< 1> Tuesday, 28th April, 1998.< 2> MR LAWSON: Sir, the first witness is Mr Budgen,< 3> please.< 4> <CHRISTOPHER BUDGEN, (sworn)< 5> <EXAMINED BY MR LAWSON< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson will ask you questions on< 7> behalf of Inquiry first of all.< 8> MR LAWSON: What is your current rank and station?< 9> A. I am a detective constable attached to the CID at<10> Peckham Police Station.<11> Q. Although I shall be asking you questions, try to<12> speak into the microphone and put the microphone<13> reasonably close to you and everyone should be able to<14> hear.<15> First let me identify what material we have<16> coming from you: You made in 1993 a statement relating<17> to the arrest of Jamie Acourt?<18> A. That is correct, sir.<19> Q. Which we have as (PCA00380389), do you see that on<20> the screen?<21> A. I do, yes.<22> Q. That is a typed or HOLMES produced copy of your<23> statement?<24> A. Yes, that is correct.<25> Q. Which is the only witness statement you made in

. P-3199

< 1> 1993; that is right, is it?< 2> A. That is correct.< 3> Q. Do you have any surviving notes?< 4> A. I do indeed.< 5> Q. What do they relate to?< 6> A. To the arrest, exactly the same as this statement.< 7> Q. Do have you any notes of your own as to any other< 8> aspects of the investigation?< 9> A. No, I don't.<10> Q. You do not. I can see it there, you have an IRB?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. I do not think I have seen that, but does that<13> simply consist of the same account as appears in the<14> statement?<15> A. That is also correct.<16> Q. Yes. I do not know if anybody wants to look at the<17> note book. If they do, doubtless they will ask to do<18> so. There is nothing in there apart from dealing with<19> the arrest?<20> A. No.<21> Q. Secondly, Mr Budgen, during the course of the<22> enquiries made by the Kent Constabulary, you made the<23> statement we have at (PCA00300245), is that it?<24> A. Yes, that is correct.<25> Q. Dated 22nd September 1997, and let us use that, if

. P-3200

< 1> we may, to provide a framework for the evidence that< 2> you are going to give to the Inquiry?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Paning down, as we see where we are at the moment,< 5> in the middle of the screen, you refer in April 1993< 6> to having been Detective Constable at No 3 Area Major< 7> Investigation Pool; correct?< 8> A. That is correct.< 9> Q. You indicate that you had been working on another<10> murder inquiry previously?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Immediately before you took up duties in relation<13> to this investigation you had been on a major<14> investigation course?<15> A. That is also correct, yes.<16> Q. Then you are directed to attend at Eltham to join<17> the investigation, which you did, in the afternoon of<18> 23rd April?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. You make reference to there being an office meeting<21> after you arrived, chaired by Mr Illsley and Mr<22> Crampton. You say they outlined the facts of the<23> murder and the information known at that time?<24> A. That is correct, yes.<25> Q. Can you recall, this is simply based on

. P-3201

< 1> recollection, what it was or the essence of what you< 2> were told?< 3> A. Obviously, when I arrived there were amassing a< 4> squad in order to deal with this murder and obviously< 5> it was at the first meeting with new people arriving,< 6> so I was not necessarily aware of everything that was< 7> going on at that stage. It was basically a meeting to< 8> get things and facts outlined.< 9> Q. You were told, no doubt, that it concerned the<10> murder of Stephen Lawrence which occurred late at<11> night on the previous Thursday?<12> A. That is correct.<13> Q. Were you told anything about any suspects at that<14> stage? Your statement refers to vague description.<15> A. I remember it as being just vague descriptions at<16> the time -- a group of white youths, but the specific<17> details I could not remember at all.<18> Q. Were you told this was or was being treated as a<19> racist killing?<20> A. At the time it was just deemed to be a murder<21> inquiry. It was not specifically outlined to be a<22> racist murder at the office meeting, but it was a<23> murder inquiry.<24> Q. When, if at all, was it described to you as a<25> racist murder?

. P-3202

< 1> A. I don't think it was ever described to me, singled< 2> out as a racist murder. It was accepted by myself< 3> that this was a racist murder.< 4> Q. Why was that, because it was obvious?< 5> A. Yes, fairly obvious. Obviously you have white guys< 6> attacking a black guy and murdering him, yes. That was< 7> my own view, but then I deemed a slightly different< 8> view a bit later on.< 9> Q. What was the slightly different view a bit later<10> on?<11> A. Just in terms of obviously I had dealings with a<12> man you know as Grant.<13> Q. Yes.<14> A. So obviously I am aware of what a racist murder is<15> or a racist definition.<16> Q. What is that?<17> A. Well, obviously, if any person, whether the victim<18> or anybody else, says it is racist, then it could be a<19> racist attack or murder.<20> Q. When you say "if anyone says it is racist"?<21> A. Makes an allegation of it being racist, yes.<22> Q. Yes. That allegation was plainly being made, was<23> it not?<24> A. Yes, sir. I accept that it was, yes.<25> Q. When you say later on, I thought you said a few

. P-3203

< 1> minutes ago you changed your view?< 2> A. I did indeed.< 3> Q. Your slightly different view, you told us a couple< 4> of seconds ago, you related that to your dealings to< 5> the man we are calling Grant?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Explain why. We will look at those dealings a< 8> little later. Why did those dealings cause you ----< 9> A. The persons who were suspected of this murder that<10> I had dealings with when I came to it and when I had<11> dealings with Grant, obviously outlined to me that<12> these people were attacking anybody and obviously had<13> given me details of people who were white, who had<14> been attacked as well. In order to gain confidence of<15> joining this gang, this Eltham Krays gang, you just<16> had to stab anybody. It was not whether they were<17> black, white or whatever. That is what I mean by my<18> view. You know, yes, it is a racist murder, but also<19> these people who committed this murder will attack<20> anybody. It was not just scouring the streets to look<21> for a black person to murder, in my view. It was a<22> view that anybody could have been murdered by this<23> gang. That was my view.<24> Q. In essence, do I summarise it correctly: you<25> remained of the view that this was a racist killing;

. P-3204

< 1> the killers violent thugs?< 2> A. And I dare say are racist. I mean, it is obviously< 3> a play on words, I am just talking about my view is< 4> that anybody would be attacked by this group of lads,< 5> thugs, whatever you want to call them.< 6> Q. We will look in a moment at what you did do in the< 7> course of the investigation including your dealings< 8> with the man we are calling Grant. So that we get an< 9> overview, your involvement was for 2 to 3 week from<10> Friday 23rd to, as your statement points out later on,<11> 9th May, when you were reassigned to other duties?<12> A. That is correct, sir.<13> Q. Yes. Can you briefly tell us by way of background,<14> I know you joined the police force in 1980. When did<15> you become a detective constable?<16> A. In 1990.<17> Q. So you held that rank for about 3 years prior to<18> this investigation.<19> How many previous murder investigations had you<20> been involved in as a detective, officer?<21> A. About two, I think, sir.<22> Q. Two or possibly three?<23> A. But obviously prior to that I had been involved in<24> murders, not as a detective, but as part of a crime<25> squad officer as well.

. P-3205

< 1> Q. Go, if we may, back to the foot of the first page< 2> of your statement. We see the last two words of that.< 3> Let us go to the next page, please, Grace. You were< 4> not initially given specifics task. You awaited< 5> actions to be allocated from the HOLMES system when< 6> that was set up. It was not set up immediately, was< 7> it, HOLMES?< 8> A. Sorry, sir, in relation to this Inquiry?< 9> Q. Yes.<10> A. I don't know, sir. I don't know if it had been up<11> and running immediately straight after. I assume we<12> were waiting for it.<13> Q. I am not going to go through them by any means. You<14> indicate there that you were waiting for actions to be<15> allocated and you refer to some of the things you did<16> you. We have copies of a lot of actions. Would it be<17> right to say in summary terms that, for example,<18> initially you had actions allocated to you following<19> up on house-to-house enquiries, for example?<20> A. Yes, that is correct, sir.<21> Q. To seek clarification. I do not think that any of<22> the ones, apart from those I am going refer to,<23> actually led to anything. There was a variety of<24> investigations to be made following up on the<25> house-to-house?

. P-3206

< 1> A. That is correct.< 2> Q. Let us deal with your initial dealings with the man< 3> we are going call Grant, which is referred to on the< 4> screen?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. This is on the Friday evening, is it not?< 7> A. That is correct, sir.< 8> Q. For those purposes it probably makes sense to have< 9> on the screen the message itself. First of all, let<10> us look at the message (PCA00370035). Is that your<11> handwriting?<12> A. That is correct, sir.<13> Q. Go to the top of it, please. 7.45 on 23rd, yes?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. It says there "male particulars refused"?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. This has not been redacted, so much as somebody<18> having overscored it with a marker pen to make it<19> difficult to read, so we have a version of it at<20> (PCA00500165), can we have that up, please. That<21> comes with the Kent Report. I think you can just<22> about fit the whole of it in.<23> That is simply a transcription. Right?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Which I think is believed to be accurate?

. P-3207

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. You were called, were you, to the front office?< 3> A. Well a police officer attended the office and said< 4> that somebody was at the front counter and I< 5> volunteered myself to go downstairs to speak to this< 6> person.< 7> Q. You saw this person and I know he was not given the< 8> name "Grant" there and then?< 9> A. No, he was not.<10> Q. Let us call him "Grant" to avoid any difficulties.<11> The person you spoke to did give a name, did he not?<12> A. He did indeed, sir.<13> Q. Yes?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. It was his real name?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You say in your statement, I do not know whether<18> you have a hard copy, "you do not recall whether he<19> gave a first name or not"?<20> A. I say I don't recall his first name now.<21> Q. Yes?<22> A. But I obviously did at the time.<23> Q. But he gave the information, did he, which you<24> summarised, at least?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3208

< 1> Q. In this document?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. About the Acourt brothers and David Norris and< 4> their alleged involvement in the murder?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. The other matters that were there referred to, I am< 7> not going to go through with you again we have done it< 8> numerous times.< 9> At the very end of the message, can we go to the<10> bottom of the page please, you wrote, if you go back<11> to the original if need be: "Believe identity of<12> informant established." Can you just expand on that?<13> A. Obviously when was talking to Mr Grant, I obviously<14> wanted to make sure before he left the station I could<15> establish who he was. I was able to do that by use of<16> the police national computer to trace whether he had a<17> criminal record; and if I could do that then obviously<18> it would give me a chance of knowing who he was.<19> Q. Did you succeed in that?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. So, take it briefly, this was somebody who came in<22> saying he had some information to give about the<23> murder. Is that right?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. He gave you his real name?

. P-3209

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Then gave you the information?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. He was not properly to be described as an anonymous< 5> informer?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. From the very outset his identity was known to you< 8> and presumably therefore to other police officers< 9> involved in the investigation. Certainly the senior<10> ones?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. You having recorded that information, let us go<13> back to your statement at (PCA00300246). You say<14> there as you recall -- this is about 7 or 8 lines down<15> -- as you recall "he", that is Grant, "was worried<16> about giving information and his identity becoming<17> known"?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. You said you explained to him the procedures of<20> registering informants and he agreed at that stage to<21> be come a registered informant. Is that correct?<22> A. That is correct, sir.<23> Q. That was implemented, was it not, some time later?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Can you remember where?

. P-3210

< 1> A. Where did I register him?< 2> Q. Yes?< 3> A. Greenwich Police Station, sir.< 4> Q. When was that?< 5> A. The exact date was either 28th or----< 6> Q. So within days of this rather than weeks?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Your statement indicates that you spent you think< 9> about 20 minutes with him. Yes?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. And having spoken with him and having obtained that<12> information which you said in your statement you felt<13> to be important, and it obviously was important, was<14> it not?<15> A. Sir, very important.<16> Q. You asked him to wait. Is that right?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. While you went to see Mr Bullock?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. What is your recollection now about the reaction of<21> Mr Bullock when you spoke to him and presumably told<22> him the information you had been given?<23> A. I said he didn't obviously wish to discuss the<24> matter with me but he told me to put it down on a<25> green sheet, which is our way of saying information is

. P-3211

< 1> input on the HOLMES system via these message sheets< 2> and that is what he meant. He meant to say put this< 3> into the system.< 4> Q. That would be leading to the creation of what is< 5> message number 40?< 6> A. That is correct, sir.< 7> Q. You had not actually made that out at the time?< 8> A. No.< 9> Q. Did he seem interested in what you had to tell him?<10> A. Well I have actually said "no" but----<11> Q. Why did you say that?<12> A. Well obviously maybe he was doing other things, I<13> don't know but the point I was making was that I did<14> have this informant at the police station with me,<15> still with me at the front counter.<16> Q. Yes?<17> A. I felt it was very important information bearing in<18> mind at that stage we appeared to have very little.<19> Q. Were you aware, Mr Budgen, of there having been an<20> earlier report that day naming Neil Acourt and David<21> Norris?<22> A. No, sir.<23> Q. Specifically, just look at it on the screen<24> (PCA00370034) the top of that please. This is at<25> 1.50pm the same day. Yes?

. P-3212

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. "An anonymous male" it says, "who just looked down"< 3> this is taken by a police officer. Yes?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You probably recognise the name, it does not< 6> matter. "There is a group of youths on the Kidbrooke< 7> Estate who always carry large knives and threaten< 8> people. They may have been involved in last night's< 9> stabbing. Two of them are Neil Acol" it says on here<10> "and David Norris"?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. "Both of 102 Bournbrook Road". Yes?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. "And I do not wish to give my details" for<15> completeness. That message obviously was already in<16> being at the time that you saw Mr Grant?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Yes?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. We can see, just as we go down the page for the<21> moment, this is not the HOLMES copy, this is what<22> would have gone into the system?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. As you expect certain actions were required to be<25> done in connection with it?

