| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE IDENTIFICATION PARADES 21.1 Identification Parades were held in connection with this murder on 7 May, 13 May, 24 May and 3 June 1993. All the parades were conducted at the area identification suite at Southwark Police Station. There was a permanent staff of police officers and civilians employed at the suite. There was no Inspector posted to the suite at the time and the practice was for the Division requesting a parade to supply its own Inspector. 21.2 In 1993 the suite was closed on Mondays for administration. Tuesdays and Wednesdays were primarily allocated for white suspects and Thursdays and Fridays for black suspects. The method of booking the suite involved the officer requiring a parade to take place contacting the staff, when a mutually agreeable date would then be allocated. Sometimes it was necessary to arrange a parade very quickly, and in every case speed is of the essence, since it is necessary to allow witnesses to view suspects who are arrested as soon as possible after an arrest. 21.3 There is evidence before this Inquiry of laxness in connection with the running of the ID parades. There was plainly difficulty both in connection with the attendance of volunteers to stand on the parades and in connection with the alleged behaviour of a solicitor who was, so some witnesses say, difficult in connection with his demands. 21.4 The first parade took place on 7 May 1993 and it involved the
suspects Neil and Jamie Acourt and Gary Dobson. The witnesses were Joseph Shepherd and Mr
Brooks. The Acourts and Gary Dobson had been arrested at about 06.30 on 7 May. Apparently
Mr McIvor appointed Inspector Laurence Slone to act as Identification Officer on this and
other occasions. 21.5 The parade on 7 May was conducted by Mr Slone, who was approached on the afternoon of 7 May and told to conduct the parade. He was told that there were three suspects, but he had to contact the incident room at Eltham in order to ascertain information with regard to the offence which had to be entered onto the relevant form. There had been preliminary general contact made by Mr Bullock with Mr McIvor on 6 May as to the possibility of conducting parades in the future when suspects were arrested. Mr McIvor said that an Inspector would be appointed when the need arose. This approach was recorded before any decision to arrest had been made. The arrests of the Acourts and Gary Dobson took place at about 06:30 on 7 May. Mr Slone was given no warning of his appointment before the afternoon of 7 May. The lateness of this approach adds credence to the argument that the arrests were made because of outside pressures. Since 7 May was a Friday proper planning should have ensured that the identification parade suite was alerted at once to the need for parades including white suspects during 7 May. This was particularly important since the suite was not usually open at the weekend. 21.6 In the result the only suspect paraded on 7 May was Jamie Acourt, and neither Mr Shepherd nor Mr Brooks identified him. The failure to parade Neil Acourt and Gary Dobson is explained by Mr Slone on the basis that there was a lack of volunteers and that the hour was late. 21.7 It was on this occasion that Mr Shepherd indicates that his name was "inadvertently
revealed to the persons taking part in the parade". Mr Slone told us that he did
ask Mr Shepherd his name, but that he spoke quietly. However, the result was that 21.8 The second parade took place on 13 May 1993. The Identification
Officer on this occasion was Inspector John McIlgrew. Mr Shepherd refused to attend this
parade, and his father indicated that he was in fear for his safety. The suspects on this
occasion were Gary Dobson, Neil Acourt, Jamie Acourt, and David Norris. The witnesses in
connection with the Stephen Lawrence murder were Mr Brooks and Royston Westbrook. Stacey
Benefield and Matthew Farman were present as witnesses to the stabbing in March 1993 of 21.9 It was on this occasion that Mr McIlgrew indicates that he had difficulties with a solicitor, who wished to film the proceedings. As a result of considerable delays all round Mr Westbrook left the ID suite at 16:15, stating that he could not wait any longer. Mr Westbrook had been picked up between 09.00 and 10.00, and he was told that he would be wanted for about an hour. Not surprisingly he decided to leave when more than six hours had elapsed. 21.10 Furthermore, it was on this occasion that Mr Westbrook told us, in regard to the conduct of the parade, that during the day the witnesses were allowed to congregate unsupervised in a room before the parades took place. Mr Westbrook told the Inquiry about Mr Brooks in particular, indicating that he paced up and down the room, making other witnesses nervous. He also telephoned (within other witnesses' hearing), and appeared to be giving a running account of what was happening, probably to his solicitor. Then he spoke to Mr Westbrook, and later started asking for the addresses of other witnesses, to the consternation of Mr Westbrook and at least one other female witness. No police officer was present while all this was going on. It is evident that this was a serious flaw in the conduct of the parade and of the arrangements on 13 May 1993, since witnesses should never be left together without police supervision. Any successful identification might well have been compromised because of this irregularity. 