| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||||||
CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT THE BARKER REVIEW 28.1 In July 1993 the CPS indicated that they did not intend to proceed with the prosecution of Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. That decision is examined elsewhere (Chapter 39). There is no doubt that this left the investigating team disappointed and frustrated. They maintained that they had taken all the steps which were available to them to investigate the murder, and certainly at that date the officers in charge did not accept that mistakes had been made in respect of the activities of the team, or that wrong decisions had been made particularly in the very early days after the murder. 28.2 It was decided by Mr Osland that there should be a review of
this unsolved case. The provision for such a review appears in the AMIP guidelines to
which much reference has been made. Section 8 deals with "Reviews of unsolved
cases". Section 8.1 reads as follows:- "A review of undetected major crimes being investigated by AMIP will be
instigated 10 weeks after the start of a live inquiry. Such a review may be started
earlier if the Area Commander (Ops) considers it necessary. If the inquiry continues, a
further review will be conducted every five weeks thereafter. Where a closed inquiry is
reopened the review should be instigated five weeks after the start". 28.3 There was a change in personnel of Commander (Operations) at the end of June 1993. Commander Gibson had until then been in that post, and shortly before the end of June he was replaced by Commander Blenkin. Mr Blenkin told us that in fact there was a swop of roles between himself and Mr Gibson, and he told the Inquiry that he took over his duties as Commander (Operations) for 3 Area on 28 or 29 June 1993. This was of course before the CPS had decided that the prosecution would not go ahead, but it was about nine weeks after the murder. 28.4 Mr Blenkin was not aware of the guidelines or of the positive duty imposed by those guidelines upon the Commander (Operations) to set up Reviews. Indeed Mr Blenkin told us that he had never set up or even heard of a Review taking place until this one was established. He told the Inquiry that he knew of only one other Review, namely that into the murder of Rachel Nickell, during his service. It is right therefore to indicate that a Review of an unsolved case was uncharted territory. 28.5 There has been some disagreement as to who was responsible for setting up and establishing the terms of reference for the Stephen Lawrence Review. There is no doubt in our minds that the moving spirit in setting up the Review was Mr Osland. It has been suggested that Mr Blenkin was the architect of the terms of reference, but we accept his evidence that the terms of reference were in fact established by Mr Osland, and that Mr Blenkin's part in the establishment of the Review consisted of his acceptance, after consultation with Mr Osland, of the terms of reference proposed. 28.6 We accept Mr Blenkin's evidence that at the relevant time he knew very little about the Stephen Lawrence investigation, so that it would have been difficult if not impossible for him to draft the terms of reference in respect of the Review. Mr Blenkin accepts that he signed the terms of reference, and that he handed them over to Detective Chief Superintendent John Barker, the officer appointed to conduct the Review. Mr Blenkin points out that the terms of reference are plainly signed by him as Commander (Operations) "for DAC 3 Area". He says that if these terms of reference had been of his own design he would simply have signed as Commander (Operations). Mr Blenkin says that he believes that Mr Osland went on leave at the relevant date, so that on 16 August 1993 he did indeed sign the terms of reference so that the Review could get underway. 28.7 Mr Barker was an experienced police officer. During his evidence he told us that he had occupied many important posts in the MPS. He has been head of the Flying Squad. He was Crime Adviser to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the North West Division. He has been involved in important criminal justice projects. 28.8 Mr Barker told us that he was the seventh officer to be approached to conduct this Review. Mr Ilsley confirmed that this was so, and that he had himself contacted six other police officers who had turned down the appointment before he approached Mr Barker. It is likely that Mr Barker regrets accepting the post, since both the Kent inquiry and this Inquiry have had no hesitation in roundly criticising the Review. 28.9 The guidelines for Reviews are explicit. They appear in the detailed documentation available to the investigation. Coupled with the guidelines are the specific terms of reference to which we have already referred. There is no template for terms of reference, but it is apparent that the object of the Review is to conduct a detailed and searching investigation of all that has taken place. The guidelines require a detailed study of all the documentation relevant to the "scene and the police response". There should be detailed verbal presentation from the SIO. The policy file should be studied with care. The guidelines (at paragraph 8.6) indicate that "The research into the documentation related to the main lines of inquiry should be an in depth study". 