| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE FIRST SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER 13.1 The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) who is in post in connection with an Area Major Incident Pool (AMIP) investigation is of course a most important individual. There are senior officers above him in the hierarchy, but it is the SIO who makes the vital decisions on the ground at the relevant time. A typical investigation team drawn from the AMIP in 1993 was headed by a Detective Superintendent. Under him, in accordance with the AMIP policy, there should be a full team of police officers provided for the investigation. From the pool of available officers a team has to be hastily assembled. 13.2 We were informed that 3 Area faced a particularly heavy workload at the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder. Information was given to us that ten other major crimes including three murders were being investigated. There was no information as to the nature of these murders and the extent to which they made demands upon personnel. Suffice to say that no-one suggested that any of the nine murders approached the significance of the Stephen Lawrence murder and would therefore be likely to challenge its priority in terms of commitment and resources. 13.3 The first SIO appointed to deal with the Stephen Lawrence murder was Detective Superintendent Ian Crampton. He joined the police force in 1965, and he retired in 1995. In 1993 he had been a Superintendent for two years, and he had been in the CID since 1968. Mr Crampton was plainly a most experienced officer. In 1992 he attended the Serious and Series Crime Course at Bramshill Police College, which apparently lasts for ten days. Mr Crampton had not worked on a racist murder before this case, but he was aware of the ACPO definition of racist crime in general terms, and he had investigated crimes of all kinds for many years. 13.4 On 22/23 April 1993 Mr Crampton was Duty Detective Superintendent on call for major incidents. He was telephoned in the early hours of Friday, 23 April, and was told that Stephen Lawrence had been attacked "a couple of hours earlier" and that he had been taken to hospital and had died from his injuries. He knew at an early stage that Stephen Lawrence had been stabbed, although he does not seem to be entirely clear where that information came from. 13.5 During the previous week Mr Crampton had, among other duties, been concerned with the impending trial of some men accused of a contract killing of a man called David Norris. We will refer to that man, and his possible connection with Clifford Norris (the father of the suspect David Norris) later, but at the time Mr Crampton did not believe that there was any close connection between the two men. The killing of David Norris was investigated in Deptford. 13.6 On Monday 26 April Mr Crampton was due to go to the Central Criminal Court, since he was the officer in charge of that David Norris murder case. So that it is apparent that Mr Crampton was only available to be the SIO in connection with Stephen Lawrence's murder until around mid-day on 26 April. This double duty occurred because everybody was fully engaged in their own activities, and because resources were stretched. It is significant and most unfortunate that an SIO was appointed who was only going to be able to control the murder investigation for a little over three days. The handover at that stage in a murder investigation must be avoided wherever possible. The first days after a murder are of course vital days. Murders can be and are sometimes solved by very quick action in the early stages. Even if this is not the case the decisions taken in the early days after a murder can have a major impact on the subsequent investigation and must be made with thoroughness, speed and with the fullest possible information available to the SIO. 13.7 This we stress because it has seemed to us throughout this Inquiry that in this case the early days were particularly important, and one of the main grounds of complaint made by Mr & Mrs Lawrence has always been that no quick action was taken to arrest the suspects. Eventually the suspects were arrested on 7 May 1993, so that a considerable time elapsed before they were taken into custody, and before the unsatisfactory searches of their premises did eventually take place. 13.8 It is to Mr Crampton's credit that very early in his evidence, when asked by Mr Lawson whether there was anything now which he wishes that he had done differently, he said at once that "The strategy that I adopted was unsuccessful. .....because it didn't work and I had gone for an option that hindsight would tell me that quite clearly the other option may well have worked". The strategy to which he refers is the decision taken by him, which he says that he made in consultation with his senior officer Detective Chief Superintendent William Ilsley, not to arrest the suspects during the first weekend. On the other hand Mr Crampton says that every decision that he took during the time when he was in charge was a considered decision, and he felt that he was dealing with things in a professional way and in the way in which matters should have been properly dealt with. 13.9 The question of the early arrests of the suspects is, as we see it, central to the whole of this Inquiry. We reach the conclusion, as will emerge, that there was a fundamental error made in the judgement and decision making, both by this officer, by his successor Mr Weeden, and by his supervisor Mr Ilsley who carried on the "strategy" laid down by Mr Crampton in connection with the arrests. 