CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE  

CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

39.1 For a time we wondered whether a Police Act Inquiry into policing should encompass evidence about the decisions in connection with the prosecution of the suspects. On reflection it was plain that the Inquiry would be woefully incomplete if the prosecution process was not examined. Furthermore the inter-relation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, as highlighted in this case, could lead to recommendations in connection with the future prosecution of cases of this kind. With these considerations in mind evidence was called on Days 51 and 52 dealing with the CPS' part in this case. In addition we have seen all the background papers relevant to the prosecution, including 18 successive reports prepared by the investigation team for the CPS, commonly called Investigating Officer's Reports.

39.2 Some of the evidence given by the witnesses in statement form was read to the Inquiry, and two witnesses were called to give live evidence. The first of these witnesses was Mr Philip Medwynter. He gave short evidence in the witness box, and his full statement was read out by Mr Brian Barker, on behalf of the CPS, as the record shows. Mr Medwynter is a Bachelor of Law and a Barrister. He had experience as a Court Clerk in the Magistrates' Court and in 1987 he joined the CPS. He is and was in 1993 a principal Crown Prosecutor. He was the principal Crown Prosecutor for the Camberwell Greenwich Youth Team managing three other lawyers when the team acquired the Stephen Lawrence case. He allocated the case to himself because he realised its seriousness.

39.3 Initially Mr Medwynter believed, after reviewing the available early evidence, that there was a case for Neil Acourt to meet, because he had been unequivocally identified by Duwayne Brooks. As the case developed Mr Medwynter discussed it with his line manager Graham Grant-Whyte, who was an Assistant Crown Prosecutor. Mr Grant-Whyte rightly proposed that there should be a case conference with the police in order to discuss the available evidence, outstanding evidence, other suspects and the nature of police investigation and inquiries. The role allocated to Mr Medwynter was that of collating the evidence submitted by the police, assessing it and briefing Mr Grant-Whyte as to the nature and quality of the admissible evidence. There were frequent discussions between Mr Medwynter and Mr Grant-Whyte about the case, and a constant review of the evidence and developments was made by Mr Medwynter on behalf of his superiors.

39.4 It is significant to note that Mr Medwynter and the other prosecutors were fully conscious that this was purely a crime motivated by racism.

39.5 Mr Medwynter appreciated early on that it was not his responsibility to make the ultimate decision whether or not to prosecute in the Stephen Lawrence case, because of the gravity and aggravating features of the case, and because the case had attracted national media attention.

39.6 Once the identification of Luke Knight by Mr Brooks had taken place on 3 June 1993 and the evidence of DS Crowley came before the CPS there was further detailed consideration given to the case. Mr Medwynter told us of the written minute dated 15 June 1993 prepared by Mr Grant-Whyte for Mr Howard Youngerwood, the Branch Crown Prosecutor, seeking Mr Youngerwood's decision as to whether the case against Mr Acourt and Mr Knight for the murder of Stephen Lawrence should continue.

39.7 A case conference in fact took place on 9 July 1993, and Mr Youngerwood told those present his view of the evidence as it stood at that date. We all know that the ultimate decision made by Mr Youngerwood was that the evidence against Neil Acourt and indeed against Luke Knight was in itself weak, and that the evidence of Mr Brooks was further undermined by the evidence of DS Crowley. The decision to discontinue the prosecution was taken on 28 July by Mr Youngerwood himself, and the decision was communicated to Mr Weeden and Mr Bullock by Mr Grant-Whyte at a further case conference. Mr Youngerwood attended the closing stages of that conference and explained to the police that if further admissible reliable evidence came to light the prosecution could be resurrected.

39.8 The records show that there were further case conferences on 27 October and 11 November 1993. The evidence was reviewed therefore after the initial discontinuance, but the advice given by the CPS was still that the totality of the available evidence could not justify re-charging any of the suspects, and in particular those identified by Mr Brooks.

39.9 It should be noted that there was never any question in 1993-94 of the other suspects being charged, since in truth there was no evidence against any of them to justify prosecution. None of them had been identified at any parade, and there was no other evidence to establish their involvement in this terrible crime.

