| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CHAPTER TWENTY THE ELIMINATION OF SUSPECTS 20.1 Both the PCA Report and the testimony and written submission of Detective Chief
Superintendent Burdis (see Chapter 32) addressed the significant
issue of the identification and elimination of "suspects" in the investigation
into Stephen Lawrence's murder. In addition the "saga" of the red Astra motor
car was highlighted both by Counsel for 20.2 In any murder investigation a number of suspects can appear, some of obviously greater priority than others. They should be methodically and objectively eliminated as far as possible. The need to do this is reflected in the "Elimination Codes" which are a standard part of the HOLMES system. Six codes exist which are used to categorise the strength of the elimination. The codes are:-
An SIO can dictate as a matter of policy which codes he will accept as safely eliminating a suspect and define any specific criteria he wishes. In this case no entry was made in the Policy File in relation to elimination criteria by either Mr Crampton or Mr Weeden and the elimination code system was not used other than some suspects being shown as Code 6, not eliminated. Mr Weeden made individual judgements in relation to each suspect. 20.3 Mr Burdis identifies 75 suspects registered in the HOLMES system. In examination by Miss Weekes in relation to the use of elimination codes he stated "well, there is tremendous confusion about the way elimination was handled...". In addition others clearly qualified as suspects but do not appear to have been classified as such. The occupants of the red Astra motor vehicle seen in Well Hall Road soon after the murder are in the latter category. 20.4 PC Hodges was one of a number of officers in TSG Unit 326 who attended the scene of the murder shortly after it happened. Initially he went with Mr Groves, who decided to make inquiries at the Welcome Inn. About 30 minutes after arriving at the scene PC Hodges was standing near to the cordon at the point where Stephen collapsed. He saw an old style red Vauxhall Astra motor car, occupied by five white youths, approach the scene along Well Hall Road from the direction of Shooters Hill. The car slowed down at the cordoned area, and drove on in the direction of the Well Hall Roundabout. The occupants appeared to be laughing. PC Hodges caused a description of the vehicle to be circulated by radio through PSgt Clements who was standing with him. A few minutes later the vehicle came back, travelling in the opposite direction. PC Hodges, who was not in possession of radio himself, again caused the description of the car to be given out by another officer over the air. On neither occasion was the car stopped. No steps appear to have been taken to see that the car was followed. Most of the registration number was gained, and recorded as AGW 55 Y. 20.5 PSgt Clement, who was PC Hodges' immediate supervisor on the night, confirms the initial radio "circulation" of the description of the car by himself. He also confirms the fact that both he and PC Hodges felt that the five youths in the car "could match the description given of five youths together who were the suspects or indeed could have provided any further information". He also indicates that full details of the incident were passed to the investigation team. 20.6 The details do appear to have been passed to DC Pye, the Night Duty Detective at the scene. Message No 2, timed at 08:34 on 23 April records "... uniformed officers noticed an old style Vauxhall drove past a number of times with a group of youngsters in it. They seemed to think something was humorous about this. The car had a part index AGW Y. Uniform officers may have more detail". That message is marked to the effect that an action should be raised to identify the vehicle and trace the driver. There is some confirmation that the description of the vehicle was circulated over the air, since PC Robson testified that whilst manning a cordon at the scene he "heard something about a red Astra ... I did not hear the full text of the message". Additionally PC Robson recorded in his pocket book these details:- "Stephen Lawrence (v), Duwayne Brooks, description 6', brown bushy hair, 19 years, 6" blade knife AGW red Astra". He thought that he must have obtained these details when briefed on his return to duty at 10:00 on 23 April. 20.7 Action 20 resulted from Message 2. That action is endorsed by DC Doel some six days later on 29 April, showing that there were 28 Astras with AGW Y registration. No further action seems to have been taken to check these vehicles, although this was a manageable inquiry in terms of numbers, particularly if taken on a local area basis. The SIO, Mr Weeden, classed the action as "non-priority and no further inquiries to be made at this time". 20.8 By sheer chance the vehicle, whose correct registration proved to be AGW 115Y, was seen by PSgt Clement on 30 April. He stopped it and obtained details of the occupants. Those details were passed to the investigation team and are recorded on Action 20. They showed that the driver was Daniel Copley, and the passenger was Kieran Hyland. Their addresses and dates of birth are given. A further action was raised to research Mr Copley and Mr Hyland. 