CHAPTER FORTY

THE MAIN COMMITTAL HEARING

40.1 Luke Knight, Neil Acourt, Jamie Acourt and David Norris appeared before a Stipendiary Magistrate, David Cooper, on Wednesday, 23 August 1995 at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court. Gary Dobson was not involved in those proceedings. He was committed for trial later, after an "old style" committal at Belmarsh, having been arrested on 28 August 1995 (halfway through the main committal proceedings).

40.2 Luke Knight was represented by Mr T Kendal. David Norris was represented by Mr Bromley Martin. Neil Acourt was represented by Mr C Conway. Jamie Acourt was represented by Mr T Burke. Mr Mansfield led for the prosecution, instructed by Mr Khan; Mr Kamlish was his junior Counsel.

40.3 The proceedings started with objections raised by the accused, who did not wish the Magistrate to hear the case, because he had dealt with previous applications (including bail applications) and was thus aware of the antecedents and other information about the accused.

40.4 The Magistrate heard the argument but held rightly and robustly that "not only is there no real danger [of bias] in this; there is no danger of bias whatsoever". He declined the invitation to disqualify himself.

40.5 From early on in the proceedings there were edgy exchanges between Counsel, and the defence were putting down markers as to the evidence which Mr Mansfield proposed to call. After preliminary discussion, the case was opened by Mr Mansfield. Even in the opening it was apparent that there was potential confusion in respect of Duwayne Brooks' identification evidence. But Mr Brooks had picked out two of the accused on identification parades, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. So that there was that basic evidence for the Magistrate to consider.

40.6 The other identifying witness to be called was Witness B. Witness B said that he was on a bus travelling down Well Hall Road from the Woolwich direction at about the time of the murder. He made a statement in which he said that he saw David Norris and Neil Acourt from the bus near the Church on the corner of Cobbett Road and Rochester Way. They were, he said, in a group of four men.

40.7 Mr Mansfield was himself plainly doubtful about Witness B and his evidence. There seemed to be some question even as to whether Witness B would arrive at the Court at all. And Mr Mansfield rightly included in his opening the known fact that Witness B had originally given a false statement to the police (because, he said, he was fearful for his own safety), saying that the only incident he had seen involved a fight between people that he did not know near the Welcome Inn, which is nearby but not close to the place where he later said that he saw David Norris and Neil Acourt. Furthermore, Mr Mansfield knew (and opened) the fact that Witness B was plainly confused as to which of the Acourt brothers he had actually seen and was able to recognise. Witness B was thus the kind of witness that a prosecutor could only put forward with some trepidation. Mr Mansfield's obvious reservations about Witness B were later proved to be more than correctly stated.

40.8 Other than those two witnesses the material available to the prosecution was very limited, as we all now know. Mr Mansfield rightly referred to the weapons found at 102 Bournbrook Road. More contentiously he then opened the evidence about the December 1994 video and audio surveillance which (he said) would show " ...... not merely propensity, that would plainly be insufficient in itself, but it indicates motive in this case." Because (said Mr Mansfield) the men were clearly expressing in language which is abusive and almost unrepeatable their hatred of the black population, and their desire to cut up and injure black people, while demonstrating with knives their wish and ability thus to act.

40.9 Mr Mansfield submitted that the video evidence went to motivation and to support the identification by Mr Brooks and Witness B. Furthermore he mounted a somewhat involved argument about the men knowing that they were being "bugged", and that they were "performing" in various ways from which inferences of involvement in the Stephen Lawrence murder might be drawn, if only obliquely, against them.

40.10 Reading that part of the opening it is apparent that there were very real problems for Mr Mansfield and the prosecution to face, both as to the identification and the video evidence and as to the case generally.

40.11 On the first afternoon evidence was called. PC Bethel set the scene, and spoke of her contact at the scene with Mr Brooks. She was not cross-examined.

40.12 Then Mr Brooks was called. His evidence was long and detailed. It is purposeless to try to summarise all that he said. He gave his vivid account of the terrible murder of his friend. Perhaps most notably he gave evidence about the attacking group, and he gave descriptions of people which plainly conflicted with the material in his early statement. He also spoke of the later sightings of people who he said were involved, on what have been called the Starburger and public house encounters which occurred later in 1993, and thus long after the identification parades had taken place.