39.10 Mr Grant-Whyte's statement was also read on Day 51. He has retired from employment with the CPS. He was a graduate of the University of Natal, and he studied law at Cambridge and was called to the Bar in 1963. In 1966 he joined the legal staff of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in 1986 he was an Assistant Branch Crown Prosecutor. Mr Grant-Whyte became ill in December 1993, and he handed over his part in the Stephen Lawrence prosecution to Vivienne Pert.

39.11 Mr Grant-Whyte told the Inquiry in his statement that he worked closely with Mr Medwynter, who he regarded as a most competent and efficient lawyer. Mr Medwynter was the primary reviewing lawyer having the day to day conduct of the case, but Mr Grant-Whyte read all the papers and had frequent discussions with Mr Medwynter and indeed with Mr Youngerwood who was his superior.

39.12 Mr Grant-Whyte referred to the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. He usefully set out the two criteria which have to be considered in every case which is reviewed and conducted by the CPS:-

"First the sufficiency criteria, namely is the evidence such as would ensure a realistic prospect of conviction? That is, would a jury or a bench of Magistrates properly directed in accordance with the law be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge.  

Secondly, if the answer is in the affirmative the public interest criteria falls to be considered, that is although there is sufficient evidence does the public interest require a prosecution?  

Each case has to be looked at on its own facts and circumstances. If both criteria are satisfied then a prosecution should normally follow".

39.13 Mr Grant-Whyte himself considered that the evidence in the case of the murder of Stephen Lawrence appeared from the start "to be exceedingly weak". Mr Grant-Whyte on 15 June 1993 submitted a long memorandum to Mr Youngerwood indicating that in his opinion the evidence of Mr Brooks was in itself weak, and that it was further weakened by the evidence of DS Crowley. Rightly both he and Mr Youngerwood applied the test set out in R v Turnbull 1977 QB p 224 in connection with the basic identification by Mr Brooks of Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. This and subsequent cases spell out with emphasis the dangers of misidentification. Experience shows that where there has been a "fleeting glimpse" of a person, or a longer observation in difficult circumstances, the Court must (if the case goes to the jury) give recognised and careful warnings of the special need for caution. How long was the observation? In what light? What were the circumstances?

39.14 An apparently clear identification can be mistaken. When the quality of the identifying evidence is poor and unsupported the trial Judge should withdraw the case from the jury, since experience has shown that misidentification upon poor evidence is a source of injustice. This case, and subsequent firm endorsement of its principles, must be particularly noted in the context of this case. Once the Judge decides that the identification evidence is poor and unsupported he has a duty to withdraw the case. The law is clear, and the Judge rightly enforced it.

39.15 Mr Grant-Whyte confirms that Mr Youngerwood's advice was that there was no realistic prospect of conviction based upon Mr Brooks' evidence, and that the case should be discontinued subject of course to the discovery of other credible evidence to support Mr Brooks.

39.16 On 12 July 1993 Mr Andrew Mitchell, an experienced Junior Counsel, had been booked to conduct the committal at the Magistrates' Court. On 14 July information was received from the police that the last outstanding scientific evidence would not be available for some months. Further identification parades involving Luke Knight had been mooted, but his solicitor had indicated that Mr Knight was not prepared to consent to a further identification parade unless he was advised to attend one by Counsel.

39.17 On 27 July 1993 Mr Mitchell telephoned Mr Medwynter and informed him that having read the committal papers there was not, in his own words, "a cat in hell's chance of a conviction".

39.18 On 28 July 1993 Mr Grant-Whyte in fact signed the notices of discontinuance, after Mr Youngerwood had advised that this should be done. Those notices were posted on that day, and copies to the solicitors for the accused were faxed on the morning of 29 July. The proceedings were formally discontinued at Camberwell Youth Court on 29 July 1993.

39.19 Thereafter on 1 September 1993, at the request of Mr Gordon Etherington, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, a detailed report was prepared by Mr Grant-Whyte in conjunction with Mr Medwynter.

