| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO DETAILS AS TO 3 JUNE 1993 AND 22.1 Detective Sergeant Christopher Crowley gave evidence to the Inquiry over a period of a full day on 7 and 8 May 1998. He has been much involved in this case, and he gave evidence both at the committal proceedings and at the Central Criminal Court trial. His evidence is a matter of considerable controversy and criticism, and of much media attention. He has an outstanding libel action pending against the 'Private Eye' magazine. He has brought proceedings against 'The Caribbean Times' and Granada Television. Both of those cases appear to have been settled or to be in the process of settlement. 22.2 The allegations made against DS Crowley, both on behalf of Mr Brooks and on behalf of the Lawrence family, are serious. It seems right that these allegations should be set out. 22.3 Mr Macdonald, when he started to cross-examine DS Crowley, said that the first allegation was that the Sergeant was either lying about or had misunderstood what Mr Brooks said to him following the ID parade on 3 June. The allegation is that DS Crowley either on his own account or upon instructions undermined the credibility of Mr Brooks' identification evidence. Secondly, it is alleged that in connection with another case, involving the murder of Rolan Adams, this officer acted in a manner "which had the effect of undermining the credibility of Nathan Adams, the principal prosecution witness, surviving victim and brother of Rolan Adams". It is said that the arrest and treatment of Nathan Adams by this officer on two occasions in 1991 were either "deliberate, or the result of discriminatory conduct" on the part of DS Crowley. It is also said that in taking witness statements in connection with the Adams murder, this officer failed to make an accurate record and "failed to elicit evidence of racial abuse which was said to have been uttered on the occasion of the murder of Rolan Adams". Thus it was alleged that DS Crowley tried to thwart the success of both murder investigations. 22.4 Mr Mansfield, on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence, had cross-examined DS Crowley, both at the committal and the trial of the three suspects who were acquitted. He specifically adopted the allegations made by Mr Macdonald, but gave no separate notice of any "charges" to be made against DS Crowley. When this was dealt with during the evidence Mr Mansfield said, "I am not suggesting that this officer is subjected to any Norris connection. What I want to establish through officers is the extent of the Norris connection with the squad, the extent to which the Norris family were known or it is denied that they were known in order to obviously ask questions of later senior officers, he was only in the inquiry for one day and his role was a pivotal one." So that Mr Mansfield was both directly questioning the evidence of this officer in connection with his contact with Mr Brooks, and he was using the officer as a vehicle by which he introduced the suggestion that the investigating team, and in particular the senior officers, were favouring David Norris. 22.5 This allegation was made on the basis that there might have been a number of motives for such favouritism. To quote Mr Mansfield "It may be only one of a number of motives and clearly I am not going to be in a position to quote chapter and verse whether it is a question of race, whether it is a question of fear of the Norris family, whether it is a question of the influence of the Norris family or whether it is a question of the actual corruption of the Norris family or some other reason. We are not in a position to say more than that in relation to Mr Crampton but I have made it clear that I will put that into writing if that is what is required." This arose when there was considerable doubt as to whether proper notice had been given of such swingeing allegations to be made against the senior officers. 22.6 It can be seen therefore that the attack upon DS Crowley was both direct and indirect, in the sense that he was expressly challenged as to his part in the case which was said to reflect strongly upon the conduct and the motives of both himself and the senior officers involved. Mr Mansfield plainly alleges that the conduct of the senior officers in connection with the Stephen Lawrence case, particularly as it concerned David Norris, was tainted by the officers' knowledge of and involvement with David Norris' father, Clifford Norris. 22.7 Those then are the allegations. The evidence given by DS Crowley was in one sense perfectly simple. He says that he was nothing but the escorting officer appointed to his task by Mr Jeynes, because he was the only officer available to perform that duty. There seems to be no reason to doubt his evidence as to this, and certainly it is not proved that there was any ulterior motive in his appointment. He was not involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. At the time he was a Detective Sergeant at Plumstead Police Station, and he was in charge of a team of detectives who worked under him, and who performed their own individual duties in the criminal investigation field. 