| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
DETECTIVE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL BURDIS, 32.1 Detective Chief Superintendent Michael Burdis produced a report for the Inquiry on the use of the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) and associated issues. In this he was assisted by Detective Superintendent Philip Jones and Detective Constable Michael Botley. We are indebted to all three. 32.2 Mr Burdis gave evidence based upon his report. He is an experienced CID officer having served in the CID of several forces for over 30 years. He has many years experience as an SIO personally investigating over 100 murders. He is currently the Head of CID in the South Yorkshire Police. He has served on national working groups defining standards for managing major incident rooms. The HOLMES system has been in use for all major crime investigations in his force since 1986. Since 1992 he has been involved in various national police groups related to HOLMES 2 (the next generation of the existing HOLMES system) and reviewing the way major crime is investigated. 32.3 Given the nature of his experience it is perhaps not surprising that the majority of his report and evidence was received without challenge. We were greatly assisted by it. 32.4 Mr Burdis informed us that following the difficulties experienced in the detection of the Yorkshire Ripper murders Police Forces defined and agreed Major Incident Room Standardised Administrative Procedures (MIRSAP). The procedures created protocols for handling documentation, indexing and for recording data. A number of key functions within the incident room were identified and defined. Amongst these are: - SIO - Deputy SIO - Office Manager - Receiver - Statement Reader - Action Allocator - Indexer/Action writer - Researcher - Exhibits Officer - Supervisor of House to House Inquiries. 32.5 The number of personnel required to perform these functions varies with the nature and size of the investigation. The system's flexibility is such that one person can fulfil a number of roles; those of Statement Reader and Receiver often being coupled in smaller investigations. A number of persons may fulfil a single role; for example in a larger investigation there may be several Receivers to cope with the workload of that particular role. The actual deployment to these roles is therefore a matter of judgment for the SIO and those supervising him. 32.6 The HOLMES System brought the added benefits of computerisation to the MIRSAP process. It is a means of capturing data in a structured way by agreed rules and conventions, and allows data to be easily cross-referenced and quickly recovered. 32.7 Mr Burdis identified for us that the principal objectives of the computerised incident room system are:
Mr Burdis also indicated that the computerised system can fall behind the actual investigation, dependent upon the volume of incoming information and the staffing levels allocated to the Major Incident Room. The judgment as to staffing levels is therefore crucial if the practical benefits of the computerised system are to materialise. 32.8 The MPS AMIP policy specifies categories of investigation. The Stephen Lawrence murder investigation should formally have been a "B" category investigation. That is one "where the victim is known but the motive and suspect are unknown". As far as the Incident Room is concerned this would have thus required the "standard" allocation of three Detective Sergeants as Office Manager, Receiver and Action Allocator; a further Detective Sergeant as Staff Officer to the SIO; four Constable Indexers/Action Writers; and a Constable Exhibits Officer. There is in the policy no allocation for the key roles of Statement Reader or Researcher. Such "standard" policy allocations are of course a guideline. Objective professional judgements must be made in the light of the actual nature of an investigation with staffing reduced or increased accordingly. 32.9 In the Lawrence investigation, whilst it is universally accepted that in policy terms the investigation was a "B", no such categorisation was ever made. There is no record of the category in the policy log or any other document. More specifically when questioned on the use of such categories Mr Crampton stated that the issue of classification was not discussed with Mr Ilsley, and staff allocation was simply a case of "what he could get". This was normal practice. Mr Ilsley confirmed this. The AMIP policy on resource allocation was not given active consideration by anyone initially, though Mr Osland indicated that he had subsequently sought assurance that the "B" allocation had been made. 32.10 Regardless of the lack of regard for formal policy the essential question is - were appropriate judgements made in relation to staffing? Mr Burdis' view in his written report is unequivocal. "It is my opinion that given the circumstances of this murder and the number of immediate lines of inquiry, particularly knowing that a gang of five or six people may be responsible .... the staff allocation was inadequate and failed to give support to the SIO in the performance of his function. The allocation of officers to the major incident room is, in my view, derisory ..... . Equally, given the lines of inquiry generated by the media attention and the appeals for public support and assistance made by Mr & Mrs Lawrence those charged with outside investigations apparently could not cope in a timely way with the amount of work allocated to them". 