| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN HOUSE-TO-HOUSE INQUIRIES 17.1 On Friday, 23 April it was decided that there should be formal house-to-house inquiries made on the Brook Estate. The policy file indicates the areas to be covered. The object of the exercise was formally to list those who were present in the houses on the night of the murder, and of course to elicit any information from householders which might advance the investigation. This exercise should not be confused with the informal "door-knocking" performed in order to try to obtain quick information on the night of the murder. 17.2 Detective Sergeant Donald Mackenzie was given the initial supervision of this task. On 24 April he was joined by Detective Sergeant David Kirkpatrick. Both were experienced officers. DS Mackenzie was involved until 30 April. 17.3 As the weekend progressed there was a flow of information reaching the AMIP team, and the two Detective Sergeants attended the daily meetings and briefings. 17.4 The officers involved in the visits to houses were Plumstead Crime Squad officers reinforced from the TSG. The teams involved would take with them a standard form, in order to list details of the occupants of each house and personal descriptions of those present. Strict instructions as to what is to be done are set out in the MPS directive as to such inquiries. The instructions include the identification of potential suspects as one of the purposes of such inquiries. 17.5 Experienced CID officers were detailed to conduct the visits to some sensitive houses, including 102 Bournbrook Road, known already as a result of information received to be the home of the Acourts. DC Keith Hughes and DC Graham Cook joined the team probably on 23 April. They organised the Plumstead officers and obtained the necessary documentation for the task. DC Hughes and DC Macdonald were the officers who visited 102 Bournbrook Road on Sunday 25 April, in the late afternoon. They conducted inquiries along Bournbrook Road in a sensitive way, so as not to arouse suspicion. Mr Crampton himself briefed these two officers, and told them to report back to himself what they had seen and heard. The visit to No 102 was in reality a subterfuge, to confirm the presence of the Acourts before surveillance took place. 17.6 At No 102 the officers saw Mrs Acourt and also Mr John Burke who apparently stayed part of the time there with Mrs Acourt. Mr Burke's form gives his personal description, and indicates that he was present at No 102 on 22 April but that he left at 21:00. 17.7 Mrs Acourt's form indicates that she was at home and went to bed at 23:30 on 22 April. The occupants' form indicates that both Neil and Jamie Acourt and their half-brothers Scott and Bradley Lamb lived at No 102. Mrs Acourt gave unsatisfactory information about her sons' presence on 22 April, as follows:- "Neil, Jamie, Scott .... Bradley she states had 'flu. Friends came. Luke (Well Hall) - she states they were in all night. (Bradley could have been out). Scott may have come in about 10. Very unsure of movements. States Jamie was home." 17.8 The officers saw none of the suspects on 25 April. Understandably the officers did not ask to go upstairs or to see whether any of sons were in fact present on the 25th. They cannot be criticised for this, since suspicions could have been aroused by further investigation or inquiries. The fact is however that the visit established that probably the Acourts and Luke (presumed to be Luke Knight, who did live at Well Hall Road) were together on 22 April 1993. 17.9 Mrs Acourt did not sign the form. This was an unfortunate omission. When it was pointed out to Mr Crampton he simply told the officers to record that fact in the Incident Report Book. DC Hughes told the Inquiry that he would have asked whether the young men were present, but he did not regard it as necessary to record the fact that they appeared not to be present on 25 April. 17.10 DC Hughes said that he did ask Mrs Acourt whether she had heard any "rumours about the incident". She said that "she had heard about it on the news, and she remembered that her sons had spoken about it." She said that the whole house had to be redecorated, and there were obvious signs that decoration was going on. 17.11 Mr Mansfield suggested to DC Hughes that there were important omissions from the form and indeed from the inquiries made at No 102. We are not convinced that this was so. A further visit by DC Hughes, would simply have resulted in the obtaining of Mrs Acourt's signature. The first visit had confirmed the suspects' presence at No 102 on 22 April 1993. 17.12 When Gary Dobson's house (Phineas Pett Road) was visited by DC Cash at about 18:00 on 25 April Gary Dobson was present. At 18:20 DC Cash saw Mr Dobson go into 102 Bournbrook Road for about five minutes. The visit to Gary Dobson's home led to a conversation with Gary Dobson who said that he was at home all night studying, having arrived home at 17:30. His mother and father said that they were also at home. Association between Gary Dobson and the Acourts was established in any event. 17.13 DS Kirkpatrick was involved in other varied activities during the investigation. He arrested and interviewed Neil Acourt on 7 May. He saw and interviewed other potential witnesses, including Witness B. Throughout the early weeks he remained in charge of the house-to-house inquiries, which appear to have gone on into June 1993. A total of 829 houses were visited. There were 719 replies and 1,628 people were seen and spoken to. DS Kirkpatrick's job was to collate the information gleaned, and to pass on relevant information to the Receiver or Office Manager. We see no grounds for criticism of the method of carrying out of the house-to-house inquiries. DS Kirkpatrick was an experienced and impressive officer who seems to us to have performed his duties in connection with these inquiries fairly and professionally. 17.14 A limited area of criticism is the failure of either SIO to direct house-to-house inquiries in the areas from which the group of suspects may have emerged onto the scene of the attack, as opposed to where they ran after it. Such inquiries may have proved negative, but equally a witness may have been found who could have put the attacking group at the scene and who might have identified them. 17.15 Questioned about this Mr Weeden indicated that he thought this had been done. Mr Weeden's Counsel sought to sustain his recollection by identifying seven such actions. Only one was of relevance and that was limited to inquiries at Eltham railway station and the kebab shop on Tudor Parade. One of the few positive aspects of Mr Barker's activities in undertaking his Review was that he generated a number of actions for this purpose. Whether they were pursued, at that late date, is not known.
|
