CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE  

THE ARRESTS AND INTERVIEWS

23.1 Mr Weeden says that he finally made the decision to arrest at about 17:30 hours on Thursday 6 May 1993. He had previously spoken to Mr Ilsley (at about 13:30 hours), indicating that arrests were contemplated, but he did not go further than that. It is not easy to confirm from Mr Weeden's own notes when the decision was made, but he has consistently said that it was after the 16:00 team meeting. At that meeting those present gave their up-to-date information, and Mr Bullock's note ends with the words:- "Review of evidence re suspects". There is no reference to any proposal as to arrests.

23.2 What is significant is that DC Budgen at the 16:00 meeting gave information which had come from James Grant on that day, namely that "They [the Acourts] are fascinated by knives. Tried to buy one. Usually hide them under floorboards". Anybody listening must have heard that recent important information. 

23.3 The decision to arrest plainly came as a surprise to members of the team, who can only have been contacted after the decision was made.

23.4 Search warrants were obtained at 20:45 from a Magistrate. Officers were alerted, and briefing appears to have been fixed for 05:30 on 7 May.

23.5 It seems certain that no proper steps were taken to ensure that the four suspects to be arrested were at home. In fact the Acourts and Gary Dobson were at their addresses when the arrests were made at 06:30 on 7 May. David Norris was not at home. His mother was seen at Berryfield Close, and he came to the police station with his solicitor on 10 May. Mr Norris' address was known much earlier, and indeed there had been surveillance at that address on 29 and 30 April. Nobody seems to have known what David Norris looked like. Plainly no proper steps were taken to try to identify him, perhaps from officers who had dealt with him previously. Until he was arrested therefore it was not known that there were in fact photographs of David Norris in the surveillance album, showing him clearly to be in the company of Gary Dobson. Those photographs were not shown to anybody who might have been able to identify the persons photographed.

23.6 The briefing notes set out the names of those who conducted the arrests. DS Bevan and DC Chase went to David Norris' home, with a full team of officers, including officers from the dog section and specialist search officers. DS Bevan believed that he had attended a meeting at 20:00 on 6 May, but there are no notes of such a meeting. He confirms that he briefed his own team at Eltham Police Station at or after 05:00 on 7 May. 

23.7 David Norris' mother was the only person present at Berryfield Close. She was annoyed by the visit. DS Bevan says that he stayed with her while the house was searched. In his statement to the Kent Police he says that "A cursory search was made that involved looking in cupboards, wardrobes and drawers. Nothing was dismantled, carpets were not moved, floorboards were left alone, no panels or similar areas were troubled." In evidence before the Inquiry DS Bevan indicated that the house was luxurious and largely close carpeted. He seemed to say that any signs of removal of carpets might have been detected. But he could offer no explanation for such a negligent search. In view of the information given on the previous afternoon it is extraordinary that no steps were taken here or at the other premises to look under the floorboards. Whether or not the delay might have given the suspects an opportunity to remove incriminating items the fact is that the searches were incomplete and (in DS Bevan's case) admittedly "cursory". 

23.8 DS Davidson with DC Hughes and DC Holden and officers of the area search team arrested Gary Dobson. The pre-arranged caution was read to him, and he was told that the "grounds for arresting you are as follows:- 1. You fit the description of the youths involved. You with others have a history of being involved in recent stabbings in the area, and we have received information from various sources that you were involved in this." It can at once be seen that exactly the same words could have been used if the arrests had been made over or soon after the first weekend. A knife was found in Gary Dobson's bedroom drawer. He said that it was one of the kitchen knives that he used for dinner.  

23.9 Neil and Jamie Acourt were arrested also at about 06:30 on 7 May. 19 officers went to 102 Bournbrook Road. Entry was apparently forced through the back door and also into a padlocked bedroom. No damage is recorded internally. It is accepted that neither here nor at Gary Dobson's address were any floorboards lifted. In view of the direct information about the Acourts' propensity to conceal knives under the floorboards this is to be deplored. No inquiry seems ever to have been made after the arrests as to whether this obvious task had been performed. So that it is palpable that the officers involved were not properly briefed or debriefed. This was the responsibility of the SIO and the DIO. DC Budgen, to whom the information about the propensity of the Acourts to hide knives under the floorboards had been given by James Grant, was present at No 102 at the time of the arrests. He said that he stayed in a bedroom with Jamie Acourt while the searching took place, and that detailed searching was the responsibility of the qualified search team. He had expected a detailed search, including the lifting of floorboards. 

23.10 At No 102 the officers found a large number of weapons. A knife was found behind a TV set. In the padlocked bedroom a Gurkha type knife was found. In the living room under the cushions of a settee there was a sword in a scabbard. There was a shoulder holster in a cupboard. There were knives in Jamie Acourt's bedroom, and an "air gun type revolver". Neil Acourt was told that the officers held a search warrant. Neil and Jamie Acourt were cautioned with the same words used to Gary Dobson. 

23.11 The suspects were taken to separate police stations, where they were all interviewed. Of the four arrested on 7 May only Gary Dobson answered questions. He was interviewed by DS Davidson on three occasions together with DS Hughes. We have seen transcripts of all those interviews. Gary Dobson was attended by a duty solicitor, Mr Luckhurst, who never intervened. 