21.11 Jamie Acourt did not take part in the parades on this occasion. Mr Brooks had failed to identify him already on 7 May 1993. There was apparently a lack of volunteers similar to Jamie Acourt. 21.12 During the course of the parades Mr Brooks identified Neil Acourt, and he identified a volunteer on Mr Dobson's parade. Following this parade Neil Acourt was charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. David Norris and Neil Acourt were both identified by Stacey Benefield and Matthew Farman, and were later charged with the attempted murder of Stacey Benefield. 21.13 A further parade was held on 24 May 1993, when the Identification Officer was Inspector Craig. The suspects were Jamie Acourt, David Norris, Neil Acourt and Gary Dobson. The witnesses were Mr Westbrook, Gurdeep Bhangal, Sandra Hood and Terry Witham. Mr Bhangal, Miss Hood and Mr Witham were witnesses to other alleged stabbings. Mr Westbrook was a witness to the Stephen Lawrence murder. Mr Craig has given a statement in which he sets out in considerable detail the problems which he encountered with a solicitor in which he states that these difficulties caused this parade also to take an excessively long time. Mr Westbrook attended the parade and viewed the parades involving Jamie Acourt and David Norris, both of whom he failed to identify. 21.14 A further parade was held on 3 June 1993. Again Mr McIlgrew was in charge. The witness was Mr Brooks and the suspect was Luke Knight, who had with him a legal representative from a solicitor's firm. It had been the intention again to ask Mr Shepherd to attend, but he telephoned and said he was unwilling to attend any further ID parades. During this parade Luke Knight was identified by Mr Brooks and was subsequently charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. This parade and its aftermath is of very considerable importance in connection with the evidence given by DS Crowley, the escorting officer, to which we will refer later in detail (see Chapter 22). 21.15 There were various attempts made after 3 June to hold further parades, but in fact no witness was called to the suite after 3 June. The only other parade which took place was on 5 September 1995, during the private prosecution committal proceedings, when David Norris was paraded for Witness B, who failed to identify him. That parade is of considerable significance in connection with the evidence of Witness B which is referred to particularly in the section dealing with the committal proceedings (Chapter 40). 21.16 Some criticism has been made of the failure to ask other witnesses to attend ID parades. It has been suggested that Mademoiselle Marie, the third eye witness at the bus stop might have been asked to attend, and that a witness who came forward in connection with a media appeal, having seen four white youths walking from Well Hall Roundabout towards Dickson Road, might have been called. Mademoiselle Marie indicated, however, that she was unable to give any description and could not recognise anybody. The other witness, who need not be named, only saw the youths from the rear. Although she was able to describe a distinctive jacket and gave some description of one of the youth's hair colour and style, it seems most unlikely that she would have made any satisfactory identification at a parade. 21.17 It has been said by the police that there was difficulty in contacting Royston Westbrook, both in order that he should attend ID parades and in order to provide photo-fit or E-fit evidence at an early stage. Any problem in this regard was simply due to the fact that Mr Westbrook did for some periods of time stay away from his home for perfectly good reasons. He is not to be criticised in any way. Indeed he gave very clear and helpful evidence to the Inquiry. 21.18 As to the parades themselves the evidence shows there was improper control of the witness room before the parades took place. It must be most important to keep witnesses separate before they are taken to make their identification of possible suspects. The risk being that if witnesses are left unwatched they may talk about the case concerned and perhaps even give each other descriptions of the persons that they have seen in connection with the crime. Mr Westbrook himself discovered, "through mixing with the witnesses" that the other persons present were wanted for other crimes committed in Chislehurst and Eltham. These were crimes with which Neil Acourt and David Norris are said to have been associated. Such conversation carries with it built-in risks. In addition Mr Westbrook says that on both occasions when he was collected for parades there were other potential witnesses with him in the police van who were able to speak together without supervision. This practice is contrary to Code C of the relevant codes of practice, and plainly there was a risk of compromise should an identification have thereafter been made. 21.19 The ID parades were delayed until about the middle or end of May partly because of the delay in making the arrests of the suspects. If the arrests had been made earlier it can be said that there would have been more prospect of successful identification, since the passage of time inevitably blunts the memory of the features or look of somebody who has been seen committing a crime. 