CHAPTER ELEVEN

INITIAL RESPONSE

11.1 Anybody who listened to the evidence of the officers involved in the initial police action after the murder would, so all the members of the Inquiry feel, be astonished at the lack of command and the lack of organisation of what took place. Police officers who gave evidence before us believed that everything they had done had been properly organised and professionally carried out. That does not appear to us to be the position.

11.2 It is difficult to reconstruct with any accuracy or confidence what exactly was done and when it was done. This is because there is almost a total lack of documentation and record in connection with the whole of the first night's operations. Not a single police officer of any rank either made or initiated a log to record the decisions made and the actions taken. Mr Groves regarded this as unnecessary, because he believed that his own notes, made on his blue clipboard which he always carried with him, would provide the necessary record of what had happened.

11.3 It does seem likely to us that Mr Groves had a clipboard with him, but we will never know what was written upon it. The Inspector says that his notes were copied and that the originals were taken to Shooters Hill Police Station some time after the night in question. Neither the original notes nor the copy survived for use by the PCA in 1997 nor by us in 1998.

11.4 Furthermore, each Territorial Support Group (TSG) vehicle should carry with it an action sheet upon which relevant actions are recorded shortly after they have taken place. PC Samantha Tatton (formerly Norrie) who says that she was on the first vehicle to arrive, indicates that there was indeed a sheet on her vehicle. She says that she believes that she used it in order to record the time of arrival and other short details which appear in her written statement. Those sheets have also disappeared. Mr Groves has tried to trace them from the relevant records section. Apparently documents of this kind are destroyed after four years. It is very surprising to the Inquiry that Mr Groves' notes and the sheets were not retained, since this case has been in the forefront of police consciousness since 1993.

11.5 One officer produced a notebook with very short notes to which we will later refer. There was also an occurrence book relating to TSG activities in which there is a short entry signed by PSgt Clement indicating that carriers were engaged in a murder incident in the Plumstead section and that they "assisted in cordons and search of scene and nearby streets". There are no timings in that record to assist us. No other notebooks or satisfactory contemporary records of police action at the scene exist.

11.6 In parenthesis it should be said that we were unimpressed by the reference in cross-examination to the CAD message which suggested that the carriers had arrived at 23:45, namely almost an hour after the murder. That appears to us simply to be the official assigning entry, dealing with the matter in retrospect.

11.7 It is a feature of the case that several of the officers appear to have decided together that the message reaching them alerting them to the murder came at 22:25. That was at least five minutes before the murder took place. One officer said that he had said "at about twenty-five past ten", but that is clearly an incorrect time. The first message coming to a police control room was timed at 22:43, so that assignment of the first TSG vehicle could not have occurred until some minutes after that.

11.8 PC Tatton said in her statement, and indeed in evidence, that she checked with the action sheet before she made her statement and that showed the arrival of her TSG vehicle to be at 22:57. Insofar as we can ever be satisfied of the time of arrival of the first TSG vehicle it appears to us that that is the most likely time. PC Tatton was an impressive witness, although her memory of events was clouded by the passage of time, in common with the memories of all the witnesses involved.

11.9 The next question to be resolved is who was on the first carrier and which carrier was it? It is really almost impossible to reconstruct with certainty, or even with reasonable accuracy, the list of officers on that carrier. It does seem likely, however, looking at the whole of the evidence, that Mr Groves was on that carrier and so was PSgt Clement and so were three or four other officers. There was even a contest between the officers as to who might have been driving the vehicle. In the result it seems to us most likely that PC Paul Smith was the driver. We will refer to his evidence later. PC Tatton in her statement referred to seeing Stephen Lawrence lying face down on the pavement. She also says that she saw about five males and females standing near him. She did not see Mr Brooks. She did not get off the carrier before it moved off from the place where Stephen Lawrence lay.

11.10 In parenthesis it should be noted that Mr Brooks did himself say that he saw a carrier arrive. We are thus satisfied that at least one carrier arrived before Stephen's body was removed and before Mr Brooks went to the hospital.