. P-3213

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Presumably, you can say as a detective officer of a< 3> few years experience at the time information of that< 4> sort naming individuals you would expect, would you< 5> not, to go as soon as possible to the investigating< 6> officers?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Specifically the senior investigating officers?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You knew nothing about that?<11> A. No, sir.<12> Q. Let us go back to your statement (PCA00300246).<13> There we see, about halfway down the screen, you are<14> referring to Mr Bullock and obviously seeming not to<15> wish to discuss the matter further. You say:<16> "Unlike previous murder inquiries I have been on, the<17> senior SIO would have taken more interest in the<18> information I had obtained particularly bearing in<19> mind the informant was still there."<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Were you surprised at Mr Bullock's lack of<22> interest?<23> A. No, sir.<24> Q. You were not surprised?<25> A. I mean, in relation to my own personal dealings

. P-3214

< 1> with Mr Bullock, no.< 2> Q. Can you just explain that?< 3> A. Mr Bullock was in fact working at my police station< 4> at Catford.< 5> Q. Yes. You knew him, did you?< 6> A. I did know him, sir. And how does one best< 7> describe the relationship -- the impression is he has< 8> never liked me, whatever I did. So in relation to< 9> whatever I did on that night, it would not have made<10> -- it would not have changed my conception about him,<11> I could have recovered the Crown Jewels it would not<12> have made any difference that was my analogy to the<13> situation. It was my view towards him really. I am<14> saying that I felt that he did not like me and<15> therefore would not have taken a lot of interest in<16> what I had to say but that was my opinion.<17> Q. Does it amount to this: are you suggesting his<18> dislike for you personally lead to his, in effect,<19> ignoring this important information?<20> A. I am not saying that, sir, at all. I am not saying<21> that at all. Obviously he has told me to put it on a<22> green sheet and, you know, as we know this is message<23> number 40 and obviously to go into the system and that<24> went into the system straightaway. So it was not a<25> case of that, sir, it was just his personal view of

. P-3215

< 1> me.< 2> Q. You went back to "Grant", as he became then, who< 3> was waiting for you?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. And you presumably spoke to him a bit further?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Presumably confirmed the details that you then the< 8> put down on message 40. Is that right?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. What arrangements, if any, did you make to contact<11> Mr Grant or for him to contact you further thereafter?<12> A. It was a case of him contacting me, it was not a<13> case of us contacting him. He was not in a position<14> to be contacted.<15> Q. So what did you ask him to do then, if anything?<16> A. Contact us regularly or contact me regularly on the<17> pager.<18> Q. This was Friday evening we know?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Did you ask him, for example, to make contact on<21> Saturday?<22> A. I asked him to make contact everyday with me, sir.<23> Q. Looking at your statement on the screen you say,<24> about 5 lines down the screen, you "arranged for<25> contact numbers to be exchanged". What does that

. P-3216

< 1> mean?< 2> A. Well exactly what I said sir, that he--< 3> Q. Giving him your numbers?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Right. "I seemed to think when I returned to Grant< 6> I was with somebody else and I previously stated I< 7> thought it was Davidson"?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. When you say "previously stated" was that to the<10> Kent Investigators you said that?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. That cannot be right because someone has told you<13> Davidson was not working that day. We know he became<14> involved the following day?<15> A. That is correct.<16> Q. If you were with somebody else when you went back<17> to see Grant, would I be right in thinking you cannot<18> remember who it was?<19> A. That is correct, sir.<20> Q. Now going on down the statement you refer to<21> becoming aware or having been made aware of Davidson<22> joining the Inquiry on the Saturday?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. You knew him previously, did you?<25> A. I did actually, sir.

. P-3217

< 1> Q. Did you get on all right with him?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. You say: "I believe I told him of the informant I< 4> had meet"?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. What do you remember of the information you passed< 7> on to him then, if anything?< 8> A. It was a case of me speaking to Mr Davidson and< 9> obviously telling him about the information that he<10> had actually given and obviously realising that Grant<11> was a very useful informant and obviously I remember<12> he then went and spoke to Mr Bullock.<13> Q. Was that in your presence?<14> A. No.<15> Q. It was not. Your statement says that at the foot<16> of the page that you remember him speaking to Bullock?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. And you believe as a result he was directed, going<19> over the page, to supervise the handling of the<20> informant?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Yes. Your statement then goes on: "I recall<23> introducing Davidson to the informant that day and<24> further contact numbers being exchanged." Pause<25> there. There does not appear to be any record of this

. P-3218

< 1> meeting with the informant on the Saturday, as< 2> doubtless you are aware. Were there notes taken at< 3> the meeting?< 4> A. No because it was just a case of an introduction I.< 5> Remember the informant coming into the station just to< 6> meet Mr Davidson really and also I think he then went< 7> through exactly the same evidence that I had actually< 8> obtained.< 9> Q. Would you have had your message or a copy of the<10> message available to you?<11> A. As I say I can't remember, sir, I can't remember if<12> we made a record of that or not.<13> Q. Well I said there is no record of the interview, it<14> is right to say that Mr Davidson referred to his duty<15> state saying that he meet an informant unknown that<16> day.<17> Could you look at the screen at your own duty<18> state (PCA00320098). Can you go to the left so that<19> we can find the date, go down. Perhaps we need the<20> next page, sorry. That is it. Over to the left.<21> Thank you. There we see Saturday 24th. Yes?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. This is your handwriting and which I will not begin<24> to try to read, I just cannot read it. Is there any<25> reference there to such a meeting? It looks as though

. P-3219

< 1> there is something at 3 o'clock that involves you< 2> going to Well Hall Road?< 3> A. "Well Hall Road, Ross Way, reactions enquiries",< 4> yes.< 5> Q. The next entry is what, 5 o'clock?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. What does that say?< 8> A. "Returned office, engaged office meeting."< 9> Q. Then at 6 o'clock it is back to Well Hall Road?<10> A. "Enquiries and ----<11> Q. There is nothing there, seemingly, about any<12> meeting with any informant; is that right?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. As you said yourself, this was obviously important<15> information that was being received. That being so,<16> would it not ordinarily be the case that you would<17> have had a record of what, if any, further information<18> was given?<19> A. All the information that was given is in the<20> system, sir.<21> Q. It seems to have gone AWOL now?<22> A. We are talking about two accounts of information,<23> sir. The first information which is pertinent and<24> relevant to this inquiry or to the murder<25> investigation is on the green sheets, which is message

. P-3220

< 1> 40 and there is a subsequent one as well.< 2> Q. Yes.< 3> A. I obviously believe that Mr Davidson also did a< 4> message was well.< 5> Q. The subsequent one you are talking about, is that< 6> (PCA00370124), the top of the page?< 7> A. That is Mr Davidson. That is his information. I< 8> also believe there is some information as well from< 9> me.<10> Q. Is that the one that ----<11> A. The later one about the which I have read<12> concerning knives under the bed or something, sorry,<13> under the floorboards.<14> Q. Shall we glance on the screen at (PCA00370178) at<15> the top of the page?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. That is the one that has reference to knives under<18> the bed or floorboards?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Those are the only three messages I have been able<21> to identify that relate to the handling of James<22> Grant?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. Are you saying that there are further meetings with<25> Grant that are not the subject of messages?

. P-3221

< 1> A. I am saying that there are meetings that never took< 2> place. In other words, just to explain, Mr Grant was< 3> not very reliable and one relied on him paging you, in< 4> order to -- that was obviously phoning you from a< 5> phone box, and then obviously trying to liaise with< 6> him to find out a location to meet and when you turned< 7> up he was not there. He was not reliable at all. All< 8> I am saying to you is that in actual dealings with< 9> this informant where I am concerned, because I know<10> that Mr Davidson went on further when I left the<11> inquiry to dealings with Mr Grant. Everything he said<12> is on a message and albeit it is two messages from<13> me, this inquiry, and one from Mr Davidson, that is<14> what he said to us that was relevant to this inquiry<15> or to a murder inquiry.<16> Q. Let us go back to your statement at (PCA00320047).<17> Let me ask you this: In relation to the meeting you<18> say occurred on Saturday, when you introduced Grant to<19> Davidson, where was that meeting?<20> A. I believe it was at the station, at Eltham Police<21> Station, where the inquiry was.<22> Q. Then in your statement, as you say, you refer to<23> there being a meeting at the police station?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Detective Superintendent present. We know that Mr

. P-3222

< 1> Crampton remained in charge over the weekend. Would it< 2> have been him present?< 3> A. Possibly, sir.< 4> Q. And Bullock, when the information from the< 5> informant was discussed, plus new information from< 6> anonymous sources, which was corroborating what the< 7> informant had said?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Pausing there for a moment, though we do see in<10> your statement you go on to make further reference to<11> corroboration, such as in relation to the Stacey<12> Benefield stabbing, a few lines further down. We know<13> that a corroborative statement was obtained from Mr<14> Benefield on 25th April, on the Sunday?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Putting it briefly, doubtless as you became aware,<17> there was other information from a variety of other<18> sources, similarly identifying the Acourts and others<19> as allegedly being responsible for the murder. You<20> became aware of that over the weekend?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Quite a lot of that information was coming in?<23> A. Yes, albeit anonymous information, yes.<24> Q. Anonymous information that in the broadest sense<25> corroborated what Grant was saying?

. P-3223

< 1> A. I agree with you, yes, sir.< 2> Q. There was other information being obtained, such as< 3> from Stacey Benefield, which was not anonymous which< 4> also corroborated what Grant was saying?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Was there discussion over that weekend at the< 7> police station about arresting those who had been< 8> named, for example, the Acourts and Norris?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. Did it occur to you as a relatively junior, but<11> nonetheless a 3 year experienced detective constable,<12> at this time, to you wonder why no arrests were being<13> made?<14> A. It did not occur to me, sir, about the arrests<15> aspects of it, but I would have been -- my view at the<16> time was that, you know, we should have probably<17> concentrated a bit more on the suspects to find out<18> more, to go into it further. But the point is I am<19> just a very sort of small cog in a machine and I<20> didn't know what the SIO was planning or thinking of<21> doing or what his reasoning was for not making any<22> arrests at that stage, but obviously I understood that<23> we were we were making enquiries of the information we<24> had received, I could understand that.<25> One had to be careful about not going in the

. P-3224

< 1> wrong direction.< 2> Q. You do say in your statement, we can see it on the< 3> screen there, looking ahead a little bit, where you< 4> refer to becoming aware of Mr Weeden taking over.< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Then you said this in your statement: "It was< 7> evident that Weeden and Bullock felt they didn't have< 8> sufficient evidence to arrest the main suspects,< 9> Acourts, Norris and Dobson"?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. How did it become evident to you that is what they<12> felt?<13> A. Because I remember somebody asked when we were<14> going to arrest the suspects and, as I said, PACE was<15> given as a reason as to not doing so. That was<16> obviously giving you reasonable grounds to arrest.<17> Q. PACE is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. In the sense of their being a requirement under<20> that act as there was before?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. That you need have reasonable grounds for arresting<23> someone, reasonable grounds to suspect, not to prove<24> it?<25> A. I totally agree with you, just to suspect.

. P-3225

< 1> Q. Did you not have reasonable grounds to suspect?< 2> A. My personal opinion is yes. That is my personal< 3> opinion. I was not running this inquiry.< 4> Q. Did you express your personal opinion or were you< 5> too small a cog?< 6> A. Changes were made at the office meetings, I believe< 7> on two occasions, but you are talking in the broadest< 8> sense, I think I was on this inquiry for 4 or 5 weeks< 9> at the most. Obviously I was present during these<10> office meetings and I just remember on two occasions,<11> two requests, not requests, that is the wrong word,<12> but people making their own opinions felt and asking<13> why we weren't arresting there and then or making<14> arrests. The reason being given was about PACE.<15> Q. Translating that, you are saying you were being<16> told, or the answer coming back was that there was<17> insufficient basis to form even a reasonable ground<18> for suspecting, say, the Acourts?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Did you think that was rubbish? I am asking your<21> opinion?<22> A. I would not say it was rubbish, sir, but I was not<23> personally -- I would have thought that we did have<24> reasonable grounds, but there again, I don't know. I<25> mean, there is things I found out about 5 years later

. P-3226

< 1> that I didn't know we were involved in and dealing< 2> with, so to answer it correctly I was not involved in< 3> the decision making process in terms of the whole< 4> picture and what was going on; what enquiries were< 5> being. Made my personal view was if we had gone in< 6> earlier possibly we would have obtained forensic< 7> evidence, stopping them from colluding and other< 8> things, possibly finding the murder weapon, that type< 9> of thing.<10> Q. You were involved much later, 2 weeks later, in<11> searching one of the premises?<12> A. No, I was not involved in searching the premises at<13> all.<14> Q. You were involved in the arrest of one of the<15> individuals when his premises were searched, that is<16> Jamie Acourt; is that right?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Presumably you would have recognised it was a bit<19> of a forlorn hope that you were going to find anything<20> useful there?<21> A. That was my opinion.<22> Q. Go back to your statement. It is on the screen at<23> the moment, about 4 lines up from the bottom. I want<24> to ask you about this passage. You said in the<25> statement: "It was then realised" -- this is early in

. P-3227

< 1> the inquiry -- "that from the time Mr Weeden had< 2> joined the inquiry that Lawrence family had become< 3> involved with a political bandwagon because the family< 4> move presented to the office meeting was by Bevan,< 5> family liaison was extremely hostile"?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. All you are doing there is reporting, passing on< 8> what you heard from Bevan of these meetings; is that< 9> right?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Whether it right or wrong, you do not know?<12> A. Exactly right, sir, yes.<13> Q. Did that information include a solicitor, Mr Khan,<14> then described as becoming self-appointed to the<15> family. Is that what Bevan said?<16> A. That is my expressions, my views.<17> Q. Who did you understand this from?<18> A. Obviously Mr Bevan, obviously informed us about Mr<19> Khan and obviously that was also reiterated by Mr<20> Weeden later on.<21> Q. Then you said in your statement: "It became more<22> apparent from the office meetings that followed there<23> was preoccupation" -- presumably on the part of the<24> police -- "with appeasing the communication between<25> the murder inquiry and Mr Khan." Just explain that?