13.10 Before coming to that vital decision however, there are other matters with which Mr Crampton was concerned during the night after the murder. By 08:00 on Friday, 23 April he was busily involved in setting up the Incident Room, and in mounting the investigation, and we have no doubt that things were hectic. That does not mean, however, that there can be any excuse for making what appear to us to have been wrong decisions. 13.11 When Mr Crampton was summoned from his home he went first to Plumstead Police Station. He arrived there at about 01:30 on 23 April. There he saw and spoke to Mr Brooks. He had a conversation with Mr Brooks, and apparently Mr Brooks told him very briefly what had occurred, before he made his full statement to DC Cooper. He says that he made sure that Mr Brooks was all right and that he did not want anybody there with him. In fact Mr Brooks' mother had attended the police station. Mr Crampton satisfied himself about Mr Brooks and concluded that he did indeed want to make a statement. Mr Brooks was in fact keen to make a statement, and although he was offered the chance to go home he preferred to stay at the police station with DC Cooper until his full and helpful statement was completed. 13.12 Mr Crampton told us, and the Kent inquiry, that he treated this murder as a racist crime from the word go, once he had spoken to Mr Brooks. Mr Brooks had told him that the murder was totally unprovoked and that it was by white people who had called him a nigger. "From that moment on until it could be proven otherwise in my mind it was a racist murder". 13.13 In Mr Crampton's policy file, initiated on 23 April, he recorded that the murder was one in which the identity of the suspects was unknown, and that there was a "possible racial motive". He says that this entry was made simply because at a later stage if the murder turned out to have been committed for other than purely racist reasons he would not have totally committed himself by a different form of entry in the policy file. We see no great significance in this entry in the file, bearing in mind Mr Crampton's repeated and firm assertion that this was without doubt a racist murder. 13.14 Mr Crampton has no memory of seeing PC Gleason's note, which plainly should have been drawn to his attention. That note contained the first version of the matter given by Mr Brooks, and it included what might have been a most important description of one of the attackers. The failure properly to register the existence of that first statement is a feature of the early hours of this investigation. 13.15 From Plumstead Police Station Mr Crampton went to Well Hall Road. The area was still cordoned off, and Mr Crampton remembers speaking to Mr Jeynes. Mr Jeynes was there with DC Pye, and Mr Crampton arrived with a Detective Sergeant. 13.16 Mr Crampton's memory is that Mr Jeynes was "apparently in charge". He saw no uniformed Inspector at the scene, and indeed his memory is that the only officers present were the two Detectives and some officers manning the cordon. Mr Crampton was told nothing about the Astra car that had been seen. He says that he was given some information by Mr Jeynes as to what had taken place. He knew that a search had been carried out, including the use of dogs. He knew that TSG Units had been involved and says that he understood that there had been an extensive search "in the area in which the suspects were known to run off and in the surrounding streets". At 02:52 a message shows that Mr Crampton reported that the scene had been examined, and the road was re-opened. 13.17 As to Mr Crampton's attendance at the murder scene, it has to be stressed that he did not arrive there until after all the limited activity had taken place. We are critical of the activity that did take place, and particularly its lack of co-ordination by senior officers. But that was not the immediate responsibility of Mr Crampton. Mr Mansfield suggested, among other things, that there should have been a search of a circular area around the murder scene, and in particular that the Brook Estate should have been included in house-to-house searches or at least "knockings on doors" during the night after the murder. That is a justifiable comment and criticism of those who were at the scene. Undoubtedly there is criticism to be made of the co-ordination and control in that respect. But by 01:30 and even more by 03:00 when Mr Crampton left the scene it does seem to us that such steps would have been