11.11 The likelihood is that Mr Groves and PSgt Clement did alight from this carrier and did go reasonably close to where Stephen's body lay. PSgt Clement then says that he left very shortly afterwards in the carrier, without Mr Groves, in order to carry out what he called a mobile search in the area in and beyond Dickson Road. He told the Inquiry that he was aware from a radio message that five or six white youths had been seen disappearing into Dickson Road. PC Bethel says that this information came from her. The more likely version is that PC Bethel passed that information on to PSgt Clement. Mr Groves himself heard nothing said by officers at all, and nothing said by Mr Brooks. We have already indicated in the First Aid section that he says that he asked if he could help and he asked other questions about the condition of Stephen Lawrence, but that he received no reply from anybody.

11.12 What then happened is extraordinary. Without any clear information as to what had occurred Mr Groves went off with Police Sergeant Andrew Hodges, who was in 1993 a Police Constable, to the Welcome Inn Public House, which is situated to the north of the scene. He knew that this public house was the nearest one to the scene, and he resolved to go there to see if he could get any information about any violence that had taken place or any information as to possible witnesses of the incident. He left the scene without having established what had happened.

11.13 If he had stayed to ask further questions of the police officers at the scene he must have been told that the white youths had come from the direction of the roundabout and that they had been seen going down Dickson Road and away from the Welcome Inn. However, that is what he decided to do, with absolutely no result, because nobody in the public house had heard or seen anything suspicious. Mr Groves assumed that there had been a fight, without any basis for such a conclusion.

11.14 PSgt Clement told the Inquiry that he went with other officers on the carrier down Dickson Road and did a short mobile search of some of the roads beyond Dickson Road, going as far as Appleton Road and then down into Rochester Way, then past the roundabout and up to the Welcome Inn. He says that he, with another officer, then went to the Welcome Inn Public House on a similar quest to that of Mr Groves, and with similar negative results. PSgt Clement did not see Mr Groves at the public house, and Mr Groves did not see the carrier there. It is difficult to establish when and where these actions took place, if they took place at all.

11.15 Having seen PSgt Clement for a long time in the witness box it did appear to the Inquiry that what he told the Inquiry about his actions was probably correct. He is marginally supported in his evidence by the driver PC Paul Smith who says that he did indeed drive into Dickson Road and who indicated that there was a measure of mobile searching done by the carrier in that area. The difference between them is that the driver thinks that he halted towards the end of Dickson Road, and was then told to go to Downman Road to block off Downman Road from Well Hall Road, where he parked his TSG vehicle. Indeed, he indicated that he went down Downman Road to Dickson Road when the search started. As Counsel pointed out, this was a peculiar route to take if the objective was to start the search in Dickson Road where the men had been seen running away. The entrance to Dickson Road was a turning off Well Hall Road almost immediately next to where the carrier must have been parked.

11.16 It can be seen at once that the whole picture is one of disarray and uncertainty. What is certain is that Mr Groves never established any degree of direction or control, except perhaps in the ultimate dragon light search which did take place around midnight, when gardens and dustbins were searched with the help of police dogs. He had under his control probably four or five TSG carriers and thus about 40 officers. His prime responsibility as it seems to us was to establish as far as possible what had happened, and to take control of the scene, and to organise proper and co-ordinated searches of the scene and in particular the estate into which the attackers had run. He failed to find out what Mr Brooks had said, and that he was both a victim and a vital witness. He could have used Mr Brooks in connection with the searches. Who is to know whether properly organised action might not have resulted in contact with Gary Dobson, who left his house in Phineas Pett Road at about 23:45 to go to 102 Bournbrook Road, or Witness K who said to others that he went to visit 102 Bournbrook Road soon after hearing about the murder? This was the first opportunity to take positive action, and it was totally lost and indeed never got off the ground because of Mr Groves' failure. It is surprising that right up until the end of this Inquiry's hearings, the MPS still assert that "officers at the scene were managed and directed satisfactorily" and that Mr Groves "performed well, addressing each of the primary objectives for such an incident". We roundly reject this submission made to us at the end of Part 1 of our Inquiry.

