CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

SURVEILLANCE

18.1 The story of the surveillance of 102 Bournbrook Road and of David Norris' address in Kent is a most unhappy part of this case. If a strategic and considered decision was taken by Saturday 24 April that arrests should be delayed, then the alternative road forward should have itself been carefully planned and recorded. As we know the policy file contains nothing to show when or why the decision not to arrest was made. Nor does the policy file contain any reference to the establishment of surveillance, which the SIOs indicated was to be part of the alternative way ahead. This in itself is a glaring omission.

18.2 In Mr Bullock's briefing notes for Saturday 24 April the following entry appears:- "Consideration being given to Observation Post on suspects address." Other than this nothing is said in briefing notes or in the policy file about surveillance.

18.3 At some unidentified time on Sunday 25 April Mr Bullock says that Mr Crampton told him to make contact with the 3 Area surveillance team, which operated from the Force Intelligence Bureau (FIB) at East Dulwich. The team consisted of about ten officers. Detective Sergeant David Knight was the leader of the team, under Detective Inspector Cliff Davies. DS Knight was on leave until 27 April.

18.4 If surveillance was a considered option by Saturday 24 April it is remarkable that the operation was not mounted at once on that day, or on Sunday at the latest. However it appears that the team probably did not operate at weekends in 1993. It also appears that the team was booked to observe a young black man on Monday 26 April. He was suspected of a minor offence of theft or "theft from the person". If the surveillance for this murder was important it is remarkable that no formal or proper contact was made so that at least research for observation points could have been carried out over the weekend. Furthermore surely this murder must have been given priority over the minor offence referred to above. Such priority could have been arranged without doubt through Mr Ilsley who had the authority, should surveillance have been required urgently, to cancel any arranged surveillance in respect of some relatively minor crime.

18.5 Mr Bullock said in evidence that he did go out on Sunday morning 25 April with Mr Crampton to look for "an observation point to see if we could keep the premises under observation, but there didn't appear to be one that was useful to us .....". Furthermore Mr Bullock says that both he and Mr Crampton spoke to someone from the surveillance team on Sunday 25 April. There is a CAD message dated 26 April for Mr Bullock to "Arrange for 3 Area FIB re suspects". Mr Bullock says that he wrote that message on Monday 26 April because Mr Weeden was about to take over. Plainly there was no urgency in any communication made on Sunday 25 April (if it took place at all), since the team did not carry out its planned observation of the theft suspect until 14:00 on Monday 26 April.

18.6 So much of the relevant documentation is missing that it is difficult to tell exactly when formal and effective contact was made. But PC Victor Smith (the team administrator) says that he received a telephone call at about 11:00 on Monday 26 April from DC Simpson or perhaps direct from Mr Bullock, that a surveillance team was needed by the AMIP team at Eltham. The result was that PC Smith arrived at Eltham at 12:15, where he saw Mr Bullock who told him what was required, and who said that what was wanted was evidence of association between the suspects, namely the Acourts, Gary Dobson and David Norris. Mr Bullock said that urgent action was needed, and that he wanted photographic evidence, because his team were not sure who was who. PC Smith was given some help as to Observation Point (OP) locations by DS Mackenzie, who had by then obtained information about the Acourts and Mr Dobson and their addresses. No written instructions or briefing were ever given. By this time 48 hours had elapsed since the making of the original note regarding consideration being given to the setting up of observation posts on 24 April. Such a delay is clearly inexcusable.

18.7 Checks were then carried out as to various addresses and their occupants, and by about 16:00 a point was chosen for observation of 102 Bournbrook Road. Peter Finch, the photographer, was by then present. PC Smith's very rough notes, recorded in his own memo book which was a wholly unofficial document, refer to his meeting with Mr Bullock on 26 April. More importantly they show that between 16:40 and 20:00 observation was kept on No 102 by himself and Mr Finch.

18.8 At around 16:40 a young white man was seen to leave the house with what appeared to be clothing covered by a black bin liner. The camera was not set up, so that no photograph was obtained of this event. Nor was it notified to the Incident Room, since there was no means of communication from OP to Incident Room. The Incident Room was told of this event on the next day. We will never know what was removed from No 102 on 26 April. PC Smith's memo book records this event as follows:- "Silver Sapphire carrying dry cleaning". It is unusual to place a bin liner over clothes en route to the dry cleaners. After seeing that event Mr Finch took photographs, until he left for the police station at about 20:00.

18.9 PC Smith and Mr Finch both returned at about 20:00 to the police station. The surveillance team had been there on that afternoon, but they had been stood down by 20:00. In the weekly return form for the surveillance team the only entry for 26 April refers to the theft surveillance, which lasted from 08:30 until 14:00 on 26 April. Surveillance Log 18819 confirms this. That log still exists, as do three other logs for 27 April (18821), 29 April (18843), and 30 April (18841). Log No 18820 is missing and there is no log for 26 April as to 102 Bournbrook Road. The Logs for 29 April and 30 April (issued in the wrong numerical order) show that an unproductive operation was mounted by the full team on David Norris' home at Berryfield Close on both those days, for only two hours and four hours respectively. Gary Dobson's address at Phineas Pett Road was apparently never surveyed.

18.10 The only full team operation mounted on No 102 thus took place on 27 April. But extraordinarily the log shows that observation did not begin on that day until 19:47, and it ended apparently at about 21:10. The team was to be paraded on 27 April at 14:00, which is itself surprising, since the activity on 26 April suggested that full time observation might bear fruit. The full team operation at No 102 was therefore limited to less than two hours.