. P-3228

< 1> A. We were informed that Mr Khan had actually wanted< 2> everything faxed to him with a blow-by-low,< 3> step-by-step aspect of the inquiry, what enquiries we< 4> were making, what enquiries we were doing.< 5> Q. That is rather unusual?< 6> A. Not unusual, it is extremely unusual. I have never< 7> heard of it being in that sense before in any murder< 8> inquiry.< 9> Q. When you say that, it is your words, that there was<10> a preoccupation with appeasing that, are you<11> suggesting that the police were distracted from their<12> investigations by it?<13> A. I am saying that the office meetings were, you<14> know, partially about the communicating between Mr<15> Khan. He would come into our office meetings in<16> relation to our enquiries we were doing and Mr Weeden<17> would mention he was getting more faxes from Mr Khan<18> and this would go on. This was unusual.<19> Q. It is certainly unusual. I am asking you about the<20> use of the word "preoccupation". I do not want to<21> dwell on one word. I want to know if you suggesting<22> the inquiry deflected in some way?<23> A. In my view, I believe that it was slightly<24> deflected, yes, from the task at hand, yes.<25> Q. This was because of this preoccupation by the most

. P-3229

< 1> senior officers?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Let us carry on. You say at the foot of your< 4> statement, the page on the screen while all this was< 5> going on you met again with Grant?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. 27th April, that is the one we glanced at. Can we< 8> have it back (PCA00370124). This is not in your< 9> handwriting, is it?<10> A. No, I believe this is Mr Davidson's.<11> Q. It is on 27th April in the evening and met with<12> Grant in a local pub. Yes?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Just pause there for a moment. You still did not<15> have a means of contacting Grant at this stage. Is<16> that right or did you?<17> A. I never, whilst handling him as an informant, I<18> never had anyway of contacting him at all.<19> Q. How was this meeting arranged then?<20> A. He paged me and we obviously then told him to meet<21> us at this particular public house.<22> Q. The information that was recorded there: "He states<23> that the person who was approached by some blacks to<24> find out the Acourts address then was threatened by<25> the Acourts not to tell them"?

. P-3230

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Then he named, did he not, the person who he said< 3> had been threatened?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. You doubtless appreciate the names have been taken< 6> out for good reason?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. The name appears on the original?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. As does an approximate address at least?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Then he also names somebody else, did he not?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Whose name has been removed who had stated that the<15> 4 assailants had run past his house, had they?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. He, that is Grant, was left tasked to find out any<18> more than he could. Can we go over to the next page?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. It says: "Grant then rang to say that he thinks he<21> may have found a witness"?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Do you remember was that to speak to you or to<24> Davidson?<25> A. That was Mr Davidson.

. P-3231

< 1> Q. But you became aware of this information< 2> presumably?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Mr Davidson would have shared it with you. This is< 5> about the witness on the bus we have looked at this< 6> before and then he passed on some views at least about< 7> Dobson being more likely to crack than the others?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. And reference to a "5th blonde kid"?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. That was on 27th, that was translated into a<12> message by Mr Davidson and put into the system?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Did you -- presumably you did not -- specifically<15> report to anybody in relation to that?<16> A. I didn't sir, no.<17> Q. Can we go back to your statement please at<18> (PCA00300248), top of the page. There you refer in<19> the second line to a trip to Greenwich?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. And the arrangements you made about registering<22> Grant?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. I do not think there is any surviving paperwork in<25> relation to that. That happened at about that time,

. P-3232

< 1> did it?< 2> A. Yes -- 27th or 28th around that time yes, sir.< 3> Q. Your statement goes on to him to refer to him being< 4> given the name Grant and to some unreliability in< 5> terms of keeping appointments, et cetera?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. I need not take you to the office meeting minutes,< 8> it is referred to in your statement on 4th May?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Where there was a reference made to him bleeping<11> you?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. But contact not being made?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. And his failing to pitch up when he should have<16> done on the Sunday?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Next time that there is a record of you speaking<19> with him is the 6th May, if we glance at<20> (PCA00370276). Let me see if I can find it elsewhere.<21> Try (PCA00370178). This is the one we glanced at<22> before?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. This is message number 276, 6th May at noon he<25> phoned, did he. Well your statement says so?

. P-3233

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. I do not think it is apparent from this, this is< 3> information, in any event it is not ticked as phone in< 4> or phone out?< 5> A. No.< 6> Q. Read it out to us please?< 7> A. "The above person stated that Acourts have asked< 8> on numerous occasions on whether they can purchase< 9> knives from the kebab shop. They have fascination<10> with knives that they usually hide them under the<11> floorboards.<12> Lee Pearson was stabbed by Neil Acourt also<13> Stacey was stabbed by Neil's friend. He described as<14> white, 5 foot 8, medium build, mousey hair. They, the<15> Acourts have not been seen in the Well Hall area since<16> the murder."<17> Q. So that was information that you had heard before<18> about Benefield and Lee Pearson, called Lee the first<19> time around that you received on the 6th?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Can we look at the minute of the office meeting<22> that day (PCA00320014). Just go to the top of the<23> page first, would you Grace.<24> Do you see the date? I think you have been shown<25> this before, Mr Budgen?

. P-3234

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Go down to the entry that relates to you?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. It says "visited", I think that is "Grant"?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. "Knew Acourts, described Norris, he was with Neil< 7> Acourt. They are fascinated by knives, tried to buy< 8> one. Usually hide them under the floorboards"?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. That pretty obviously comes from the message we<11> have just been looking at?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. You were passing that information on there and<14> then?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Do you remember doing that?<17> A. No, sir.<18> Q. You are just relying on this?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Just help us because this was the meeting, was it<21> not, or the last meeting, in effect, before any dawn<22> meeting before the arrest took place the next day?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. Yes?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3235

< 1> Q. Would have you passed on, do you think, as this< 2> suggests, the information that the Acourts and/or< 3> Norris tended to hide knives under floorboards?< 4> A. Well I did, sir.< 5> Q. It looks as though you did?< 6> A. I did, sir. What would happened is that that< 7> message that was created by myself would be read out< 8> in the office meeting and that is what I have done. I< 9> have read that out in the office meeting.<10> Q. Right, so you passed on that information to the<11> other officers?<12> A. I passed that information on both counts really,<13> verbally and--<14> Q. Both by submitting the message and verbally?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. There is a reference I need not trouble you with?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. The last thing attributed to you "wife was the<19> female anon that had phoned up as female anon". Can<20> you help us about that?<21> A. Yes, I believe I attended the kebab shop in Well<22> Hall Road myself and I believe I established that----<23> Q. I am not going to ask you further in relation to<24> that, obviously not anyone from the kebab shop but<25> somewhere elsewhere?

. P-3236

< 1> A. No.< 2> Q. Let us move on then, if we may. Going back to your< 3> statement then at the foot of page (PCA00300248) you< 4> say 4 lines from the foot of the page: "I have been< 5> asked what I recall about the decision about when and< 6> how the suspects are to be arrested. You say the< 7> decision came completely out of the blue"?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. There had not been any significant development or<10> anything like that of which I had been aware?<11> A. That is correct, sir.<12> Q. The decision took place on 6th May during the<13> office meeting you think made by Weeden and Bullock?<14> A. I believe so, sir, I am not privy to it, sir.<15> Q. The responsibility would be theirs in any event?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You do not remember any specifics of the meeting?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. Had anything changed as far as were you aware in<20> the two weeks previously?<21> A. Not that I was aware of, sir, no but obviously as I<22> said I am not aware of obviously numerous aspects of<23> this investigation.<24> Q. Were you aware, Mr Budgen, of there having been a<25> surveillance operation conducted?

. P-3237

< 1> A. Yes, I was aware of some form of surveillance, yes,< 2> sir.< 3> Q. Were you aware of what its purpose was?< 4> A. No, sir. I mean I assumed it was to obviously< 5> follow the suspects.< 6> Q. You were one of those looking ahead a little bit< 7> who was to be involved in interviews to be conducted< 8> after arrest. Is that right?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Albeit in a junior capacity?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. You with Mr Canavan?<13> A. That's right, sir.<14> Q. Were you briefed as to what the outcome of the<15> surveillance operation had been before you conducted<16> the interview?<17> A. No, sir.<18> Q. As it happens the chaps you interview, Jamie<19> Acourt, would not answer any questions anyway?<20> A. That's correct, sir.<21> Q. You were not equipped with any information from the<22> surveillance that you could have put to him?<23> A. No, sir.<24> Q. We see in your statement at the top of the page<25> that is on the screen at the moment, you refer to the

. P-3238

< 1> dawn briefing, if I can call it that?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. And were you going along with Mr Canavan?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Principally to arrest Jamie Acourt and you went< 6> with others to 102 Bournbrook Road where the arrest< 7> were effected?< 8> A. That is correct, sir.< 9> Q. I take that rather briefly. Do you say there "I<10> was aware the house was searched whilst we were there<11> but I did not search any part of the house because<12> there was a search team for that purpose"?<13> A. That is correct, sir.<14> Q. What about you floorboards, did you see anybody<15> lifting the floorboards?<16> A. No, sir I mean I remained in the bedroom with Mr<17> Acourt and that is where I stayed.<18> When I talked about searching, it was obviously<19> searched the actual bedroom was searched in our<20> presence because obviously we wanted to make sure<21> there were no weapons about or about him at the time<22> and my view was that obviously a search team would<23> then come in and search the house thoroughly.<24> Q. Do you remember -- I do not think have you a note<25> of it -- any weapons being recovered from his, Jamie

. P-3239

< 1> Acourt's, room?< 2> A. No, sir.< 3> Q. There were none or you do not remember?< 4> A. I don't remember, sir.< 5> Q. Did anyone lift up the floorboards in his room< 6> because that was a search in your presence?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. Did you think that a bit odd bearing in mind the< 9> information you had passed on only 12 hours<10> previously?<11> A. Not really, sir, because I thought that -- we have<12> search teams and search teams do literally search<13> everything from plug sockets to floorboards, they have<14> done it in the past, so I assumed that was possibly<15> what was going to take place.<16> Q. You expected them to do so?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Then again looking at the statement, you say that<19> you recall then back at the police station<20> interviewing Jamie Acourt. Yes?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. For our reference purposes it is (PCA00460445).<23> This was a very short interview?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. He did not say anything, did he?

. P-3240

< 1> A. We were told by his legal representative that was< 2> not going say anything anyway, so whatever we asked< 3> him he was not going to make no comment.< 4> Q. We know it occupied about 7 minutes, take it from< 5> me?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Presumably it would be the more senior officer's< 8> responsibility to terminate it, Mr Canavan?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. You make some further comments in your statement<11> about the interview. You say, towards the foot of the<12> page: "I don't recall if we had any documents to refer<13> for the interview"?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. You say you remember "some discussion with Canavan<16> about how the interview was to be conducted". What<17> sort of discussion, who what was going to do what?<18> A. Basically, who was actually going to do the<19> interview, basically just talk, I mean we were both<20> aware and both knew that we were going have a no<21> comment interview come what may and that happened<22> quite frequently at times in our investigations.<23> Q. Can you glance please on the screen at<24> (PCA00370002). This, may I explain -- I do not<25> suppose you have seen it before -- is a convenient

. P-3241

< 1> summary of various bits of information received?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. As prepared by the Kent Investigators. You see,< 4> for example, on 23rd at 1.50 pm, that is the message I< 5> took you to you remember, then there is Grant referred< 6> to, albeit perhaps inaccurately, certainly< 7> inaccurately as anonymous male?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Also on the same day, on the Friday, further<10> reference to anonymous female and the Krays, Stacey<11> Benefield?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. As Saturday developed, run down a little, you see<14> from the middle of the page, reference to Bournbrook<15> Road, further references to the Acourts, Dobson, et<16> cetera. Yes?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. This is just in summary an indication of the pretty<19> large amount of information that was being received<20> over the weekend, right?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Going back to the interview with Jamie Acourt, were<23> you armed with this information for the purposes of<24> the interview?<25> A. No, sir.

. P-3242

< 1> Q. Should you have been?< 2> A. In hindsight, yes, sir. This has been nicely< 3> documented for you, sir, but it was not presented to< 4> myself or DC Canavan conducting the interview.< 5> Q. Were you HOLMES trained yourself?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. You were aware the HOLMES system was capable of< 8> being used so as to produce the information?< 9> A. To be honest with you, I was not totally aware of<10> how it would be documented.<11> Q. You say with hindsight it would have been possible,<12> it would have been a good idea for you and Canavan to<13> be briefed with this lot?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. I am not suggesting for a moment that you would<16> seek to intimidate a juvenile interviewee. There<17> would no harm in putting the wind up him and making<18> clear all of the information you had?<19> A. I disagree with that actually, sir.<20> Q. You do not think it is right to put the wind up<21> him?<22> A. No, I don't. Secondly, I think the most important<23> is, if we have to deal with our witnesses in relation<24> to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, we have to<25> deal with our suspects and Mr Acourt was a juvenile.