impracticable. They should have been taken earlier. It does not seem to us to be a personal criticism of Mr Crampton that various steps were not taken in connection with this investigation on the ground and early on. 13.18 Mr Crampton was told by Mr Jeynes that information had been received that the family did not want to see anybody until the morning. Mr Crampton was due at the post-mortem at 09:00 on 23 April, and he directed Mr Jeynes to go to see the family at about 08:30 on that Friday morning. He had given further directions at the scene that photographs should be taken before he returned to Eltham Police Station. A decision was made, in consultation with Mr Ilsley, probably at about 06:30, that arrangements would be made for the investigation team to set up its Headquarters at Eltham, using the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES). We were told by one officer that the very early stages were recorded on a card index system, and that there was a change over to the HOLMES system. Mr Crampton indicated to the contrary. Mr Crampton's assertion is supported by other evidence which satisfies us that the HOLMES system was in fact used from the outset, and that the officer indicating otherwise was genuinely mistaken. 13.19 There was in existence in 1993 a "job description" in connection with the tasks to be undertaken by a Superintendent acting as SIO on an AMIP investigation. This is a comprehensive and detailed document, setting out full duties and instructions, and indicating that the Superintendent will be in active charge, subject of course to the direction of senior officers. Those duties include taking control of the crime scene, gathering information, evaluating priorities and initiating all investigation activities. They also include making the relevant decision as to the "initial scope and pattern of the investigation" and "ensuring the correct treatment of persons injured or affected by crime in accordance with the Victim's Charter". That of course encompasses the appointment of Victim Liaison Officers, and "ensuring adequate briefing, support facilities and victim support for as long as necessary". 13.20 In this context Mr Crampton was responsible for the appointment of DS Bevan and DC Holden, assisted by PC Alan Fisher from the Racial Incident Unit, in order to care for the Lawrence family. He himself did not see Mrs Lawrence during his tenure of command, but he did see and speak to Mr Lawrence at 14:30 on Friday 23 April shortly before the press conference which was held in order to publicise the murder and thus to seek assistance from the public. 13.21 Mr & Mrs Lawrence indicated that Sunday 25 April was a day on which they would like to be left to themselves. There was comparatively little time or opportunity for Mr Crampton himself to visit the Lawrence family. Everybody has pointed out, and this we accept, that the early days of a murder investigation can be fraught with problems and multiple activity. But it would have been better if Mr Crampton had been able to keep his finger on the pulse of the family liaison, since it is apparent that from the very earliest times the connection between the police and the family went badly wrong. 13.22 Whether he would have been able to identify the trouble during his tenure is a
matter of doubt. Family liaison is an important aspect of any case and it should have been
regularly and positively monitored. Mr Crampton says that the feedback that he was getting
from police officers was that they were finding it difficult to sit down with the family
on their own "because there was so many people there". He did not
personally see that as a problem, and in his evidence to us he said that he thought that
the fact that the family had much support was a good thing. Mr Crampton says that when he
did speak to Mr Lawrence and when he explained what had happened at the post-mortem, and
what was going to happen, Mr Lawrence thanked him for his attendance and said that they
would wish to be left alone on the Sunday. He picked DS Bevan for family liaison because
he believed that DS Bevan had some training in "human awareness". He
picked DC Holden because she was a woman, and it was felt desirable that there should be a
woman involved in the liaison with 13.23 The AMIP directive indicates that there shall be briefings "usually twice a day", in order to "Review cases, canvass and assess opinions and suggestions, set out immediate and long-term actions and policies". Mr Crampton told us that a meeting was held once a day and we have the typed up notes of Mr Bullock in respect of those meetings. There has been considerable reference to these notes. They do form a written record setting out the activities of the team, and in addition we have the various actions and pieces of information which started to reach the team from Friday 23 April onwards which are recorded on the CAD system. 13.24 We know, and it is a striking feature of this case, that
most important information was reaching the team on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 April 1993.
