CHAPTER FIVE

DUWAYNE BROOKS

5.1 Duwayne Brooks was born on 27 September 1974. He was thus a fortnight younger than Stephen Lawrence. The two boys met in 1985, on their first day at Blackheath Bluecoats Church of England School. They became friends, and saw each other regularly even after Mr Brooks left school to study electrical engineering at college.

5.2 On 22 April 1993 the two friends, who were then 18 years old, had been together, and after visiting Stephen Lawrence's uncle they set off home by bus, reaching Well Hall Road roundabout at approximately 22:30.

5.3 The murder of Stephen Lawrence has already been described. Mr Brooks was plainly fortunate to have escaped unharmed physically. The trauma of the attack and the terrible murder of his friend, and all that has followed, has left him seriously affected and stressed. So much so that his doctors strongly advised that he should not be called as a witness or questioned at this Inquiry, except under some proposed special arrangements which we found to be impracticable. We were ourselves concerned about his well being should he have given evidence and been subject to cross-examination.

5.4 Mr Brooks did in the course of the murder investigation make nine statements of varying length. The longest was made on the night of the murder to Detective Constable David Cooper at Plumstead Police Station. We have seen all those statements. Two further statements were written for this Inquiry on 6 April and 5 May 1998. Both were read to the Inquiry by Counsel in Mr Brooks' presence. He was present on that day, 15 May 1998, and on one other day. Otherwise understandably he did not attend the Inquiry.

5.5 Mr Brooks personally verified both statements, together with material from his earlier witness statements. The transcript of all that was read to us appears in the Appendices to our report. It has to be said that evidence in this form cannot carry the full weight of evidence which has been tested by cross-examination. This is no criticism of or reflection upon Mr Brooks. It is simply a statement of the obvious. He must rest assured that we give to his evidence all the weight that it should be given, when looked at in the light of all that has been said and written about Stephen Lawrence's murder and the years that have followed.

5.6 Medical evidence about Mr Brooks has been seen by the Chairman and his Advisers, with his consent. Everything that he has suffered since the murder is part and parcel of psychological injury which stems from the murder and all its consequences to Mr Brooks. Other than that we say nothing about the details of his suffering since they are confidential and private. We are heartened to know that in May 1998 he had been employed for six or seven weeks, after help from the Prince's Trust, and that he had continued his college education until 1997, earning valuable qualifications. All this is to his credit. We simply hope that he will continue to live a fulfilling life. And we add that we are wholly convinced that he bears no responsibility for anything that has happened. The fact that the prosecution of three of the suspects failed is certainly not something for which he can in any way be blamed. The circumstances are such that his evidence was not, when tested, of such strength that it could be used to prove the case against the suspects. That is in no way the fault of Mr Brooks. "Fleeting glimpse" evidence is always difficult to use. The problems of the evidence in this case were great, and the trial decision established that this was so, quite apart from the complication of the evidence of Detective Sergeant Christopher Crowley. That issue is fully discussed in Chapter 22. We do not rehearse it here, although it must be stressed that it looms large in our consideration of the identification evidence given by Mr Brooks and the case as a whole.

5.7 The greatest trauma suffered by Mr Brooks was that he saw his friend murdered, dying on the pavement, and dead as he was carried into the hospital. And he has had to endure that night, and the whole course of the failed investigation. He was a primary victim of the racist attack. He is also the victim of all that has followed, including the conduct of the case and the treatment of himself as a witness and not as a victim.

5.8 Lengthy submissions set out the nature of his complaints. To a considerable extent, to the credit of the MPS, they are accepted. The MPS accept that he should have received better initial treatment, and that except when Detective Sergeant John Bevan was helping him he did not receive the level of support to which he was entitled. Assistant Commissioner Ian Johnston accepted in evidence that the MPS were to be criticised. He said:-

"There is a real lesson for us to learn in how we handled
Duwayne Brooks at the scene".

"I don't think we dealt with Duwayne Brooks very well at all. I think we let him down. I think we did some things to try and help him ..... my assessment of how Mr Brooks was dealt with at the early stages, and this is one of the major lessons from this Inquiry, he should have been dealt with better".

These are understatements, but they do at least demonstrate acceptance of fault.

5.9 We do not propose here to set out in detail all the evidence which goes to these issues. We should and will deal with conclusions which follow and which are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5.10 We have to conclude that no officer dealt properly at the scene with Mr Brooks. His first contact was probably with Police Constable Linda Bethel. She described Mr Brooks as being "very agitated". Police Constable Joanne Smith said that he was "jumping up and down and being very aggressive". Police Constable Anthony Gleason said that Mr Brooks was "Highly excitable. Virtually uncontrollable". Considering what Mr Brooks had seen and been involved in none of that should have been surprising. Furthermore Mr Brooks was justifiably frustrated and angry, because he saw the arrival of the police as no substitute for the non-arrival of the ambulance, and to his mind the police seemed more interested in questioning him than in tending Stephen.