28.10 The terms of reference speak for themselves. It must be said that they are in a sense negative and over retrospective. As Mr Kamlish pointed out the only positive progress proposed by the terms of reference is to "Progress the investigation by endeavouring to identify persons responsible for the murder". Whatever else had been achieved it is obvious that the focus was upon the five suspects, and certainly by August 1993 they were the targets of the investigation. The other terms of reference required the reviewing officer to examine and evaluate what had happened in various fields. Although it is to be noted, for example, paragraph (vii) does require the reviewer to "examine practices employed and make recommendations for the conduct of future investigations". The Terms of Reference of the Review are reproduced in full in the Appendices to this Report. 28.11 It should be noted that the terms of reference expressly required Mr Barker to liaise with the SIO, and to advise him of any matters which he considered might benefit the investigation. On the other hand the reviewing officer was expressly excluded by the terms of reference from taking any operational role in relation to the investigation. Mr Barker was required to forward a written interim report of his findings to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner 3 Area by 8 October 1993, and he was required to complete his report by 1 November 1993. 28.12 There was to be a major public demonstration on 16 October 1993, and the indications are that this had a bearing upon the dates by which the two reports were required to be submitted. Exactly what that bearing was is not easy to determine. One officer thought that a report made by 8 October might result in arrests, so that steam could be taken out of the demonstration because of those arrests. Another suggested consideration was that the report might indicate that matters had been satisfactorily carried out, with the same result. 28.13 There is a conflict of evidence as to what was said by Mr Blenkin when he gave the terms of reference to Mr Barker and launched the Review. Mr Barker has given several accounts of this aspect of the matter. It should be noted that he was the only officer summoned by the Kent inquiry who refused to answer questions at interview. He did submit written answers to questions posed by the Kent inquiry, and he has of course co-operated with this Inquiry and given a long statement and attended to give evidence and to face cross-examination. The reason for his refusal to be interviewed by the Kent officers is that he was advised by lawyers acting for the insurers of the Police Superintendents Association not to give evidence. Exactly why this decision was made and this advice given is obscure. It is however to Mr Barker's credit that he has remedied the deficiency by attending before us. 28.14 The Kent inquiry focused upon the Review and produced conclusions which are condemnatory of the Review and its contents. Our own conclusions are similar to those of the Kent inquiry. Indeed during the hearing of Mr Barker's evidence we were convinced that Mr Barker produced a misleading and flawed Review, and that the Review was effectively indefensible. Mr Barker accepted that there were deficiencies, but by and large he still attempted before us to defend his Review. 28.15 We have to say that we found his evidence unconvincing and incredible in a number of important respects. However insofar as there is conflict between Mr Barker and Mr Blenkin as to what was said right at the start when the terms of reference were handed over we accept that there is room for misunderstanding. 28.16 Mr Blenkin's evidence was that on 16 August he did tell Mr Barker that the Review was to be made into "a particularly sensitive murder investigation". He also told Mr Barker that Mr Weeden and Mr Ilsley were somewhat unhappy that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner had decided on a Review of their investigation. Mr Blenkin says that Mr Weeden and Mr Ilsley had each expressed this view to him. Mr Blenkin says that he read through the terms of reference with Mr Barker and that he did not speak to him again. Mr Blenkin was specifically asked whether he had indicated in any way that Mr Barker should "go rather gently with Mr Weeden so as not to cause him offence". He denied that he had made any such suggestion to Mr Barker. We do believe that what Mr Blenkin did say may have conveyed to Mr Barker the idea that he should not criticise the SIOs. 28.17 Mr Barker has said both in his statement and in evidence that Mr Blenkin did indeed warn him that the Review would have to be carried out with sensitivity, but he added that the purpose of this was "to avoid undermining the position of Weeden who was still Senior Investigating Officer at the time". Mr Barker says that Mr Blenkin made it clear to him that the Review was not being welcomed by the investigation and stressed that the purpose was not to interview witnesses or take over the role of the SIO "but merely to take an overview in accordance with the terms of reference". Mr Barker concluded that the clear implication was that he should ensure that the conduct of the Review was not to be heavy handed. The Review was to be constructive but was not to take the form of a complaints investigation. 