CHAPTER SEVEN 

THE FIVE SUSPECTS 

7.1 Neil and Jamie Acourt lived in 1993 at Bournbrook Road, Eltham. Neil was born on 5 July 1975, Jamie was born on 3 June 1976. They were thus 17 and 16 years old in April 1993.

7.2 David Norris lived with his mother at Berryfield Close, Chislehurst. He was born on 22 August 1976. He was 16 years old in 1993. His father, Clifford Norris, was "on the run" between 1988 and 1994; he was wanted by the Customs and Excise in respect of major drug dealing offences. It is not known where Clifford Norris was until he was arrested in August 1994 by Mr Mellish and his team in Sussex. Clifford Norris was plainly keeping in touch with his family in 1993. It is alleged that he was behind the bribing of Stacey Benefield (see Chapter 9). Clifford Norris must have known about his son's alleged involvement in Stephen Lawrence's murder. It is likely that some of the suspects other than David Norris himself saw Clifford Norris before his arrest in August 1994. It is certain that two or more of them visited Clifford Norris when he was in prison after his arrest.

7.3 Police officers told us that they believed that the influence or fear of Clifford Norris infected the investigation of the murder, in that potential young witnesses or young people in possession of information held back because they knew of Clifford Norris' existence and close interest in his son's welfare.

7.4 Mr Mellish believes that the suspects may have been "schooled" by Clifford Norris, and that this might account for part of their behaviour when they were subjected to sophisticated audio/visual surveillance in 1994. Clifford Norris may also have contributed either personally or through other channels to the decision made by David Norris and both the Acourts that they would keep totally silent during interviews, and at the Inquest.

7.5 Gary Dobson lived at Phineas Pett Road, Eltham. He was born on 16 June 1975. He was 17 years old in 1993. He lived at home with his parents.

7.6 Luke Knight lived at Well Hall Road, Eltham. He was born on 2 November 1976. He was 16 years old in 1993. He too lived at home with his parents.

7.7 These five youths have always been the prime suspects in respect of Stephen Lawrence's murder. Many other names have surfaced in the information reaching the investigating team, but these five have always been singled out. In particular, as we have seen, the Acourts and David Norris have featured from the start.

7.8 Four of these youths lived on or near the Brook Estate. David Norris was plainly well known to the other four, although he lived in apparently luxurious surroundings at Chislehurst. The short surveillance of 102 Bournbrook Road confirmed David Norris' association with the Acourts.

7.9 Those who killed Stephen Lawrence came towards Dickson Road from the Well Hall Road roundabout, and after the murder they ran down Dickson Road which immediately leads towards the estate, and the homes of the Acourts and Dobson.

7.10 When the names of this gang came repeatedly to the investigating team it was apparent that they were known to be potentially violent, and that the Acourts fancied themselves as gang leaders, and apparently referred to themselves as 'the Krays'. It is a feature of the case that people who knew these youths or knew of them had considerable knowledge of their anti-social character, yet little if anything was available or was discovered about them by immediate research or from formal intelligence sources.

7.11 We know that their names were researched when the early messages came in. For example message No 4 from an anonymous source named Neil Acourt and David Norris as members of a "group of youths on the Kidbrooke Estate who always carry knives and threaten people". This was the message received at 13:50 on 23 April. Action to research Mr Acourt and Mr Norris was allocated to Detective Constable Dennis Chase. Eventually much later, on 10 May, after the arrests had in fact been effected, there is a report as to the action taken which indicates that there was no trace of Neil Acourt amongst the collator's cards. The evidence of DC Chase showed that inquiries were made of local intelligence sources, including the collator's cards. Our impression is that such research and intelligence gathering as did take place was sporadic and delayed. There was no separate research unit in the investigation team. Mr Weeden indicated that he would have liked such a unit, but he did not have enough officers to create and to staff it.

7.12 It is a feature of the case that although the names of prime suspects repeatedly came in from many directions there was no concerted action taken to discover whether corroborating information could be obtained from other sources. For example DC Chase was asked whether or not he or others thought of checking at the schools or clubs which were attended by these youths for assistance. Apparently nobody did order or suggest that this should be done. We now know that in the case of Neil Acourt an inquiry was made with the help of Mr Penstone at Kidbrooke School in July 1993. This revealed that in September 1991 Neil Acourt pushed a boy called Kalitis down the stairs. In 1993 there was a confrontation between Neil Acourt and Kalitis who was on this occasion supported by some black boys. Neil Acourt was armed with a lump of wood. The incident plainly had racist overtones. Both Acourt and Kalitis were expelled. Further, at the Montague Boys Club in 1992 Neil Acourt brandished a knife and threatened a black boy. Neil Acourt was banned from the club.