39.20 It must be stressed that discontinuance did not mean a final and irrevocable end to the case. Everybody knows that the police remained active during the later months of 1993 and in the early months of 1994. Their activity produced no fresh evidence, and there were meetings and conferences held by the CPS during the latter months of 1993, and advice was given to Mr Weeden that on the available evidence the CPS still believed that there was insufficient evidence to justify charging any of the suspects with murder.

39.21 The CPS witnesses dealt also with the case of Stacey Benefield. Mr Grant-Whyte formed the view that the Stacey Benefield case had to be treated as a separate matter from the Stephen Lawrence case. It should be said that we agree that in legal terms that conclusion was correct. There would not have been any prospect of the prosecution being allowed to join the Stacey Benefield case with the Stephen Lawrence murder.

39.22 Incidentally it should be noted that the CPS were asked to reinstate proceedings against Jamie Acourt and David Norris in connection with the stabbing of a young man called Darren Witham in Chislehurst in 1992. David Norris had been picked out by the victim of that stabbing at an identification parade. The matter had been discontinued on the basis of insufficient evidence. In spite of the police wish that the matter should be reinstated it was the view of the CPS that such reinstatement was inappropriate.

39.23 This was also the CPS view of the case concerning a young man called Lee Pearson. No realistic prospect of a conviction in that case was present, bearing in mind that Mr Pearson could not say who had stabbed him and also bearing in mind that he was reluctant to give evidence.

39.24 It should be observed that Mr Bullock and Detective Constable Freeman composed a strong memorandum which was submitted to the CPS inviting the prosecutors to reconsider the case in relation to the Witham brothers and seeking its reinstatement. As has been pointed out this action by Mr Bullock is inconsistent with any suggestion that he was "going soft" on David Norris. It should be added that we ourselves have some concern about the CPS decision not to revive the Witham case. There was evidence that David Norris and Jamie Acourt had been involved in violence, and a knife and truncheon had been used. It does appear to us that there was the material available for a successful prosecution. We appreciate that the weight and quality of evidence has first to be assessed by the CPS, and that the judgement of the relevant CPS officer is involved. But it must certainly be in the public interest to ensure that prosecutions follow where there has been violence and dangerous weapons have been used, provided that the evidential test is met.

39.25 When Mr Medwynter came into the witness box after the statements of himself and Mr Grant-Whyte had been read, it was apparent that it was his personal view that the prosecution of Mr Acourt and Mr Norris could have been pursued. On the other hand he accepted that the decision was not his to make. He believed that DS Crowley might have misunderstood what Mr Brooks was saying, and he would have liked the prosecution to go forward notwithstanding the evidence of DS Crowley. However Mr Medwynter quite rightly accepted that even when there were differing views amongst the ranks of the prosecutors the ultimate decision was for the senior prosecutor to make. Mr Medwynter agreed that by July 1993 the evidence of Mr Brooks was "severely undermined" by DS Crowley's evidence and he realised that tactically it would have been better not to pursue the matter at once, but to wait to see whether further admissible and reliable evidence emerged. In answer to Mr Brian Barker he accepted ultimately that discontinuance was appropriate, although it is apparent that he was more keen than others that the matter should be actively pursued.

39.26 The crucial evidence on behalf of the CPS was in fact given by Mr Youngerwood, since he was the man who had to make the relevant decisions. He had many years of experience as a solicitor both with the MPS, with whom he worked for 16 years, and in the CPS in its various existences. When he gave evidence he was retired, but he had been involved throughout with the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. He was an impressive witness, and it was plain to the Inquiry that he had been worried and anxious about the case and the decisions which he had felt bound to make. By the end of June 1993 he was aware that Mr Grant-Whyte and Mr Medwynter were both acutely concerned about the state of evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case. He had been in touch with them as the matter developed, but it was in June that he became closely involved in the decision making. He asked for the committal file, and he saw the key unused material.

39.27 Mr Youngerwood told us that it did not take him long, on reading the full papers which were put before him, to realise that the situation was depressing. He realised and accepted fully that this was a wicked racist murder. But it was his duty, as he told us, first to consider the nature of the evidence which was available. Plainly there was evidence that five or six white youths had killed Stephen Lawrence in a joint enterprise, so that there were no problems in that regard. There was however, as Mr Youngerwood told us in vivid terms, a very considerable problem as to the quality of the identification evidence of Mr Brooks.