40.13 Mr Brooks was cross-examined first on behalf of Neil Acourt. Mr Conway concentrated upon the obvious problems of the identification and the short shocking circumstances, including the fact that Mr Brooks had said in his first statement that he was "running and jockeying back" when he saw the murder and those involved. He was also closely questioned about the "boy with the bar" who (said Mr Brooks) had broken away and pursued him and then run back and "whacked" Stephen Lawrence on the head. In Mr Brooks' first statement there was no mention at all of that part of the incident. The only person who Mr Brooks described in that statement was the man who first attacked Stephen, the man later known as the "frizzy" haired man, with hair which was "over his ears and stuck out over the sides".

40.14 Mr Conway raised the evidence and issue involving DS Crowley, indicating that the Sergeant was to be tendered or called, and that his evidence of what was said by Mr Brooks could of itself be fatally damaging to Mr Brooks' evidence.

40.15 Cross-examined on behalf of Jamie Acourt, Mr Brooks was again confronted with his variant descriptions of the first attacker, and the plain confusion which arose as a result. In his first statement he could only describe the frizzy haired man. Yet in his evidence he said that Stephen's attacker was of "medium build .... short black hair .... black, black hair". When asked, "The statement you gave to the police within 24 hours of the stabber, and the only one you could describe, is wrong?" Mr Brooks simply answered "Yes".

40.16 We know that Mr Brooks also gave an oral statement which was recorded in PC Gleason's notebook at the hospital on the night of the murder. This statement disappeared from view until it surfaced during the PCA investigation. Mr Brooks' only description in that statement of Stephen Lawrence's attacker was of a youth "who had blue jeans, his hair was bushy, light brown and stuck out .....". A description inconsistent with that given in evidence, and not a description which matched either of the Acourts or Luke Knight.

40.17 Mr Kendal (for Luke Knight) continued on the same theme, focusing particularly upon the fact that Mr Brooks had to accept what he had said in his statement of 4 June 1993, namely that he had been told (before the identification parades) that "the Acourt brothers were responsible for the murder", and that the only description given of any of the men was of that "frizzy haired" man referred to in his first statement.

40.18 The pathologist followed Mr Brooks into the witness box, to give evidence about the wounds inflicted upon Stephen Lawrence.

40.19 There was then a long discussion about Witness B, who was to be the last live witness called, and as to the need to preserve Witness B's anonymity as he gave evidence. The discussion was somewhat difficult, and the Magistrate sensibly reserved his decision as to what to do over the weekend and Bank Holiday which followed. On Tuesday, 29 August the Magistrate ruled that Witness B should give evidence screened, and that he need not answer any questions that would "tend to prejudice his anonymity". As the Magistrate said this was a classic exercise of his discretion.

40.20 Mr Bromley Martin did not like the decision, and the case was adjourned so that an application could be made for judicial review to upset it. That application was accordingly made, and the Divisional Court refused leave to question the ruling.

40.21 In due course Witness B gave evidence. He said that he had seen David Norris and Neil Acourt from the top of the No 122 bus, as indicated earlier in this Chapter. He said (with a seemingly remarkable degree of accuracy) that he saw the four men for "5-7 seconds", and that he knew and recognised the two named.

40.22 As to the Acourt identification, Witness B's problem (raised in cross-examination) was that in an earlier statement he had said that he believed one of the Acourts was there, but "couldn't be sure which one". And indeed he confirmed in evidence that he still could not be sure, but that he felt that it was Neil, because he was "bigger built". At the end of his evidence he agreed that his "present state of mind" was that he believed at the moment that he had seen Neil Acourt, but he could not be definite "as it may well have been Jamie." Hardly a promising basis for a case against either of the Acourts based upon Witness B's evidence of recognition.

40.23 Further evidence was read and given orally, including that of Mr McIlgrew, as to the identification parades.

40.24 On 1 September submissions were made about the admissibility of the video surveillance evidence. In a nutshell the argument from the defence was that the tapes were not admissible at all, or alternatively were so grossly prejudicial that they should not be used. Mr Bromley Martin said that he must argue that " ..... the zeal with which this prosecution is being pursued has to some extent affected the judgment of the prosecution". And he said that the 1994 videos could have no possible probative value in a trial for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence.

40.25 On Wednesday, 6 September the Court sat again. And the Magistrate was given news which illustrates how remarkable this case is at almost every turn.

40.26 In his evidence Witness B had repeatedly said that he knew David Norris, and had known him for some years. He said that he had met David Norris on numerous occasions, knew his face well, but indicated that he had in fact only known him by name as "Dave", and that his knowledge of the surname Norris came from other sources.