7.13 There were some records available both in the collator's index, and to a limited extent in the Racial Incident Unit card index at Plumstead Police Station. Furthermore convictions are recorded at the Criminal Records Office, and central intelligence records could be consulted. But there appears to have been little if any local intelligence available to the investigating team to help immediate research into those whose names were coming forward with such regularity. The Acourts and others associated with them were plainly well known locally, but the local police had clearly not picked up or been made aware of that information. This may have been due to the lack of contact with local people on and around the estate. Mr William Panton, acting for Greenwich Council, stressed the fact that there appeared to be limited policing on the ground, with the result that valuable information of this kind was lacking.

7.14 The flow of information from the public about this murder, and the clear information about the Stacey Benefield case, did however in itself give reasonable grounds for suspicion sufficient to found arrests.

7.15 Both Jamie Acourt and David Norris, as well as Luke Knight had allegedly been involved in May 1992 in assaulting two brothers by the name of Witham. It was said that one of the brothers had been stabbed with a butterfly knife. David Norris was charged with wounding, and Jamie Acourt with possession of an offensive weapon. Those charges were subsequently withdrawn by the CPS in January and May 1993 respectively, on the basis that it was not in the public interest to pursue them "on the grounds of staleness". We know that Mr Weeden secured additional evidence of identification later, yet these prosecutions were not restored. The relevant point is that information about these charges, which supported the suggestion that these youths might be violent knife users, was not available to the murder investigating team at once when research was ordered. It would surely have been available from the Chislehurst collator, who should have notified the "home" collator of Jamie Acourt of the arrest and charge, together with details of his association in the Witham case with David Norris.

7.16 In 1991 a youth named Lee Pearson was stabbed outside a kebab shop in Tudor Parade, Well Hall Road, by members of a gang of white youths said by Mr Pearson to have included both Acourts. This assault was referred to specifically by "James Grant" on 23 April 1993. Mr Pearson would not sign a statement implicating the Acourts. This information did not surface until after the murder, and the offences were never proved. This allegation was part of the information available from 23 April about the suspects.

7.17 The stabbing of Stacey Benefield is separately dealt with in Chapter 9. Until after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Mr Benefield was apparently not prepared to give a signed statement. By Sunday 25 April he had given a full statement to Detective Sergeant John Davidson.

7.18 It should be recorded that racist crime and violence were not new to the district. Both Eltham and Thamesmead had bitter experience of such crime by 1993. In May 1991 a black youth called Orville Blair was killed by a white man called Snell. Eventually Snell was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation. There is some doubt whether this was in fact a racist crime, but it was so regarded by the community.

7.19 In February 1991 a white man named Thornburrow murdered a young 15 year old black youth named Rolan Adams, in a gross racist attack made at a bus stop after some altercation between rival gangs of white and black youths. Thornburrow did not at his trial contest the fact that he had killed Rolan Adams, but he pleaded various alternative defences which were rejected. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and other youths, some of whom feature in the evidence about the red Astra car seen in Well Hall Road after Stephen Lawrence's murder, were sentenced for other offences committed during the same violent incident.

7.20 On 11 July 1992 an Asian boy called Rohit Duggal was stabbed to death by a white youth named Peter Thompson outside the kebab shop in Tudor Parade. Thompson was found guilty of the murder in February 1993. Amongst the information received on 23 April was an allegation that Thompson was a member of the Acourts' gang (Message 40, see Chapter 13, para 25).

7.21 Kevin London, a 16 year old black youth, was confronted by a gang of white youths on 16th November 1992. He said that Gary Dobson was one of that gang, and that Gary Dobson threatened him with a large knife. No full report was made to the police at the time. On 28 April 1993, as a result of other information, the matter came to light, and statements were taken from Mr London and his girlfriend. No case followed. Gary Dobson denied involvement during his interviews after he was arrested for Stephen Lawrence's murder.

7.22 Gurdeep Banghal, a 22 year old Asian youth, was stabbed on 11 March 1993 by a white youth while serving in a Wimpy Bar in Eltham High Street. Information indicated that some of the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence murder were implicated. Witnesses failed to identify any of the suspects at later identification parades.

