the end however we are satisfied that it is not established that Mr Adams did anything other than that which he told us that he had done. He signed the letter in the absence of those who were perhaps the right people to sign it, in order to be helpful, and in order to relieve Mr Weeden of the burden which Mr Weeden said he was bearing, namely the requests for information by Mr Khan. 31.16 It should perhaps be added that at the end of Mr Adams' evidence, after he had been questioned on behalf of the MPS and other police officers, he was asked to remain behind since there might have been an application to recall him. No such application was ever made. His evidence therefore remains as given on the two days to which we have referred. 31.17 Whatever may be the suspicions of Mr & Mrs Lawrence's legal team there was never any substantiation of the allegations which were made and which no doubt conditioned the nature of the long cross-examination by Mr Mansfield. 31.18 As we indicated above it may well be that Mr Adams wishes now that he had not signed the letter. But after all the sound and fury we do not believe that his evidence betrays dishonesty or collusion such as was alleged against him. 31.19 Mr Adams was defensive in the witness box. But we have seen nothing in the evidence or in the many personal and intelligence files which we have perused to suggest that Mr Adams was involved in collusion, or corruptly involved in efforts to hold back this prosecution. By 4 May 1993 he was off the scene.
|