5.11 Yet there is no evidence that any officer tried properly to understand that this was so, and that Mr Brooks needed close, careful and sensitive treatment. Furthermore even if it was difficult at first to gain a coherent story from him the officers failed to concentrate upon Mr Brooks and to follow up energetically the information which he gave them. Nobody suggested that he should be used in searches of the area, although he knew where the assailants had last been seen. Nobody appears properly to have tried to calm him, or to accept that what he said was true. To that must be added the failure of Inspector Steven Groves, the only senior officer present before the ambulance came, to try to find out from Mr Brooks what had happened. He, and others, appear to have assumed that there had been a fight. Only later did they take some steps to follow up the sparse information which they had gleaned. Who can tell whether proper concern and respect for Mr Brooks' condition and status as a victim might not have helped to lead to evidence should he have been used in a properly co-ordinated search of the estate?

5.12 We are driven to the conclusion that Mr Brooks was stereotyped as a young black man exhibiting unpleasant hostility and agitation, who could not be expected to help, and whose condition and status simply did not need further examination or understanding. We believe that Mr Brooks' colour and such stereotyping played their part in the collective failure of those involved to treat him properly and according to his needs.

5.13 The ambulance men understandably would not allow Mr Brooks into the ambulance. PC Smith took him by car to the hospital, where she dropped him off at the entrance. At about 23:30 he was seen by PC Gleason, who recorded in his notebook a statement which was of great importance, since it was the first account recorded, and it contained at least one reasonable description of one of the attackers, including the information that the attacker had light brown hair. PC Smith found Mr Brooks to have been "irate and aggressive". She said that he used strong language saying "Who called you fucking cunts anyway, pigs ...... I only called the fucking ambulance". These things may well have been said. Perhaps they account for the fact that Mr Brooks was left to go into the hospital unaccompanied. Thereafter apart from the contact with PC Gleason, which lasted until 23:57, when Mr Brooks signed his name in PC Gleason's notebook, nobody, and in particular no police officer, at any time treated him properly as a victim. He was left on his own, and eventually was told that he could not leave. Acting Inspector Ian Little told him to wait either in the hospital or in the police car. Mr Brooks did not want to be in the hospital, so he sat in the car. This treatment of Mr Brooks at the hospital is plainly subject to severe criticism. The support of a victim in such circumstances is essential. Mr Brooks was simply treated as a potential witness, and inadequately treated at that. We are convinced that the conclusion set out in Paragraph 5.12 must also apply to the treatment of Mr Brooks at the hospital.

5.14 At Plumstead Police Station the treatment of Mr Brooks was mixed. At first he was left alone in the CID office for a considerable time. At some stage he was seen and spoken to by Detective Superintendent Ian Crampton, who described Mr Brooks as "very calm", and "truthful and helpful", and "a bit shocked". Mr Brooks' mother was asked by the police to attend, and she did attend in the early hours, and the taking of a long statement by DC Cooper was broken off so that Mr Brooks could see his mother. That statement taking started at about 01:30, and the statement was not completed until about 05:30. Mr Brooks accepts that he was given the chance to go home before making his statement, but he chose to stay. DC Cooper was an impressive witness, and he described Mr Brooks as being "remarkably together" and perceptive and intelligent. The statement is commendably clear and comprehensive in many respects. Mr Brooks was a vital witness as well as a victim. DC Cooper and other police officers treated Mr Brooks at the Police Station appropriately and professionally. Mr Brooks responded calmly and appropriately and gave all the information that he had. Later he was to say that he believed that officers at the Police Station did not want to believe him, particularly when he said that the attack had been motivated by racism, because of the words used. We believe that he may not have recalled the incident accurately, since at the time and thereafter Mr Brooks made no complaint about his treatment, nor did the police officers involved say that Mr Brooks had been anything other than co-operative during those hours at the Police Station.

5.15 An inexcusable mis-identification led to suspicion that Mr Brooks had purposely broken a window at the Police Station. This emerged in 1997, but fortunately the officer involved discovered that this conclusion was wholly mistaken, and the suggestion was withdrawn. Another black youth had broken a window, and Police Constable David Pennington's wrong conclusion is accepted to have been baseless.