11.17 That first mobile search was, as it seems to us, peculiarly pointless. Nobody seems to have stopped to think that the likelihood was that if the fugitives were on foot they might be caught, or might have been seen, at the far end of the estate, if they were aiming to leave the estate. Alternatively, if they were going into the estate because they lived there the likelihood would be that they might be in the houses within the estate itself. Sensible and calm co-ordination of what to do would surely have resulted in the use of all the TSG carriers in a search starting at the far end of the estate working back towards Dickson Road and covering the other possible exit routes from Dickson Road. The fact that this did not occur is entirely attributable to the failure by Mr Groves properly to establish facts which were readily available to him at the scene and logically to deploy his resources. Certainly the mobile search conducted by PSgt Clement and his team produced nothing. The driver, PC Paul Smith, had no idea what he was looking for when he embarked down Downman Road in the direction of Dickson Road.

11.18 The other TSG vehicles, which came to the scene later, appear to have stopped near Well Hall Road roundabout. There is no indication from any document, or indeed from any satisfactory evidence, as to what the occupants of those vehicles did. Probably they took part in the later search, when the dragon lights had been obtained from Headquarters by one of the police witnesses. But in the first stages they appear not to have been used at all. Some enquiries were made by knocking on doors and by talking to residents who had come out of their houses close to the junction of Dickson Road and Well Hall Road. A local resident, Mr Nugent, was seen by Mr Groves, and he made a statement. He heard noise in the street and had seen youths disappearing down Dickson Road.

11.19 There is no proper record of which other houses may have been visited by police officers during the second phase of the TSG activity which involved the first house-to-house visits. It cannot be termed a house-to-house search. The evidence given to us does establish that some houses were approached by police officers in these initial information seeking visits.

11.20 One message (from DC Pye) timed at 08:34 on 23 April does indicate that TSG searched Dickson Road to the end, Downman Road to No 22, Phineas Pett Road to No 13, and Sandby Green to No 41. No details of the nature of that search are given.

11.21 Thereafter we know that cordons were established near the place where Stephen had lain, and in the mouth of Dickson Road. Two officers gave evidence who were stationed on the Well Hall Road cordon. Some steps were taken to block off part of the roadway because there was blood on the road. This should have been done earlier. At least one vehicle, namely the suspicious red Astra to which further reference will be made, was able to drive both up and down Well Hall Road while the police were active in the area.

11.22 Mr Groves' evidence and indeed his statements made at the time and to the Kent inquiry, show that there has been considerable confusion in his own mind about the order of events. He says that he or his Unit had been told that there had been a fight or a disturbance and that somebody had been hit over the head with an iron bar. He said that he made enquiries about Stephen Lawrence. He expressed himself to be satisfied with what was being done. He believed, when he gave evidence to the Inquiry, that he had asked Mr Brooks what had happened and whether he was all right. But he indicated that he got nothing at all from him or indeed from any of the officers at the scene. He said that the only information which guided him eventually to Dickson Road came from Mr Nugent, considerably later.

11.23 In his statement in 1993, he had indicated that the driver of his vehicle was PC Clutterbuck, which we have indicated must have been wrong. Furthermore, he said that he set about the business of erecting the cordon to seal off the immediate area at once. That is in conflict with the evidence which he gave to us, namely, that the first thing that he did was to set off up Well Hall Road to the Welcome Inn.

11.24 He agreed that he had got the events in the wrong order, and his final version was that he set up the cordons and followed the trail of blood and took the actions described near Dickson Road after he came back from the public house. When he returned from the public house, the ambulance had been and Stephen Lawrence and Mr Brooks had gone.

11.25 As to PSgt Clement's search, Mr Groves indicated that he had ordered that search, namely an immediate search of the area. Exactly what area he intended to be searched is mysterious, but he seemed to imply that the right thing might be to search with the van on both sides of Well Hall Road and in the "adjoining streets". In fact PC Bethel had told PSgt Clement about the white youths and had directed him into Dickson Road.