. P-3243

< 1> He was also a juvenile represented a by a< 2> solicitor who knew what he was talking about and that< 3> made it particularly difficult for us. We could have< 4> fired 150 questions, but that would have been deemed< 5> oppressive.< 6> Q. I appreciate that.< 7> A. I would like to state the point really, that I was< 8> present at the interview with Mr Acourt, but knowing< 9> that he was a juvenile, one could not be oppressive<10> with him. So you cannot put the wind up somebody,<11> sir.<12> Q. Can you not?<13> A. No, I am afraid you can't.<14> Q. Can you put to somebody in interview that you have<15> had information from umpteen different sources to say<16> the same effect, is that permissible?<17> A. The solicitor would be entitled to ask you for<18> proof of that, wouldn't he.<19> Q. Forgive me, I do not want to dwell on it, but you<20> said with hindsight it is unfortunate you were not<21> given this information. You now seem to be suggesting<22> that you would not have been able to use it anyway?<23> A. I am suggesting that a lot of it was anonymous.<24> Whether that would have made any affect on the<25> interview, I don't know. I don't think it would have

. P-3244

< 1> because we were dealing with an experienced< 2> solicitor.< 3> Q. You say at the top of page 250 of your statement of< 4> (PCA00300250), the second line: The interview was< 5> based on your experiences, in the plural, as detective< 6> officers and you have been on skilled courses for< 7> interviews?< 8> A. I have been on a national interview techniques< 9> course, yes, sir.<10> Q. Was this interview conducted in accordance with<11> your training?<12> A. Yes, but the difficulty with the training is that<13> it talks about cognitive interviewing. I do not want<14> to vary it, it talks about various aspects of<15> interviewing people and it does not prepare one for<16> interviewing somebody who is adamant that they are not<17> going answer your questions which they are legally<18> entitled to do. If they do not wish to speak to you,<19> they do not have to. If you interview them and you<20> speak to them and keep on speaking to them and they do<21> not want to talk to you and the refuse to talk to you,<22> there is nothing you can do about it.<23> No matter how much training, one could bring a<24> psychologist here and say if one was to use psychology<25> during the interview things may be different. From my

. P-3245

< 1> everyday working experiences, and I have been in the< 2> police service for 18 years dealing with this aspect< 3> of dealing with suspects all of the time, if they do< 4> not want to talk to you during an interview, whether< 5> it was contemporaneously recorded, as it was prior to< 6> tape recording, or indeed tape recording, there is< 7> nothing you can do about it.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Is that about nearly the end of his< 9> evidence?<10> MR LAWSON: Nearly.<11> MR LAWSON: Shall I finish off. Let us look at your<12> statement, I think we should have this in the public<13> domain. You refer to leaving the inquiry on 9th May,<14> as you said before, yes?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Was there anything fishy or suspicious about you<17> being removed from the inquiry?<18> A. There a very good explanation actually. I was<19> involved with this inquiry ----<20> Q. I think, Mr Budgen, you were here yesterday when Mr<21> Davidson was giving evidence.<22> A. I was indeed, sir.<23> Q. Did you hear some of this topic being raised?<24> A. I did indeed, sir. There is an explanation and the<25> explanation was that there was in fact another

. P-3246

< 1> murder, not so far away, which was down in Abbey Wood< 2> where a Raymond Saunders was murdered, he was shot< 3> dead on the Sunday. I was on duty at that stage and I< 4> had very, very good knowledge of Mr Saunders and the< 5> person suspected of the murder and all those< 6> associated around that murder. I went the scene of< 7> that murder inquiry where DI Reeves was down at the< 8> scene and then he asked me to assist him.< 9> On the Monday, because of my personal knowledge<10> of all those persons involved from the victim's wife<11> to victim's associates, to the associates of the<12> murderers, to the suspects themselves, I knew a lot<13> about because I had been at Woolwich for 7 years<14> dealing with these particular families. That is the<15> reason why I left this inquiry and went on to that<16> one.<17> Q. In other words there was very good reason?<18> A. Very good reason. Mr Bullock made a phone call on<19> the Monday to get me back the inquiry, because I was<20> on this inquiry, and Mr Reeves told him that because<21> of my personal knowledge I should remain on the<22> Saunders' murder. That is exactly what I did for<23> about 4 or 5 months.<24> Q. Let me just ask you finally about what you<25> described as your personal views, which you were

. P-3247

< 1> asked for by the Kent officers in your statement?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Referred to in your opinion as the professionalism< 4> of initial inquiries. You said that your own feeling< 5> was that another senior investigating officer would< 6> have acted more quickly on the named suspects?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. "Because no other persons were name and the reason< 9> they would have acted earlier, that is another SIO<10> would have acted earlier, would have been to obtain<11> forensic evidence, ie, blood stained clothing and a<12> possible murder weapon. Also to preclude suspects<13> from colluding and making alibis"?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Does that remain your view?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. You say: "In this respect our enquiries revealed<18> the suspects had been seen in Eltham prior to murder,<19> but suddenly disappeared after it"?<20> A. That is also correct, sir.<21> Q. That is a general recollection, is it?<22> A. That is correct.<23> Q. You talked of the morale of the inquiring team<24> being good early on, but dropping off the longer<25> arrests were not made?

. P-3248

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. You refer to the business with Mr Khan attributing< 3> to that?< 4> A. That is correct.< 5> Q. So far as racism is concerned was your own part in< 6> this inquiry effected by racism?< 7> A. Not at all, sir.< 8> Q. Personal racism on your part?< 9> A. Absolutely not at all.<10> Q. Did you see any sign of that with others?<11> A. Not at all, sir.<12> Q. No.<13> MR LAWSON: That is all I want to ask you.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: We will break off now until 11.20. Do<15> not talk about the matter, just stay in the building.<16> (Short Adjournment)<17> MR LAWSON: Sir, I wonder before we resume I am trying<18> to do some forward planning in relation to witnesses<19> because we have the main family liaison officers, Mr<20> Bevan and Miss Holden, for the initial period. I<21> understand Mr Kamlish is going to conduct that part of<22> the case, Mr Mansfield tells me, helpfully, that<23> probably about 2 hours are going to be required for<24> Bevan.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: It will be the afternoon?

. P-3249

< 1> MR MANSFIELD: Mr McDonald has some, I do not know if< 2> anybody else has substantial cross-examination. It< 3> certainly if Mr Bevan's covers more detail than the< 4> other officer the best we can do if -- I am calling it< 5> in-chief, if the main examination take 40 minutes to< 6> an hour.< 7> THE CHAIRMAN: Will we reach PC Holden this afternoon?< 8> MR LAWSON: I think not.< 9> MR MANSFIELD: The answer is no.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: We will have Bevan this afternoon. I<11> hope we finish this officer this morning, then we can<12> deal with sergeant Bevan this afternoon.<13> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD<14> Q. Officer, I represent Mr and Mrs Lawrence and I just<15> want to ask you about a little more detail on some of<16> the topics, not everything. Clearly the principal<17> area you were dealing within the short time you were<18> concerned with this investigation was almost the<19> accident, in a sense, that were you deputed or did go<20> and see the man who became known as "Mr Grant"?<21> A. That is correct, sir.<22> Q. Was it an accident or did some officer say you go<23> and speak to him?<24> A. It was an accident, sir, in terms that I<25> volunteered myself.

. P-3250

< 1> Q. You volunteered. Now have you already described< 2> what happened when you reported back to Mr Bullock the< 3> information that he, Grant, had given you on that< 4> first occasion?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Now what I want to ask is a compendious question,< 7> in other words from that day on, the Friday 23rd< 8> onwards through the weeks that followed prior to the< 9> arrests on the 7th, did any senior officer, I will<10> specify them, did either Mr Crampton who was the<11> senior officer to begin with followed by Mr Weeden<12> throughout the deputy was Mr Bullock, did either of<13> any of those 3 after 23rd speak to you about Mr Grant?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. Did you, throughout that period of time, report<16> back to them personally about Mr Grant?<17> A. No I didn't because Mr Bullock had basically had me<18> supervised by Mr Davidson.<19> Q. Because your understanding was that almost from the<20> moment that Mr Davidson arrived on the scene, he was<21> given the task of handling Grant and, therefore,<22> liaising with the senior officers?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. When you left the squad your understanding was that<25> Mr Davidson was going to continue doing that task?

. P-3251

< 1> A. That is correct, sir.< 2> Q. Now so far as the meetings with Grant and the< 3> information, did you come to the very early conclusion< 4> that Mr Grant was, in fact, giving you reliable< 5> information. It checked out, putting it shortly?< 6> A. That is correct, sir.< 7> Q. And therefore Mr Grant had to be, where at all< 8> possible, treated with care and supported. Do you< 9> agree?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. It would not be very sensible to give a very<12> hostile impression to him because otherwise he might<13> not cooperate?<14> A. That is also correct.<15> Q. It is also important, is it not, that a record is<16> kept of everything he says?<17> A. That is also correct.<18> Q. Yes. Now, it may only be an impression and I just<19> want to deal with this: the impression you have is<20> that everything that he said was recorded in the<21> messages?<22> A. Everything he said to me sir, yes.<23> Q. Everything he said to you. Of course so far as<24> meetings with Mr Davidson are concerned you -- did you<25> liaise with Mr Davidson about any of the meetings he

. P-3252

< 1> had when you were not present?< 2> A. No, sir.< 3> Q. You did not. Can I ask you this: was a docket or a< 4> contact sheet, which I believe they are called, made< 5> out in relation to Mr Grant and all the meetings that< 6> were had with him?< 7> A. A contact sheet was made by myself, put into the< 8> profile and obviously that was served at Greenwich< 9> Police Station.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Budgen, you do not need to lean right<11> over it.<12> MR MANSFIELD: The contact sheet that you took to<13> Greenwich Police Station which was on or about 27th<14> April?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Plainly was before a further contact on the 6th<17> May, message 276?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. What I want to get clear is; was a contact sheet<20> made out so far as are you aware for every occasion on<21> which Mr Grant was seen?<22> A. I am not aware, sir, not by -- if Mr Davidson had<23> actually visited or spoken to the informant after my<24> dealings with the Inquiry, no, I am not sure.<25> Q. You see Mr Davidson yesterday was indicating that

. P-3253

< 1> contact sheets were made out for every occasion and< 2> they have gone missing. I wonder if you can help< 3> about that?< 4> A. If I can explain what actually happened, I am the< 5> person who did take part in all of this. I actually< 6> completed an informant profile on Mr Grant and that< 7> was then conveyed with the -- there are two aspects,< 8> there is the profile, which obviously gives the< 9> details of that informant.<10> Q. Now you have turned the microphone away?<11> A. Also there was the information sheet and also a<12> sheet which has authorised logs on it, then that was<13> then taken over to Greenwich Police Station by myself<14> in the company of Detective Sergeant Davidson and I<15> have explained to you before, explained in a statement<16> that I actually spoke to DI Buttivant, who I knew<17> personally in order to speak to Mr Les Owens, who I<18> had never met. He would have been Controller of<19> Greenwich Division, Controller of all informants on<20> that division. I spoke to Mr Owen about this and<21> obviously left the informer profile at Greenwich<22> Police Station.<23> Q. There are 3 different documents you talk about<24> there, one of them would have contained everything<25> that Grant was saying?

. P-3254

< 1> A. When I had dealings with the informant, I actually< 2> completed documents -- completed the information which< 3> would then go to the Controller at Greenwich Police< 4> Station.< 5> Q. You see all of those documents have gone missing,< 6> all of the categories you have named. Was the system< 7> that these documents, let us say what he was saying,< 8> plus everything else, handed into the Incident Room< 9> then they took them to Greenwich?<10> A. No, not at all, sir.<11> Q. That is one of the ways in which Mr Davidson<12> described it happening, yesterday.<13> A. No, sir.<14> Q. That is not your recollection?<15> A. No, the difference was that what was relevant to<16> the Inquiry, I mean you can take it both ways, you can<17> have an informant who gives information which is<18> relevant to the Inquiry but also can be relevant to<19> something else. What I have said to you, sir, is what<20> was my communication or my conversations with the<21> informant has all been put on a green sheet. On my<22> occasions there were two green sheets I put in which<23> is what I had spoken to Mr Grant about concerning this<24> Inquiry. So to go into the system into the HOLMES<25> system, it was put on a green sheet. It was also then

. P-3255

< 1> mentioned at the office meetings about that relevant< 2> information.< 3> Q. Now, besides the senior officers not asking you< 4> anything about Grant after the 23rd, it follows< 5> therefore that none of them asked to meet Mr Grant at< 6> any time, as far as you are aware?< 7> A. Not at far as I am aware, sir.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: Could you pause for one moment. Does the< 9> expression a docket make sense to you. What would you<10> refer to as the docket?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Is that the information sheet?<13> A. The docket would consist of everything. I mean you<14> would have a docket but in that docket would consists<15> of an informant profile, in other words the details of<16> the informant. The information that the informant<17> gave and also another separate page for authorised<18> logs. When you actually want to go and meet that the<19> informant to have authorised --<20> Q. I understand?<21> A. That is all in one docket, so it is referred to as<22> one docket.<23> MR MANSFIELD: The first meeting that any officer has<24> with an informant of that kind, the very first time<25> you meet somebody, the handling of the informant is

. P-3256

< 1> extremely important, is it not?< 2> A. It is indeed, sir.< 3> Q. Therefore the first time that Mr Davidson -- you< 4> originally thought, I do not have it, can I just check< 5> with you. Before your statement on 22nd September< 6> 1997, you were interviewed by Kent and they kept some< 7> kind of record before the statement. Is that right or< 8> not?< 9> A. I spoke to officer from that Kent Inquiry prior to<10> making a statement.<11> Q. Because it is clear in your statement that you said<12> "as previously stated" so it is clear you must have<13> talked with them first?<14> A. Yes, I did.<15> Q. About all this?<16> A. I did.<17> Q. Now, in relation, therefore, to that you must have<18> originally thought when talking to Kent that Davidson<19> was with you on the 23rd. That is the Friday?<20> A. That is correct sir, yes.<21> Q. You thought there was another officer with you?<22> A. That is also correct.<23> Q. Do you still think there was another officer with<24> you?<25> A. I think there was another officer but I can't

. P-3257

< 1> recall who it was, yes.< 2> Q. It has to be somebody on the team, has it not?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Well, just going on to the Saturday for the moment,< 5> if it was the Saturday what time roughly was it the< 6> morning or afternoon that the man Grant came in again?< 7> A. The afternoon I believe so, sir.< 8> Q. In the afternoon. You say you introduced him?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. So, roughly when in the afternoon?<11> A. If I could see my duty sheet?<12> Q. Yes certainly. I was going to ask that it is<13> called up (PCA00320099) please. There we have<14> Saturday 24th. Do you see that?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Looking at that, I know you have already seen it,<17> I just want to get from you when do you say you<18> introduced Davidson, if it was the Saturday, to Grant?<19> A. I cannot exactly recall. I am surprised that it is<20> not on my duty sheet.<21> Q. I am only concentrating on the important areas.<22> This is Grant, he is not anonymous, he is not<23> anonymous to the police anyway. He is giving a lot of<24> information about the background to the Acourts; a<25> description of the Acourts; their address; previous

. P-3258

< 1> incidents that you may not have been aware of and so< 2> on; you appreciate that?< 3> A. I do appreciate that.< 4> Q. You do not have and there is nothing on your duty< 5> state, it cannot have been after 3 o'clock because you< 6> are not there?< 7> A. No, I was at Well Hall Road.< 8> Q. Up until?< 9> A. I have "5 pm returned office, engaged office<10> meeting".<11> Q. So it cannot have been a meeting with the informant<12> at 4.30 on Saturday, 24th, can it?<13> A. Sorry, sir?<14> Q. It cannot have been at 4.30 on Saturday, 24th just<15> prior to the office meeting, can it?<16> A. Well, to say it could not have been, by looking at<17> the duty sheet, no, but it could have been, I can't<18> recall.<19> Q. You cannot recall. Looking at your duty state it<20> does not look, and I put it as neutrally as that, it<21> does not look as though that is when it was because<22> your duty state would say: "Returned at 4.30", yes<23> "introduced so and so to so and so", and then "on to<24> office meeting", that is what it would have said?<25> A. Normally.