39.28 Mr Brooks had, as his statements show, concentrated his attention on the person referred to as "the stabber" who appeared to be staring at him. At the identification parades he had indicated that the persons identified were simply part of the group and not the person upon whom his attention had been concentrated. Mr Youngerwood over and over again in his evidence indicated that he looked at the matter in two ways. First he looked simply at the quality of the identification; he did not believe that any criminal lawyer of competence could in all conscience have said that the identification in the circumstances described could possibly be considered to have been safe. And in addition there was the evidence of DS Crowley. The basis of the discontinuance notice, said Mr Youngerwood, was "these cumulative factors". His decision was based on the initial unsatisfactory quality of the identification of suspects in the group. Plus, as he said, "the even worsening assessment of what the lowest effect of Crowley's evidence might be".

39.29 The long and the short of it is that Mr Youngerwood throughout his evidence indicated that he could not conceive that there would be a conviction upon the evidence of Mr Brooks. It was therefore his duty to make his own assessment of the situation and reach a decision as to whether the prosecution should go ahead. He chose to discontinue at the end of July 1993 and not to adjourn the case at the hearing before the Magistrates. Mr Mansfield cross-examined Mr Youngerwood at some length as to this decision, suggesting that the most that should have been done was to ask the court to adjourn. The suggestion being put to Mr Youngerwood was that it would be difficult to resurrect the case once there had been a discontinuance. Mr Youngerwood believed that it would be wrong simply to seek an adjournment, and that the only fair course to take was to indicate that in the state of the evidence as it was the case could not and should not go ahead.

39.30 We fully understand Mr Youngerwood's reasoning and his decision, and we believe that his conclusion was correct. If further evidence came to light, either scientific evidence or further evidence which might have emerged as a result of the repeated pleas to the public for their assistance, then the matter could have been revived. But if the situation remained as it was there would be no prospect of the case being pursued satisfactorily.

39.31 Mr Youngerwood in his evidence was more than once asked why it was not reasonable to allow a jury to decide whether they believed Mr Brooks or DS Crowley. He accepted that this was an attitude which was understandable, but, rightly in our view, he said that this was a "call from the heart" which he had to resist. His first duty was to look at the case and reach his own conclusions, bearing in mind the Crown Prosecutors' Code, as to whether there was the basic material to allow the case to go to court. He believed that there could only be a negative answer to the question "Was there safe identification evidence to allow this case to proceed?".

39.32 Mr Youngerwood was criticised by Mr Mansfield on the basis that he was taking over the role of the Judge or the jury, and that he ought to have allowed the case to proceed. We do not agree with this criticism. Mr Youngerwood was a highly experienced and responsible solicitor, and it was his duty to reach a decision bearing in mind all relevant matters. He was not allowed in accordance with the Code or in accordance with the law to float the case simply because of its importance and because of the racist nature of the attack, or for any other reason. He had to make an assessment of what probative evidence was available at the time that he considered the case, and he had to act properly and in accordance with his conscience after such consideration.

39.33 It was further suggested to Mr Youngerwood that he ought to have gone to Treasury Counsel in order to obtain a further view of the strength of the case before reaching the conclusion as to discontinuance. In fact Mr Youngerwood had the oral and uncompromising view of experienced criminal Junior Counsel, namely Mr Mitchell. It is true that there was no written opinion given or written advice obtained, and no further reference to more Senior Counsel was contemplated. As matters stood in 1993 it seems to us plain that Mr Youngerwood was not only entitled to reach the decision that he did, but that he reached the correct decision. There was in July 1993 no prospect of a successful prosecution being pursued on the basis of the evidence which was then available.

39.34 It is right to say that there was no qualification in the actual identification of the two suspects by Mr Brooks. Mr Mansfield described the identification of Neil Acourt as "a classic identification, subject obviously to the usual warnings that any jury and any Magistrates' Court would have to have in mind". Mr Youngerwood agreed that the identification was unequivocal, but pointed out, rightly in our view, that people are often convinced that they are right and make what can be termed a classic identification although the circumstances make it plain that such confidence is misplaced.