By 13:50 on 23 April Message No 4 from an anonymous caller indicated that there was "a
group of youths on the Kidbrooke Estate who always carry large knives and threaten people.
They may have been involved in last night's stabbing. Two of them are Neil Acall(sic) and
Dave Norris". The address of 102 Bournbrook Road was included in that message.
There is no indication that this message was referred to at the 17:00 briefing on 23
April. 13.25 The most important information of all to reach the team during the first weekend came from a man whose identity was in fact established from the start, but who was for obvious reasons given a pseudonym, namely "James Grant". At 19:45 on Friday 23 April this young man, later described by DS Davidson as "a skinhead", walked into Plumstead Police Station. Detective Constable Christopher Budgen had been recruited on that day as a member of the AMIP team. He was sent to see the young man, and the information received was vital and illuminating. The information (as necessarily edited) has to be set out. It is known as Message 40: "A male attended 'RM' [Plumstead] and stated that the persons responsible for the murder on the black youth, are Jamie and Neil Acourt of 102 Bournbrook Road SE3 together with David Norris and 2 other males identity unknown. That the Acourt Brothers call themselves 'The Krays'. In fact you can only join their gang if you stab someone. They carry knives and weapons most days. Also, David Norris stabbed a Stacey Benefield a month ago in order to prove himself. Benefield was taken to the Brook Hospital and told police he didn't know who assaulted him. He then went on to say that a young Pakistani boy was murdered last year in Well Hall, that Peter Thompson who is serving life was part of the Acourts gang. That in fact one of the Acourts killed this lad. They also stabbed a young lad at Woolwich town centre called 'Lee'. He had a bag placed over his head and was stabbed in his legs and arms in order to torture him. Jamie is described as white, 17 years, about 5'9'', black hair, medium build. Neil is described as white, also 17 years, about 5'5'', black hair, stocky build. Both are 'twins', apparently the house they live in was occupied by their mum, who has since left. Believed identity of informant established." 13.26 DC Budgen reported this meeting to Mr Bullock. The message was recorded in the CAD system, although Mr Bullock appeared to receive DC Budgen's news with some lack of interest simply telling him to put the information on a "green sheet" for entry into the HOLMES system. The SIO did not know of the message until 24 April. 13.27 DS Davidson told us that he saw James Grant with DC Budgen on Saturday, 24 April, when virtually the same information was repeated verbally. No message or retained record sets out details of that meeting, but it was important confirmation of James Grant's information. 13.28 Research was ordered as a result of Message 40. By the evening of Sunday 25 April a full statement was obtained from Stacey Benefield (later confirmed by Matthew Farman) naming Neil Acourt and David Norris as those involved in the serious stabbing of Stacey Benefield in March 1993. The attack had been reported at the time, but no names had been given then by Stacey Benefield. This was perfectly clear evidence of the involvement of these two suspects in a potentially murderous attack. 13.29 Furthermore two "letters" were recovered during Saturday 24 April both of which were letters shown to have been written by the same person (known to us as Witness FF). Those documents were recovered from a local telephone kiosk, and from the windscreen of a police car upon which the document was surreptitiously placed. They are reproduced at the end of this Report. They too were of importance, and they confirmed much of James Grant's information. 13.30 Other anonymous and attributable information echoed that already received. It would be tedious to set out each and every message recording the receipt of further information. This has already been done by Kent Police in connection with the PCA report. The truth is that although people were reluctant to give their names there was no "wall of silence". In fact information purporting to implicate the suspects was readily and repeatedly made available, albeit hard evidence other than that of Mr Brooks and later the three bus-stop eyewitnesses of the murder was lacking. 13.31 Mr Crampton told Kent, and us, that he realised full well that the information coming to the investigation, particularly from James Grant, had to be taken seriously and that it appeared to be good information. Mr Crampton says that the action taken was to research it and to make inquiries in order to try to turn the information that had been obtained into hard evidence. Stacey Benefield's statement was taken on 25 April by DS Davidson who indicated to us that he regarded the introduction into the system of that hard evidence of a very serious crime committed by David Norris with Neil Acourt as grounds for making an arrest in itself. 