5.16 Another example of bad and insensitive practice in connection with Mr Brooks was the request made through DS Bevan for a photograph of Mr Brooks, said (according to Detective Inspector Benjamin Bullock) to have been wanted "to show it to other witnesses that may have seen him in the area on the night for example or the bus stop". We see no reason whatsoever for this request. No wonder Mr Brooks was upset and worried. He thought that this might imply that he was himself in some way a suspect. In May Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden correctly cancelled the request, which should never have been made in the first place. No other witness was asked to provide a photograph.

5.17 Mr Brooks lived in April 1993 in a hostel, and he told us that after 23 April he spent his time alone there, playing computer games. Within a few days DS Bevan and Detective Constable Linda Holden were detailed to be his liaison officers. They were at the time engaged in many other activities. It is fair to say that this liaison, particularly with DS Bevan, was reasonably successful. Mr Brooks himself agrees that DS Bevan was a "straight talker", and that he questioned why DS Bevan was taken off this task, probably towards the end of May 1993. Mr Brooks also accepts that DS Bevan offered witness protection which Mr Brooks declined.

5.18 That liaison was in our view inadequate. Mr Brooks was never fully and properly looked after in accordance with the Victim's Charter which provides that "It is essential that every possible step is taken to minimise the upset and even the hardship which may be caused." There is no evidence that positive steps were taken to arrange for full victim support or proper care. Mr Noel Penstone did see Mr Brooks in August 1993 and with others gave helpful support. At the time Mr Penstone was an Education Officer for the London Borough of Greenwich and, at the time of the murder, was Acting Deputy Chair of the Greenwich Race Equality Council. But this does not remove the responsibility of the MPS senior officers to ensure that this young man was regularly monitored and was very carefully and sensitively treated.

5.19 When DS Bevan was away, or perhaps after he was taken off this task, Detective Constable Michael Tomlin did see Mr Brooks when he was instructed to do so. DC Tomlin was an unsatisfactory witness. Mr Brooks says that DC Tomlin treated him "in a funny way. He was awkward with me. He had an attitude problem which came over when he spoke to me". DC Tomlin denied that the term "liaison officer" was appropriate, although he had himself used the term in a questionnaire sent to those officers who had contact with Mr Brooks in 1993. DC Tomlin's memory was poor and selective. For example he denied that Mr Brooks had given his girlfriend's address to him. Mr Brooks says that he did give DC Tomlin that address, and that this is confirmed by the fact that Mr Brooks was found and arrested at that address in October 1993, in connection with the allegation that he had damaged a car during the disturbance which took place at Welling on 8 May 1993.

5.20 There was plainly some contact maintained between the police and Mr Brooks from time to time. It is not easy to establish how much contact there was, because we have seen no detailed records as to liaison with Mr Brooks. Further statements were taken by DS Bevan late in 1993, and later still Mr Brooks gave evidence both at committal and trial, when the case was in the hands of Mr Imran Khan as the solicitor for Mr & Mrs Lawrence.

5.21 There is positive evidence in Computer Assisted Despatch (CAD) messages that DS Bevan and others were keeping in touch with Mr Brooks during the summer and early autumn of 1993. Furthermore there was contact early on and later with Mr Brooks' parents. On 26 July 1993, for example, Mr Bullock, DS Bevan and DC Tomlin all went to Mr Brooks' former address to warn him to attend Court for the committal proceedings of two of the suspects in August. Mr Brooks was offered transport, but he declined the offer, saying that he would travel with his mother. He refused to give his present address, but said that he would ring through his new telephone number when he was connected. Mr Brooks' mother had already told the police that her son had moved his address, and that he would not disclose the new address.

5.22 On 29 July Mr Bullock was telephoned by Mr Brooks, who had heard from Mr Khan about the discontinuance of the prosecution of Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. Again he refused to give his address, and said that he could be contacted through his mother. He was asked to keep in touch by telephone. We see no strength in the suggestion made that contact with or through Mr Brooks' parents was to be criticised, either at this stage or at the start when Mr Weeden sought to reassure the parents by letter that accusations being made about their son were indeed false.

5.23 These contacts were not "victim support" contacts. They were necessary contacts in order to maintain arrangements for the use of Mr Brooks as a witness.

5.24 We stress again that Mr Brooks made nine statements to the police. He attended all the identification parades which he was required to attend. It is plain that there was improper control of the witnesses attending those parades, and comment is made elsewhere about Mr Brooks' behaviour during the time spent at the identification suite. On one occasion he was, as we know, in contact by telephone with Mr Khan, the solicitor for Mr & Mrs Lawrence who was by then acting as his solicitor. Mr Khan had seen Mr Brooks on 2 May and had taken a draft statement from Mr Brooks. The nature and extent of the relationship between Mr Brooks and Mr Khan is somewhat mysterious. Mr Brooks said on 3 June to officers who came to interview him after his identification of Luke Knight that he would not see them unless his solicitor was present. On 4 June two statements were taken, but Mr Khan was not present.