18.11 The photographer, Mr Finch, was however observing No 102 on the morning of 27 April, (although this is nowhere officially recorded). Between 08:00 and 11:00 he took some photographs. One of those (taken at 08:16) shows Jamie Acourt leaving the premises with a black binliner. There was no means of following him, because there was no communication and because the surveillance team was not on parade by that time. This shows a gross lack of planning and indeed of common-sense. If surveillance is to be fully effective there must be the means of communication from OP to base. There must also be arrangements in place for following those who leave in suspicious circumstances. When the full team was on duty in the evening at least one vehicle was followed, to a supermarket, so that such pursuit was in practice feasible.

18.12 Many photographs were taken, which were processed and forwarded to the AMIP team in albums on 27 April. For 26 April there are pictures of various cars and of Zak Stuart, Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt, Gary Dobson, Darren Davis (David Norris' cousin) and David Norris. Gary Dobson and David Norris appear together at about 19:55 in three separate photographs.

18.13 There is no record of other surveillance performed by the team. Other photographs were taken at 102 Bournbrook Road on 5 May, which again showed both the Acourts carrying items of clothing (Neil) and a plastic bag (Jamie). Many other photographs were taken elsewhere in May 1993, but none of those appear to be of importance.

18.14 Those photographs were never properly researched or used. They were at the Incident Room from 27 April, but nobody appears ever to have realised their great importance. Officers involved in all the interviews of those eventually arrested had little if any knowledge of the surveillance and its product. DC Hughes states that he was not sure if he knew that surveillance had taken place. DC Budgen was aware that there had been surveillance but he was not aware of its outcome. DS Bevan only knew about the surveillance in general terms. DC Chase states that he was not aware of the surveillance at all. Most particularly the photographs were not made available to DS Davidson when he interviewed Gary Dobson. Gary Dobson denied knowledge of David Norris. These photographs would have been a vital shot in DS Davidson's locker. If he had been able to confront Mr Dobson with them he would have established Mr Dobson as a liar. Who knows what effect this might have had upon Mr Dobson, who was ready to speak, and who was rumoured to be the one suspect who might crack.

18.15 It appears that no other surveillance of any kind was ever mooted or carried out. So that the operation was limited and poorly planned and executed. The whole history of this surveillance reveals inefficiency and incompetence.

18.16 Furthermore the documents which should exist in connection with the operation are conspicuous by their absence. We have already referred to the absence of entries in the policy file. The limited logs which are available are incomplete, since there is no log for 28 April. Yet the weekly return indicates that observation took place on that day with the result "No movements at suspects H/A", [home address]. The hours worked are said to have been 06:00-14:00 on that day. Ultimately in evidence before us it was accepted that no surveillance did take place on 28 April and that it is likely that the day was spent in research for other unidentified OPs. Even that which is recorded is therefore grossly misleading.

18.17 Mr Philip Pitham is Head of Training at the Regional Crime Squad National Training Centre in Leicestershire. On 30 August 1997 he wrote a devastating report and critique about this surveillance operation. He is a most experienced ex-officer, now employed by the Home Office in respect of surveillance training. It would be tedious to rehearse the whole report, but Mr Pitham indicates that correct procedures were neither followed nor documented. Simply for example there is no tasking document, no management authority to deploy, no surveillance research material, no authority document for the use of technical equipment, no documentary proof of statutory requirements for the use of OPs, no operational briefing sheets. Furthermore apart from the logs referred to (which were incomplete and out of order) there are numerous other deficiencies of records during and after the operation. Mr Pitham poses many questions about the operation which are simply unanswered. And his concluding paragraph reads as follows:-

" Overall Conclusion 

It is apparent however that the documentation that is missing from the file holds the key to the questions that I have posed.

Retained briefing material would have supplied the objectives to the individual surveillances, and given an insight into exactly what was required from the observations that took place.

The correct procedures in respect of the static observation post observations, and surveillance back-up or intelligence investigation could also have revealed the purpose of the 4 day surveillance operation.

The planning and preparation that did take place, according to the available paperwork was not of a standard that I would expect if the intention was to gain evidence to assist in a prosecution for murder.

Several important procedures have been apparently neglected (Recording of observations from OPs/Retention of material for disclosure/Recording of material generated by Surveillance) that in my opinion, the surveillance team appear to have been deployed in an 'ad hoc' fashion, with no apparent direction towards the achievement of specific objectives, or the collation of evidence to assist in the prosecution of an offence.

In my opinion, the surveillance has been used to 'trawl' for intelligence which may be of use to other more important lines of enquiry that were ongoing at this specific time in the investigation.

The procedures that were in place in relation to the issues of Surveillance log books 182, and the issuing register 128, within 3-4 Area FIB, at this time would also benefit by the production of the register, to counter suggestions of malpractice. "

18.18 The only identifiable follow up by the AMIP team seems to be one message raising an action about an Allegro car seen on 27 April, and requests from the SIO to retain the photographs, together with a request to DS Hughes from the SIO to complete a record of intelligence gained on the Acourts. No such record has been shown to us.

18.19 The conclusion must be that this operation was ill-planned, badly carried out, and inadequately documented. If it was partly a substitute for arrests, as a matter of policy, then we conclude that the decision-making in this regard was flawed and incompetent. Furthermore the failure to use the material that was created by the operation, and the failure to have in position and available the means to check that which left the premises in black bin liners speak for themselves. All those who heard the evidence about this aspect of the case were understandably aghast. Furthermore the use of the surveillance team to observe a young black man suspected of theft in apparent priority to surveillance of the Stephen Lawrence suspects is remarkable. No explanation of this "priority" has ever been given.

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