11.26 When Mr Groves got back from the public house, he walked with PC Bethel back down to Dickson Road, following the trail of blood and he saw local officers cordoning off in Sandby Green, Cobbett Road and other places. Then, for the first time, he obtained information from Mr Nugent, namely that four or five men had run off into Dickson Road. The men were white. One was in shirt sleeves, and they were "not that old". Mr Groves indicated that then and thereafter he made notes on his clipboard of what had happened and what was done. These notes were later "translated" into his statement.

11.27 Mr Groves was asked which other officers he had seen during the hours of his duties. He said that he saw Chief Superintendent Christopher Benn and that his Divisional Chief Superintendent (John Philpott) had arrived at the scene later. We know that Chief Inspector John McIvor came to the scene and so did Detective Inspector Philip Jeynes. But Mr Groves indicated to us that it was his belief that effectively he was in charge of what was happening during the hours up to about 01:00 when the TSG personnel went back to base and went off duty.

11.28 Mr Groves said that by about 23:45 he had heard that Stephen had died of stab wounds, and it was after that, probably from midnight onwards, that the dragon light search took place. He said that the search covered both sides of the road from Dickson Road into the estate. There is a record in a CAD message indicating the extent of that search. He says that that was a "thorough structured search, very different to what happened earlier on and that absolutely everything was looked at, houses, dustbins anything that would have been of interest". He says that he was the only person recording notes and that these notes were comprehensive. Indeed, he says that he was "challenged" as to what he was writing by Mr Benn. When asked about this he said that he was writing Mr Benn's name down, and this seemed strange for some reason to Mr Benn.

11.29 Mr Groves said that while the dragon light search was going on his men had been "instructed to look for suspects as well". No description of those involved had been given at all to any of the officers at that stage. This more co-ordinated search did not take place until after midnight. Mr Groves knew nothing at all about the red Astra car. He said that he was not with PSgt Clement and PSgt Hodges for very long, and that this might explain his ignorance of the incident involving the car. When asked by the Kent officers about there being no scene log of any kind he said that the concept of a scene log was not familiar to him. In evidence before us he said that there was no need to keep a scene log. He seemed satisfied that his own clipboard notes were all that were required.

11.30 The actual cordoning of the two scenes, that of the attack and that where Stephen Lawrence collapsed, appears to us to be the only initial action which was properly conducted. From the evidence we heard it would appear that both scenes were taped off and preserved for evidential purposes. However, even this minor achievement was sullied by the failure to establish a scene log. It is our understanding that the creation of a crime scene log is a standard procedure to ensure that the area which is being preserved and is subsequently to be subject to forensic examination is properly protected and that movement of people in and out of that scene is limited and recorded for evidential purposes and in order to prevent contamination. It is not simply a bureaucratic requirement that there should be a scene log; it is an essential step in police procedures that it should be set up and properly managed immediately a scene is cordoned off and preserved. Any officer of any rank and experience should have been aware of this. Mr Jeynes said that it was "historical practice to maintain such a log". There should in addition have been an "incident log" either on paper, such as Mr Groves indicated he had begun to create, or on the computerised CAD system recording the various actions and activities undertaken by officers under the direction of whoever was the officer in command. We will have more to say about this later when we consider the position of the senior officers who did come to the scene. Some messages were recorded early on the CAD system, but there is no satisfactory running record of what was being done.

11.31 In cross-examination, Mr Groves became embroiled with Mr Mansfield in a good deal of verbal fencing. It is unwise to tangle with Mr Mansfield in this way, and Mr Groves' position and evidence were not improved by his attitude. It is a matter of surprise to the Inquiry that at the end of his evidence Mr Groves seemed still to be perfectly satisfied that he had acted with efficiency and thoroughness, and performed all the actions which were necessary at the scene.

11.32 It is apparent to all of us that the direction and control exercised by Mr Groves at the scene was almost non-existent. Nobody gave proper instructions to the officers in the earliest stages of the investigation, and no plan was made which might have led to the discovery and arrest of the suspects who had run down Dickson Road.