21.20 It may be that the person seen by Mr Westbrook was not on any of the parades attended by him. And a photo-fit or artist's impression of the man seen by Mr Westbrook might not have fitted the looks of any of the suspects with whom we are concerned. However it would have been far better if Mr Westbrook had been seen early on to make an artist's impression and if the ID parades had taken place sooner. If that had been done there could be no cause for complaint about delay even if in the end Mr Westbrook and others failed to identify anybody at the parades which they attended. 21.21 We understand the many difficulties which can occur in the organisation of identification parades, particularly in relation to obtaining participants for such parades. Nevertheless where there are a number of suspects and witnesses and where identification evidence may be crucial this can only emphasise the extreme need for careful planning and foresight. In this case there was little evidence of either. As to the deficiencies of 7 May this may well be accounted for by the hasty and unplanned decision as to arrest which was made on the previous day. THE FAIR HAIRED ATTACKER 21.22 It is a feature of Mr Westbrook's evidence that he is convinced that the white youths actually "herded round" both Stephen Lawrence and Mr Brooks, and that Mr Brooks managed physically to break loose before he ran. This does not accord with the evidence of Mr Brooks himself. Of course everything happened very quickly. Mr Westbrook said that the whole incident was over in 10-15 seconds. Those who observe an incident like this one often give conflicting accounts. That is the reason why such care has to be taken as to identification evidence. 21.23 Mr Westbrook did not hear any words used during the attack. Indeed he remarked upon the relative silence in which it took place. He heard only Mr Brooks calling out to Stephen to run. As he got onto the bus which came almost at once he felt a shiver of apprehension when he thought to himself that the attack seemed so motiveless that it might have been levelled at him if the two boys had not been there. 21.24 Mr Westbrook described one of the attackers in considerable detail. He said that the man was "about 25 years old, five foot seven or eight, stocky build, dirty fair coloured hair. I think it was wavy, it went up and back from his forehead, it was shorter at the sides although not shaved and in general not short". 21.25 Mr Westbrook believed that he would recognise that man again. Indeed he said that he was confident about recognising him. In fact he made no identifications at any parade. 21.26 It should be noted in this context that during the Kent inquiry much comment was rightly made as to absence of any or any satisfactory follow-up of the person who became known as the "blonde attacker" or offender. 21.27 None of the five suspects appear to have had fair or light brown hair. The early descriptions given by Mr Brooks and Mr Westbrook both referred to the hair colour of the leading attacker. To PC Gleason Mr Brooks said on the night of the murder that that man's hair was "bushy light brown. It stuck out". Mr Westbrook in his statement quoted above said that the leading attacker had "dirty fair coloured hair". 21.28 Mr Brooks in his full statement of 23 April said that the man's hair was "long over his ears and it was frizzy and stuck out of the sides". On 6 May 1993, when he compiled a computer image of that man he described the hair as being "very light brown, fairly long, covered ears ....". Mr Brooks has indeed always said in evidence that one of the group had fair hair. His body map showed a man with fair hair. At trial the computer image was described as that of a man with "peroxide blonde" hair. 21.29 Joseph Shepherd described one of the offenders as having "medium length fair hair which was frizzy". 21.30 James Grant told DC Budgen that he had been told that there was "a fifth blonde unknown kid" present at the time of the murder. 21.31 In Mrs Lawrence's note of possible suspects taken from her on 6 May by Mr Ilsley the name "Blue" is listed, with the word "blonde" beside it. 21.32 As Kent pointed out the investigation at no time focused upon this. No line of inquiry was established to pursue the possible identification of the fair haired or blonde offender. There was no co-ordination or analysis of the various descriptions given. The fact that one of the attackers was fair haired should have been reflected in decisions made as to the elimination of suspects. The failure to deal logically with this line of inquiry must be another source of criticism of the SIO and his Deputy.
|