32.11 Mr Burdis highlighted the lack of staff over the Bank Holiday weekend 1-3 May 1993 when investigating staff were reduced to nine officers, then six and, on 3 May just four officers. He also dealt with the details of additional staff and others being removed to other investigations. We see no necessity to rehearse that detail here. Mr Burdis' conclusion, and we endorse it strongly, was that the staffing level "was far below that necessary to competently investigate this murder". Indeed he indicated that he considered 40 to 50 investigating officers for outside work, plus an incident room with each role individually staffed would have been appropriate. The reality was an incident room with DS Flook performing four key roles and an outside investigation team which varied in size, but which was in Mr Burdis' view never adequately staffed. 32.12 In addition Mr Burdis highlighted other facts. That with no staff dedicated to the role of "Research" the investigating team were required to carry out their own research function thus reducing the time for investigation. That additional indexers should have been considered to cope with the "hump" in initial workload which is common to all investigations. Most particularly he identified the fact that conjoining the roles of Receiver, Statement Reader and Office Manager meant that there was no cross-checking between the roles to ensure that information was properly prioritised and actioned. In Mr Burdis' words "Not only could it have led to administrative delays within the incident room process, it also failed to provide an independent role designed to scrutinise the work of the Receiver and Statement Reader. That role would normally fall to the Office Manager but in this instance he was doing all three jobs." 32.13 Delay or failure to raise and pursue actions properly because of the inadequate management of information through understaffing in the incident room is evident in the "Red Astra saga" addressed elsewhere. Mr Burdis identified several other serious instances in relation to the important statements of Duwayne Brooks, Joseph Shepherd and others. For example whilst the statements of Mr Brooks and Mr Shepherd were properly "marked up" for some initial actions to be carried out quickly other actions have been missed completely or confused. In the first of Mr Brooks' statements reference is made to four young people who were with Mr Brooks and Stephen Lawrence after school on 22 April. The four were indexed and entered as "Nominals" but no Actions were ever raised in relation to them. In the same statement Mr Brooks gives a description of "the attacker". The described attacker is registered as Nominal 113 and the statement marked for an Action to be raised to TIE (Trace, Interview and Eliminate) the suspect attacker. No Action was raised or allocated. Subsequently Action 140 links a description of one of the attackers given by Mr Shepherd, the eye witness at the bus stop, to that given by Mr Brooks, clearly assuming that the descriptions are of the same person. Mr Burdis identifies in his report that in his view the assumption is mistaken and "the error probably arose because Actions to identify these unidentified persons were never raised". He adds, further, that "In my opinion one of the key factors leading to the successful investigation of major crime is to identify unidentified persons. Not enough rigour or energy appears to have been put into this important function." 32.14 In connection with the handling of Witness B Mr Burdis also expressed surprise that there had been no involvement, recorded in the system, of the SIO or his deputy determining how to deal with Witness B. He found no material to indicate that the SIO or his deputy had tried to intervene or spotted that an important witness had not been progressed properly. It was Mr Burdis' opinion that the 'processing' of witnesses such as Witness B and Witness K, and other related inquiries, appeared to be incomplete, so that there was little prospect of the interviewing officers being properly prepared for their tasks once the arrests had taken place. Mr Burdis' conclusion in this regard was that if more staff had been allocated to this investigation "many of the questions which remain unanswered today could have been resolved before any interviews took place". 32.15 Mr Burdis, in fairness, did identify that the database of the HOLMES system was correctly set up in accord with protocols, and that the indexing, the actual entry of detail on the computer, was correct and performed to a high standard. 