. P-3259

< 1> Q. Were you present when Mr Davidson spoke to Grant?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Was any record kept of what he said on this< 4> occasion?< 5> A. No, because what he was saying on that occasion or< 6> the second occasion was exactly what he had said to me< 7> on the first occasion.< 8> Q. Of course, things can differ, can they not, from< 9> time to time and I want to take you up on a specific<10> point, it is quite important. If somebody is naming<11> people who might be involved it is quite important to<12> keep a careful record of who he names and when he<13> names?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Would you kindly look at message 152, please. I am<16> going to ask you to look at (PCA00500166).<17> This is message 152. I appreciate this is the<18> 27th and, as far as one understands it, you were not<19> present, or were you, in the public house for this?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. You were present?<22> A. I believe so, yes, sir.<23> Q. Right. Just cast your eyes over this one quickly<24> because I want to ask you about, in fact, the second<25> paragraph, the one beginning: "Grant then rang to

. P-3260

< 1> say", in other words there is a meeting in a public< 2> house and then he rings to say that he thinks. The< 3> telephone call was with Mr Davidson, was it?< 4> A. It was Mr Davidson.< 5> Q. It was Mr Davidson. Were you aware that he had< 6> rung?< 7> A. I was aware that he was in contact, but what that< 8> conversation was exactly, no.< 9> Q. Did you ever discover from Grant who the witness<10> was? I do not want the real name, he has a<11> hieroglyphic for these purpose?<12> A. No, sir.<13> Q. It may not be your fault. It may be Mr Davidson<14> not telling you, but in fact you say everything is<15> recorded in the messages?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. In fact, the identity or even a letter for the<18> witness is not recorded in the messages anywhere, that<19> was told who the person was, do you follow?<20> A. What Mr Grant was told?<21> Q. No, Grant told your team that Mr Davidson in<22> particular who the witness was who was on the bus?<23> A. I am not aware of that.<24> Q. He never told you he got from Grant the name, it is<25> not here, there is a redaction here, the name is not

. P-3261

< 1> under the redaction, do you see the redaction on the< 2> second line. He does not tell you who it is. Were you< 3> ever told then or did you discover by reading the< 4> original message, there is no secret what is under< 5> this redaction in fact, because what is described< 6> under the redaction is that Neil, meaning Neil Acourt,< 7> stabbed Stephen Lawrence once, as did David; did you< 8> know that is what was under there?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You did?<11> A. After reading it.<12> Q. You cannot see it on there, do you follow?<13> A. Yes, I appreciate that.<14> Q. It is that bit underneath the black bit. That in<15> turn is very important. It either means he saw it or<16> somebody told him he saw it or of course he could have<17> made it up, but it was important information because<18> nobody knew at that stage, other than those involved<19> because it had not been in the press, that there had<20> been two stabbings, that there had been two stab<21> injuries?<22> A. Yes, I do follow.<23> Q. You do not recall ever being told by Davidson who<24> this person was who was able to give that information.<25> If you just look down the rest of it you will see

. P-3262

< 1> here that there is mention of Dobson?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Had he been mentioned before?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You are sure of that?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. By Grant?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Look at your message on the previous page,<10> (PCA00500165). Read through that and tell us where<11> there is any mention of Dobson?<12> A. The reason Dobson came into it was because Mr<13> Davidson had mentioned Dobson to me.<14> Q. I was very specific and you have just said yes to<15> it. I said had Mr Grant mentioned Dobson before and<16> you said yes?<17> A. No.<18> Q. That is just what you said a minute ago, that Grant<19> had mentioned Dobson before. I asked if you were sure<20> and you said yes?<21> A. Grant had not mentioned Dobson to me, no.<22> Q. I want to ask you carefully about this because I<23> suggest in fact from the beginning he had mentioned<24> Acourts, Norris and Dobson, from the beginning.<25> Your first message written up, obviously you

. P-3263

< 1> wrote it up after the man had left the station; is< 2> that right?< 3> A. There and then straightaway.< 4> Q. I appreciate that, but you did not do it in his< 5> presence?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. Please understand, it not a case of trying to trap< 8> you into anything. We are trying to get at the extent< 9> to which information was given which was either<10> improperly or properly recorded and then followed up,<11> do you follow. That is what this is about. Dobson<12> comes up in the telephone message reported by<13> Davidson, but it is nowhere in any of the earlier<14> accounts of what Grant was saying, the accounts that<15> were written down. That is why I asked you was Dobson<16> mentioned and you said yes. Can you help now?<17> A. If I could see my original message that I wrote,<18> message number 40.<19> Q. Certainly. It is (PCA00470363). I am afraid it is<20> redacted, so it may not help you a great deal, on the<21> other hand it may?<22> A. Can I see the typed copy?<23> MR MANSFIELD: Can I read to you what is underneath on<24> the third line: "Black youth Jamie and Neil Acourt of<25> 102 Bournbrook Road, together with David Norris", is

. P-3264

< 1> what is under there, under the highlighting. There is< 2> no mention there in your account of Dobson at all in< 3> this, he talks about Norris on a number of occasions.< 4> Does that help you?< 5> A. It does sir, yes.< 6> Q. And?< 7> A. As I said, I remember that Mr Davidson had spoken< 8> about Dobson to me.< 9> Q. What did Davidson say to you about Dobson?<10> A. It was just another name that was mentioned. You<11> know, obviously we are at a stage where Mr Grant, the<12> original informant, the first live informant came<13> forward and gave us the names of the Acourt brothers,<14> David Norris.<15> Q. If somebody suddenly comes up with another name and<16> Dobson would crack up and he has never mentioned it<17> before, you would want to know what Dobson has to do<18> with it, would you not. Do you follow?<19> A. I assume that Dobson was one of the other suspects<20> and I had written down there saying there were other<21> people involved.<22> Q. When you saw this message you are together with<23> Davidson handling Grant and you see this message 152,<24> can we go back to it, (PCA00500166), and you see<25> Dobson is mentioned. Did you say to Davidson: "How

. P-3265

< 1> does Dobson come into this"?< 2> "He stated earlier that Acourts and Norris would< 3> probably say nothing and Dobson would probably crack< 4> up, probably tell all." Quite important, is it not?< 5> A. Yes, it is.< 6> Q. I am not trying to the clever with hindsight, you< 7> are dealing with this prime person here. Did it occur< 8> to you to say to Davidson: "Where does Dobson fit into< 9> this, I don't recall him telling me about Dobson"?<10> A. No, to answer you correctly, Mr Mansfield, in<11> relation to the information I provided, I provided it<12> on a green sheet into this inquiry. We had to be<13> careful how we dealt with Grant, because he could have<14> gone on to be a witness or known who the actual<15> persons were, the person who would assist us as<16> witnesses. We had to tread very carefully. Obviously<17> one had to be very careful how we went through this<18> inquiry and I was not always available to speak to the<19> informant and obviously Mr Davidson did.<20> I was not always privy to what was going into the<21> system because obviously that was for the SIO's to<22> decide what they were going to do with that<23> information. I did not speak to Mr Davidson about<24> everything that was spoken about. We did not sit down<25> together and discuss ways forward and what we would do

. P-3266

< 1> and everything else. The information was given and it< 2> was then placed straight into the system.< 3> Q. Can I just move on. That is why I am asking as to< 4> the extent because Grant himself, do you follow, that< 5> is why I am suggesting to you, Grant himself< 6> recollects that he did tell you all this at the< 7> beginning, do you follow?< 8> A. Mr Grant never told me anything at all about where< 9> he got the information from.<10> Q. We will come to that. I have not come to that yet.<11> I am dealing with the nature of the names.<12> The next question is: In your contact on the<13> first day, did you ask him how he knew this<14> information, that it was the Acourts; that it was<15> Norris, I leave aside the other names; did you ever<16> ask?<17> A. I asked him, but I was also initially concerned<18> whether he was one of the suspects.<19> Q. Of course, take it in stages?<20> A. Well, you say take it in stages, I answered your<21> question. I did ask him, but I was also concerned<22> that he may have been one of the suspects, bearing in<23> mind he was still at the police station at that stage.<24> Q. Understandable that you might think he is a<25> suspect. He might be able to give all this

. P-3267

< 1> information because he was there, he was part of the< 2> group?< 3> A. It has been done before.< 4> Q. I fully understand that. You would want to ask< 5> him: "Look, how do you know"?< 6> A. That is exactly what I did.< 7> Q. And?< 8> A. He would not tell me.< 9> Q. Are you sure?<10> A. Absolutely sure. He didn't tell me at all.<11> Q. There is no reference on this, that is why we want<12> to get to the original documentation, there is no<13> reference on any document anywhere in the case?<14> A. I can assure you, sir, that the information that<15> you say has gone missing is exactly the same<16> information, exactly the same information, as was<17> recorded on the green sheets because I was the person<18> that wrote them, there is nobody----<19> Q. You were not at all of the meetings?<20> A. I am talking about the document that has gone<21> missing. The document that has gone missing is the<22> informant profile with the log of authorised meetings<23> together with information supplied at that stage, sir,<24> and that is the initial reports and the initial<25> reports relate to what I have actually written in the

. P-3268

< 1> green sheets.< 2> Q. Leaving aside the material that has gone missing,< 3> which you say is exactly the same as this, leaving< 4> aside all of that, on the documentation that exist, do< 5> you follow, the messages and the meetings and so on in< 6> the briefing meeting notes we have, if they are< 7> accurate, do you follow all of that? There is no< 8> suggestion anywhere that he was ever asked and< 9> refused. Do you follow?<10> A. Because he was not, he was treated differently, he<11> was not a witness sir, no.<12> Q. I appreciate that I am not dealing with his status.<13> There is no record anywhere that he was asked and<14> refused?<15> A. Sir, what you are saying you are asking why a<16> record was not made. I am telling you the reason a<17> record was not made is because was an informant, he<18> was not a witness. That is the difference, we don't<19> speak to informants and make records on everything we<20> talk about.<21> Q. The most important question here plainly is where<22> he gets the information from, is it not?<23> A. It is a very important question.<24> Q. Right?<25> A. It was a question that was asked by me and it was

. P-3269

< 1> an answer given by him to me. So if anybody is going< 2> to say as a police officer who was present, it was me,< 3> I was the one that spoke to him, I asked him who he< 4> had dealings with. Would he give me the other< 5> informant, the possible witnesses, would he help me< 6> where that was concerned and for his own personal< 7> safety he said no.< 8> Q. Why did you not put all this down, why did you not< 9> report it in a briefing meeting with these senior<10> officers; look, I did ask him.<11> A. Because was a registered informant, sir.<12> Q. It would not matter in a briefing meeting?<13> A. It does, sir, because at the end of the day we do<14> not have to discuss details of the informant. What I<15> did say was that there was an informant----<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Would you sit back a little, you are<17> distorting the sound. Do not worry about leaning<18> over, Mr Budgen. I am very sorry to interrupt but it<19> makes it difficult for the stenographer you see.<20> MR MANSFIELD: You see the first briefing meeting the<21> very next day, as it were, after all of this, there<22> was talk about this man he was regarded as anonymous<23> so it would not have been a problem to report back:<24> look, I have all this information, I asked him where<25> it came from but he would not tell me, that does not

. P-3270

< 1> embarrass anybody, would it?< 2> A. It made no difference, sir, because I knew because< 3> I asked him and I tried to illicit from him, as Mr< 4> Davidson did, about where his source was. The thing< 5> was, you know, you kindly said yourself that one had< 6> to take great care with this person because he was< 7> the only person within that community that had< 8> actually physically come forward to provide< 9> information on these suspects. You have actually said<10> that to me "one has to be careful". Therefore, he was<11> asked -- we did not lean on him but we did ask him and<12> I did ask him and to this day he never told me who the<13> source of his information was.<14> Q. I made the point, I am not going to the pursue it<15> further you say. You say you asked and he did not<16> tell you. It would appear on all the occasions, there<17> only appears to be one other that you speak of, that<18> is 6th May, message 276, that is the one about<19> purchasing knives and so on; did you ask him again:<20> look, are you prepared to tell me where all this is<21> coming from?<22> A. I did indeed, sir, I have asked him.<23> Q. On every occasion?<24> A. I asked him all of the time. You know, I knew it<25> would take us further down the line but unfortunately

. P-3271

< 1> he was not going to do so because of the position he< 2> felt he was quite vulnerable and he did not want to,< 3> you know, did not want to have himself identified and< 4> obviously did not want to identify the other person< 5> for that reason.< 6> Q. He was identified and in the sense that you knew< 7> who he was and I want to get from you, if you would< 8> not mind, which senior officers also knew who he was,< 9> as far as you are aware?<10> A. Mr Bullock and I assume Mr Weeden, I suppose, I<11> mean, I don't know, I didn't speak to them about it<12> but I do know that Mr Bullock was aware.<13> Q. How do you know Mr Bullock was aware, is it because<14> you told him?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. You told him his real name?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Can I summarise the position the Kent Inquiry from<19> your duty states discovered there were other occasions<20> on which you saw this man, Grant, according to the<21> duty states do you think this were other occasions<22> other than these 2 messages that you have, the one on<23> the 23rd and the one on the 6th. There were other<24> occasions in between when you saw him and there is no<25> record of what was said?