22.8 The escorting of Mr Brooks to the identification suite on 3 June was the only duty done by DS Crowley in connection with the Stephen Lawrence murder. DS Crowley was to have collected Mr Shepherd also for this parade, but Mr Shepherd indicated that he would not come. Therefore the only passenger in Mr Crowley's car to and from the Southwark ID suite on 3 June 1993 was Mr Brooks. DS Crowley was not seen by Kent, but he made a statement for the benefit of our Inquiry simply to confirm the statement he had made in June 1993. 22.9 There was cross-examination both here and elsewhere about the date of the statement made by DS Crowley, which was altered from 4 June to 3 June 1993. Similarly a short statement made by Mr Brooks at the ID suite was originally dated 4 June 1993 and was also altered to 3 June. It appears to us that there is in fact nothing sinister in the change of dates in these two statements. DS Crowley's own statement, which he says he made at Eltham Police Station, was taken to Plumstead Station by him on instructions, where the statement was "franked" indicating the "official" date as 3 June 1993. Later investigation showed that that stamping was certainly made after the statement was recorded. It had been suggested at one time that DS Crowley's statement might have been made on 4 June, on a form previously stamped and left blank on 3 June 1993. This allegation seems to have been exploded. 22.10 DS Crowley told us, and he has consistently said the same when he has given evidence on other occasions, that he was not involved in the Lawrence investigation in any way. Had he been so he would not have been eligible, because of the requirements of Code D under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in relation to identification parade procedures, to act as an escorting officer or take a statement from Mr Brooks in these circumstances. The Code also requires an "identification officer" to be someone who is not below the rank of Inspector who is not involved in the investigation. Any breach of the Code may compromise an identification made thereafter. The identification officer in charge of the parade on 3 June was Mr McIlgrew. 22.11 The suspect to be put on a parade on 3 June was Luke Knight. DS Crowley says that he was not aware of this man's name until later on. The parade was held at about 15:55. Number 8 on the parade was identified, and Mr Brooks' signature appears on the page of the documentation indicating that this was so. Luke Knight was the person placed at number 8 on the parade. 22.12 After Mr Brooks had effected his identification, he came back, or was brought back by Mr McIlgrew, to DS Crowley. What happened after that between DS Crowley and Mr McIlgrew is contested. Mr McIlgrew says that as he went up to the administration area DS Crowley approached him and said something like, "Was anybody picked out?" Mr McIlgrew says that he answered, "Yes, he picked the suspect." Mr McIlgrew says that DS Crowley then said to him, "I'm not happy. Brooks has said things to me that make me think he didn't see the suspect clearly." It is right to say that Mr McIlgrew accepted that he might have spoken to DS Crowley twice, once in connection with the actual identification, and then again in connection with the doubts expressed by DS Crowley. But his original statement is as set out above. 22.13 DS Crowley's memory of the conversation is different. He says that he was informed by Mr McIlgrew, who was conducting the parade, that the witness had identified the man who was on the parade as a suspect. He says that Mr McIlgrew ".... told me that he had picked out number 8 of ten white lads which was the person the police had put on the parade". Thereafter, he says that he was with Mr Brooks in the witness waiting room and he took a statement from Mr Brooks briefly detailing his participation and recording his having picked number 8. DS Crowley says that at no stage did he tell Mr Brooks that he picked out "the right person". 22.14 DS Crowley is adamant that Mr Brooks said that the only statement that he would make at any time during that afternoon was the short formal statement which is before the Inquiry indicating that he had picked out number 8 on the parade. 22.15 It was pointed out in cross-examination that at no time in that statement or anywhere else did DS Crowley record that Mr Brooks had refused to sign any further statement. DS Crowley accounts for this simply by saying that this was the fact, but that he saw no reason why that should be recorded. 22.16 What happened immediately after that short statement was
taken is the nub of this part of the case. It is perhaps important to note that there is
in Mr McIlgrew's own evidence support for the fact that something strange happened,
because on his account DS Crowley did say that he was not happy about things that Mr
Brooks had said to him. It is apparent and seems to us to be plainly proved that DS