32.16 The conclusion however can only be that this investigation was grossly understaffed both in the incident room and externally. Indeed the lack of staff and the consequent serious mismanagement is so obvious that the question automatically arises as to whether senior officers took adequate steps to intervene and address the problem. 32.17 Of the senior officers in a position to address or seek to address the staffing inadequacies Mr Bullock indicated that whilst he had had an appropriate two or three day training course to use the HOLMES system that course was some five years earlier and he had no experience of live use of the system. He acknowledged that information did not reach him as promptly as it should. Actions were not always raised or carried out as they should have been. There were insufficient staff in the incident room to cope with the initial workload. He had to organise unofficial internal training for staff to be able to access the system. He did not understand the priority allocation system on HOLMES. Initially at least he felt that the HOLMES system was a hindrance rather than a help. As a result he felt the HOLMES system was "slightly chaotic" and he reported his concerns to both SIO's, Mr Crampton and Mr Weeden. 32.18 Mr Crampton indicated that, like Mr Bullock, he had had a two day training course in HOLMES some three years previously but had never used the system in a live situation. Questioned by Mr Lawson his responses indicated that he was aware of the inadequacies but simply accepted them as a fact of MPS life:
32.19 Mr Weeden for his part accepted without hesitation Mr Burdis' view of the inadequacy in numbers of both the outside investigation team and the incident room staff. He indicated that had he wished to complain about resources his "line" would have been to Mr Ilsley, but that Mr Ilsley "was perfectly aware of the difficulties we often faced and, indeed, which were evident in this case". 32.20 Mr Ilsley testified clearly and forcefully that he was very much aware of the shortcomings. He described DS Flook's multi-role activity thus, "It is not only poor sir, it's disgraceful but it was something that we used to have to put up with all the time". Similarly he wholeheartedly accepted Mr Burdis' assertions on staffing when questioned by Mr Lawson, "Absolutely. It was just accepted within the Met that we just did not have the resources". He indicated, with equal force, that the difficulty with resources applied to all murder investigations, and that this was regularly identified to Mr Osland, the officer in overall command of 3 Area. In fairness he balanced this by indicating to Mr Lawson that "we did put more resources on this inquiry than we did on any others" but agreed with Mr Lawson that even so the staffing was "still woefully deficient". Nevertheless he accepted that he did not seek additional staff from other Divisions, nor seek the assistance of his superiors Mr Gibson or Mr Osland to do so. 32.21 Mr Gibson did not in fact give evidence to the Inquiry. He provided a short written statement which was read publicly indicating that as Commander (Operations) 3 Area from mid 1992 until 28th June 1993 he was responsible for all aspects of operational policing including AMIP investigations. In discharging the latter responsibility he had weekly discussions with Mr Ilsley and would visit AMIP incident rooms. He stated that, five years on, he could not recall any detail of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. He can remember pursuing the general problems of "resource" in relation to investigations but cannot remember specific details. 32.22 Mr Gibson's lack of recall cannot be held against him. However, we consider it is self-evident that, in a case as high-profile and significant as the Stephen Lawrence investigation, simply because of his position in the hierarchy, he could have identified the difficulties both in relation to staffing and to family liaison. Even if the topics did not feature in briefings by Mr Ilsley the difficulties were there to be discovered, and addressed by more senior officers, by the most cursory of inquiries or the most limited of active supervision. Mr Gibson had the power to acquire more resources from the 10 Divisions within the Area, and equally could have taken a positive initiative in relation to family liaison, as was indicated by Mr Nove in his explanation of the role of Commander Operations to Junior Counsel for the Inquiry, Miss Weekes. Mr Gibson has told us that he did himself see the family at Eltham Police Station. We readily accept from him that this was so. 32.23 For his part Mr Osland testified that he considered that the investigation had been formally classified as a 'B' Investigation in terms of AMIP policy, that the totality of manpower available was sufficient, and that he was unaware of the lack of resource allocation, within that totality, to the incident room. He stated that "In terms of manpower (generally) this was a constant complaint across the Area but nobody came to me and asked me for more manpower for the Stephen Lawrence inquiry." He was however approached for more money to fund overtime working for the existing team, and he obtained £80,000 from central funds. 32.24 In response to Mr Doyle Mr Osland indicated that he visited the Incident Room almost daily. The SIOs in his Area could expect him, as part of his function, to find more resources for them. However, he may not have been asked for additional staff because they felt they were unlikely to get a positive response:
He specifically indicated that Mr Ilsley made no complaint in relation to staffing, that there were avenues Mr Ilsley could have explored within his Divisions, and if they did not respond he could turn to him or Mr Gibson. He did not do so. 32.25 Even more than Mr Gibson it is clear that Mr Osland had the opportunity, power and responsibility to ensure that the resourcing of the investigation was adequate. On his daily visits and briefings the situation must have been visible and known or discoverable with ease. A response made during Mr Osland's evidence is to be noted:-
32.26 During the course of the Inquiry there was a persistent defensive theme that the demands upon the MPS related to the resources available meant that the understaffing of major investigations was inevitable and unavoidable. Mr Bullock, Mr Crampton and Mr Weeden testified to this effect. Mr Ilsley went further, saying that resources devoted to major crime investigations in London were deficient compared with those outside London and that the chances of solving a murder in London would be less than elsewhere. 32.27 On the same theme when questioned by Mr Beer on behalf of the Commissioner Mr Burdis accepted that the policing by the MPS is unique, the pressure on resources is unique and the intensity of resources demanded is unique. He also accepted, from Mr Beer, that there were ten other major crime investigations, including three murders, ongoing in 3 Area. Mr Burdis did however indicate in his written report that he did not find the ten investigations unusual. The police strength of 3 Area in 1993 was in fact equivalent to a medium size force and indeed exceeded the entire strength of South Yorkshire Police, Mr Burdis' own force. 32.28 We are clear that it is not for us to make any formal judgement as to whether MPS is adequately resourced in relation to other forces, nor do we have the information on which to base such a judgement. However given the persistent general suggestion of unique demands and inadequate resources, but no actual figures or evidence to support the assertion, we have looked in a basic way to see if there is any obvious evidence of this. The Inquiry has examined police establishments, population, total crime and homicides for four forces in 1993 - the Metropolitan, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire. The figures for No 3 Area MPS are also included. The comparisons are of course simplistic. We make no apology for that. It does however appear that, even allowing for the additional constitutional and public order functions performed by the MPS, there is no indication of an excessive imbalance in resources compared to other forces. The figures are shown at the end of this Chapter. They show that whilst the MPS had rather more than nine times the establishment of South Yorkshire, they had less than six times the population and crimeload, and slightly less than eight times the homicide rate. The suggestion that, in 1993, the MPS or 3 Area faced excessive demand with inadequate resources compared to other forces is not therefore compelling even allowing for the simplicity of the comparison and the additional policing factors which exist in London. If there are difficulties they may reflect choices in deployment. 32.29 The stark conclusion must certainly be that there were insufficient officers available for the tasks they faced. In Mr Burdis' words "I genuinely believe that given three times the numbers of staff actually allocated to this investigation all the necessary evidence would have been captured in a timely fashion and would have played a very positive part in a subsequent prosecution". But simply increasing the number of officers involved in an investigation may not be the only solution. More fundamental in this case is the standard of direction and control and execution which those who were actually involved were to provide for the investigation, particularly in its early and vital days. This was undoubtedly compounded by the signal failure of senior officers to identify and respond to obvious shortcomings and thereby provide the leadership that was sadly lacking. NOTES: 1. FIGURES FROM HOME OFFICE STATISTICS AND MPS 3 AREA ANNUAL REPORT 1993. 2. MPS STRENGTH MARCH 1993=27,867 (377 UNDER ESTABLISHMENT) OTHER FORCES NOT KNOWN. 3. ALL FIGURES CALCULATED ON ESTABLISHMENTS. * 3 AREA ANNUAL REPORT HOMICIDE FIGURES ARE FOR 1992/93. OF THE 27 HOMICIDES 11 WERE INVESTIGATED BY AMIP AND 16 BY DIVISIONS.
|