. P-3272

< 1> A. In that statement you talk about, sir, there was a< 2> recollection that he had paged me on a meet and failed< 3> to meet me.< 4> Q. That is the 2nd May?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Was there a meeting on 30th April with him, that< 7> is Grant?< 8> A. Could you show me my duty state for 30th May?< 9> Q. (PCA00320099) onwards please. The bottom date<10> there is the 25th, could we have (PCA00320100), it may<11> be there -- I am looking for the 30th, it may be<12> (PCA00320101) or (PCA00320102). Was this yours?<13> A. No, sir.<14> Q. I am not going to take time on it, (PCA00320197).<15> Could it be moved across we are looking for April<16> 30th?<17> MR EGAN: It is 198, the next page.<18> MR MANSFIELD: There we are (PCA00320198) the next<19> page. Thank you very much. 30th, there we are. It<20> is to something and so on I cannot read your writing<21> yes, there is a bit there?<22> A. "8.45 to RM" which is obviously the Incident Room<23> "meet re James Grant".<24> Q. Yes, what was that then?<25> A. That was obviously Mr Grant coming into see me.

. P-3273

< 1> Q. Yes and?< 2> A. I don't think he turned up that day.< 3> Q. Well, if he does not turn up, would you not put< 4> there that there was not a meet?< 5> A. We do not generally put that on our duty sheet, no.< 6>< 7> Q. Can you be sure either way whether he did or did< 8> not?< 9> A. I can't be sure, sir, I can't honestly be sure. All<10> I know is if he said anything that was relevant to me,<11> it would have been put on a green sheet, sir.<12> Q. I appreciate. All right, so there is another entry<13> there, you say you think he may not have turned up<14> that is why there is no record. That is Grant. We are<15> dealing with Grant. Now meanwhile, as it were, you<16> were constantly in contact with the AMIT team, the<17> team as a whole?<18> A. By virtue of office meetings.<19> Q. I want to ask you about another major area that is<20> going on, that is surveillance -- you are shaking your<21> head I have not asked the question yet. You were<22> aware there was and FIB, as it is called, set up?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. You knew that before any arrest took place?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3274

< 1> Q. How did you know that?< 2> A. I can't recall whether it was an office meeting or< 3> just conversation but, I mean, I was not involved in< 4> that at all.< 5> Q. I appreciate----< 6> A. You are asking me when I knew about it, I can't< 7> recall but it is either through an office meeting or< 8> through conversation.< 9> Q. Yes. Of course a surveillance operation, FIB, is<10> quite important, is it not?<11> A. It is very important, I assume but it depends what<12> you are looking at, sir.<13> Q. What did you think they were look at in this case?<14> A. Well, for one I was hoping they would be looking at<15> the suspects but they could be looking at other<16> suspects and other people as well.<17> Q. You were hoping they were looking at the suspects.<18> Did you ever ask, what are they looking at, what was<19> the object of it?<20> A. No, I didn't ask, sir. I don't ask.<21> Q. You do not ask. Did any senior officer at any<22> stage and in particular it would be Weeden or Bullock<23> ever tell what the object of the surveillance was but<24> they could not tell you the results or anything like<25> that. Were you told the object, were you told the

. P-3275

< 1> results or anything?< 2> A. Not that I recall sir, no.< 3> Q. How about -- DC Hughes will tell us he knew about< 4> bin liners -- were you told about bin liners coming< 5> out of a house?< 6> A. I did hear.< 7> Q. You did hear. I want to ask how much you were told< 8> and how much you were not. You heard about bin liners< 9> that was before the arrests?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. How did you hear about that?<12> A. Again through conversation I think.<13> Q. Through conversation. What did you hear about bin<14> liners?<15> A. I heard that the surveillance team had seen one or<16> two of the suspects going into a dry cleaners or<17> something.<18> Q. Going into a dry cleaners?<19> A. Something like that, that is what I recollect.<20> Q. This could have been significant information, could<21> it not?<22> A. Very much so, sir, yes.<23> Q. Clothes being cleaned or whatever, it could be<24> important it may not be?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3276

< 1> Q. What else did you hear about the surveillance< 2> operation?< 3> A. This was later on, this was a surveillance in order< 4> to find Clifford Norris.< 5> Q. I am dealing with before that?< 6> A. Before that, no, I personally didn't know.< 7> Q. Did you know the name "Norris" before all this?< 8> A. Clifford Norris I had heard about it, yes.< 9> Q. You had heard about it. In what context had you<10> heard about him before this whole matter?<11> A. About well -- when I used to work at Woolwich I had<12> heard about Clifford Norris being involved in drugs.<13> Q. Drugs?<14> A. This is a long time ago.<15> Q. You certainly heard the name and you had a<16> connection for him before this?<17> A. That was Clifford Norris.<18> Q. Can I return to the surveillance on this case prior<19> to the arrest. Bin liners you heard about and maybe a<20> dry cleaners. What else?<21> A. Nothing else, sir.<22> Q. Are you sure there was nothing else being said at<23> all. Not even photographs for example.<24> A. I didn't see any photographs.<25> Q. Nobody telling you; we have seen all of the main

. P-3277

< 1> suspects, the ones that had been named at that point,< 2> that is the Acourts, Dobson and Norris, in fact we saw< 3> them all in one day. Did anybody say that to you?< 4> A. Not to me sir, no.< 5> Q. Before you started the interviewing on the 7th< 6> having arrested Jamie Acourt, I appreciate it not your< 7> responsibility but I just want to ask, did Mr Canavan< 8> or anybody say: I think it is important you have all< 9> of the information that is relevant to Jamie Acourt?<10> A. Yes, we did not discuss it in those terms, no, but<11> it would have been helpful to have everything we had<12> on James Acourt, yes.<13> Q. I realise I am not going through that calender<14> which is put together at this stage, what I am doing<15> is the other way round. Do you recall you or Mr<16> Canavan saying: I think before you start interviewing<17> Jamie it would be useful to have everything we know<18> about Jamie, his background, his previous convictions<19> if there are any cautions, connections, previous<20> incidents, who he has been seen with because you knew<21> there was a surveillance. Did Mr Canavan or you ask a<22> senior officer to give you that information?<23> A. No, sir.<24> Q. Is there a reason why you did not ask a senior<25> officer to give that you information?

. P-3278

< 1> A. Well the situation was that this was a briefing< 2> early in the morning. We had been warned the previous< 3> night that we were going to arrest the suspects.< 4> Q. You describe it as being out of the blue and I do< 5> not want to go over that again, but the arrest is out< 6> of the blue in the sense were you not prewarned about< 7> it. Was there any mention of the Nelson Mandela visit< 8> in the briefings?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. It comes out of the blue but there was time, you<11> could always ask for a little bit of time before<12> interviewing somebody, can you not, you do not have to<13> do it immediately, you can ask for an hour if it is<14> necessary?<15> A. I totally agree with you, sir, yes.<16> Q. Did Mr Canavan or you say: we need a bit of time<17> before interviewing, it has all come on top very<18> quickly and we would like all of the relevant<19> information please?<20> A. I didn't ask that whether Mr Canavan -- and you<21> have obviously spoken to him -- but I never asked for<22> that.<23> Q. You did not ask, I appreciate it is not your<24> responsibility?<25> A. Well to a degree it my responsibility, yes. It was

. P-3279

< 1> not all just down to Mr Canavan, I was also present< 2> during that interview but we didn't do it, I didn't do< 3> it.< 4> Q. Looking back?< 5> A. Looking back possibly one could have done, yes.< 6> Q. You could have done and in fact you have already< 7> been over the question of putting the wind up people.< 8> Being a well informed officer so that you can pick up< 9> on remarks or certainly communicate the extent of<10> knowledge you have of an individual, can be quite<11> important whatever their age, can it not?<12> A. Yes, it can be sir, yes.<13> Q. There is one other area I want to ask you about and<14> that is the very beginning, and the position, can I<15> summarise it to make sure we have the right position<16> here: From the beginning or at the beginning, when you<17> first came into this on the 23rd, you, in the meetings<18> that you had, did not discover from the senior<19> officers at that time that this was an incident being<20> described or conveyed as a racist killing, correct?<21> A. Correct.<22> Q. The senior officers at that stage that we are<23> dealing with in these meetings, does it include Mr<24> Illsley?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-3280

< 1> Q. Mr Crampton?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Mr Bullock?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Any other senior officers relevant?< 6> A. Not that I am aware of.< 7> Q. Not that you are aware of. Would it be fair to say< 8> that before you were given your tasks, or even just< 9> after you were given your first task, which was seeing<10> the man at the front desk, you were not provided with<11> any other information about other racist attacks in<12> the area?<13> A. Well, no, because this murder had just broken, sir,<14> it had just started.<15> Q. Were you aware there had been other killings of a<16> racist nature in the area?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. You were?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Which ones were you aware of, and it not a test of<21> memory. If you do in the remember the names just say?<22> A. Was it Ronan --<23> Q. Adams, you were aware of that one?<24> A. There were a couple. There were a couple of<25> murders. There was probably more than you actually

. P-3281

< 1> outlined. There has been a few in that area. I have< 2> worked in the Woolwich area for 7 years. I was also< 3> aware of the political nature of what was going on in< 4> that area as well to do with the National Front.< 5> Q. The National Front and the presence of their< 6> premises just down the road in Welling. You were< 7> aware of certain public houses that were frequented by< 8> people like that?< 9> A. I was involved in certain aspects of that.<10> Q. Have you heard of a group called the Nazi Turnouts<11> or something like that?<12> A. No.<13> Q. You were aware of the Adams' one. One of the other<14> ones was the one on the Well Hall roundabout itself,<15> Rohit Duggal?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. You remember that?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Of course, when you saw Grant it was clear that he<20> himself was talking about other incidents they had<21> been involved in and he named a number of them?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. As well?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. But so far as briefings of you were concerned,

. P-3282

< 1> senior officers did not provide you with any material< 2> about the other racist killings. This is just< 3> material you happened to know about yourself; is that< 4> a fair summary?< 5> A. Are you talking about the beginning of the murder< 6> inquiry.< 7> Q. At the beginning, yes?< 8> A. No, sir. It is not something that you do< 9> straightaway. We are dealing with a murder inquiry<10> straightaway.<11> Q. You are dealing with straightaway ----<12> A. A murder Inquiry.<13> Q. A racist killing which is a murder. Can I put it<14> in another context?<15> A. All I can say is, I am not going to accept -- your<16> version is we have a racist murder. If it had been<17> somebody else that was murdered, you know, it is a<18> murder. At the end of the day, no matter what colour<19> skin you were, it is a murder. It is not a racist<20> murder.<21> Q. Pause one second. May I put it in another context,<22> so you can see -- please do not be too anxious about<23> this?<24> A. I am, because I am anxious about the distinction --<25> You are talking about senior officers not speaking to

. P-3283

< 1> us about other murders at the briefing at the very< 2> outset.< 3> Q. That is right.< 4> A. I am outlining to you that I have been present on< 5> other murders and the fact is that when it first< 6> starts we have to get everything together, get things< 7> in motion and you do not necessarily reflect on other< 8> murders straightaway. It is unheard of. Unless it< 9> was murder that was connected, if it was murder that<10> was connected by a shooting the previous week of one<11> gangster against another, then fine, but in this case,<12> no.<13> Q. Mr Budgen, may I put it this way: If you a crime<14> committed, one of the things you are looking at is why<15> has this happened; how has this happened. Do you<16> agree?<17> A. Exactly right, sir. It is the course of that<18> investigation, whether that takes 1 year, 2 months, 6<19> months, but you are talking about the very break of an<20> inquiry. If you want to quantify the timing of this,<21> whether you are talking about the murder happening on<22> the Thursday and this briefing was on the Friday, why<23> had we not been given information by the senior<24> officers about other murders, I am saying you wrong.<25> It is not the thing that is going to happen. We are

. P-3284

< 1> trying to calm things down. The murder has happened,< 2> we are trying to sort everything out.< 3> Q. Let me put to you the position: If you have a< 4> murder, it could be drugs related, could it not?< 5> A. It would be anything, sir.< 6> Q. It could be drugs related and if you have a< 7> suspicion a at the beginning because the officer has< 8> seen some drugs falling on to the ground or something< 9> like that, you might want to know what the link is<10> with other drugs murders, would you not, that would be<11> a reasonable thing at the beginning?<12> A. It would be, sir.<13> Q. Right. If you have a witness who indicates that<14> the motive for the murder was because the man was<15> black, "nigger, nigger", then you would want to begin<16> the process at least of asking: "Well, this could be a<17> racist killing, almost certainly is because there is<18> no other connection here, therefore, what other racist<19> killings have been there; could there be a<20> connection".<21> All perfectly reasonable, is it not?<22> A. I totally agree with you and I think what you are<23> saying if were you were investigating this crime<24> yourself you would do very well in presentation of<25> those facts, but the fact is when the murder first

. P-3285

< 1> breaks, whether you are black, white or whatever,< 2> within the first day or two we are trying to sort< 3> things out. You are trying to get an investigation< 4> team together. I am sure that this inquiry did look< 5> at other murders.< 6> Q. Are you?< 7> A. I believe so, sir.< 8> Q. Certainly you agree, do you not, that the approach< 9> I have put to you was not one that was put by senior<10> officers on the 23rd or the 24th or the 25th, do you<11> agree?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.<14> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MS WOODLEY<15> Q. I ask questions on behalf of Messrs Crampton,<16> Weeden and Illsley. You joined the inquiry on the<17> first day, on 23rd April, and were present at the<18> office meeting at 5 o'clock that evening. Were you<19> aware there had already been a press conference that<20> afternoon at 2 o'clock which Mr Crampton and Mr<21> Illsley attended in which the murder was treated as a<22> racist murder?<23> A. No, because unfortunately I was on a course<24> building. It was at the conclusion of my course about<25> 4 pm that I was informed to go to the murder inquiry.