13.32 At some stage on 24 April Mr Crampton says that in consultation with others, he made his positive decision that there should be no immediate arrests. He says that by Sunday 25 April a formal decision had been made to utilise the surveillance team in order to observe 102 Bournbrook Road, and if possible other addresses, in order to advance the case, particularly in connection with possible association between the named suspects. 13.33 In his evidence Mr Crampton was emphatic that a "strategical" decision was made that no arrests should take place, at least until after the surveillance had thrown up further information, or until further evidence had been gleaned, perhaps by other witnesses coming forward. He had of course in his possession from very early on a full statement from Mr Brooks which indicated that Mr Brooks might well be able to identify at least one of the suspects. It was known that there were other people at the bus stop, namely Joseph Shepherd, who was a friend of the Lawrence family, and Mr Westbrook and Mademoiselle Marie. The investigation team must have known that there was at least a possibility that there might be an identification made by one or more of those witnesses. In fact in the early stages of this investigation nobody was asked to make an E-fit or photo-fit of those involved in the murder. Mr Crampton indicates that he would not in any case ask for this step to be taken until after identification parades had taken place. Otherwise, said Mr Crampton, the identification at a parade might be tainted. We do not agree, and it seems to us that all steps ought to have been taken which might have led to the identification of those involved very early on, including E-fit or photo-fit sessions. 13.34 Mr Crampton said that by the Saturday evening, 24 April, consideration had been given to everything which was available, and a strategy had been adopted, namely that there would be no immediate arrests. He says that at the Saturday evening meeting those present would have been told of the decisions made and the strategy adopted, and that "we would have thrown it open for discussion and any ideas, anybody's comments". There is no record in the relevant note of the Saturday meeting in this regard at all, and Mr Bullock's notes simply indicate in respect of future action that consideration was being given to the setting up of an observation point "on suspect address". The history of the surveillance is elsewhere set out, but it should be remembered that Mr Bullock says that contact was not made until Sunday 25 April with the Sergeant in charge of the surveillance team. He indicated that the team was otherwise engaged in what turned out to be a comparatively trivial case on 26 April, so that they could not formally start their observations until 27 April. 13.35 A basic difficulty in connection with the police contentions in respect of the arrests is the total absence from Mr Crampton's policy file and records of any reference to the decision that there should be no immediate arrests and a closely related failure to record the decision to institute surveillance. Mr Crampton made nine entries in the policy file, all of them short, dealing with relevant decisions. It seems to this Inquiry palpable that the major and most important decision made by Mr Crampton was that these young men should not be arrested. If this decision was truly made after detailed consideration and proper consultation it should undoubtedly have been recorded in the policy file. This is not a bureaucratic requirement. The policy file must record important, and indeed vital decisions of this kind, both for record purposes, and in order to set out the thinking that the SIO has applied to the case. More particularly when the SIO knows that he is going to hand over within 48 hours of making that decision it seems to us essential that the matter should be fully recorded so that the new SIO can see exactly upon what basis the decision has been made. 13.36 We have looked with anxiety at the question of the decision not to make arrests during Mr Crampton's tenure as SIO. In the end, we are firmly convinced that a vital and fundamental mistake was made in failing to arrest the suspects over the first weekend, and certainly by early on Monday morning, 26 April. 13.37 As Kent indicated there are points for and against the decision to make arrests upon "reasonable suspicion". However, we are unanimously of the view that without a policy log entry indicating the options considered, the benefits of each option and the final decision, no weight can be given to Mr Crampton's assertion that the decision was a strategic one. The inevitable conclusion has to be that the alleged strategic decision was at the least ill-considered. 13.38 Inevitably there are doubts in our minds as to the considered nature of the decision, both because the decision itself seems to us to have been mistaken, and because there is no reference at all in any document to comprehensive discussion and to the strategic decision that is said to have been made on Saturday 24 April. By that time James Grant had been seen by DS Davidson. Even if DS Davidson's part in the quizzing of James Grant is to be criticised, there was information coming in which plainly gave reasonable cause for suspicion in order to make arrests. 