28.18 Later in his statement and indeed in evidence Mr Barker said that he believed that his report was by necessity to be general in content, because he was conscious of the fact that in any subsequent criminal proceedings the existence of this document would be revealed and might be disclosable to the defence. It therefore seemed, said Mr Barker, to be inappropriate to record in the Review criticism of any specific officer which might be used by the defence by way of discrediting prosecution witnesses. Indeed Mr Barker says that he consulted with a lawyer involved in his other current activities in the MPS and that the lawyer told him that the Review might indeed be disclosable. Incidentally the AMIP guidelines confirm that this is so when in paragraph 8.8 they indicate that "The report should be regarded as pertinent to the inquiry and may be the subject of debate in a court. It should therefore be filed with the case papers". 28.19 It is apparent therefore that Mr Barker embarked on this Review with two inhibiting fetters imposed effectively by himself. First, in our opinion, he misinterpreted the words spoken to him by Mr Blenkin insofar as he believed that he should not undermine the confidence of the team and particularly the SIO. It is true that Mr Blenkin said that the Review was sensiti sensitive and that those involved had bristled to some extent when told that there would be a Review. But this is far from saying that a Review should be anything other than searching and hard hitting and critical, if the investigation showed that mistakes had been made. 28.20 Furthermore it would be absurd to conclude that because the Review might be disclosable therefore things should be omitted from the written report or document which contained the conclusions of the Review. Mr Barker told the Inquiry that he had contemplated at one stage making some kind of second document which should be used for the eyes of the police service alone. He also said that there were substantial discussions during the course of the Review both with the SIO, Mr Weeden, and with Mr Ilsley and matters were examined and commented upon which were not reflected in the Review. 28.21 Mr Barker says that he made notes and collected together documents which formed the basis of his written Review as the matter progressed. Presumably these discussions to which Mr Barker referred would be reflected in those notes. The box of documents which Mr Barker says that he handed over to the investigation team after the Review was completed has totally disappeared. So that there is no way of checking the background documents to see whether there was discussion of important issues and indeed deficiencies in the investigation which are not reflected in the written Review. 28.22 Mr Barker was asked what was the relevance of disclosability if he had to produce an open-minded and unbiased report. He said that he "took the view that if I was including in there confidential information and aspects perhaps that might be interpreted as procedural errors in a document that was then to come into the public domain that could jeopardise any future prosecution". He put the matter in another way during his questioning when he said, "I am saying that if I was to criticise unduly the actions of officers in any procedural matter that might be construed later on to affect that prosecution so I had to be very guarded in doing it. 28.23 The implication here is both quite clear and unforgivable. It is that a senior officer in the MPS considered creating two versions of a Review document, the first to be disclosable to the defence and deliberately designed to mislead by omitting any adverse references to the investigation and the second to be an honest document indicating any flaws in the investigation which might be useful to the defence, but deliberately withheld from subsequent defence discovery. 28.24 In the result Mr Barker produced an anodyne Review, such that those who read it and considered it uncritically might be lulled into a sense of false satisfaction as to what had taken place in the early weeks of the investigation. As was pointed out there is no significant criticism of any single decision made, and the general conclusion of the Review is that everything had been progressed professionally and efficiently and satisfactorily. There is mild comment about the failure to arrest in the very early days after the murder, involving the setting out of some of the pros and cons in that regard. In truth Mr Barker believed that the arrests should have taken place early on, but this view is nowhere reflected in the report and there is no out and out criticism of the decision that was made not to arrest, or of the absence of any record of that decision in the policy file. There is an indication that surveillance took place, but no detailed study and comment upon that plainly flawed operation which took place from 26/27 April onwards. 