CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 

DETECTIVE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM ILSLEY

27.1 Detective Chief Superintendent William Ilsley joined the MPS in 1963. He served most of his career in CID, and became a Chief Superintendent in May 1991. He remained Detective Chief Superintendent in charge of 3 Area until March 1995 when he retired. Effectively therefore he was involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation until his retirement, although he indicated that during the second investigation he had only a minor supervisory role since Assistant Commissioner Johnston came to the Area. That second investigation was under the direct control of Commander Perry Nove and Detective Superintendent William Mellish.

27.2 At the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder Mr Ilsley had probably about 200 officers directly under his command. In addition to his responsibility for all AMIP inquires Mr Ilsley was also in charge of the Intelligence Bureau, the Drug Squad, the Crime Squad, the Child Protection Teams and, most significantly, the Surveillance Team for 3 Area. 

27.3 It appears that in April 1993 the 3 Area AMIP was involved in ten major investigation, of which three involved murder. In answer to his Counsel, Miss Woodley, Mr Ilsley indicated that it would not be possible for him to have "a detailed working knowledge of each and every murder investigation: that would be left to the individual Senior Investigating Officers". 

27.4 Mr Ilsley was at pains to point out that he relied very much on the SIOs to tell him what was happening at their formal weekly meetings at Catford. He said that he would of course also attend regularly at the Incident Rooms involved in his Area. Because of the external pressures involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder Mr Ilsley indicated that he took a closer interest in this particular case than in some others. On the other hand more than once he told the Inquiry that he did not get involved in the "nitty gritty" of the case, and that his role was supervisory, and that he left the actual running of the Incident Room and the investigation to the SIOs. 

27.5 He was of course responsible for the appointment of the SIOs, and he accepted that it was most unfortunate that there was a change over in this particular case within four days of the murder. Apparently Mr Weeden had been off because of an injury to his hand and leg during the week before the murder, so that Mr Crampton was the Superintendent on call when the murder took place. Mr Ilsley indicated that in those circumstances there was no alternative to the investigation starting under the leadership of Mr Crampton, but that he spoke to Mr Weeden to encourage him to take over as soon as possible. 

27.6 Obviously there may be circumstances where a change over is inevitable, but it is much to be deplored that there had to be a change over in this particular case, because it had serious consequences in connection with the negative decision as to arrest. 

27.7 Mr Ilsley is without doubt a somewhat verbose man. He accepted himself that he tended to "ramble on". He has been described as a "hands on" man, but at the same time he did have a tendency to disconnect himself from the investigation where detail was concerned. Before us he tended to excuse what had happened on the basis that everybody did their best considering the resources that were available.  

27.8 He told us that his team was under tremendous pressure, and that in the first year of his duty, for example, he had coped with 43 murders which was the highest in the MPS and the third highest in the British Isles. He was at pains early in his evidence to stress the lack of resources and the lack of staff available. He said that that was a known fact, and that he used to go to meetings regularly at New Scotland Yard with other Detective Chief Superintendents who would sing the same song, namely that there simply were not enough police officers to go round, and that the facilities and resources available were woefully short. 

27.9 In a long answer Mr Ilsley indicated a comparison between his set up in 3 Area MPS compared with that which he found when he visited the Incident Room of a Sussex murder early in the 1990s. Mr Ilsley said that he would regularly discuss the totally inadequate resources and accommodation with Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osland and at meetings at New Scotland Yard. 

27.10 When Mr Lawson asked Mr Ilsley about the positions occupied by DS Flook, who had to cope with five separate roles bound into one in connection with the office management, he said "It is not only poor, Sir, it is disgraceful, but it was something that we used to have to put up with all the time".

27.11 It seems to us doubtful whether lack of resources accounted for the specific failings and mistakes which occurred in the investigation of the Stephen Lawrence murder in the early days, except perhaps as they concerned the operation of HOLMES and the Incident Room itself. Be that as it may, we formed the impression that Mr Ilsley did tend to try to pass off his own responsibilities, and perhaps to make excuses about manpower in order to avoid criticism. In parenthesis it should be noted that Mr Ilsley, in common with the other senior officers, confirmed to the Kent inquiry that this murder investigation was in fact better staffed than most, but that it was still woefully deficient.