5.25 Mr Khan never complained to the police on Mr Brooks' behalf about lack of liaison or lack of care or support being given to Mr Brooks. Nor was there specific complaint made by Mr Brooks himself in that respect until after the event. It is however clear that the liaison and support given to him was patchy, and there is little indication of any regular monitoring or supervision of the steps taken to protect and to supervise this victim who was the vital witness in the case.

5.26 The sad truth is that there were in any event great problems about Mr Brooks' evidence, as the events at committal and trial show. We stress that this was no fault of Mr Brooks. There simply was no other satisfactory evidence against those who were tried, and Mr Brooks' evidence could not be put before the jury. It is understandable that Mr Brooks should resent this rejection of his evidence. In all the circumstances that rejection was inevitable and correct.

5.27 By about October 1993 Miss Jane Deighton, of Deighton Guedella, was acting for Mr Brooks, particularly in connection with the prosecution against him for criminal damage done to a car during the 8 May demonstration. That matter is dealt with in Chapter 39, para 49 et seq. It should here be said that there was clear evidence of the actual conduct which founded that prosecution. The defence depended upon medical evidence which indicated that Mr Brooks was already and understandably affected and disturbed by 8 May as a result of his terrible experiences. It was proposed that the difficult defence of automatism should be raised. That resulted in the obtaining of the opinions of all officers who had been in contact with Mr Brooks since the murder by means of questionnaires.

5.28 There is no doubt but that in their answers to questionnaires some police officers gave opinions about Mr Brooks' conduct and behaviour which appeared to cast him in a worse light than was justified. Several officers used similar expressions about Mr Brooks, suggesting that there had been some unfair consultation.

5.29 Whether the prosecution of Mr Brooks should or should not have been brought or persisted in is a vexed question. As we have indicated in Chapter 39 the decision of the CPS is open to some criticism, although decisions of this kind are by no means open and shut.

5.30 Overall we accept that Mr Brooks was undoubtedly not treated as he should have been. We have to conclude that in particular both at the scene and at the hospital he was doubted and wrongly assessed. Thereafter he was given scant and inadequate support. He himself in spite of this did all that could be expected of him. He never refused to make a statement or to comply with police demands to act as a witness. Witness protection was given to Mr Brooks during the Central Criminal Court Trial in 1996. Officers were recruited and allocated to this task through Detective Superintendent William Mellish. At the Inquiry, much was made of the use of Sgt XX (see Chapter 13) on one night (after Mr Brooks' evidence had been given) to perform this duty. But there is no evidence whatsoever of complaint as to the conduct of the protecting officers. The only complaint made by Mr Brooks is that on one night a hotel in Eltham was used. Mr Brooks says that, "The next day, weak and tired, I had to give my evidence in Court". This is mistaken, since his evidence was complete when he stayed in Eltham. The experience of the trial must have been daunting, but in our view the protection of Mr Brooks during it cannot be fairly criticised.

5.31 Sometimes, both during the Inquiry and in submissions made on his behalf, his case has been put too high. Allegations of "criminalisation" and "demonisation" are inappropriate. Yet at the end of the day we are satisfied that the lack of respect and sensitivity in handling him must reflect unwitting and collective racism particularly in those who dealt with him both at the scene of the murder and at the hospital. Mr Brooks was the victim of racist stereotyping. By way of example, in her written statement made at the scene PC Bethel described Mr Brooks as "very distressed" and "very excitable and upset". In her answer to a 1994 questionnaire she said that he was "aggressive, anti-police, distressed and unhelpful". To the Kent police she said that Mr Brooks was "powerful and physically intimidating", and that his behaviour was "horrendous". We do not believe that PC Bethel consciously sought to attack Mr Brooks by this crescendo of criticism, but the evidence does show how racist stereotyping can develop. We do not believe that a young white man in a similar position would have been dealt with in the same way. He simply was not treated professionally and appropriately and according to his needs.

5.32 Further examination here of each and every aspect of Mr Brooks' statements and of the course of his evidence at committal and trial would in our view be unhelpful. We have given all that he has said in his statements the weight that it deserves. Our hope is that once this part of Mr Brooks' life is over he will be able to cope with his memories and lead a normal life again. He has suffered greatly as a result of the events of 1993, and also because he too is obviously affected by the failure of the investigation into his friend's death. Perhaps acceptance of his case to the extent here set out will help him to come to terms with life for the future.

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