11.33 It has to be said that even if the correct and full steps had been taken in this regard it might have led to no different result. But in the absence of proper police action during the vital two hours after the death of Stephen Lawrence it is not surprising that Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and the public, heard Mr Groves' evidence with some incredulity. Indeed the catalogue of errors must cause concern to all who heard it.

11.34 Mr Macdonald, on behalf of Mr Brooks, cross-examined Mr Groves at some length. Mr Groves had described Mr Brooks as being "distraught" in one statement and "hysterical" in another. Little is to be gained by discussing this distinction. Mr Groves had virtually no contact with Mr Brooks at the scene. He plainly should have made more effort to find out who he was and what his involvement had been in this attack. As a victim, Mr Brooks needed help from the police, and he was obviously a vital source of information. Indeed, as we all know, he turned out to be the only witness who could give identification evidence at the eventual trial of three of the suspects. Mr Groves had no idea that Mr Brooks was in fact himself a victim of the assault, and he took no steps to discover what part Mr Brooks had played in the affair. If Mr Brooks had been of a mind to leave and give no further help he could have done so, considering the lack of proper attention paid to him in the early stages at the scene and the hospital.

11.35 Probably at about 23:30 the red Astra car with five youths inside it was twice seen being driven down Well Hall Road. The car was being driven first in the direction of Shooters Hill, and some minutes later it came back in the opposite direction. The laxness evident in the failure to stop the car and later (after it was seen again on 30 April by chance) properly to follow up and research its occupants is separately dealt with in Chapter 20. Mr Groves had no knowledge of the car at any time

11.36 The main conclusion that we reach is that the inadequacy of the steps taken was as the result of the failure of direction by supervisory officers. The standard of command and co-ordination during the first two hours after this murder was in the opinion of the Inquiry abysmal.

11.37 Of the other officers involved in the TSG activity, mention has already been made of PSgt Hodges. He accompanied Mr Groves to the public house, with as little information as to what he was trying to achieve as was possessed by Mr Groves. He was present with
PSgt Clement when the red Astra came by, and he took part in the later searches.

11.38 PC Paul McGarry told us that he was on the first TSG vehicle to arrive. He had thought that he might have been driving. But later it was pointed out to him that the likelihood was that PC Paul Smith was the driver. He had some memory of the presence of PC Paul Robson, PC Tatton and PC Smith on his carrier, but he really had very little recollection of where the carrier went and what was done. He was one of the officers who had indicated in his original statement that the time of call out had been 22:25.

11.39 PC McGarry said that it was obvious that First Aid was being carried out to Stephen Lawrence. It was plain when he was cross-examined that all he meant was that he had seen people near Stephen Lawrence, but that he had seen no actual steps in connection with First Aid being carried out. He said that he had at some stage been told about five white youths going down Dickson Road. It is of some significance that he had no memory at all of the carrier stopping outside the Welcome Inn. Like the other officers, PC McGarry saw no reason to make any note of what he had done. It was pointed out to him that there was a very good reason to keep a record, for example, of which gardens had been searched, in case something appeared in one of those gardens the next day which could thus be proved to have arrived only after the search made earlier on.

11.40 PC Robson was an unimpressive witness. He says that he saw Stephen Lawrence lying on the pavement from his position in the police carrier. He then indicated in his statement that he had gone "to search the vicinity for suspects". Later, he says, that he took over the cordoned ground where Stephen Lawrence had been lying. He took over from PC Tatton at the scene.

11.41 On the next day officers were briefed in connection with the more detailed house-to-house inquiries which took place over the weekend. Evidence as to the detailed house-to-house inquiries was given by DS Donald Mackenzie. A large number of houses were visited and reference will be made in a separate section of this report to those visits (see Chapter 17). Before starting the inquiries the officers were briefed. PC Robson did, unusually, have a short note in his pocketbook about that briefing. It was, as he indicated, a somewhat unsatisfactory note, but it did contain the description of one of the assailants, so that it is apparent that the officers doing the detailed house-to-house inquiries had some material in that connection. The words appearing in the Police Constable's notebook are "six foot, brown bushy hair, 19 years". This description was probably the description given by Mr Brooks at the hospital to PC Gleason which had by 14:00 on the Friday been in some way transmitted to the briefing officer who was Mr Bullock. It must be said that there is some mystery about this, since nobody remembers PC Gleason's description being broadcast on the night of the murder, and his notebook disappeared after 23 April and was apparently not seen again until it surfaced at the Kent inquiry. PC Gleason says that he gave a copy of the book to Mr Jeynes on 23 April. It may be by that route that the briefing did include that short version of the description given to PC Gleason by Mr Brooks at the hospital.