27.12 One of the first duties taken on by Mr Ilsley after the murder was the conduct on behalf of the MPS of the first press conference, which took place on Friday 23 April. Mr Ilsley indicated, as we have seen on the recorded television films of this occasion, that it was an outrage that two black youths had been attacked totally unprovoked by white youths. The 'Daily Telegraph' of the following day seems to suggest that he had also indicated that the attack was a purely racist murder. This is not reflected in the two recordings which we have seen. One was made at Plumstead Police Station at 14:30, and the other (for Newsroom South East) outside Eltham Police Station. The briefing notes indicate that "If asked re motive believe it was racist attack". This may suggest that a decision had been made that the announcement should not include certainly at first blush the important indication that this was purely a racist attack. There is no indication of the reason why the motive was not positively identified. It may have been the desire to mask the occurrence of another serious racist incident in an area where there had been many. If this is the case it shows a lack of understanding of the concern and importance to the black community of recognising and acknowledging racial incidents as such.

27.13 An important part played by Mr Ilsley in this case concerns family liaison. DS Bevan and DC Holden had been appointed from the start as Family Liaison Officers. It was considered to be inappropriate to appoint liaison officers from outside the ranks of the CID. Everybody accepts that from a very early stage there were considerable difficulties on this front. Mr Ilsley decided that he would take on the role from 6 May 1993. At some stage, probably before that date, Mr Philpott had offered to provide officers with experience and aptitude for dealing with minority ethnic concerns, but this was not accepted because DS Bevan and DC Holden were considered suitable. Exactly how and when this took place is uncertain, but it confirms our view that Mr Ilsley regarded himself and his staff as being more capable in this field than he should have done. It may also reflect a lack of real communication and co-operation between the uniformed staff on whose Division the murder occurred, commanded by Mr Philpott, and the CID staff commanded by Mr Ilsley. It is for example agreed between Messrs Philpott and Ilsley that Mr Philpott only found out about the family liaison difficulties through contacts in the community rather than any dialogue with the investigation team. It is certainly our impression that the AMIP team had little communication with the host Division and essentially operated as a force within a force.

27.14 Mr Ilsley says that by the time that he and Mr Philpott saw Mr & Mrs Lawrence on 6 May the question of appointing any family liaison replacement other than himself had passed. He told us that the way that he understood the situation was that Mr & Mrs Lawrence wanted more information, and that he was the person who would be able to give it to them, together with Mr Philpott. Mr Ilsley thought that the family had more support from other people than he had known in a murder investigation. Indeed he thought that there were too many people around them. He knew that their complaint was that they were not being given the information that they required as to the murder investigation. The short note in the policy file number 37, entered later, records that Mr Ilsley decided to "take over the role of victim liaison". The reasons given for this were that "At a meeting with the family and their solicitor, Mr Khan, they requested they didn't want any victim liaison apart from a weekly meeting with myself and Chief Superintendent Philpott".

27.15 Mr Ilsley never felt that he had achieved a close connection with the family, and he told us that he came away from the meetings that followed in a somewhat depressed state. Strangely enough there is an indication from a communication by Mr Khan that things were going reasonably well, as Mr Ilsley stressed. It may be that Mr Ilsley's attitudes and actions during the first meeting had in fact launched his era of family liaison on a bad basis.

27.16 During the course of the meeting Mrs Lawrence handed a note to Mr Ilsley which contained a list of suspects, culled from notes made at Mr & Mrs Lawrence's home over the previous days. We have seen the note, and it contains a list of familiar names starting with the name of Zak Punt. The question of the handing over of this note has always been a bone of contention. In more than one statement Mrs Lawrence said that Mr Ilsley had "rolled the piece of paper up in a ball in his hand". Various versions of Mrs Lawrence's statement were read before the Inquiry, and it is to be noted that she had also invariably said that Mr Ilsley folded the piece of paper up first. At the Inquiry Mrs Lawrence appears to have accepted that the paper was folded up tight, but was not rolled into a ball. Either way it seems to us that what Mr Ilsley did was insensitive, discourteous and unwise. There was no reason even to fold the paper up into a small packet; and the perception of Mrs Lawrence quite plainly was that he was doing this in a dismissive way. (The note is reproduced at the end of this Volume). 

27.17 Of course it is unfortunate that the particular phrase "rolled the piece of paper up in a ball" was ever used. But in the end now that that particular phrase is removed from the case we remain convinced that it was tactless at the least to fold the paper up so tight that Mrs Lawrence could conceivably form the impression, as she did, that the paper was of little consequence to Mr Ilsley.