7.23 We refer to these cases to highlight both the regularity of such offences and the lack in 1993 of co-ordinated information about them. It is vital that there should be full and readily available information about similar attacks or incidents as part of the detectives' armoury in their investigations.

7.24 At about 23:45 on 22 April we now know that Gary Dobson left Phineas Pett Road, and called at 102 Bournbrook Road. He told police at interview that he was going to collect a video. Surveillance did later confirm association between suspects.

7.25 A witness who has always been known as Witness K, in order to protect his identity, was to say in his only written statement that the Acourts and others were present at No 102 after the murder, and that one of them "had his T-shirt off" when Witness K visited the home on the night of the murder. He also said in that statement that one of those present said that they had not committed the murder.

7.26 Other unsubstantiated reports gave other versions about that visit by Witness K, including the suggestion that some of those at No 102 had washed their hair, or even that they had been washing knives. None of these more vivid rumours or reports led to any further evidence or statements at any stage.

7.27 Another witness, known as Witness B, in order to protect his identity, eventually gave a statement, alleging that he had seen one or other or both the Acourts and David Norris near the scene of the murder. Witness B was at the time on top of a bus. His evidence is dealt with elsewhere. Eventually no credence could be given to his account.

7.28 Only Duwayne Brooks identified any of the suspects. The history of his evidence is also dealt with in detail elsewhere.

7.29 As the committal and trial papers show, the case against these youths was weak. Three, Neil Acourt, Luke Knight and Gary Dobson were later tried and acquitted in 1996. Jamie Acourt and David Norris were never committed for trial.

7.30 If these youths were involved in Stephen Lawrence's murder their characteristics would need no elaboration. The crime was a vicious and horrific example of racist violence. If they were not involved, then another group of white youths bore these characteristics.

7.31 In any event as a result of the intrusive surveillance of late 1994, during the second investigation, we have confirmation that the suspects were then and certainly before that date infected and invaded by gross and revolting racism. Jamie Acourt was not subject to the surveillance, because he was in custody, charged with another offence involving violence in a night club. There is no reason to believe that he was any different from the others so far as overt racism is concerned.

7.32 A version of part of the protracted record of the surveillance appears in the Appendices to this Report. We and those who attended the Inquiry saw and heard an edited version, lasting over an hour, of part of the many hours recorded. Mr Mellish summed up the tapes when he said that they showed "appalling racist or raving bigotry". Mr Mansfield QC rightly referred to "racism conjoined with an obsession to extreme violence", since on frequent occasions knives were brandished and carried, and stabbing movements and "demonstrations" were practised by the youths.

7.33 There is no purpose in summarising these long recordings, but since some readers may not have access to our Appendices a flavour of what was repeatedly said should be given. We stress that the sentences used are only part of prolonged and appalling words which sully the paper upon which they have been recorded:-

Neil Acourt. Sequence 11. "I reckon that every nigger should be chopped up mate and they should be left with nothing but fucking stumps...."

David Norris. Sequence 50. "If I was going to kill myself do you know what I'd do? I'd go and kill every black cunt, every paki, every copper, every mug that I know..

I'd go down to Catford and places like that I'm telling you now with two sub-machine guns and I'm telling you I'd take one of them, skin the black cunt alive mate, torture him, set him alight .... I'd blow their two legs and arms off and say go on you can swim home now .... (laughs)."

Gary Dobson. Sequence 27. "He said the fucking black bastard I am going to kill him. I cracked up laughing. I went what black geezer. He went the Wimpy one the fucking black nigger cunt, fucking black bastard. I went what the Paki......"

Luke Knight. Sequence 11. ".... it was Cameroon, a fucking nigger country... Fucking our presenters saying oh yeah we want Cameroon to win this, why the fuck should he want niggers to win it when they're playing something fucking like Italy....."

7.34 The whole sequence showed violent racism at its worst, and while one youth may say more than others they plainly all shared the bigotry and the extremes displayed by each other, both in language and in the brandishing and pretended stabbing with knives.

7.35 This all showed what kind of people these youths were. But, as Mr Mellish expressly said, it did not add "one iota" to the evidence in respect of the murder charges. The Magistrate was persuaded to admit these recordings at the committal hearing, but we very much doubt whether they could have been put before a jury at trial.

7.36 In themselves the recordings showed abundantly that the suspects were the type of people who could or would have committed a crime of this kind. There was never any doubt but that the killers were rabid racists. There was virtually no probative value in these recordings as to the 1993 murder; they were prejudicial to a degree.