. P-3286

< 1> I was not informed of that press conference.< 2> Q. Did you become aware that there had been a press< 3> conference at 2 o'clock that afternoon and that Mr< 4> Crampton and Mr Illsley were treating this as a racist< 5> murder?< 6> A. I was not aware of that.< 7> Q. There was also a consultative meeting again that< 8> afternoon before the office meeting at Woolwich Town< 9> hall which again the Senior Investigating Officers<10> treated the murder as a racist murder; did you become<11> aware of that?<12> A. I was not aware of that.<13> Q. You were not aware of that. You have just been<14> asked about other racist murders. Can we look at your<15> duty state (PCA00320099). I think you attended the<16> office meeting on Saturday, 24th April at 5 o'clock?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Yes. Can we now please look at (PCA00320003). We<19> have here the meeting notes for the meeting which<20> started at 5 and finished at 6.50 that evening. Can<21> we scroll down, please, to the bottom of the notes. Do<22> you see the last sentence: "Research any instance of<23> similar nature with a view to identifying involvement<24> of alleged suspects as identified from information at<25> this stage of the inquiry."

. P-3287

< 1> Were you aware that at that stage the senior< 2> investigating officers already had in mind looking at< 3> other racial incidents?< 4> A. I personally was not aware of that, no.< 5> Q. You do not remember that?< 6> A. I don't remember that, no.< 7> Q. You were no doubt aware that Police Constable< 8> Fisher was attached to the AMIT team on 23rd April,< 9> that is the Friday?<10> A. That is correct.<11> Q. You were aware that he was a racial incidents<12> officer?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. So you obviously realised from that, if not from<15> any other source, this was being treated by the senior<16> investigating officers as a racist murder?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Can we turn now to the Lawrence family. I think<19> one of the unusual features of this case was that<20> they had perfectly properly instructed their own<21> solicitor to give them advice and support?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. You became aware of that?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. You, no doubt, were also aware that DS Bevan on DC

. P-3288

< 1> Holden had been attached to the family as family< 2> liaison officers?< 3> A. Yes, that is correct.< 4> Q. They would normally deal with any queries from the< 5> family?< 6> A. That is correct.< 7> Q. They would provide the family with as much< 8> information as it was proper to give in the course of< 9> a murder inquiry?<10> A. Yes that is also correct.<11> Q. But there solicitor had written to the senior<12> investigating officer direct and sent faxes. You<13> became aware of that?<14> A. Yes, that's right.<15> Q. You also became aware that he and members of his<16> staff were also telephoning the incident room and<17> wanting to the speak to the senior investigating<18> officer.<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. It became apparent in the course of the office<21> meetings that the input from the family's solicitor<22> had become an unnecessary distraction to Mr Weeden?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. Is that right?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3289

< 1> Q. Can we look, please, at (PCA00450197). Can you< 2> scroll up, please. It is the policy file, decision 17< 3> dated 30th April. It says this:< 4> "Commander to deal with future contact with< 5> solicitors representing the family. Phone call and< 6> letter from Commander to the family confirming this."< 7> That would seem to confirm the fact that there< 8> had been some additional pressure on the Senior< 9> Investigating Officer having to deal with the family,<10> when normally that would be done by family liaison<11> officers?<12> A. That is correct.<13> Q. That duty was lifted from him and Commander Adams<14> assumed it?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Just dealing with, if I may, office meetings.<17> Before we do that, surveillance. You said that you<18> believed that you had been told that one of the<19> suspects had been seen going into a dry cleaners?<20> A. That is correct.<21> Q. Yes. I suggest, in fact, your memory may be at<22> fault there because the information that had been<23> gained from the surveillance, which was made known at<24> the office meetings, was that one of the suspects had<25> been seen coming out of his house carrying a bin

. P-3290

< 1> liner, and also that one of the suspects had been seen< 2> the day before coming out of the house with something< 3> on a hanger covered with a bin liner. Do you accept< 4> now that your memory may be at fault?< 5> A. On reflection, obviously, you know, yes, I may have< 6> made mistakes. I cannot recollect how I heard that< 7> information.< 8> Q. Turning now to office meetings. The purpose of< 9> office meetings was to update officers on the general<10> progress of the inquiry?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. If officers felt they had any particular<13> information they wanted to air at the inquiry, they<14> could do so?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Information that you and Mr Davidson had obtained<17> from Grant was also discussed at the office meetings<18> and so the Senior Investigating Officers, although<19> they may not have spoken direct to Mr Grant, were<20> certainly aware of all of the information?<21> A. That is correct.<22> Q. I think as time went by there came a sense of<23> frustration amongst the Inquiry Team because, although<24> a lot of good information appeared to come into the<25> Incident Room, when that was checked out it did not

. P-3291

< 1> always appear to be good information. Perhaps I can< 2> illustrate it in this way: An officer would go on see< 3> an informant and it would then transpire the informant< 4> had no direct knowledge at all and had simply heard< 5> some rumours or obtained information from a third< 6> party?< 7> A. Yes, that is correct.< 8> Q. An officer would then be tasked to go the source or< 9> the third party and quite often the source would deny<10> any knowledge of the murder at all?<11> A. That is correct.<12> Q. What appeared on the face of it to be good<13> information was, in fact, often nothing more than<14> rumour and hearsay?<15> A. That is correct.<16> Q. Sometimes people who did have information were<17> either reluctant or simply refused to make statements?<18><19> A. That is also correct.<20> Q. For those reasons there became a sense of<21> frustration amongst the team. Is that right?<22> A. That's right.<23> Q. I think that frustration would sometime be aired at<24> office meetings?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3292

< 1> Q. The information or evidence that had been obtained< 2> by the team would also be reviewed at office meetings< 3> to see whether there was enough evidence to arrest the< 4> suspects. Is that right? There would be general< 5> discussion?< 6> A. You talk about evidence, if you are saying was< 7> there enough evidence, that is one thing.< 8> Q. Yes. Because I think what Mr Weeden stressed is< 9> there was a lot of information that was available but<10> he was very short of evidence?<11> A. Yes he was short of evidence, yes.<12> Q. What he wanted to do and stressed the importance<13> was to turn information into evidence?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Is that right?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. And I think he was also alert to the fact and<18> mentioned it at office meetings that if suspects were<19> to be arrested in his view prematurely, the clock<20> would start ticking so far as the Police and Criminal<21> Evidence Act was concerned?<22> A. On individual suspects, yes.<23> Q. So those were the sort of factors that were being<24> discussed as to whether it be right to arrest the<25> suspects or not?

. P-3293

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. I think, in fact, whatever officer might have< 3> individually felt privately, they did not express< 4> their views the suspects should have been arrested at< 5> office meetings?< 6> A. I was present at two office meetings when it was< 7> asked when they were going to arrest the suspects and< 8> I definitely remember that.< 9> Q. You, of course, as you said were a small cog in a<10> large machine?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. You did not know the whole picture?<13> A. No, I didn't.<14> Q. You did not know what other enquiries were being<15> made?<16> A. No, I didn't.<17> Q. You did not know how information was being used?<18> A. No, I didn't.<19> Q. You also did not attend meetings held by the senior<20> investigating officer with the more senior detectives<21> on the team?<22> A. No, I didn't.<23> Q. You were not present at a meeting of senior<24> officers at 1.30 on the afternoon of 6th May?<25> A. No.

. P-3294

< 1> Q. So you cannot know what factors were exercising< 2> their mind as to whether to arrest or not?< 3> A. That is exactly right.< 4> Q. I expect you would accept that whether a senior< 5> investigating officer decided to arrest was a question< 6> of judgment?< 7> A. That is correct. I mean, that is his point of view< 8> and him, yes, that is for him to decide.< 9> Q. He had an overall view of the state of the<10> information?<11> A. That is correct.<12> MS WOODLEY: Yes. Thank you.<13> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR EGAN<14> Q. I want to ask you some questions on behalf of a<15> number of officer below the rank of Inspector,<16> including Mr Davidson and Mr Bullock. You said in<17> response to Mr Mansfield, one of the last bits of<18> evidence you gave, you described the situation at the<19> very start of a murder Inquiry. I want to see if I<20> have that right. Particularly in the first 24 or 48<21> hours, there is tremendous amount going on in an<22> investigation team, is there not?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. We tend to sit here an analyse it rather<25> meticulously. You touched it, I think you are the

. P-3295

< 1> first witness who did, it is even organising the< 2> investigation team?< 3> A. That's right, sir.< 4> Q. It really is starting at the foundations?< 5> A. Certainly.< 6> Q. With that in mind you were asked a number of< 7> questions by Kent about what happened when you< 8> received the information from James Grant?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. We know that earlier on that day there had been<11> anonymous information that Neil Acourt and David<12> Norris were involved. You have already been asked<13> about that. Your recollection of it is -- I mean, you<14> clearly did go and see Grant yourself, did you not,<15> you cannot remember if there was another officer<16> there, there may have been. I am not going to go over<17> that?<18> A. Initially it was me. It was then me returning<19> back to the office and then obviously then returning<20> -- I think, you know in recollection, it was not a<21> case of gaining a co-handler for an informant at that<22> stage, it was a case of making sure that Mr Grant did<23> not leave the station. I wanted to do the enquiries<24> whilst he was still there. Apart from the information<25> he was giving, I also wanted to make sure that I could

. P-3296

< 1> make enquiries whilst he was still in my possession.< 2> I didn't want him walking out of the police station< 3> not knowing who he was because I would have lost a< 4> witness.< 5> Q. You very fairly said to Mr Lawson well Mr Bullock< 6> said put it into the system, he may have been doing< 7> other things at the time. You would not disagree with< 8> me that he was, in fact, frantically busy at that< 9> time?<10> A. He was busy, yes, I will not deny that.<11> Q. Your first recollection was that you saw the -- I<12> do not criticised you about this because you were<13> being asked by Kent -- we were talking about going<14> back 4 years, were you not? Your first recollection<15> was that you saw him with Davidson on the Friday. We<16> know now and you know it is an innocent mistake<17> because Davidson was on a golfing that day and he did<18> not come back until the Saturday. We have all seen<19> his duty state. I just want to examine with you what<20> actually happened on the Saturday. Mr Mansfield has<21> asked you to look at your duty state, I am not going<22> to ask you to do it, apparently there is no note there<23> of the meeting with Mr Grant. Your recollection seems<24> to be that there was a meeting on the Saturday?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3297

< 1> Q. Let me show you two things please: firstly, could I< 2> ask you to look the Mr Davidson's duty state at< 3> (PCA00320097). This is Mr Davidson's duty state for< 4> the Saturday and I hope there at 4.30 you see that< 5> there is apparently a meeting with an informant. Yes?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Of course duty states are not are not pocketbook< 8> entries, they are just, I suppose one of their more< 9> important functions is to make sure you get paid for<10> the hours you work.<11> A. Normally they do itemise what we do, sir, during<12> the course of the day or during our 8 hour period as<13> detectives. The uniform branch do not do this sort of<14> thing but we do, detectives do, CID officers do.<15> Q. Right?<16> A. But, you know, one can make mistakes as well<17> sometimes obviously clearly on the Saturday it is not<18> shown on my duty sheet.<19> Q. You already responded to the suggestion you could<20> not. You said my duty state does not have the meeting<21> entered. Mr Davidson's does have a meeting with an<22> informant entered, does it not?<23> A. Yes, it does.<24> Q. One of the most important matters that Grant told<25> you was of an attack on a man by the name of

. P-3298

< 1> Benefield?< 2> A. Yes, that is correct.< 3> Q. A very serious offence that required to be followed< 4> up as soon as possible, I suggest, would you agree?< 5> A. Yes, certainly.< 6> Q. It is right, is it not, that Mr Bullock thought< 7> that information was sufficiently important to put Mr< 8> Davidson on this case, if I can use that term, with< 9> you. Is that not right?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. And Davidson was a very, very experienced senior<12> detective, was he not?<13> A. He is indeed a very experienced officer, yes.<14> Q. A kind of man that and SIO or a deputy would put on<15> a case when he wanted action. Would agree with that?<16> A. I do.<17> Q. We know that Mr Davidson, I do not know if it is<18> going to be necessary for Grace to turn this up, we do<19> know that Mr Davidson took a statement from Benefield<20> on the Sunday, on the 25th. Did you know that?<21> A. I recollect that he was taking a statement from<22> Benefield, yes.<23> Q. In fact, the helpful diary which I have been using,<24> like Mr Lawson, is not quite right about it. If we<25> could look at (PCA00370003) please, Grace. It has,

. P-3299

< 1> according to this, on 25th April this statement being< 2> taken between 9 and 9 pm, in fact if one look at Mr< 3> Davidson's duty state it is clearly rather earlier< 4> than that. I do not ask for that to be turned up but< 5> others can check, it seems that that starts at about< 6> 4.45 or so when Mr Davidson gets back. That is not< 7> strictly right.< 8> But the material from which that enquiry was made< 9> must have come from the meeting that you and Davidson<10> had with Grant on the Saturday, I suggest?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. It has to be right, is it not?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Thank you. Setting aside any personality clash<15> there may have been between you and Mr Bullock, you<16> certainly, as I understand your evidence, do not take<17> any offence from the fact that the importance of this<18> information meant that Mr Davidson had to be put on it<19> to become effectively this man's minder. You do not<20> mind that?<21> A. No, I didn't mind.<22> Q. Even at the time?<23> A. No.<24> Q. There was a meeting where you went to Greenwich to<25> register the informant?