28.25 There are also factual errors in the Review, both in the interim document and in the final report. In its thrust the final Review matches closely the interim report which was delivered to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner by 8 October 1993. 28.26 As the Kent inquiry indicated, and as Counsel elicited before us, Mr Barker mistakenly said that upon arrest all the suspects except Gary Dobson had failed to answer questions. In fact Luke Knight also answered questions at interview, so that this statement by Mr Barker was simply wrong. 28.27 Much more serious however is the complete failure of Mr Barker to deal satisfactorily with the whole topic of information that was reaching the Incident Room, and the failure satisfactorily to follow up that information and to deal with the potential witnesses revealed in the information which was reaching the investigation in the very early stages. The prime example of this is the situation in respect of James Grant. He was a vital potential link to those who may have been very close to this murder. The teams dealing with James Grant and investigation of those who had been involved with him was a most important aspect of the case ripe for investigation by the Review team. Yet Mr Barker's Review makes no reference to James Grant whatsoever, so that anybody reading the Review would think that Mr Barker had never heard of him. He referred to the fact that all the information coming to the investigation team was anonymous, and made express reference only to the two letters found near the Welcome Inn and in the telephone kiosk, which were in fact, as we now know, produced by the same author. James Grant's information was fundamental to this investigation and lack of any mention of it in the report is extraordinary. Mr Barker says that he took the view that it was inappropriate to refer to it in a document "that could possibly come into the public domain". 28.28 Mr Barker did plainly in our opinion pull his punches, and he produced a report which simply gives no proper overview of the early days of the investigation, and which contains no criticism, although there was much to be criticised. Mr Barker accepts that this is so now, but he still appears to believe that the Review can be defended on the grounds that these matters of criticism and comment were discussed with Mr Osland and the investigation team and Mr Blenkin, and that it was therefore justifiable to leave them out of the Review for the reasons which Mr Barker has repeatedly given. 28.29 The result is that the Review and Mr Barker's "observations" at paragraph 2.3 started with the words "The investigation has been progressed satisfactorily and all lines of inquiry correctly pursued". This is palpably not the true position, and Mr Barker ought to have uncovered the deficiencies and commented strongly upon them in any Review which was to be of value to those who saw it and who had the responsibility of making decisions as to the future conduct of this murder investigation. 28.30 Mr Barker did rightly observe that liaison between the victim's family and the team had deteriorated at an early stage. He added that this affected communication and confidence between the two parties, and that the press and media relations were hampered by the involvement of active politically motivated groups although there is in fact no evidence of this. A substantial part of the written Review does deal with victim support and the liaison arrangements made for the family. 28.31 As was pointed out in cross-examination there are important factual mistakes in
the account given by Mr Barker of the steps taken in connection with liaison. There is no
purpose in reviewing that part of the questioning of Mr Barker in detail, but it does
appear to us that 28.32 Another glaring example of misjudgement is set out in
paragraph 12.17. There Mr Barker says, "The enormity of the liaison officers' task
in attempting to satisfy the thirst for information by the family, often generated by
their solicitor, Imran Khan, which at times then became public knowledge, was beyond any
previously experienced". It is not surprising that this comment is offensive to
Mr & Mrs Lawrence. Why should they not have a thirst for information? Where is there
any evidence that such sparse information as may have been given to the family or to their
solicitor was ever leaked into the public domain by Mr & Mrs Lawrence or by Mr Khan?
Where is there any evidence that their demands were other than reasonable? Mr Barker has
simply taken the negative assertions of the team about this family and their solicitor and
repeated them in emotive terms. He should not be surprised that we and those who heard the
evidence regard this as another example of institutional racism at work. The collective