7.37 Even if the youths knew or suspected that they were being "bugged", which apparently they did, it is difficult to deduce from that fact any form of admission of involvement in the murder. The argument to that effect put forward at committal appears to us to be flawed. Certainly the tapes in themselves could not have been used to prove the case. Plainly the private prosecution team must have realised that, since no evidence was tendered at the trial after Mr Brooks' evidence had been exploded.

7.38 In 1997 the youths were summoned to appear at the full Inquest. Those proceedings are dealt with elsewhere (Chapter 42). None of them gave any evidence. They all claimed "privilege".

7.39 Their final appearance was at Hannibal House on 29 and 30 June 1998. All five suspects came into the witness box, and answered questions under oath or affirmation. To say that they gave evidence would be to dignify their appearance. They all relied upon alleged lack of memory. They showed themselves to be arrogant and dismissive. They were forced to accept that numerous weapons had been found, both at 102 Bournbrook Road and elsewhere. A lethal hammer head suspended from a strap was found under some clothing in David Norris' bedroom. Gary Dobson could give nothing but a specious explanation about a large knife recovered from his girlfriend's bedroom. The sword found under the cushions at No 102 was said by the Acourts to be for decorative purposes.

7.40 It should be added that before they came to give evidence, as they were bound to do on pain of prosecution should they not have attended or should they have failed to answer questions, they went to the Divisional Court of the High Court in order to try to avoid attendance. Simon Brown LJ refused their application, but he indicated in plain terms that no questions were to be asked seeking to establish the youths' innocence or guilt. To that extent they were protected from full rigorous cross-examination, and indeed from any questions linking them with the murder. This ruling was plainly correct, since as Simon Brown LJ said the youths were not on trial, but the police were, since the Inquiry under the Police Act 1996 is directly an inquiry into every aspect of the policing of the murder.

7.41 The only true purpose or reason for calling the youths at all was thus to enquire whether their evidence helped us to any conclusions as to the policing of the murder. In that respect the extreme nature of their racism and violent tendencies suggest to us that they should have been "spotted" for what they were if good intelligence and information had singled them out earlier and detected their evil presence on the estate. Then perhaps they would have been even more obvious targets for early arrest.

7.42 Other than that their evidence performed little function in this Inquiry, except to highlight the fact that society allows such people to become or to be as they are. How society rids itself of such attitudes is not something which we can prescribe, except to stress the need for education and example at the youngest age, and an overall attitude of "zero tolerance" of racism within our society. 

7.43 During the evidence of these five youths they had limited immunity from prosecution, in the sense that their answers could not be used against them in criminal proceedings which might later be brought against them. This did not mean that they could not be prosecuted for perjury, should it be plain that they were lying on oath or affirmation. Our own judgment, supported by legal advice, is that such prosecution should not be proposed by this Inquiry. Their evidence was evasive and vague, but that does not mean that it would be possible to prove that they were lying in the factual answers given. This Inquiry is not in any event a prosecuting authority. If the view of others differs from our's the matter can be reported to the police.  

7.44 Before the Inquiry began the Chairman indicated that if evidence emerged which made it possible and right to indicate that these suspects were for sure or probably involved in the murder the Inquiry would not hesitate so to indicate. No such evidence has come before us. The situation remains as it was. These youths remain the five suspects, but nothing more than this is proved against them upon the evidence.

7.45 If the suspects had positively wished to protest their innocence they twice had the opportunity to do so. Simon Brown LJ pointed this out in his judgement. Neither at the Inquest nor before this Inquiry was the opportunity taken by any of the suspects. They refused to answer any questions, after taking legal advice, at the Inquest. Before this Inquiry they made sure that the questions were limited by taking High Court action in order to try to avoid giving evidence. The press and public cannot be blamed for voicing the suspicions about them which are current and which will remain alive, because nobody has been convicted of the brutal racist murder of Stephen Lawrence.

7.46 Both we and others during our Part 2 hearings have considered, in the context of this case, whether the law which absolutely protects those who have been acquitted from any further prosecution for the same or a closely allied offence should prevail. If, even at this late stage, fresh and viable evidence should emerge against any of the three suspects who were acquitted, they could not be tried again however strong the evidence might be. We simply indicate that perhaps in modern conditions such absolute protection may sometimes lead to injustice. Full and appropriate safeguards would be essential . Fresh trials after acquittal would be exceptional. But we indicate that at least the issue deserves debate and reconsideration perhaps by the Law Commission, or by Parliament. (See Recommendation 38).

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