Crowley did go to 22.17 It is true that DS Crowley did not make a statement then and there. Mr Mansfield roundly criticised DS Crowley for having failed to tell Mr Brooks what he was going to do, and for failing to make a full statement there and then at Southwark Police Station. But DS Crowley said that as a result of what occurred he decided that he must not become involved at Southwark Police Station, and that it was his job to contact the incident room and to delay making his report until he returned. 22.18 What happened is certainly unusual. DS Crowley says that Mr Brooks started indicating to him in the plainest terms matters which, if they were said, rendered his identification of Luke Knight and his earlier identification of Neil Acourt highly suspect. 22.19 At the heart of the matter is the fact that DS Crowley says that Mr Brooks simply gave out the facts which are recorded in his statement, more or less as a monologue. He did refer to a "conversation" with Mr Brooks, but he says that he did not engage in any conversation with him in the ordinary sense, but that what was said was "voluntary by him. He did all the talking." 22.20 When asked repeatedly why he did not raise any questions with Mr Brooks about what he was saying he said that at the time Mr Brooks was telling him things which had a bearing on the investigation, so that he did not engage in any talk or conversation with Mr Brooks actually at Southwark Police Station, otherwise it might have been said that he had involved himself in the investigation itself. This may appear strange to outsiders, but in fact DS Crowley was bound to keep his distance from any involvement in the investigation, otherwise it might have been said that there had been a breach of the Code. 22.21 DS Crowley was a dogged and somewhat unusual man. We can understand that he
would have tried to keep himself aloof from the investigation, and he told us and repeated
many times that what he recorded in his statement simply came from 22.22 DS Crowley knew that that was most important, as were all the other matters set out in his statement of 3 June. He also recorded, as can be seen, that Mr Brooks had told him that he had been prompted by a friend who said that he should know the suspects, namely the Acourt brothers, since they had attended the same school as him. This was not in fact the case, but that is what DS Crowley says was the effect of Mr Brooks' words, namely that a friend had prompted him in this way. 22.23 Furthermore, as the statement shows, he indicated that he had picked out one person on an ID parade because he had the physical appearance of having been kept in a police station, and was wearing tracksuit trousers, and "had to be the one who had been put on the parade by the police". 22.24 If this were not enough he told DS Crowley that friends had prompted him as to the physical features and hair details of the Acourt brothers. He repeated that on the night of the stabbing he did not see any faces clearly enough to be able to identify them, but relied on the physical description and appearance and not upon facial identification. 22.25 Mr Brooks is also recorded as having said that he hated the police, and wished to take revenge on them, because they had arrived on the night of the murder in place of the ambulance men. That last statement is among those accepted by Mr Brooks as having been said by him. It does seem most unlikely that DS Crowley would invent a statement of that kind. Such a conclusion is of course not available, since Mr Brooks admits that that is what he said. 22.26 Over and over again DS Crowley has been challenged about this development in the case. And repeatedly and doggedly he has denied the allegations made against him. He says that these things were indeed said, and that is why he reported to Mr McIlgrew at Southwark. There is considerable validity as it seems to us in this assertion, and as we have already indicated, Mr McIlgrew confirms that something was certainly said about the doubts in the mind of DS Crowley. 22.27 After this had happened, DS Crowley says that he telephoned to the investigation headquarters, in fact on two occasions, once from Southwark Police Station and once from Rotherhithe. He took Mr Brooks to Rotherhithe to collect a filofax which Mr Brooks had left there; he then took Mr Brooks to his father's address, near Deptford Police Station; and then he took him home. After that DS Crowley went to Eltham Police Station at once, where he saw Mr Weeden and others as well, and was told immediately to make a statement. He went into another room and made the hand-written statement which is the original of the version later set out in the HOLMES computer system. Then he took his hand-written statement to Plumstead Police Station for franking. 22.28 There is of course a fundamental issue between DS Crowley and Mr Brooks as to the truth of DS Crowley's evidence. It is purposeless to rehearse all that took place at committal and trial. Anybody who wishes or needs to see the detailed evidence given on both those occasions can do so since the evidence is a matter of public record. Furthermore the cross-examination by Mr Macdonald and Mr Mansfield, pursued with considerable vigour and at length, is recorded in the transcript of this Inquiry. 22.29 There are features of DS Crowley's evidence which are strange. To start with, it is certainly unusual that anybody should "spout" immediately after an ID parade, let alone that a witness should say the kind of things recorded by DS Crowley. Furthermore DS Crowley did not take a statement at the time, namely at Southwark Police Station. All this has been put to DS Crowley repeatedly. 