20.9 There was no separate research section in the investigation team. Mr Weeden has indicated that he would have liked to have had one, but had insufficient manpower to create such a section. The action was then allocated to DS Flook on 1 May. DS Flook was of course already performing five separate tasks as Office Manager, Statement Reader, Receiver, Action Allocator and Bag Carrier. It was his task to prioritise this particular action and to allocate it. In fact there is no trace of the action emerging until 8 June, which is 39 days later. It was then allocated to DC Michael Tomlin. There is really no satisfactory explanation whatsoever for this delay. Mr Weeden felt that the delay might have been attributable to the misplacement of the paperwork, in that it might have been concealed or stuck behind some other document. This is pure supposition. Mr Bullock and DS Flook could simply offer no explanation at all for the delay. It is evident that the information flowing through the incident room and the resulting actions were markedly delayed. This is a classic example of such delay. 20.10 Eventually the action requiring an officer to see Mr Copley and Mr Hyland was allocated to DC Tomlin at 08:26 on 8 June. DC Tomlin appears to have been assisted by DC Crane. Three statements were taken. DC Tomlin took statements from Daniel Copley and Kieran Hyland. DC Crane took a statement from Jason Goatley. All three men indicated that they had been drinking in the Wildfowler Public House at Thamesmead on the night of the murder. That public house appears to be a notorious haunt of racist white youths from Thamesmead. All three said that they left the public house in the red Astra at about 22:15 to 22:30 and that they had driven past the scene of the murder purely by coincidence in the course of dropping off Mr Goatley at his girlfriend's address. Mr Goatley and Mr Copley said that there were only three people in the vehicle. Mr Hyland however said that "there were five of us altogether, but I don't want say about the other two". This palpable anomaly has never been addressed. When asked what he did to pursue this obvious line of inquiry DC Tomlin answered, "What do you expect me to do". Later DC Tomlin indicated that he considered being asked why he had not investigated the differences between the statements as "a silly question". 20.11 DC Tomlin's attitude in the witness box was both condescending and casual. He had come apparently from abroad to the Inquiry and his contribution to the evidence was unsatisfactory. He performed such duties as were allocated to him, as the record shows, but it seems most likely that his casualness in the witness box was a mirror image of his activity during the investigation. Certainly this particular failure to follow up what could have been an important distinction between the evidence of these witnesses was serious neglect. 20.12 This failure is made worse by the lack of any background research undertaken by DC Tomlin either before or after the statements were taken, and by the failure of his supervisors to address the obvious need for further investigation once the statements were logged. 20.13 It should be a matter of routine for obvious reasons, for an officer carrying out an action to research the HOLMES system in order to obtain any other relevant information relating to the subject matter of his action. This can be done by the officer himself, or it can be done on his behalf by the action allocator. This did not happen in respect of the red Astra during the investigation. Action Number 460 allocated to DC Tomlin showed no associated documents or linked actions, although Action 20 and Message 2 clearly existed and were relevant. DC Tomlin said in answer to questions before the Inquiry that he was not aware of the original sightings of the car on the night of the murder by uniformed officers. The Action simply stated "TIE [trace, interview and eliminate] Daniel Edward Copley nominal 609 re knowledge of incident - drove past scene with Hyland nominal 610 in red Astra". 20.14 Furthermore simple local research would have established that Messrs Copley, Goatley and Hyland were well known in Thamesmead. They had convictions for racist attacks. Messrs Copley and Goatley had been arrested and convicted of threatening behaviour connected with the circumstances surrounding the murder of Rolan Adams. Mr Hyland had been convicted of a separate racist attack. All three were members of a local and notorious gang referred to as the NTO (Nutty or Nazi Turnout). As PSgt Solley, the local Community Relations Sergeant later testified, Mr Hyland was on record in the Racial Incident Unit at Plumstead, and all three were on record in the collator's index. The view of many of the team that the murder of Stephen Lawrence was not solely motivated by racism may well be reflected in this failure to obtain readily available local intelligence. 20.15 Even if this background had not existed the failure to address the differences in the three statements is inexcusable. The requirement placed upon DC Tomlin by the Action was to Trace, Interview and Eliminate. These three men were simply not eliminated by virtue of the statements taken. Indeed the opposite is the case. DC Tomlin should have pursued the obvious further inquiries which needed to be made. Furthermore the statements were seen by DS Flook in one of his five capacities, and by Mr Bullock and Mr Weeden, both of whom testified that they saw all statements. Nobody indicated the need for further investigative action, and the statements were simply filed. Messrs Goatley, Copley and Hyland were not eliminated despite having been near the scene in suspicious circumstances on the night of the murder. 