27.18 Incidents of this kind are obviously open to misinterpretation. Wisdom and sensitivity should have demanded that Mr Ilsley at least register his interest in the paper and indicate that it would at once have attention from the investigation team. What Mr Ilsley did was to put the paper in his pocket, without any expression of gratitude or interest to Mrs Lawrence. It is perfectly true that when he returned to the Incident Room he at once (at about 20:00) put the information contained on that piece of paper into the system. So that it is apparent that he did himself intend to transmit it to the SIO and the investigating team. But by then the damage had been done.

27.19 Mr Ilsley says that he would never criticise Mr & Mrs Lawrence under any circumstances for seeking information from the police. It is obvious that they believed that they were not being given any satisfactory account of what was happening, and this Mr Ilsley understood. On the other hand it is apparent that Mr Ilsley had no such sympathetic views in respect of the family's solicitor Mr Khan. He has alleged that Mr Khan was "never ever supportive of anything we did", and he indicated that Mr Khan had a "totally different agenda all the way through and was totally critical of the police for every single thing we did". Furthermore to Kent Mr Ilsley had said that "his fear was that whatever police might say to the family, would be spread around and could hamper our inquiry".

27.20 This conflict between Mr Ilsley and Mr Khan never should have developed. To our mind Mr Ilsley exaggerated and distorted the problem that Mr Khan is said to have caused him and the police in general.

27.21 At all events the 6 May meeting did not augur well for the continued relationship between Mr Ilsley and the family. Furthermore immediately after that evening meeting Mr Ilsley returned to the police station to be told by Mr Weeden that arrests were going to be made on the following day. He says that he was not consulted about the decision in advance, but was informed about it when he returned to the station. The reasons given were those already set out by Mr Weeden. Mr Ilsley says that it was pure coincidence that this decision was made immediately upon his return from the first meeting with Mr & Mrs Lawrence. Mr Ilsley says that something must have been said during his conversation with the family about the planning of arrests, and that he would simply have said that the matter was under consideration, but that he did not know when any arrests would be made.

27.22 It is of considerable significance that Mr Ilsley does have to accept and does in fact accept that he was consulted by Mr Crampton over the weekend about the decision that arrests should not be made at once. He said that the reasons for this were that time had elapsed so that suspects might have got rid of any suspicious weapons or clothing, that the identification evidence was weak, and that if the men were arrested there would be nothing substantial to put to them by way of evidence. Mr Ilsley agrees that this was a major decision. It was not entered in the policy file. He accepted at once that this should have been done, but he believes that this was simply an oversight. Policy files were, said Mr Ilsley, very much individualistic type documents within the MPS in 1993. That is no justification whatsoever for the omission of what was clearly the most central and major decision in the investigation. We cannot accept that this was simply an oversight.

27.23 Thus Mr Ilsley has to be associated with what we believe to have been the vital wrong decision in connection with the arrest of the suspects. Given that it was not his own decision, but that of the SIO, it was still something which he as an active commander should have resolved in his own mind for himself. Mr Ilsley is plainly subject to the same criticism in this regard as Mr Crampton and subsequently Mr Weeden. Mr Ilsley says that the decision was positively renewed on Monday 26th, and that the decision was indeed reviewed all the time. When the time came for the arrests to be made it is of significance that the policy file indicates that there was a joint decision made in this regard by Mr Ilsley and Mr Weeden. Mr Ilsley says simply that he was agreeing with the decision, and that it was therefore appropriate that his name should appear in the policy file. On the other hand he also accepted, in the light of the policy file entry, that in terms of information that had been available there had been no substantial change in circumstances since the very early days. Therefore Mr Ilsley has to accept that if Mr Weeden's decision to make the arrests on 6 May was not prompted by new evidence or outside pressures those arrests could in any event have taken place on the same basis during the first weekend after the murder.

27.24 It is an indictment of Mr Ilsley that he did not recognise and accept that there had been any deficiencies in the investigation carried out by the AMIP team until he saw the Kent conclusions. The deduction from that is that if there had not been a complaint by Mr & Mrs Lawrence leading to the Kent inquiry, and to this Inquiry, Mr Ilsley might still be saying that there was nothing wrong with the first investigation. Mr Mansfield pointed out that the Barker Review indicated that the first investigation was not to be criticised, and that Mr Ilsley had simply gone along with that report and made no comment to anybody that the Review was unsatisfactory in any way.