22.30 Mr Macdonald alleges that there was no conversation of any kind at Southwark Police Station, but that such conversation as there was took place in the car going away from the ID suite. This has led some to compare the evidence of DS Crowley with the evidence of officers, in former days, as to what were known as "back seat confessions" made by suspects en route to police stations. Such evidence came to be familiar, and indeed notorious, before the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Evidence of this kind was said to be given by officers allegedly to "nail" suspects unjustly. 22.31 On the other hand, in this case, Mr Brooks was not a suspect, he was a victim and a witness. And if DS Crowley had not written down what was said by Mr Brooks and recorded it fully, he could of course have been much criticised by those acting on behalf of the actual defendants, namely the three suspects who were eventually tried at the Central Criminal Court. 22.32 However, the most outstanding feature of the whole matter is that Mr Brooks does not deny by any means the whole of the "conversation". Not only has this been explored at the committal and trial, but again before us it has been pointed out with very considerable force, that in fact Mr Brooks has accepted enough of what DS Crowley says to undermine his identification in any event. The matter has been the subject of an internal inquiry for the MPS by Superintendent Selwood, who investigated this affair and, among other things, has produced a comparison in the form of a two column chart indicating the extent to which Mr Brooks accepts in his own statement of 4 June 1993 what DS Crowley says. Furthermore, when cross-examined, particularly at the Central Criminal Court by leading Counsel on behalf of the defendants, Mr Brooks accepted important aspects of the evidence which was given in connection with this "conversation" by DS Crowley, to the extent that his own evidence was virtually destroyed. Mr Brooks' evidence at the Central Criminal Court did not support the thrust of his main contention made to us, namely that on the way home DS Crowley had simply said that Mr Brooks was "guessing" about his identification, and that an argument had ensued, finishing with Mr Brooks getting out of the car and telling DS Crowley to "fuck off". 22.33 It is most important to note that at the Central Criminal Court Mr Justice Curtis heard the evidence both of Mr Brooks and of DS Crowley. We have not had the evidence of Mr Brooks given in full and subjected to cross-examination. There is absolutely no reason to complain of this, and we do not do so. Mr Brooks has been subjected to the most terrible ordeal both because he was a witness to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and a victim of the attack, and because of all that has followed. It is perfectly understandable that he is simply not able to give evidence in the full sense of the word before us. Therefore we have no means, other than by a survey of all the documents in the case, including the committal and trial documents and Mr Brooks' statements made to this Inquiry, to judge for ourselves this comparison between Mr Brooks and DS Crowley. 22.34 The significant fact is that at trial Mr Justice Curtis wisely did not act in connection with any of the contested matters. He took into account in reaching his conclusion on this aspect of the case only those matters which were accepted as having been spoken by Mr Brooks to DS Crowley. It was agreed by Counsel on behalf of the defendants that there was really no need to reach a conclusion on the contested aspects of the "conversation", since Mr Brooks had plainly accepted more than enough to damage the identification which he had made of Luke Knight on 3 June 1993 and also the earlier identification of Neil Acourt. 22.35 However much Mr Macdonald and Mr Mansfield attacked DS Crowley, he stuck to his position and indeed was indignant, insofar as he showed indignation at all, that such allegations were being made against him as were roundly made before this Inquiry. 22.36 We believe that DS Crowley's evidence was substantially correct. It is fruitless to go over and over all the ground covered by Messrs Macdonald and Mansfield. In the end we have to conclude whether or not we accept that which DS Crowley told us. He was tested in the firmest possible way in cross-examination. In our opinion he withstood the cross-examination, and his evidence is acceptable, applying as we do the standard of a high level of probability. This conclusion is made also in the light of the full evidence of DS Crowley and Mr Brooks given particularly at the Central Criminal Court. 