11.42 That information had not reached the officers at the scene on the night of the murder, since nobody referred to any description other than that the assailants had been white. PC Robson also indicated that the call out had been at 22:25. There seems little doubt that officers had spoken to each other before that clearly wrong time was entered in their statements. This is an unsatisfactory feature of the evidence of the officers involved.

11.43 PC Robson saw PC Geddis at the scene early on. That and other evidence does suggest that it is established that the first TSG on the scene was there before the ambulance came. As we have already indicated this is supported positively by the evidence of Mr Brooks. Otherwise the evidence of PC Robson was vague and unsatisfactory. We do not believe that he was inventing his evidence, but all that he said was symptomatic of the lack of direction and proper management exercised at the scene. He had very little idea where he had been or what had happened during the early stages. This appears to us to be a fault of the commander involved, namely Mr Groves, who should have ensured that his officers knew exactly what they were meant to be doing and where they were meant to be going in connection with any searches which were carried out.

11.44 The impression we gain is of officers doing things without any real direction or information. Much of what was done was, in essence, doomed to be ineffective because of inadequate co-ordination or control.

11.45 PC Tatton was one of the better witnesses in the TSG section of this case. We have already indicated that the time of arrival of 22:57 in her statement probably did come from some record still existing at the time when she made her original statement. Judging by the lack of note-taking of all the officers involved in this part of the enquiry, it is likely that the TAG sheet had few details upon it. But at least the time of arrival may have been properly recorded. This officer's part played at the scene was limited. She indicates that she was directed to stand at the cordon near the scene of Stephen Lawrence's fall, and that she was relieved at about 00:35 by PC Robson. She said that her job was simply to stand on the path to make sure that nobody walked over that particular area. She indicated that there was a rendezvous point at the Well Hall roundabout, and that she had no radio with her since she had left her radio for use by others in the carrier. Therefore, she was not in contact with other officers while she stood in the roadway.

11.46 While she was at the scene this officer said that she had no idea that she was involved in a murder case. She believes that she actually first became aware of that when she heard the radio or television news later on. She does confirm the evidence of PSgt Clement and of Mr Groves, namely that they were together on the same vehicle as her and that both of them got off the vehicle at the scene. She believes that she saw the two officers go to where the other officers were standing, and minutes later she remembered that the ambulance arrived and took away Stephen Lawrence and that Mr Brooks left the scene simultaneously. She says that the carrier remained where it was until the moment when she was asked to get off to stand at the cordon.

11.47 It seems likely that this happened before the carrier went off to Dickson Road on its unsatisfactory first mobile run. In cross-examination PC Tatton appeared to agree that the roadway had been improperly cordoned off, since no vehicle should have been allowed to pass up and down the street. She had no idea at the time why the TSG vehicles had been called out, except that it was "some sort of attack, I believe, or an assault". This shows, yet again, how little information was given to the officers who were at the scene, many of whom appear to have been left in almost total ignorance of even the limited information which was then available.

11.48 Finally, PC Paul Smith, the driver of the first TSG vehicle to arrive, gave evidence. We have already indicated the part played by him in the mobile search. There is no doubt that his evidence was unsatisfactory. But it is the opinion of the members of the Inquiry that he simply played his part by rote. He did what he was told when he was asked to drive or move the TSG carrier, but he knew nothing of what was going on and had no real idea at all when he was assisting in searches that there had been an attack, let alone a racist attack made by five white men in the horrific circumstances of which we are all now aware.

11.49 Later in the evening he says that he knew that there had been a racist attack, but he indicated that when he was driving the vehicle he concentrated on the driving and took little other action in respect of the activities of the officers involved. He had never heard about the red Vauxhall Astra.