39.35 That is the reason, said Mr Youngerwood, why so much caution has to be exercised and why injustice has sometimes occurred over the years. A clear identification may well be mistaken, and the circumstances must be looked at with great care before an unqualified identification is taken as gospel.

39.36 Mr Youngerwood's view was that the identification by Mr Brooks of two people who were not "the stabber" was patently unsafe in the circumstances. There was no identification made by any of the other three witnesses who were present at or near the bus-stop at the time of the murder.

39.37 There is justifiable criticism of the police for their failure to act quickly, and thus to be able to organise identification parades at which Mr Westbrook and the others might have been able to identify the culprits. We will never know whether that might have occurred. It seems doubtful, because none of those witnesses was able to give satisfactory descriptions of any of those involved, and all of them agreed that the whole incident was over in a matter of a few seconds.

39.38 The fact is however that there was no satisfactory evidence to corroborate the doubtful evidence of Mr Brooks, and even without the matter being tested in court the statement of DS Crowley was a severe stumbling block.

39.39 In the round Mr Youngerwood asserted and re-asserted that it was his duty to look at the case, as he did with his colleagues, in order to make a decision logically and objectively in relation to the prosecution code tests, the first of which was the evidential test. If the view of the CPS after careful consideration was that the evidence of identification was very weak or woefully inadequate, bearing in mind the guidelines set out in R v Turnbull then the CPS had no alternative but to exercise their judgment and make a decision about the continuance of the prosecution.

39.40 Discontinuance may seem to imply a permanent block upon the prosecution. This is not so, since if further evidence arose the whole situation would be changed. No argument that there was an abuse of process could in our opinion possibly have been mounted if, for example, other witnesses had subsequently identified Neil Acourt and Mr Knight as being present and involved in the murder.

39.41 The simple truth is that virtually no further viable evidence was ever discovered. An indication was given at the first hearing of the Inquest that there might be some new "dramatic" evidence. But nothing more was heard of that evidence. Witness B's evidence was available in 1995 at the Magistrates' Court. But Witness B was effectively destroyed as a credible witness, because of his failure to identify David Norris and because of his confusion over the presence of one or other of the Acourts when he said that he had seen them from the top of the bus. No other 'dramatic' evidence ever materialised.

39.42 There was in 1995 available also the surveillance evidence of the suspects. Taking all that into account (and that was fresh material), the Magistrate decided during committal proceedings that there was a case for two of the suspects to answer. Gary Dobson was also separately committed for trial. The fact that the Magistrate decided to commit Neil Acourt and Luke Knight for trial does not mean that the earlier CPS decision to discontinue was flawed. Different considerations governed the two decisions, and there was material available to the Magistrate which did not exist in 1993/1994. Furthermore the ultimate result at trial shows that the CPS decisions were correct. We do not blame the Magistrate for allowing the case to go ahead against those two suspects, but in the end the Judge was correct to stop the prosecution in its tracks once he had heard the evidence of Mr Brooks, closely tested and indeed destroyed as it was by Leading Counsel for the accused.

39.43 We have looked again and again at the evidence of the CPS witnesses. We are unable to criticise the decisions made by Mr Youngerwood. It seems to us that he reached careful and reasoned conclusions, and he defended his decisions roundly and satisfactorily and conclusively in the witness box at the Inquiry.

39.44 Mr Mansfield suggested to Mr Youngerwood that it might perhaps be right that a case of this kind should go to a Special Case Unit for review, or alternatively that there should be some guidance as to the checking of an opinion made in circumstances such as those in which Mr Youngerwood made his decisions. There are however no laid down guidelines or rules designed to impose upon senior CPS officers an obligation to take a formal second opinion. Mr Youngerwood was a senior lawyer, and he acted within a team of lawyers. Mr Etherington, his own superior, agreed with what he had done, and so did Counsel.

39.45 Private prosecutions are not automatically "vetted" by any agency. But they can, if the need arises, be stopped by the Attorney General who has the power to make a formal order to check unwarranted prosecutions.

