| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER EIGHT CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION 8.1 During the PCA investigation of the complaint made by Mr & Mrs Lawrence against the MPS the question of corruption and collusion was raised at a fairly late stage. Mr & Mrs Lawrence did not at first feel that they could co-operate with the Kent investigation, but during September 1997 they both gave all the help that they could. On 29 September Mr & Mrs Lawrence expressed the opinion that the quality and conduct of the first investigation could have been deliberately affected by collusion between one or more of the officers involved and one or more of the prime suspects or their families. 8.2 In evidence before this Inquiry Mr Lawrence said this:- "I would say that both racism and corruption played a part in this
investigation ....... As to corruption I think that some police officers investigating my
son's death were connected to the murderers in some way or other. We keep hearing all
sorts of rumours .....". 8.3 In his closing remarks Mr Mansfield put the allegation in this way:- "We shall be asking the Inquiry to draw such inferences - namely that there must have been collusion between members of the criminal fraternity and some police officers. There are a number of stages that ultimately must be considered and viewed in a cumulative way. They are:- (a) the occurrence in terms of quantity and the nature of serious basic errors, made by senior and experienced officers in this investigation, which cannot be explained by accident, oversight or overwork; (b) clear and obvious examples of senior officers at the centre of this investigation colluding to cover up the truth about vital events; and (c) the Norris factor." 8.4 Mr Mansfield did accept that "This [collusion] is recognised to be a sensitive and controversial area even more difficult to demonstrate than racism". He also accepted that it should be "recognised that such allegations must be carefully considered and responsibly framed. Like many prosecution cases in relation to criminal allegations the courts trying them are asked to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence which can only be susceptible of one explanation". 8.5 These statements must be stressed. Furthermore in this area of the Inquiry it is necessary to indicate that the standard of proof to be applied must be the criminal standard. That is to say we can only reach a conclusion adverse to the MPS or individual officers if we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that collusion or corruption is established. In other areas of the case we are entitled to reach conclusions upon a balance of probability; and we are entitled also to voice suspicions should they be found validly to exist. The standard of proof is not so rigid that we cannot make findings or indicate that a situation may exist otherwise than by applying the well known principles which govern litigation. But where such a serious allegation as collusion with criminals or corruption is made it would be wholly unfair to reach any adverse conclusion without being sure that such a conclusion was justified as a matter of evidence and proper inference. 8.6 We will look therefore at the evidence and the issues with these principles in mind, addressing both the serious basic errors identified in the case, and the specific examples of collusion particularised by Mr Mansfield, namely:- "i. The handling and non registration of the principal informant James Grant, and consequent events relating to witnesses "B" and "K". ii All the events surrounding the now discredited Barker Review" (see Chapter 28). Perhaps more significantly we must take account of the final aspect of these allegations made by Mr Mansfield, namely "The Norris factor". Mr Mansfield warmed to his task in his final remarks in this connection and said that "There is a matrix of quite exceptional coincidences and connections here which weave such a tight web around this investigation that only an ability to suspend disbelief can provide an innocent explanation". 8.7 The trouble with such a broad and highly stated case is that it may in the end make proof that much more difficult. But we accept that we must look at all the material available with the greatest care. There was undoubtedly evidence of corruption or attempted corruption of a vital witness in the Stacey Benefield stabbing case, in which the suspect David Norris was accused. The strong inference is that Clifford Norris, David Norris' father, was behind that corruption and that he was closely involved in trying to pervert the course of justice by bribing Stacey Benefield and another witness involved in the case named Matthew Farman (see Chapter 9). 8.8 In the Stephen Lawrence case there is no evidence of such interference with witnesses. The "Norris factor" is said to have involved the pulling of punches and the deliberate slowing down and "fudging" of the investigation, so that the suspects, and in particular the suspect David Norris, were protected and ineffectively pursued during the whole of the first investigation. 8.9 No contact during the investigation between Clifford Norris or his agents and any AMIP police officer directly involved in the investigation has been alleged. We are asked to conclude by inference and because of earlier or indirect association that the influence of Clifford Norris must have been at work from the earliest days after Stephen Lawrence's murder and right through to the Barker Review. We are asked to conclude that the influence must in particular have governed or affected the decisions of the more senior officers almost from the start and that such influence must have been widespread. 8.10 Clifford Norris is at present in prison, serving a long sentence for offences involving drug dealing. The Customs & Excise sought to arrest him in 1988, but he avoided arrest and was not in fact caught until Mr Mellish's team, who were running the second investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder, found him in Kent in August 1994. 8.11 Mr Mellish and his senior officers quickly decided that if possible Clifford Norris should be removed from the scene. It appeared to those officers that his influence while at large was potentially very damaging. Mr Mellish rightly suspected that Clifford Norris was directly in touch with his son and also some of the other suspects. Indeed Mr Mellish believes that Mr Norris could well have "schooled" the suspects both in connection with their arrests and interviews, and in respect of the possibility of intrusive surveillance. 8.12 Quite apart from this direct contact it was also apparent to the first investigating team that young and impressionable witnesses on and around the Brook Estate were holding back because of their fear or apprehension of the Norris family. Mr Bullock and others positively sensed this early on. 8.13 Even with the knowledge that the evil influence of Clifford Norris was at work the first investigation team failed to seek him out. Positive efforts should have been made to remove Clifford Norris because of his obviously malign influence. It is inexplicable that more was not done until the summer of 1994 to arrest Clifford Norris, particularly after the Benefield bribery was uncovered. 8.14 In the body of this Report the other aspects of Clifford Norris' involvement with the police are fully set out. There is without doubt much suspicion about his activities with one officer in particular, namely Sgt XX (see Chapter 13). But that officer was never part of the investigation team. His limited appearance in 1996 during the trial occurred while Mr Mellish was in charge. 8.15 It must be noted that David Norris was never identified by any witness, and he was not charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. It may seem less likely that Clifford Norris would seek to protect others who were identified and charged during the first investigation. But it must be recalled that David Norris told the Inquiry that Clifford Norris had known both the Acourts since they were five or six years old and that Neil Acourt "liked" Clifford Norris because he "thought he was a nice man". Neil Acourt and Gary Dobson visited Clifford Norris in prison. Thus his interest in the other suspects has to be noted. He was in prison when the suspects were arrested in 1995. That would make interference in the second investigation more difficult but certainly not impossible. There is no allegation of corruption or collusion against the second investigating team. 8.17 Furthermore, as we point out later, any conspiracy or attempted corruption of police officers would necessarily have involved action involving members of the team who were making the early and important decisions. There is no evidence of contact by Clifford Norris or any of his agents with any member of the team. His chosen method in the Benefield case was to try to bribe witnesses. 8.18 The problems in seeking to establish that there was collusion or corruption by inference are obvious. It is right that we should say at once that no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder. It would be wrong and unfair to conclude otherwise. It seems to us sensible to record this conclusion at once, so that the text of this Report can be read with this in mind.
|