40.27 The prosecution decided therefore that it would be wise to hold an identification parade in order to test Witness B's evidence. This was a most unusual step to take, but the advice was that it should be done. And so David Norris stood on a parade at Southwark Police Station between the two sittings of the Court. Witness B surveyed the parade - and probably to the consternation of the prosecution he failed to pick out David Norris, but picked out a member of the public as being the David Norris who was well known to him and who had been near the scene of the murder.

40.28 This news was given at once to the Court, and as Mr Bromley Martin rightly said, it meant that Witness B's identification evidence as to David Norris was well and truly undermined.

40.29 Then the argument about the video evidence continued at great length. The Magistrate was indeed a patient man.

40.30 On 7 September the Magistrate gave his ruling. He had plainly given much thought to that decision. He admitted a substantial part of the evidence on the basis that it could "show that the defendants had a clear racist motive to kill Stephen Lawrence", and to a limited extent on the "similar facts" basis, because "I believe the videos are positively probative in that, taken with other evidence called by the prosecution, they might well assist the Court in reaching a conclusion ....". He was doubtful about the prosecution's submission that involvement in the murder could obliquely be inferred from what was said and not said during the surveillance. But he said that it would be for the trial court to decide whether "having considered the relevant sequences as a whole, that they do amount to confessions". As to prejudice/probative value the Magistrate said that this argument was for the trial Judge and not for him, although he felt that "on balance the probative value in particular as against Neil Acourt outweighs the prejudice".

40.31 And so the reduced tapes were admitted, after further discussion about the way in which they were to be played.

40.32 Almost immediately after the playing of the tapes Mr Mansfield said that his evidence was complete, and that he would be asking for committal of Neil Acourt, David Norris and Luke Knight.

40.33 Mr Mansfield expressly excluded Jamie Acourt, and explained why. "The case against Jamie Acourt depended primarily on the Witness Mr Brooks, followed by Mr B, followed by an eye witness - perhaps an audio witness would be a better phrase - Maureen George, who heard a phrase in a road nearby. However, as it turned out Mr Brooks' - I put it in inverted commas - "identification" of the person we were to arrest was Jamie is not in accord with what had been said before by him. He was not in a position to remember who he picked out before and therefore I was not able to proceed with him further. Secondly, Mr B made it clear finally in his evidence that essentially he is not including Jamie in any assertion about who was present ..... Jamie is not shown in the video ..... I feel it would not be proper to ask you for a committal in relation to him". Mr Conway made some strong and justified comment, namely that the case against Jamie Acourt had always been the same and was "non-existent". Jamie Acourt was then discharged.

40.34 On the next day DS Crowley was called on behalf of Neil Acourt. This evidence and this aspect of the case are separately considered. Mr Mansfield cross-examined the Detective Sergeant in accordance with his instructions, emanating of course from Mr Brooks. Inspector McIlgrew was recalled. Then the evidence ended.

40.35 On 11 September submissions of no case to answer were made on behalf of Neil Acourt and Luke Knight. They were thorough and painstaking and long. The contention was (in summary) that the evidence was so weak or tenuous that no reasonable jury properly directed could possibly convict. The argument was double-barrelled - or even triple-barrelled. First, the very nature of the scene and the speed of events made any identification unsafe, in R v Turnbull (1977) QB terms. Secondly, DS Crowley's evidence, particularly to the large extent that it was eventually accepted by Mr Brooks, undermined Mr Brooks. Thirdly, the video evidence should not bite even though the Magistrate had admitted it. Both submissions were thus made substantially under what the lawyers called "the second limb of R v Galbraith", on the basis that no reasonable jury properly directed could upon the evidence available safely or properly convict.

40.36 Mr Kamlish replied. His submission was that there was evidence for a jury to consider. Warming to his task he was prepared optimistically to say that there was " ..... an identification supported by other strong evidence of motive as far as Knight is concerned, and as far as Acourt is concerned a whole category ... several categories of evidence which make the case against him an overwhelming one". It is hard to see how such a statement could be justified, but that was the submission made.

40.37 After an adjournment the Magistrate gave his ruling. He directed himself impeccably as to the law. Sensibly, and in accordance with usual practice, he did not go through the evidence or the arguments. He found Mr Kamlish's submissions compelling, and he found that there was sufficient evidence to put Neil Acourt and Luke Knight on trial for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. David Norris was not committed for trial. Thus both he and Jamie Acourt, if viable evidence is available, can be prosecuted again.

40.38 Mr & Mrs Lawrence's legal team can thus say that at least there was some hope of conviction, since the Magistrate ruled that there was a prima facie case. Later Gary Dobson was also found to have a case to answer, although the evidence against him was palpably weak.

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