39.46 Mr Youngerwood was asked questions about the private prosecution. So far as Mr Youngerwood was concerned the decision to go ahead in 1995-96 was a disaster. We believe that Mr Youngerwood did telephone Mr Khan, probably on more than one occasion, in order to indicate his disapproval of what was happening. Mr Youngerwood told the Inquiry that when he heard that the private prosecution was being mooted he at once contacted Mr Khan, because he was very worried since it was his view that the prosecution was bound to fail, unless there was further evidence in the possession of Mr Khan. Mr Youngerwood told Mr Khan that it was hopeless to bring a prosecution, because of the R v Turnbull guidelines as to identification evidence and because of the insuperable difficulties in connection with Mr Brooks' evidence.

39.47 Mr Khan was apparently very polite, but he said little or nothing about the intentions of the legal team advising Mr & Mrs Lawrence. When it was finally announced that the prosecution was to go ahead in 1995-96 Mr Youngerwood was ill at home. He telephoned Mr Khan again and offered to speak to Mr Mansfield and said that he would provide the legal team with any key unused material so that they could see what the problems were, namely that there was virtually no evidence which would sustain a prosecution. When he finally heard that Mr & Mrs Lawrence and their lawyers had launched their prosecution Mr Youngerwood was dismayed.

39.48 Mr Khan never indicated to Mr Youngerwood any substantial measure of disagreement or dissent as to Mr Youngerwood's opinion. He was always polite on the telephone and in his correspondence, and made no comment about Mr Youngerwood's views. We have no doubt that these views were transmitted to Mr Khan by Mr Youngerwood. It was for Mr Khan and Counsel and Mr & Mrs Lawrence to make their own final decision. The truth is that viable evidence was in the end not available at the trial and the final outcome was that those prosecuted obtained, as a result of their acquittal, immunity from any future prosecution.

39.49 Another aspect of the case which concerned the CPS was the prosecution of Mr Brooks in connection with the damage done by him during the May demonstration in which he was involved following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Mr Brooks' part in the incident was not brought home to the police until September 1993, when a police officer who had seen the incident was able to identify Mr Brooks as the perpetrator of damage to a motor car during that disturbance. In October 1993 Mr Brooks was charged with an offence, and thereafter he was prosecuted, eventually appearing before His Honour Judge Tilling in the Croydon Crown Court.

39.50 There was disagreement between the senior police officers, including Mr Johnston, and the CPS as to whether Mr Brooks ought ever to have been taken to court. By the time that this prosecution was launched Mr Brooks was being advised by Miss Jane Deighton of Deighton Guedalla. He had been diagnosed as being traumatised and much affected mentally by the experience which he had gone through at the time of Stephen Lawrence's murder.

39.51 We are not surprised that Mr Brooks was traumatised, and when the prosecution was mooted he was seen by doctors, who assessed his mental condition and who wished to be able to identify what that condition had been on 8 May 1993. Later it appears that the suggestion was made at a preliminary hearing at Croydon that his lawyers might raise the defence of automatism, quite apart from reliance upon medical evidence in connection with Mr Brooks' disturbed mental state. The Judge took the view apparently that material should be collected in order to assist him and/or the jury in their decision in connection with Mr Brooks.

39.52 Mr Youngerwood says that the Judge indicated that all the statements that the police had should be looked at and a summary should be drawn up to see if there was material available to assist in connection with Mr Brooks' mental state. Mr Youngerwood was told by Counsel that the Judge wished to see and to collect together any evidence or information which showed "untoward" or "abnormal" behaviour by Mr Brooks because of the defence which was being pursued. Mr Youngerwood passed on this requirement to the police who suggested that the best way of acquiring the information would be by questionnaires to all the officers who had contact with Mr Brooks. Mr Youngerwood agreed, and the MPS created and circulated the questionnaires. This exercise was much criticised by those advising Mr Brooks, who suggested that it gave the opportunity for racist stereotyping, since police officers were being positively asked whether they had noticed anything abnormal or out of the ordinary in Mr Brooks' behaviour, which might prompt unfortunate and ill-founded comments from officers who were not well disposed towards Mr Brooks.