23.12 Neil and Jamie Acourt were interviewed by DS Kirkpatrick and DC Canavan respectively. Neil Acourt's two interviews on 7 May lasted 14 minutes and three minutes. Jamie Acourt's interview lasted six minutes. Neil Acourt's third interview was held on 13 May and concerned the murder of Stephen Lawrence and also the Wimpy Bar stabbing and the Stacey Benefield case. Both Acourts were attended by solicitors from Henry Milner and Company.

23.13 David Norris, with Mr Milner himself in attendance, was interviewed on 10 May for 19 minutes, and on 13 May for six minutes, by DS Bevan and DC Martin Hughes respectively. On each occasion Mr Milner at an early stage said that he had advised Mr Norris not to answer any questions. Plainly the same advice had been given to the Acourts.

23.14 All these interviews have been the subject of much criticism, both by Counsel for Mr & Mrs Lawrence and by DS Mould, who gave "expert" evidence about them and who produced a very detailed report. He concludes that the officers were "in the main doing their best with the information". He says that the interviewing officers' "commitment varied, with DS Davidson and DS Bevan working hard to make the best of it, with the others showing a varied level of commitment, especially the two six minute interviews, who showed both a lack of skill and commitment. With higher skill levels all the interviews could have been far more effective and productive, but we will never know."

23.15 To complete the picture we add that Luke Knight was arrested on 3 June, when he was identified by Duwayne Brooks. He was interviewed three times, for 25 minutes, 28 minutes, and 13 minutes respectively. He had a passive solicitor present. He answered all the questions put to him and made no admissions. Indeed neither Gary Dobson's nor Luke Knight's interviews could be said to have advanced the prosecution case at all. Both of them repeatedly denied involvement in the murder.

23.16 It is rightly said by DS Mould that all the "no comment" interviews of the Acourts and David Norris showed "little system or method or depth that would indicate an objective based briefing." Furthermore the six or seven minute interview of Jamie Acourt consisted of "ineffective formalities with no other objectives than to go through the motions and get it over as quickly as possible". Certainly it is plain that there had been little if any proper planning of these interviews, which may well have been the result of the sudden decision to arrest. No doubt Mr Norris had been carefully instructed before he was arrested. Furthermore he had the benefit, as did the Acourts, of experienced criminal law solicitors who had plainly given firm advice to remain silent.

23.17 Lack of planning and persistence are solid criticisms of these interviews. But it does have to be stressed that in 1993 the right of silence was absolute. Judges do not like police officers who go on and on at a person who is advised to remain silent and shows rigidly that he will not speak. Indeed such interviews were not put before juries, since the risk is that the content of the questions posed may be taken to have some evidential quality when it has none at all. The six minute interview of Jamie Acourt is plainly a "let off" in one sense, and the interview showed little if any evidence of preparation or technique. On the other hand Mr Acourt had spent an hour in consultation with his solicitor prior to the interview and the solicitor had informed DC Canavan before the interview started that Mr Acourt would make no comment, and this proved to be the case. The officer would appear then to have made the pragmatic judgement that he was wasting his time, and he brought the interview to a quick conclusion. In theory we accept that he has given up too quickly and that there were things that could have usefully been put to Mr Acourt. In practical terms his judgement was probably right that it would have had no effect in any event. All in all the "no comment" interviewing therefore carries limited criticism compared with the other matters which are raised in this case.

23.18 Similarly the interviews of Mr Dobson and Mr Knight showed flaws in technique, and the use of closed or unproductive questioning, again without full or careful preparation. But those "answering" interviews read very much like many similar interviews put before the Courts. Police officers have and acquire skill in this field, but it is not an easy task, and if those being interviewed have their guard up and perhaps have had time (as these men had) to prepare themselves then it is not uncommon to read a "blocking" interview of this type.

23.19 The "racist" aspect of Mr Dobson's interview is addressed elsewhere (Chapter 19, paragraph 31).

23.20 The one plain obvious and glaring error lay in the failure to use the surveillance photographs which showed Gary Dobson and David Norris together on 26 April at 102 Bournbrook Road. Mr Dobson denied knowledge of David Norris repeatedly, and DS Davidson was rightly astounded to hear that this ammunition was not made available to him. The failure to research and report fully those photographs, and the failure to use them later perhaps in another interview are gross errors for which there can be no excuse. If Gary Dobson had been taxed with his lies about David Norris those lies would have been nailed. Whether that would have led to admissions is entirely another matter. In DS Mould's words, "we will now never know." Mr Dobson said to this Inquiry that he lied and would not admit knowing David Norris because Mr Norris had not been arrested by 7 May and he had in mind that he might protect Mr Norris in some way. That sounds unconvincing. In any event the lost opportunity to use the photographs was another serious error in the course of this investigation. That error must be laid primarily at the door of the SIO (Mr Weeden) and Mr Bullock who failed to ensure proper briefing, research and supervision in connection with the interviews and those conducting them.

23.21 Gary Dobson again answered questions when Mr Mellish took over in 1994. None of the others were interviewed then, and no doubt the decision rightly made was that interviews as late on as that would be unproductive.

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