22.37 There is of course another part to the cross-examination of DS Crowley and the allegations made against him, both by Mr Macdonald and by Mr Mansfield. This is concerned with the allegations in connection with the "favouring" of David Norris. In Mr Mansfield's case, he expressly disavowed any direct allegation that DS Crowley was involved in skulduggery over the Norris connection. As we have already indicated, his contention is that senior officers were involved in the protection of David Norris, and thus of the other suspects, because of the spectre of Clifford Norris which hangs over this case and the case of Stacey Benefield. We doubt whether it was right that some of the questions put by Mr Mansfield, particularly in connection with Clifford Norris' relations with other police officers, should have been put to this witness at all. It is not right to "float" the possibility of corrupt or improper connection between a criminal and a police officer unless that connection has some direct influence on the case in question. There is no evidence that any of Clifford Norris' activities in the past have any connection with DS Crowley. THE ROLAN ADAMS CASE 22.38 The second aspect of the saga concerning DS Crowley is his alleged activity in respect of the Adams case. Rolan Adams was murdered in April 1991 by knife wounds inflicted by a man named Thornborrow. We say this because Thornborrow plainly accepted that he inflicted wounds upon Rolan Adams and he was convicted of murder. In statements made to the police he accepted that he was physically responsible for those wounds. Both in his statement and at trial he defended himself on the basis that the wounds might have been inflicted by accident, alternatively in self-defence. Alternatively he said that there had been no intent to kill or to cause really serious harm. It was in fact not until well into the cross-examination of DS Crowley on this topic that the members of the Inquiry realised that this was the position. There are amongst our papers documents concerning this case. But until the matter was canvassed, and details were produced, we were not fully aware that this was the position. This is of considerable importance, since it is at once then apparent that the evidence of Nathan Adams, who was involved in the incident with his brother, was not central to the case. Indeed Nathan Adams was never able to identify any person as having been involved, and it is doubtful whether his evidence played much part in the case at all. 22.39 Be that as it may, the suggestion made against DS Crowley is that in the case of Rolan Adams, just as in the Stephen Lawrence case, he attempted to undermine the evidence of an important witness. This is what Mr Macdonald said when introducing his allegations to DS Crowley at the start of his cross-examination. 22.40 The suggestion is that DS Crowley was instrumental in pursuing criminal charges against Nathan Adams when it was unfair or incorrect to do so, so that the evidence of Nathan Adams at the trial of Thornborrow and others would be devalued. Nathan Adams was plainly adversely affected as a result of the terrible death of his brother, and we were told that he is alleged to have committed five crimes, including two robberies at knife-point after the murder and before the trial of those involved in this murder took place. 22.41 We do not propose to go into the matter in great detail, since it appears to us that there is little validity in the allegations made. Two particular instances were raised on behalf of Mr Brooks. The first involved an offence said to have been committed by Nathan Adams and another young boy against a man called Mr Cattini. DS Crowley accepted that he did indeed interview Mr Cattini both in connection with the murder of Rolan Adams and the later attack upon Mr Cattini himself. It had been intended to prosecute Nathan Adams, but not to continue any proceedings against the other young boy involved in the attack on Cattini. This, DS Crowley said, was not discriminatory conduct but was decided on the basis that there was no direct evidence of complicity by the other young man, whilst Nathan Adams' part in the affair was plain, since he had been identified as the attacker by Mr Cattini himself. 22.42 Mr Macdonald made much of the fact that in the second statement of Mr Cattini it had been stated that the witness was "over 21 and a factory worker". Whereas only some weeks earlier it had been clearly said that he was only 15-years old. This seems to us to be a weak point, since the second statement clearly indicates at its foot that Mr Cattini was accompanied by his mother, and this would only be necessary of course for a juvenile. It was an unfortunate mistake that the words "over 21" and "factory worker" appeared at the top of the statement, but in our opinion this in truth takes the matter no further. We see no justification for criticism of DS Crowley in respect of this proposed prosecution which followed a charge made after consultation with the relevant Inspector. 22.43 As to the other offence with which DS Crowley's team was
involved, this concerned a robbery at knife-point in June 1991, said to have been
committed by Nathan Adams. The victim was a young girl travelling on a bus who recognised
Nathan Adams as the attacker. What is said in this regard is that two officers under the
command or in the team of DS Crowley arrested Nathan Adams on the very day after the
Cattini case had been dropped by the CPS, in order again to have material by which to
devalue the evidence of Nathan Adams. He was arrested for the robbery in Woolwich Town