failure to deal properly and sensitively with the family is a feature of the case. 28.33 A further criticism of the Review, stressed by Mr Kamlish, is that anybody reading the Review would believe that nothing had taken place between 24 April and 7 May. In other words the Review is lacking in continuity, and there is little if any indication of the sequence of events and the processing of information that was taking place. A proper survey of the steps being taken, particularly involving the extensive use of DS Davidson during those vital days, might have indicated to Mr Barker that other steps should have been taken, such as the importation into the team of Mr Penstone or of other individuals more likely to be able to deal with the young and perhaps frightened and hostile witnesses on the Brook Estate. 28.34 In addition to other factual mistakes made it is also apparent that Mr Barker failed to indicate that there had been an identification parade on 7 May 1993. He says that a series of identification parades took place but he states positively that they were held between 13 May and 3 June. Thus an incomplete picture is given to any reader of the Review. 28.35 Furthermore there is no criticism whatsoever about the nature of the searches which were conducted at the houses of the suspects when they were arrested. A cursory reading of the relevant minutes should have alerted Mr Barker to that criticism which was indeed a serious one, and a matter which is of considerable concern to this Inquiry. Mr Barker says that he was more concerned with discussing this, and other matters, with Mr Weeden and getting his verbal view as to why such steps had not been taken. This in the opinion of the Inquiry defeats the object of the Review. Such matters should have been included in the written document. 28.36 Another example concerns the policy file. That document was plainly inadequately completed, yet Mr Barker makes no comment in that regard. He said to the Inquiry that his view was that he had discussed that with Mr Weeden, who was aware that other information could have been included in the policy file and that Mr Weeden accepted that it should have been more comprehensive. Yet there is no criticism of the policy file in the written Review, because, said Mr Barker, of its "disclosable nature". 28.37 The very nature of the document ultimately produced suggests that he collected information from doubtful sources, perhaps including DS Flook, in connection with some aspects of the relationship between Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Khan and the investigation team. Furthermore his wholly mistaken approach in connection with his determination not to undermine the SIO and to consider disclosability as an inhibiting fact militated against a satisfactory report of any kind being produced. 28.38 As was pointed out during Mr Barker's evidence before us there were many lines of inquiry still to be pursued by the team. Yet Mr Barker's conclusion as to examination of relevant lines of inquiry and decisions to curtail lines of inquiry are both short and incomplete. For example in connection with the decisions to curtail such lines all that is said is, "All decisions to curtail lines of inquiry have been taken by the Senior Investigating Officer or his deputy. I am satisfied that a consistent approach has been adopted in these decisions". That is a somewhat meaningless sentence, and there is no indication of any proper examination of those lines which had in fact been curtailed. 28.39 The Inquiry took the unusual step during the questioning of Mr Barker to indicate that in our view his value as a witness and his credibility in vital matters had been undermined, for reasons which would be obvious to anybody listening to his cross-examination. We adhere to this view. Some of the answers given and assertions made by Mr Barker, particularly in connection with his decision to produce a muted report, were in the full sense of the word incredible. Overall we also indicated that subject to further questioning by his own Counsel the Review "was likely to be regarded by us as indefensible for what must be obvious reasons". 28.40 When the Review was ultimately submitted to Mr Osland he produced a minute on 9 November 1993 which reiterated that Stephen Lawrence's murder was "competently and sensitively investigated". He did refer to the recommendations made by Mr Barker, and indicated that these matters should be taken forward by Mr Blenkin at the regular meeting of Commanders (Operations). It is revealing that Mr Osland added after making various specific recommendations, that Mr Barker had commented "on the confusion which surrounded some aspects of the initial action, but despite this I consider that the first officers on the scene were sensible, professional and compassionate". Even with this conclusion, as will have been observed, we are unable to agree. 28.41 We have to criticise roundly and with emphasis the failures set out in connection with the production of the Barker Review. Mr Barker is plainly, as we have stressed, an experienced police officer. But on this occasion it is apparent to us that because of the self imposed shackles which he placed upon his consideration of the investigation he produced a flawed and an indefensible Review. RECEPTION AND RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW 28.42 The manner of the reception and response to the Review produced by Mr Barker is also a matter of concern. The Review was clearly initiated and 'owned' by Mr Osland and, in normal circumstances, no-one else may well have been involved with its reception and examination, certainly not the Commissioner. However the Commissioner had become personally involved. As an example of his involvement his letter of 22 September 1993 to Mr Khan indicates "May I assure you that I have taken a close