27.25 Somewhat reluctantly Mr Ilsley conceded to Mr Mansfield that in hindsight there had been deficiencies in the early days, citing surveillance, the searching of houses and the failure to make early arrests. Mr Ilsley was reluctant to accept that he had any responsibility for the failure to convert information into what he termed "hard evidence". He accepted that it was "regrettable" that objects had apparently been moved in black bags from 102 Bournbrook Road during the week after the murder. He was not prepared to accept that the strategy adopted was "a complete nonsense", and he roundly denied that he had known this to be so at the time.

27.26 An important aspect of this case concerns the dealings of the team with James Grant. Both DS Davidson and DC Budgen indicated to us that they had together registered this man as an informant with Mr Owens on 28 April. They say that they applied to register James Grant in the normal way at Greenwich Police Station, and that the relevant documents were completed for this purpose. The fact is however that any documents, if they ever existed, have disappeared. Mr Ilsley was of course part of the chain of communication in connection with documents dealing with informants. He says that he had no idea what can have happened to the documents, and that his only contact with this matter concerned the submission to him by Mr Weeden of the request made later by DS Davidson and Mr Weeden for payment to James Grant for his services as an informant.

27.27 Mr Ilsley says that when he received the request he did not believe that any payment was deserved, because information had come from other people as well giving the same set of names and comparable information. This is plainly not correct since James Grant was the first and by far the most important informant, and he came to the police station personally on Friday, 23 April.

27.28 The unregistered cover with the letters attached suggesting that there should be a reward was found very much later on by Chief Superintendent Albert Patrick in preparation for the Kent inquiry.

27.29 The suggestion throughout this unhappy saga is that Mr Ilsley, in common with other officers, had no real interest in Grant, and that Grant was marginalised and kept out of the way because he knew too much and because the officers did not want to make arrests at all during the first weekend.

27.30 Mr Mansfield continued his attack in connection with James Grant, suggesting that Mr Ilsley himself, bearing in mind his own investigative skills and his position as a senior officer, ought to have personally followed up the Grant information, particularly in order to obtain from James Grant as much information about his own or his source's position in the matter. Mr Ilsley's counter to that was that Mr Crampton and Mr Weeden were the SIOs who were dealing with the matter, and that although he might have discussed the situation with them he would never have spoken to James Grant himself.

27.31 It can be said that Mr Ilsley and the SIOs ought all to have interested themselves more in the James Grant information, and in what had been done to further that information and to follow up all that stemmed from it. We do not accept that there is any justification for the suggestion made by Mr Mansfield that Mr Ilsley slowed down the investigation for improper reasons. We find no evidence to suggest that Mr Ilsley was anything other than honest and well-intentioned.

27.32 Mr Ilsley does have to accept that he was associated with wrong decision-making and serious deficiencies in investigation and family liaison. We see no basis for any suggestion that he corruptly held back in his part in the supervision of the investigation. Mr Ilsley's angry rejection of such suggestions by Mr Mansfield was justified. No evidence was called to support the allegation.

27.33 Mr Ilsley was also involved in the case involving the prosecution for the murder of David Norris. He was supervising that investigation which led to the prosecution in which Mr Crampton was involved at the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder. But he says roundly that he never made any connection between the dead David Norris and the David Norris who was one of the suspects in this case. He knew by the first Sunday that the suspect David Norris was the son of Clifford Norris, who was known to him as a south London criminal, but he had no knowledge of any alleged or claimed relationship between the dead David and Clifford Norris.

27.34 Mr Ilsley had himself in 1989 passed on information from one of his own informants in connection with allegations made against Clifford Norris, namely that he had been involved in the shooting of a woman who later refused to give evidence against the assailant. Mr Ilsley says that until this Inquiry started he had not even remembered that he had given that information. He reiterated that at first he did not even think of Clifford Norris when he heard that a 16 or 17 year old youth called David Norris had been named as one of the suspects.

27.35 Mr Ilsley was asked about the officer Sergeant XX, who figures in this case as a result of his suspicious association with Clifford Norris. Mr Ilsley says, and we believe him, that he did not know this officer and that he had never worked with him and would not know him if he walked into the room. As to Clifford Norris' position at the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder, Mr Ilsley says that he knew that Clifford Norris was a wanted man, but that he had no memory of the circumstances of Clifford Norris' evasion of Customs & Excise, and he said that it was not his task to take any steps in connection with the arrest of Clifford Norris, unless he turned up in the process of the investigation. The case was a Customs & Excise matter, but it is extraordinary that no positive steps were initiated during the first investigation to seek out Clifford Norris and to remove him from the scene, since officers were aware of threats coming from him which were discouraging the witnesses who were so desperately sought.