13.39 If the right decision had been made, then the consequences are obvious. Searches could have been done wholly in accordance with the law, of the premises of the suspects. Identification parades could have been set up at short notice so that the witnesses attended while their memories were at their freshest. Interviews could have taken place in the more immediate aftermath of the murder, and the suspects might not have reached their own considered decision that they would make no comment and remain silent. 13.40 Gary Dobson and Luke Knight did later answer questions, but questions posed in the early days are often more effective than those given after suspects have had time for reflection, and perhaps advice to remain silent. 13.41 We wholly understand that early arrests might not have led to the conviction of any of the suspects. The same situation in respect of the elementary problems as to identification by Mr Brooks might have still prevailed. Furthermore if the suspects are as streetwise as they appear to be there may have been removal of incriminating objects very early on. If the arrests had been made earlier, and if no scientific evidence was even so available, and if no satisfactory identification had taken place, then the prosecution would almost certainly not have proceeded either in public or private form. In this particular case the delay in making the arrests has led to the problems that have dogged Mr & Mrs Lawrence since the early days. We feel compelled to say that the failure to make early arrests was the most fundamental fault in the investigation of this murder. 13.42 Mr Crampton indicated in evidence that his "negative strategy" involved trying to obtain evidence in order to arrest as opposed to arresting in the hope of finding evidence. He also justified the decision on the basis that the probability was that after 36 hours any obviously blood-stained clothing or weapons would have been disposed of in any event. But as was pointed out there is always the possibility that those involved in crime may not have taken the fullest steps in order to protect themselves from detection as a result of blood-staining. Speed is always of the essence in connection with the obtaining of scientific evidence, and the longer matters are delayed the more there will be an opportunity for those involved to take even further steps to prevent detection. 13.43 When the young men were eventually arrested on 7 May 1993 a pre-arranged script was used which read as follows, "You fit the description of the youths involved: you with others have a history of being involved in recent stabbings in the area, and we have received information from various sources that you were involved in this". Those grounds for arrest applied with just as much force on Saturday 24 April - Monday 26 April as they did on 6/7 May. 13.44 We understand that Mr Crampton wished to obtain further evidence, and his hope that the incomplete information set out in the relevant notes and documents would have been amplified by further investigation in the early days. For example, in respect of the family headed by the Witness DD, which included FF, the author of the two letters, further investigation and interviewing might have led to what Mr Crampton called "a potential real live witness". This is true, but it is of much significance that eventually the arrests were made without any significant progress having been made in developing the information which had literally poured into this investigation room in the early stages. It seems to us that this was in fact the main hope of the investigators, namely that a witness would 'turn up', and solve the case for them. We feel that this is further indication that the alleged strategic decision and the glaring lack of an entry in the policy log reflect the fact that no proper considered decision making took place, and the investigation was allowed to drift in the hope that a significant witness would emerge. 13.45 Mr Crampton was doubtful whether he would have been fully entitled to search in connection with the murder of Stephen Lawrence if he had affected arrests in connection with the Stacey Benefield stabbing. He seemed to believe that such searches, for knives and clothing, in respect of the Stephen Lawrence matter, could not lawfully or properly have been carried out if the arrest was made on the grounds of the Stacey Benefield stabbing. Of course deception must not be practised in connection with searches, but it is not only commonsense but also the law that if arrests had been made because of the Benefield matter the relevant houses could have been fully and thoroughly searched, both for evidence in connection with the Benefield stabbing and for anything that might assist the Stephen Lawrence investigation. Section 18 and 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act expressly provides that this is so. 13.46 During the weekend David Norris' address was available to the investigation from the collator's cards which were held at relevant police stations, even if at that stage no photograph of him was available. 