personal interest in this case from the outset, and that I am absolutely determined that everything possible should be done to bring those responsible to justice". In the same letter the Commissioner indicates to Mr Khan that he has discussed the case with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community, with the Commission for Racial Equality, the Home Office and Mr Peter Bottomley MP. The same letter indicates to Mr Khan that "a Review of the entire inquiry is being carried out by a senior officer ..... . I would not wish to comment on specific aspects of the investigation in advance of the Review being completed and even then we must of course be careful not to prejudice any future proceedings." The Commissioner's involvement was therefore clear. He was aware of the Review and awaiting its completion. 28.43 Given the nature of the Lawrence investigation, the rarity of such a Review (in the MPS at least) and the level of external interest from the family and third parties, particularly Peter Bottomley MP, we would have expected the Review to be thoroughly scrutinised by those senior officers taking an active responsibility and interest in its production, in particular Mr Osland and the Commissioner himself. In addition it is not unreasonable to suppose that there would have been early communication with the family as to the contents of the Review, subject of course to any legal considerations. 28.44 In the event it appears from the evidence and documentation before us that not a single question was raised by any officer receiving the Review. Some areas of the Review which generate obvious questions are set out below:
Review para 7.4: Fear and intimidation of witnesses underlines the overall lack of information and credible evidence in this case. Query: What is the nature of this intimidation? Do we have any specific example? (Inquiry into this particular area may have led to a senior officer ordering the much earlier arrest of Clifford Norris). Review para 8.1: Where practicable the ACPO Guidelines and AMIP Manual of Guidance were followed ...... although the practicality of staffing the HOLMES Incident Room ..... was such that these levels could not be met. Query: What were the deficiencies, what was their impact? Could this not have been overcome? Review paras 10.4 and 10.5: Mr Weeden reviewed the decision not to search the Acourts' home or arrest them deciding that any advances to be gained had now passed and to continue the surveillance for known associates. These were not unreasonable decisions given the available information but we are bound to conclude that: Query: This appears to be implicit criticism of the original decision. What were the grounds for the original decision and the advantages and disadvantages of arrest or delay, were the decisions well-founded? Review paras 13.2-13.4: Activity at the scene was hectic and information scarce. Four detective officers were present before midnight but attended the hospital only after DS Crampton arrived. PC Gleason was at the hospital unsupported until about midnight when Acting Inspector Little attended. He was then left on his own for a further two hours or more ...... . The officer had been attempting to debrief a highly emotional witness, reassure and answer questions from the Lawrence family, in addition to liaising with hospital staff particularly after Stephen had died. This placed considerable pressure on the officer who was acting also as a communication link with the scene. He responded well to the pressure. However a CID officer and a senior uniformed officer should have attended the hospital earlier to relieve this pressure, establish links with the family and attend to forensic evidence. Query: This implies some significant failures to respond adequately. What were their impact? Is this where the team lost initial touch with the family? 28.45 Mr Barker himself, responding to Mr Kamlish, indicated that whilst the Review, as he had accepted earlier, was toned down it should still have generated concern: Q: .... you had led the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner in your Review to the view that everything went fine with minor exceptions of staffing, family liaison. You did not criticise the investigating team on any important issue? A: I think I did. I think I reflected to you on Thursday that, reading that (the Review) I wouldn't be totally comfortable as a senior officer with what I saw in it. Q: You agree you have misled the Commissioner in one sense in believing there was no problem? A: No, I did not mislead the Commissioner. 28.46 Mr Osland, who clearly bears the prime responsibility in this regard, indicates that he circulated the Review to Mr Ilsley, Mr Weeden, Mr Blenkin and the Commissioner. However he convened no general discussion of the Review at Area level. 28.47 In response to Mr Chawla, on behalf of Mr Barker, Mr Osland did indicate that he
discussed the interim report at some length with Mr Barker. Mr Osland was unhappy with the
part of the Review relating to the timing of the arrest of the five suspects. He stated, "On
the one hand Mr Barker was saying these were not unreasonable decisions but then goes on
to give three reasons why, in fact, a different decision should have been made".