27.36 By 25 or 26 April Mr Ilsley says that he probably did know that David Norris was the son of Clifford Norris, but this did not in itself spur him on to encourage Mr Weeden to arrest Clifford Norris in order at least to get him off the streets. The failure to address this inevitably fuels Mr & Mrs Lawrence's perception of collusion or corruption.

27.37 As to the house-to-house inquiries it was suggested by Mr Mansfield that another opportunity had been missed by Mr Ilsley's staff, because they failed to return to 102 Bournbrook Road in order to make some direct contact with the Acourt brothers and perhaps others who might be present. Mr Ilsley commented that he would have been very careful about that, because officers could get themselves into a difficulty by trying to trick the Acourts into saying something without administering a caution when in fact there was enough information already in existence to allow an arrest. In connection with the failure to obtain a photograph of David Norris Mr Ilsley said that he was not aware of the problem, and that in any event this was a matter of detail or "nitty gritty" which he left to his SIO.

27.38 Mr Mansfield questioned Mr Ilsley extensively about the decision to arrest made on 6 May. Mr Ilsley did not accept that the arrests were being carried out under pressure because of the visit of Nelson Mandela and the heavy press interest in the case which had developed. He simply says that the matter was entirely a decision for Mr Weeden who told him at about 20:00 when he returned from his visit to Mr & Mrs Lawrence that warrants were being obtained and that the team were going in on the following morning. Mr Ilsley says that Mr Weeden was in any event building up to the arrests and that it was no great surprise to him that this decision was reached coincidentally with the considerable outside pressures.

27.39 Another justifiable criticism of Mr Ilsley concerns the failure by the investigating team either before or after the arrests had been made, to exercise or at least to consider some form of intrusive surveillance other than photography. That was of course done during the second investigation with marked success and with sophisticated equipment. Telephone tapping requires an express warrant from the Secretary of State, but no approach was apparently made to the Commissioner or relevant deputy for permission to "bug" premises occupied by the suspects during the first investigation. The grounds to do so certainly existed. Mrs Lawrence says that she raised this matter with Mr Ilsley, but that he indicated that this was not an acceptable tactic. 

27.40 As to the decision by the CPS in July 1993 to discontinue the proposed proceedings, Mr Ilsley agreed that both he and Mr Weeden were opposed to that, but he indicated that there was no mileage in registering opposition, since his experience was that once the CPS made its decision there was no going back. In our opinion Mr Ilsley cannot be criticised for failing to attempt to put pressure on the CPS.

27.41 As to the Barker Review Mr Mansfield roundly suggested that Mr Ilsley had indicated to Mr Barker that he was happy with his report because "basically it kept the lid on everything", so that Mr Ilsley and his team were let off the hook. Mr Ilsley said that his initial response to the Barker Review was that he was not overly impressed by it, and that some of the recommendations seemed to be off key. He did not realise at the time that there were deficiencies in his team's performance, and he said that there was no reason for him to raise any opposition to the conclusions of Mr Barker. So far as the deficiency of accommodation and staff and money were concerned this was not raised with Mr Barker because that seemed to Mr Ilsley to be something which was common to everybody operating in the MPS.

27.42 The unquestioning acceptance of the Barker Review by senior officers is a most serious aspect of this case. Mr Ilsley cannot escape his share of criticism in this regard, since he should have realised that the Review was flawed both in its recitation of facts and in its conclusions. The Review provided a convenient "shelter" to those involved. The failure of all senior officers to detect the flaws in the Review is to be deplored.

27.43 Mr Ilsley was asked by Mr Mansfield about the attitude adopted by members of the team as to race relations and particularly as to the motive for this terrible crime. In particular the passage from the interviewing of Gary Dobson by DS Davidson in which DS Davidson and DC Hughes allege that the killing had "nothing to do with colour" was quoted to Mr Ilsley. He said that he certainly would never interview someone in that way, but that all that he could assume was that the officers were trying to get Mr Dobson to admit to the crime and were therefore "going along" with Mr Dobson in this regard. Mr Ilsley did find it incredible that officers under his command should try to make a distinction between a racist murder and a racially motivated murder. Mr Ilsley accepted that identification of a crime as racist would determine the kind of support that should be given to the victim and his family, and would and should condition the kind of effective action that might be taken to detect the crime.