20.16 It may be that the presence of the red Astra at the scene of the murder was entirely coincidental. On the other hand it is possible that the occupants of the red Astra had knowledge of or involvement with those who were involved in the attack upon Stephen Lawrence. One or more of the group responsible for the attack could, for example, have been dropped off by the red Astra. Alternatively the two groups may have been together before the attack. The crucial point is that such obvious and potentially significant inquiries simply did not take place. This shows professional incompetence of a serious nature by DC Tomlin, and an equally serious lack of supervision and management of the investigation by Mr Bullock and the SIO. DS Flook must also be criticised to some extent, but to a lesser degree because he was in the totally invidious position of having five separate functions to perform in the Incident Room. 20.17 We have dealt in some detail with the history of the red Astra, since it is a signal example of the failure of the investigation team to take necessary action. It is no doubt too late now to expect any productive information to be gained by further interviews by the police of these men. We will never know what might have emerged if the task of investigating them had been properly carried out at the right time. 20.18 The Kent Report lists eight suspects who were either related to or known associates of the prime suspects. All of these had simply been marked by Mr Weeden as "No further action" All were inadequately investigated and only two of the decisions were dated. Two prime examples are summarised here. 20.19 Blue Stuart was both a relation and an associate of the
Acourts. He was named as a suspect by an informant to DS May, who passed on that
information to the AMIP team. It did transpire later that DS May's informant might have
been referring to a different murder. But Stuart was also identified, as "Nickname
Blue, blonde hair, Age 20" on Mrs Lawrence's list given to Mr Ilsley on 6 May
(see para 27.16 et seq). He was interviewed on 14 July 1993. He stated he had been
drinking in the Crossways Public House until 23:00 on the night of the murder. He could
not remember who he was with. On 13 August the girlfriend of one of Stuart's friends made
a statement that she was in the public house until 22:30 on the night of the murder and
that Stuart was there at that time. No further enquiries were made. Stuart was marked "No
Further Action" and treated as eliminated. The decision was undated. Stuart's
description fitted the general descriptions given by the three eye witnesses 20.20 Michael Bunn was an associate of the Acourts and identified as such by information received by DS Kirkpatrick on 28 April recorded as Message 238. Bunn's description also fits the general descriptions given by the witnesses Brooks, Shepherd and Westbrook and again, in particular, he is described as having blonde hair. He was seen on the 14 June 1993 and stated that on the night of the murder he was in the Brook Hospital Social Club with a friend whom he named. The friend was seen on 6 July and confirmed this, indicating that they arrived at the club at 21:30 and left by taxi about 23:00. The police examined the "signing in" book at the club and found that the entry for Michael Bunn was dated Wednesday 21 April not Thursday 22nd. There was a suggestion that the date stamp had not been changed, and was therefore wrong. However no further enquiries were made. Mr Weeden marked Bunn for "No further action" and he was effectively eliminated from further enquiry. The decision was not dated. When interviewed by Kent Mr Weeden accepted further enquiries should have been made at the club and with the taxi firm and stated "...I accept that they were omissions and serious omissions." 20.21 Other examples of persons named as suspects who Kent found to have been recorded as eliminated without full or proper enquiry were Bradley and Scott Lamb, the half brothers of the Acourts, who also lived at 102 Bournbrook Road. They were said by Mrs Acourt to have been present there on the night of the murder. Scott Lamb told the police that he arrived back at No 102 at 23:00 on the night of the murder. Bradley Lamb was never interviewed at all. Both had been named as suspects on 4 May 1993. 20.22 It is not always possible to eliminate suspects. A person may have, quite truthfully, been alone at a particular time, or an alibi supported only by a friend or spouse may be entirely true. Equally some suspects will be accorded greater priority in an investigation than others. In this case it is both self-evident and correct that the Acourts, David Norris and Gary Dobson were the prime suspects. But others, particularly those who were known associates, may have been directly or indirectly involved or able to give useful information. They needed to be thoroughly investigated and eliminated, particularly since the group attacking Stephen Lawrence was thought to have been greater in number than the initial four suspects. 20.23 There is no evidence either in the policy log, the HOLMES system or the suspect documentation of the clear logic and reasoning on which elimination must be based. In the words of the PCA report "...credible suspects were eliminated on spurious grounds". This is clearly the case and must be a cause of serious concern and criticism.
|