39.53 Mr Youngerwood says that all that was done was done in order to assist the defence and effectively because of the request made by the Judge. He accepted that he had asked the police to send out questionnaires to all police witnesses who had any dealings, however brief, with Mr Brooks asking whether any abnormal behaviour had been noticed by them. At the time no protest was made by Mr Brooks or those acting on his behalf. Indeed on 20 May 1994 Miss Deighton wrote to Mr Youngerwood indicating that she would be grateful if the completed questionnaires could be forwarded to her office "at Mr Youngerwood's earliest convenience". The purpose of seeking the information was, she said, to assist the expert, namely the doctor, instructed on Mr Brooks' behalf.

39.54 It is a feature of the case that some of the officers saw fit to make strong critical comments about Mr Brooks. However, we do not believe that the existence of these questionnaires or their content can lead to criticism of the CPS, since they emerged as a result of the defence which was being raised by Mr Brooks, and as a result of the Judge's wish to obtain any information which might be useful to the defence.

39.55 It is perfectly true that Judge Tilling thought little of the case which was levelled against Mr Brooks. He indicated early on that even if there were a conviction it would be likely that Mr Brooks would be discharged. But the CPS had reached their own decision, namely that the case should be put before the court. As we have already indicated many police officers and others believed that the prosecution ought to have been stopped. Mr Brooks was the only witness who could give direct evidence in the Stephen Lawrence murder.

39.56 There is perhaps some irony in the fact that the CPS deemed it right to proceed against Mr Brooks but not to proceed against the suspects. When the matter is examined however the logic of the two decisions can be seen. The view of the CPS, and in particular of those who had to make the relevant decision, was that if the prosecution was dropped the defence would have considerable ammunition to aim at Mr Brooks, upon the basis that he had been favoured by the CPS in return for his continued willingness to co-operate and to give evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case. To add to the frustrations of Mr & Mrs Lawrence not only did these two decisions of the CPS run counter to their hopes, but so did the decision over the Sainsbury's car park matter, which is referred to in Chapter 38.

39.57 In the result the Judge thought the same as the police officers about the case against Mr Brooks. The case against Mr Brooks was dismissed upon the defence submission that there was an abuse of process, primarily because of delay in bringing the proceedings. Mr Brooks' medical condition was also before the Judge. We do understand the CPS' argument. In the end we feel that it would have been better if the prosecution of Mr Brooks had been abandoned early on. But a decision of this kind is not an easy one to make.

39.58 The way in which the discontinuance was brought to the notice of Mr & Mrs Lawrence was most regrettable. Mr Khan was told probably after the event that the prosecution had been discontinued, and Mr & Mrs Lawrence heard the news through the media. There is criticism to be made of all those involved in connection with the transmission of the news of the discontinuance to Mr & Mrs Lawrence. It must have been a shock to them to discover that the matter had even temporarily been halted in its tracks.

39.59 Most careful timing and most careful transmission of news of this kind to a bereaved family are vital. Scrupulous consideration must be given to the consequences of a decision of this kind and to liaison direct with the family before such a decision is implemented. It is undoubtedly unfortunate that the matter had to be decided in a hurry, and that there was failure on the part of the CPS and the police to ensure that there was time and opportunity to pass on the news of the decision to the family before the matter went to court. The reason given is that the decision was made only at the eleventh hour, and that the matter had to be mentioned in court and that there was not time to communicate satisfactorily with the family before the matter was resolved.

39.60 This is in our opinion no true excuse, since there must have been channels available in order to ensure that the family were found and told that the decision had been made and was imminently to be implemented. Mr & Mrs Lawrence were in Jamaica at the time. But every effort should have been made through Mr Khan or through diplomatic channels to ensure that they were contacted at once. Careful explanation must always be made in circumstances of this kind of the effect of the decision. Use of the procedure of discontinuance and the very word "discontinued" have unfortunate connotations. Eventually the family must have appreciated that if further evidence were found the matter might proceed. But much care and sensitivity must be exercised in transmitting a decision of this kind to the family in circumstances such as this in the future.

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