Nevertheless 28.48 Mr Osland indicated that in relation to the final report he had some discussion with Mr Blenkin relating to the recommendations, and that he discussed the Review with the Commissioner - "not detailed discussions" and "sometime after". He stated that the Commissioner did not, to his knowledge, raise any specific questions. It is clear that the Commissioner saw the Review document on 17 November 1993. He endorses it "Seen. Thank you." 28.49 The general assertion has been that senior officers above Mr Barker were misled by the nature of the Review into believing that all was well with the investigation. However it is difficult to understand how senior officers involved in its reception could fail to raise at least some of the significant and obvious questions generated by the Review in order to satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the investigation, and therefore of the adequacy and accuracy of the assurances that they might give to others based upon it. The fact is that they did fail to do so. 28.50 In relation to Mr Osland, but not to the Commissioner, an explanation is offered by Mr Barker. He testified that whilst his written report was toned down, an unexpurgated version of events was given verbally to Mr Osland, the investigation team and Mr Blenkin. This was not accepted by the supposed recipients and particularly by Mr Osland who stated "No. I totally, absolutely deny that anything of that nature was passed on to me". There is no evidence to confirm Mr Barker's assertion. Thus we are left with the unedifying result that one senior officer is palpably wrong, and cannot be speaking the truth. 28.51 Within the document Mr Osland states "I will visit the Lawrence family to inform them of the general findings after seeking advice of solicitors in view of the Lawrence family's threats to take legal action against the police." The essence of that advice was that there was no legal objection to meeting Mr & Mrs Lawrence either before or after the Inquest. But for whatever reason Mr Osland did not in fact communicate with the Lawrence family. Despite the recognised problem of lack of communication with the family in the initial investigation it was not until 3 May 1994, almost six months later, that the family were given information relating to the Review. 28.52 In the intervening period, November to May, there had been an exchange of correspondence starting on 14 January 1994 between Mr Khan, requesting among other things knowledge of the Review on behalf of the family, and the MPS solicitors. There was no mention of the Review in any of the MPS replies. Only when Mr Khan wrote directly to the Commissioner on 11 April 1994 was there a response. The Commissioner, to his credit, met with Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Khan promptly on 20 April 1994 and the notes of the meeting show that in response to a direct request relating to the Review the Commissioner agreed that Assistant Commissioner Johnston would provide a summary of the internal Review "as far as this was possible without legal impediment". 28.53 According to the notes of the meeting on 3 May 1994, involving Mr Johnston, Mr Nove, Mr Weeden, Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Khan, Mr Johnston "briefly summarised the three conclusions of the Review by DCS Barker." There are in fact no "conclusions" in the Review. The reference appears to be to three points in the "overview" (Section 2 of the Review) which, reproduced in full, state:
28.54 At the very least the paucity of information offered reflects a continuing lack of open and meaningful communication with the Lawrence family and their representatives. There is a lack of rigour in the reception of the review document first and foremost by Mr Osland, but also by those above him including the Commissioner himself. 28.55 The issues are encapsulated in a question from the Chairman to the Commissioner (Part 2, Day 3, pages 303/4):-
28.56 Our judgment must be that at the time, without the need of hindsight, the Review should have generated questions from senior officers which may have uncovered the difficulties which have subsequently been revealed in this investigation. 28.57 We have taken fully into account the Commissioner's comments on the Barker Review and particularly its reception set out in his letter of 12 January 1999, which was his reply to the Inquiry's letter giving him advance notice of some of the Inquiry's potential conclusions. The question and answer set out in Paragraph 55 above and most particularly the letter of 22 September 1993 and the notes of the meeting of 20 April 1994 show that the Commissioner was on this occasion involved in the reception of the Review. Ordinarily we accept that he would not have been expected personally to have been involved. 28.58 It remains to comment shortly upon the evidence given in general terms by Commander Blenkin. We have already dealt with his part in the initial stages and the launching of the Barker Review. Other than that Mr Blenkin played very little part in the Stephen Lawrence investigation. It is somewhat surprising to learn that the Commander (Operations) did not have responsibility in the line of command from himself downwards to the Chief Superintendents. The Chief Superintendents reported and were responsible directly to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the established lines of command as they were in 1993. 28.59 An unfortunate aspect of the evidence of Mr Blenkin concerned his confrontation with the somewhat pungent views expressed by Mr Osland at the Kent inquiry as to Mr Blenkin's capabilities and faults. Mr Osland had expressed himself strongly in this respect, and had indicated that Mr Blenkin's main characteristic was that he would unquestionably side with "the troops". This attitude and indeed the criticisms made orally by Mr Osland to the Kent inquiry were considerably modified by him before us. Through Mr Gompertz Mr Osland accepted that the comments he made to the Kent inquiry were exaggerated and required alteration. Mr Osland and all members of this Inquiry accept that Mr Blenkin was an efficient officer. 28.60 Mr Blenkin, as with other officers before him, used the word "coloured" and was surprised that this expression was not acceptable to describe those from minority ethnic communities. It is evident that a lack of racism awareness and training extends from the bottom to the top of the MPS. 28.61 Our overall conclusion is that Mr Barker's review must be condemned. We do not find evidence that its inadequacies were the result of corruption or collusion. Mr Barker's unquestioning acceptance and repetition of the criticisms of the Lawrence family and their solicitor are to be deplored. Others took the review "as it was set out", in the Commissioner's words, and all allowed themselves to be misled.
|