11.50 In answer to Mr Yearwood, for the CRE, he seemed surprised that anybody might regard it as offensive to be addressed as "coloured" as opposed to black. Even after four and a half years service in Brixton PC Smith seemed oblivious to this insensitivity.

11.51 In summary, therefore, the evidence that we have heard in connection with the TSG activity showed almost total lack of direction and control. It was most disappointing to members of the Inquiry that those involved should, even now, believe that they acted with efficiency and skill, and that they should have no regret as to the inadequate nature of the actions taken during the first two hours of the initial response.

11.52 It may be that even if full and proper actions had been taken and had been properly recorded nothing would have been discovered. At least this would have been some consolation to the Lawrence family and indeed to the public, since it would have established that proper steps had been taken even if no result had been achieved at the end of the day.

11.53 We must, of course, always bear in mind that it is now nearly six years after the event. The TSG officers were not involved in the court proceedings or the Inquest which have taken place over the years. They were seen by the Kent officers in connection with the PCA report in 1997, and reference has been made to the somewhat fuller statements of the officers who gave evidence before us compared with the short and somewhat sparse statements taken in 1993.

11.54 Allowance always has to be made for the passage of time when recollections are tested. The fact is, however, that the short nature of the original statements and the complete lack of any contemporary notes makes it difficult indeed for us to assess whether there was more activity than is reflected in those statements. Mr Groves' 1993 statement does contain some sections which appear to indicate that he was probably working from some note when he made his statement. There is, for example, a considerable section of reported speech set out in full, and the suggestion is that this must mean that it came from a contemporaneously recorded account of the conversations that took place. Furthermore, there is a record, both in the statement and in CAD messages of the extent of the final dragon light searches which were controlled by Mr Groves.

11.55 There is, however, considerable confusion in Mr Groves' statements, as we have already indicated. What his notes did contain will never be known, because they have disappeared. We have no reason to believe that they have been wilfully destroyed, since they would plainly assist the officer if he was ever asked to reflect on what had taken place. The disappearance of those notes does make it difficult to test whether Mr Groves' recording of what took place was satisfactory throughout the important first two hours after the murder.

11.56 There is not much reference in this summary to the activities of the other carriers which arrived at the scene. Mr Groves believes that he called them up when he arrived in Well Hall Road. This may well be so. There is no record of the time of arrival of those carriers or their position or activities. There appears to have been a rendezvous point at the Well Hall roundabout, and the statements of some of the officers on the other carriers suggests that for a time at least they remained aboard the carriers and did not dismount. More than one officer indicates that the carriers were used for a measure of mobile searching, but it is likely that any tour around the relevant area was as unsatisfactory as that of PSgt Clement with his carrier.

11.57 In the end it seems likely that these officers would have been used on the later and somewhat more controlled dragon light search of the gardens under Mr Groves. They too would probably not have known what had happened and might in all probability have been acting in ignorance of relevant information which was by that time available. If officers were looking for a murder weapon they appear not to have known that Stephen Lawrence had died from stab wounds, nor that an early description of a weapon used was that it had been an iron bar.

11.58 It is the case that numerically there were plenty of officers at the scene to conduct the searches and operations which were necessary as immediate action after this murder. The presence of satisfactory numbers of officers means nothing if they are not properly directed and supervised and asked to do the proper tasks which might have led to further information and a measure of success.

11.59 We stress yet again that it can never be said what might have been seen or heard or found if the searches and "knocks on doors" had been carried out at once starting with, for example, the far end of the estate and working back towards Dickson Road. This does not detract from the necessary criticism of the actions taken in the hours immediately following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. A marked lack of
co-ordination and attention to detail seem to have been the features of these early hours.

11.60 We have felt it necessary to cover this part of the investigation in detail, because we have to say that we disagree roundly with the conclusion reached by Kent which positively commended the initial response and the early actions taken at the scene in the first hours after the murder. Furthermore the MPS in their final submission still sought to justify their actions during those vital hours.

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