Centre by officers in 22.44 Nathan Adams was bailed until 10 October in connection with the June robbery. Mr Macdonald suggested that this was sinister since the Rolan Adams case was scheduled to start on 11 October. 22.45 The fact is, however, that the trial of Thornborrow and the others, including two of those who were in the red Astra car on the night of Stephen Lawrence's murder, started on 7 October and finished on 16 October. Nathan Adams was not charged with the robbery until 22 October. Thus there is very little validity in the suggestion that the arrest was made, even if it was with DS Crowley's knowledge, as a means of devaluing Nathan Adams' evidence at the Rolan Adams trial. The robbery matter was unresolved and could not have been used to any effect during the Rolan Adams trial. 22.46 Miss Jane Deighton, the solicitor to Mr Brooks, also represented Nathan Adams. The information about the Adams case in the hands of Mr Macdonald came thus from Miss Deighton. There is no complaint about this at all. But it does seem to us unfortunate that this matter was canvassed as firmly and aggressively as it was, since in fact the evidence of Nathan Adams was simply not likely to be important in the Rolan Adams case. As we have already indicated, the trial did not depend upon identification or upon any fine points of evidence to be given by Nathan Adams himself. Indeed, it appears likely that the case could have gone ahead without the evidence of Nathan Adams, because of the admissions made by Thornborrow to the police which he accepted in the course of the running of his multiple defence at the Central Criminal Court. 22.47 We see no validity in the suggestion that there is a parallel in the Adams case, in connection with DS Crowley's activities, which would reflect upon his part played in the Stephen Lawrence case. Furthermore it must be stressed that DS Crowley took nine statements in the ten days following the Rolan Adams murder from witnesses who were involved in the case and whose evidence was used at trial. There is no substantial complaint from anybody as to the taking of those statements, except in one instance. DS Crowley's part in the affair was limited to the taking of those statements, and of course to the parallel investigation of the allegations against Nathan Adams. There were in fact five allegations against that young man, and it is difficult to see how the police could have avoided charging Nathan Adams, since the offences were by no means trivial. The fact that Nathan Adams was never prosecuted came about because he was very young, he was much traumatised by what he had gone through, and Miss Deighton was able to obtain a comprehensive psychiatric report which indicated to the CPS that Nathan Adams should not be taken to court. We have sympathy with him, since like Mr Brooks he was a victim of the racist attack upon another, namely his brother. But we see no strength in the suggestion that DS Crowley's part in the Adams case should be used against him when attack is made upon his evidence in this Inquiry or elsewhere in respect of his part in the Stephen Lawrence investigations. 22.48 Indeed, if Nathan Adams had been an important witness and had not been charged with this robbery and the other offences the suggestion might have been made that he had been shown favours by the police in order to keep him "on side" with consequent weakening of the force of his evidence for that reason alone. 22.49 The express complaint about a statement taken by DS Crowley in the Adams case concerns the first statement taken from a witness named Mr Boland on 2 March 1991. That witness was in fact seen in the presence of his mother, a solicitor and Mr Penstone. Nothing appears in that statement to indicate that the gang of youths chasing Rolan or Nathan Adams were chanting racist abuse, and calling out, "Get the nigger, get the nigger!" The suggestion being made to DS Crowley was that for improper reasons he had left this out or not pursued this aspect of the case with the witness. DS Crowley said that there was no question of any omission by him, and that he simply wrote down what Mr Boland told him, and that all those present agreed that what Mr Boland had said had been faithfully recorded. 22.50 This is in fact supported by the contents of a second statement made by Boland on 23 April to another officer. In that statement the racist words were included, and the witness added that "It was not in my earlier statement because I didn't realise the importance of mentioning racial matters. As this only sunk into me personally, and at the time of making my earlier statement did not seem very relevant." Thus we do not see how this omission of the racist words can possibly be used as a criticism of DS Crowley's attitude or motives. 22.51 We must add that we have set out the course of the evidence as to DS Crowley's involvement in the Rolan Adams case since it was much canvassed, and it would be unfair not to indicate our views on the topic. We stress that to his credit Mr Macdonald in his closing address said this:- "We also accept that on the evidence that is before this Inquiry that no assistance on this matter can be derived from DS Crowley's role in the Adams investigation". That is a fair and important concession which must be noted. 22.52 Mr Macdonald also fairly conceded that there was "not enough to prove a racial motive or a corrupt motive" as to DS Crowley's evidence about Mr Brooks. He argued that there was room for mistake or misunderstanding, or that DS Crowley might have "sugared the pill" because he did not like Mr Brooks or his attitude. We do not accept these submissions. We believe that DS Crowley gave on 3 June 1993 and to us an account which was substantially true, and which is to be accepted.
|