13.47 Another matter of complaint by Mr & Mrs Lawrence's team in this case is that a proper search of the intelligence files at Scotland Yard and at local police stations was not made at once, either by the officers in charge of the initial response, or by Mr Crampton and his team, in order to forge connection between these suspects and the Stephen Lawrence murder. They also point out the investigation of other racist incidents might have assisted, and a connection between the Brook Estate, to which these men had headed after the murder, and where at least three of the suspects lived could and should have been discovered. Luke Knight lived in Well Hall Road nearby. 13.48 In connection with the policy file it must be noted that Mr Crampton's entries were short and sometimes concerned with comparatively small areas of the investigation. For example, there is an entry in connection with the searching of drains. There is no entry at all in connection with the most vital decision made during those early days, not to arrest the suspects. There are two possible reasons for this. First that no real considered decision was made and the investigation was simply allowed to drift until 6 or 7 May. Secondly that there was a deliberate unofficial policy not to record the reasons for major decisions which might subsequently prove contentious in order to seek to avert possible criticism. The latter would be the more serious. It is also significant that the failure to make a policy log entry in relation to a vital and major decision was clearly contrary to the MPS policy as set out in the AMIP guidelines. Nevertheless the failure was acceded to by Mr Ilsley who was party to the decision and was clearly aware of the content or lack of content of the policy log. Equally importantly it is clear that no senior supervisory officer ever appears to have looked at the policy log or made any comments whatsoever upon it. Indeed Commander Hugh Blenkin indicates in his statement to the PCA that he did not know what a policy log was. The lack of knowledge, interest and supervision by senior officers is singularly evident in this context. 13.49 On Monday 26 April Mr Crampton handed over to Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden. They met at a general meeting of Detective Superintendents chaired by Mr Ilsley, which was a forum which was apparently used to update Detective Superintendents involved in differing investigations and to resolve resource and other issues. Subsequent to the general meeting Mr Crampton spoke personally to Mr Weeden with Mr Ilsley present. There exists a long note made in Mr Weeden's own hand of the information he was given. Nowhere in those notes is there any reference to the decision that had been made not to arrest the suspects or the reasons for it. Nor was there reference to the Stacey Benefield statement nor any suggestion that Mr Crampton's decision should be reviewed with Mr Ilsley. It does seem remarkable that if such a fundamental decision had in fact been made it was not mentioned by Mr Crampton, not mentioned by Mr Ilsley and not queried by Mr Weeden. In our view this reflects the fact that Mr Crampton in fact did not make any strategic decision but allowed the investigation to drift until the point at which he handed it over, that Mr Ilsley acquiesced in this and that Mr Weeden failed to pick up the central issues of the investigation with sufficient grasp and urgency. 13.50 Mr Crampton, in answer to Mr Mansfield, said that of course the decision made as to the arrests was a flexible one that could have been changed at any time. That is perfectly true, but once the decision was wrongly made to leave these men at large it would be unlikely that the SIO taking over from the first "decision maker" would alter the decision already made, at least until there was some change in the circumstances, since the incoming SIO would not at once have a detailed knowledge of the investigation and, in this case regrettably no real knowledge of the basis on which the decision was made. When the handover took place Mr Weeden was consequently presented with a "fait accompli" in connection with the decision to arrest. He signally failed to focus upon this vital area of decision and to ascertain the reasons for it during his conference with the two officers responsible, Mr Crampton and Mr Ilsley, who must bear responsibility for not "bridging the gap" between the two SIOs and for not focusing upon the central question as to arrests. 13.51 Mr Crampton was rigorously cross-examined by Mr Michael Mansfield on behalf of the Lawrence family. That questioning reinforced the strong view formed by this Inquiry that there was a fundamental misjudgement and mistake made during the first three days after the murder in connection with the arrest of the suspects. Furthermore, the poor processing of the information which had come into the Incident Room during the first two days after the murder is plainly a matter for criticism.
|