27.44 Mr Ilsley never saw Duwayne Brooks, although of course he was very much alive to the statements made by him and to the evident co-operation of Mr Brooks with the officers in the investigation team. In many instances Mr Ilsley indicated that in connection with Mr Brooks he simply could not answer the questions put, because he was effectively being asked about matters with which he had not himself been concerned.

27.45 A relevant matter concerned the occupants of the red Astra car. Mr Ilsley accepted that in respect of the investigation of these men errors had plainly been made. He would not accept that this failure was, as Mr Menon, on behalf of Mr Brooks, put it, "in effect deracialisation of this crime by the investigating officers". Mr Menon's suggestion was that "race has been put on the back burner", by the team. Mr Ilsley rejected this suggestion. He said that this was clearly a racist murder in his eyes and that he had wanted nothing other than to arrest the people who had committed the murder in order to bring them to justice. We accept Mr Ilsley's evidence in this regard. Nonetheless unwitting racism within the AMIP team did in our view affect the way in which the investigation and in particular the family liaison were conducted.

27.46 It is right to point out that in answer to Mr Gompertz Mr Ilsley acknowledged the force of two messages which indicate that the more general criticism in connection with the care taken of Mr Brooks is exaggerated. We know that DS Bevan struck up a reasonable relationship with Mr Brooks, and furthermore there is information amongst the HOLMES system messages indicating that liaison took place, and that DS Bevan and DC Holden liaised both with him and with his mother and father, and "made arrangements for someone from Victim Support to contact the family and Duwayne". On 1 May a further message indicates that Mr Brooks did not appear to be suffering from any untoward problems, and he was currently still attending college and was still happy to assist the police. The parents of Mr Brooks had, so the message relates, at each stage been informed of the progress of the murder investigation and again were happy to assist.

27.47 In addition we know that on 2 May Mr Khan went to see Mr Brooks, apparently in his capacity as his solicitor. Thereafter Mr Brooks was represented at least for some time by Mr Khan. At no time was any contact made with the Incident Room or with any of the police officers involved to indicate that Mr Brooks was not being properly looked after or needed any particular form of special counselling.

27.48 Mr Gompertz dealt in detail and at considerable length with the suggestion made that Mr Ilsley was connected with or affected in some way by Clifford Norris, so that either through fear or corruption, or for racist motives, he had deliberately failed to take any steps in order to bring the suspects to justice. It does seem to us that in the case of Mr Ilsley these allegations were wide of the mark. Such allegations must not be made unless there is the material upon which to make them. In the two days spent in the witness box by Mr Ilsley there was no evidence that Mr Ilsley was connected with Clifford Norris, or affected by any knowledge that he may have had of Clifford Norris or his influence on others.

27.49 Finally we must mention the perhaps revealing difference between Mr Ilsley and Mr Bullock in connection with a period of time when Mr Weeden was absent, owing to an unfortunate family bereavement, for eight days in May 1993. It was plainly Mr Ilsley's responsibility to determine who was in charge of the investigation during that time. Mr Bullock considered that Mr Ilsley was in charge, and Mr Ilsley considered that Mr Bullock had been left holding the temporary office of SIO. It is perhaps symptomatic of Mr Ilsley's lack of direction of his SIO that this confusion existed.

27.50 Mr Ilsley allowed himself to go along with the weak and unenterprising decisions made by Mr Crampton and Mr Weeden in the very early days, so that the opportunities which an early arrest might have produced were missed. There was a tendency for Mr Ilsley to disconnect from the investigation in connection with justifiable criticisms, and to excuse any deficiencies on the ground of lack of resources. Mr Ilsley should have ensured that Mr Weeden was fully aware of the decision to delay the arrests and the need to review that decision, particularly in the light of Stacey Benefield's statement. He should also have been made aware of the surveillance plans. He had the authority to give immediate priority to the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation surveillance.

27.51 Mr Ilsley ought plainly to have been aware of the inaccuracies of the facts set out in the Barker Review and of the inadequacy of that Review, yet he allowed himself to accept the Review as it was and failed to bring its failings to the attention of his superior officers. This failure contributed to those officers being misled by the Review's falsely reassuring tones.

27.52 There was in our opinion failure to supervise and to manage effectively and imaginatively this highly sensitive murder investigation to the degree required by Mr Ilsley's position as Crime Manager for the Area. This conclusion is in tune with the conclusion of the Kent inquiry, with which we agree so far as it concerns Mr Ilsley.

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