. P-3300

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Could we look please at Mr Davidson's duty state.< 3> If is necessary we will look at your as well< 4> (PCA00320197) on 28th April 1994. Perhaps I should< 5> have asked Mr Davidson about this myself, we can ask< 6> you because you have a note, is it 93 -- I am sorry< 7> could we look at the eventually at "28-4-93, 11am"?< 8> A. "To PR" which is Bromley, "re enquiries" then "to< 9> RG", which is Greenwich, "re informant reports".<10> Q. If we look at your duty state?<11> A. That is my duty sheet.<12> Q. Is it?<13> A. What I am seeing at the moment is my duty sheet.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: What is that date?<15> THE WITNESS: 28th, I am looking at my own at the<16> moment, sorry. I have just read to you what mine<17> says.<18> MR EGAN: In that case Davidson is (PCA00320229)<19> please. You have been asked a number of questions<20> about this so it quite important. 28th April 1993,<21> 11am this Davidson?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. "RG" we see and that is Greenwich?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. And something to do with "infos"?

. P-3301

< 1> A. Information, it is to do with him being with me in< 2> order to register the informant.< 3> Q. Right thank you. Now just two final matters< 4> please: your message about the floorboards?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Can I just clear up one matter please. Rather than< 7> looking at the note that Mr Bullock made, can we look< 8> to see what the actual message said (PCA00470447),< 9> please, Grace, thank you. I think if we see this, if<10> we could go down a little: "The above person stated<11> the Acourts have asked on numerous occasion whether<12> they can purchase knives from the kebab shop. They<13> have a fixation with knives"?<14> A. It is "fascination" sorry.<15> Q. "Fascination with knives that they usually hide<16> them under the floorboards. Lee Pearson was stabbed<17> by Neil Acourt and a Stacey has been stabbed by" -- I<18> am not going to go on. He is described by a friend<19> and there is a description of someone who is almost<20> certainly Norris?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. The point about that piece of information, it may<23> be a small point, but I think it is worth you helping<24> us about, the information was that it was the Acourts<25> who were hiding knives under the floorboards, was it

. P-3302

< 1> not?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Not that Norris was doing it or that they were< 4> doing it, it was the Acourts who were doing it?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Right. Thank you.< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Help about this: Again you have been asked a number< 9> of questions about the search of Bournbrook. You went<10> along and I am not going ask you about whether you<11> searched or you did not, your evidence is clear on<12> that, I have no case to put to you on that. Were you<13> aware that a number of weapons were recovered?<14> A. I am not aware, sir. I just do not recollect.<15> Q. Anything else is comment then.<16> Finally, one last thing, in relation to that<17> interview you were asked a number of questions by Mr<18> Lawson about it, and it was suggested that it might<19> have been appropriate to put the wind up the<20> prospective defendant. You dealt with that.<21> Do I understand your evidence to be this: that<22> you need to take care when you are dealing with<23> interviewing juveniles?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Because is it your experience that there is a thin

. P-3303

< 1> line between putting the wind up somebody and< 2> intimidation?< 3> A. It is more of a term of being oppressive, I< 4> believe.< 5> Q. A thin line between putting the wind up someone and< 6> being oppressive?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Agree?< 9> A. Yes.<10> MR EGAN: Thank you very much.<11> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR YEARWOOD<12> Q. Officer, I put questions to you on behalf of the<13> Commission For Racial Equality. I think you told us<14> you were here yesterday.<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Did you hear the entirety of the evidence given by<17> Mr Davidson?<18> A. Parts of it, sir.<19> Q. Can I start by asking you this question: What is<20> your definition of a racist attack?<21> A. A definition of a racist attack, a racial incident<22> or a racist attack?<23> Q. Act or definition refers racial incident. What is<24> your definition or what do you understand the<25> definition of a racial incident to be?

. P-3304

< 1> A. If a victim of a racial incident, whether they be< 2> physically attacked or abused or whatever, the victim< 3> themselves complains that is a racist or anybody else< 4> says it is a racist attack or a racial incident or< 5> whatever. That is what I understand it to be. If< 6> anybody else stays it is racial, then it racial.< 7> Q. You understood, did you not, that certainly Duwayne< 8> Brooks, who was an eye witness to this, had from the< 9> very beginning said this was a racial attack or racial<10> incident. Is that right?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Do we, therefore, agree that certainly under the<13> AGPO definition that the Stephen Lawrence murder was a<14> racial incident?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Let us deal with your personal definition. What is<17> your definition of a racial attack or murder?<18> A. My definition, well, anybody that you know in this<19> country, it is whether they be Chinese, black, Asian,<20> whatever is attacked by Whites.<21> Q. I see. Under your definition, can you tell us, the<22> Stephen Lawrence murder, was that a racial attack or<23> murder?<24> A. It was a racial attack, yes. It was a racial<25> murder, yes, it was.

. P-3305

< 1> Q. When did you reach that conclusion?< 2> A. Well, I would say that it was racial, but also say< 3> that after establishing some details from Mr Grant< 4> that these people were attacking everybody. If they< 5> consistently, if they said to me or he said to me they< 6> previously attacked a black guy the week before, then< 7> in my mind there is no doubt about it, I would have< 8> said that these persons were racist and attacked Mr< 9> Lawrence in that sense.<10> Q. Are you saying that for them to be racist they have<11> to be exclusively racist? Is that what you are<12> saying?<13> A. I am saying in this murder, in my view of this<14> murder inquiry, yes it is a racist murder, but I also<15> have my views about that aspect of it as well. It is<16> not totally clear either way. You are saying to me do<17> I agree it is a racist murder. Yes, I do agree it is<18> a racist murder. I also say that the persons who<19> committed this murder would have attacked, black,<20> white pink or yellow. That is my view.<21> Q. I do not disagree that these were also thugs. What<22> I am putting to you in no uncertain way is that they<23> are racist thugs and the only reason that Stephen<24> Lawrence was attacked on that night was because he was<25> black. Can we agree that?

. P-3306

< 1> A. I can't agree with that.< 2> Q. You cannot?< 3> A. I can't agree with that. I have just explained to< 4> you prior to you saying that, from the information< 5> that I obtained from the informant Grant, this man or< 6> these suspects had stabbed two white men beforehand.< 7> You know, I am just saying that is the difference.< 8> Q. Let us look at that. I was hoping to avoid this.< 9> A. I have heard about it, but it does not mean I have<10> to change my opinions because I have heard something<11> on the television.<12> Q. Let us look at the two cases you referred to. Were<13> you here yesterday?<14> A. I have heard what your argument is. I heard what<15> you said to Mr Davidson. I am not disagreeing<16> agreeing with Mr Davidson. My opinion is that I dealt<17> with this man as the informant. Mr Davidson did, but<18> I dealt with him first. I dealt with Mr Grant and all<19> I am saying to you is that my impression was that, yes<20> it is racist murder. Your question is this man was<21> only attacked because he was black and I am saying I<22> disagree, I don't think he was attacked -- I think it<23> could have been anybody.<24> Q. Can you give me a moment. Let us deal with Lee<25> Pearson?

. P-3307

< 1> A. You have spoken about motive yesterday with Mr< 2> Davidson.< 3> Q. Quite.< 4> A. This is where it is going to lead to and it still< 5> does not detract from the fact that you are saying the< 6> only motive for killing Stephen Lawrence was the fact< 7> that he was black. I am saying it is not. I will say< 8> what I am going to say. You are not going to change< 9> my opinion. I believe it could be anybody.<10> Q. Can you give me some other motive for which there<11> is evidence to support this attack upon Stephen<12> Lawrence, can you give me that?<13> A. Can you rephrase the question.<14> Q. You say there could be some other motive. Can you<15> tell us about that, please. Can you tell us that<16> other reason for this attack upon Stephen Lawrence?<17> A. Yes, these are thugs who, if you want to join their<18> gang and become known as the Eltham Krays, you would<19> have to stab somebody in order to join their gang, and<20> whether they be black, yellow, pink, red, white, it<21> does not make any difference. There was not a<22> distinction that was portrayed. You just had to stab<23> somebody.<24> Q. You are suggesting that at 10.40 on the night of<25> 22nd April 1993, Stephen Lawrence was the first person

. P-3308

< 1> this group came across, do you?< 2> A. I believe that he was the person standing there and< 3> they decided to attack him.< 4> Q. Do you really believe he is the first person that< 5> group came across?< 6> A. Who they decided to attack, yes.< 7> Q. Yes, because was black?< 8> A. Sir, he was black whether they -- I do not believe< 9> it was the reason because he was black. I think it<10> was anybody.<11> Q. Can we agree this: you accept there was background<12> between the Acourts and Lee Pearson; do we agree that?<13> A. So you say, sir.<14> Q. You say so I say, you are the one who seeks to make<15> the comparison. What I am suggesting to you is this:<16> There was somebody by the name of Ross who was with<17> Lee Pearson on that particular occasion with whom the<18> Acourts had a particular grudge. That is right, is it<19> not?<20> A. I do not know this fact.<21> Q. You do not?<22> A. I listened to what you said yesterday and I assume<23> what you are saying is correct, sir.<24> Q. Therefore, how can you then use the Pearson case to<25> say that this could be other than racist in respect of

. P-3309

< 1> Stephen Lawrence. If you have not taken the time to< 2> familiarise yourself with the facts of the Pearson< 3> case, how can you justify your conclusions by using< 4> Pearson?< 5> A. The fact is that Mr Benefield was stabbed.< 6> Q. That is not the point.< 7> A. Lee Pearson was stabbed.< 8> Q. You have sought to use Pearson to say there may< 9> have been other motives in respect of Stephen<10> Lawrence. You have not taken the time, have you, to<11> investigate the facts of that case as to whether or<12> not there are other motives that might have come into<13> play. Am I right about that?<14> A. I have not investigated anything where Mr Lee<15> Pearson is concerned, no.<16> Q. Similarly, in respect of Stacey Benefield?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. You know, do you not, that there was a drugs<19> background to Stacey Benefield's close friend and<20> companion, Mr Farnham, who was there at the time. You<21> know that, do you not?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. You know that Stacey Benefield went to the aid of<24> Farnham?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3310

< 1> Q. That is the reason, I suggest, why it was that he< 2> was stabbed; is that right?< 3> A. He was an innocent person. Mr Benefield was not< 4> involved in that drug thing.< 5> Q. He was an innocent person going to Mr Farnham's< 6> aid?< 7> A. That's right, sir. As a consequence he was stabbed< 8> and nearly killed.< 9> Q. The connection was there was the other motive,<10> there was a drug connection, did you see that, between<11> Farnham and Norris; that is right, is it not?<12> A. Farnham and Norris, yes, sir.<13> Q. Thank you. What I suggest to you is that there is<14> a real difference here that both Benefield and<15> Pearson, both of them were persons who were known to<16> the attackers, they knew them for some considerable<17> period of time; that is right, is it not?<18> A. I don't really know. I don't know if Mr Benefield<19> has known his attackers for a long time, I don't know<20> sir, I don't know that. I didn't know that at the<21> time either, did I.<22> Q. Quite. There is no evidence whatsoever to show<23> that Stephen Lawrence knew his attackers, was there?<24> A. No, sir.<25> Q. Thank you. So in fact the only motive that you

. P-3311

< 1> were you left with in respect of Stephen Lawrence is< 2> one of colour?< 3> A. Sorry, sir, I still disagree with you, it is my own< 4> personal opinion, you know, that is how I feel.< 5> Q. Firstly this: Within the Inquiry Team how widely< 6> was this view taken by members of the team; how widely< 7> was it held?< 8> A. I don't know, sir.< 9> Q. You worked closely with Davidson?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Did you know whether or not Davidson held that<12> view?<13> A. Yes, because he dealt with it, his view was, as you<14> know, I saw it on the monitor yesterday, it was the<15> same as it had been then as it is then.<16> Q. You knew Davidson's view from the time you were<17> part of the investigation?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. What about other members of that team, did you know<20> their view?<21> A. No, I didn't, sir, because I actually worked<22> closely with Mr Davidson for the brief time I was on<23> the inquiry.<24> Q. Did you know the public image, the image that was<25> put out by the Inquiry Team that this was a racist

. P-3312

< 1> murder?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. You did differed from that view. Did you express< 4> that, your opinion?< 5> A. No, sir.< 6> Q. You did not?< 7> A. At the end of the day, sir, if you think about it< 8> in the context, we were dealing with a murder, sir, a< 9> murder full stop, of a human being. I will say no<10> more than that. We were dealing with murder of a<11> human being. All you are trying to justify is the<12> distinction between different types of human beings<13> and I am saying not. I will never detract from that<14> point of view. All I would say is that a human being<15> was tragically murdered that night by a group of thugs<16> on the streets of London and it infuriates me the fact<17> that they are still walking the streets because I am<18> detective who deals with that aspect of life.<19> Q. Do you find it helpful in any way, with a case of<20> whatever gravity, being classified, be it a racist<21> incident or non-racist?<22> A. I think it is important to identify a racial<23> matter. Obviously it is the only way that we, as an<24> organisation, the Police Service, and society in<25> general can gage the feeling of what people are --

. P-3313

< 1> what people in society think of their fellow human< 2> beings. If people are being attacked all of the time,< 3> they are coloured, yes, I understand that.< 4> Q. Is it of any assistance to you as part of an< 5> investigation?< 6> A. Yes, of course it is an important aspect, yes.< 7> Q. In what way?< 8> A. Obviously it is important because especially, for< 9> instance, we have the National Front just down the<10> road from us and obviously we had to make sure that,<11> without getting into it, we had to be aware that we<12> were gauging what the National Front were doing. We<13> did not want people who were collating round the<14> National Front killing people.<15> Q. You are concerned about Public Order<16> considerations?<17> A. Concerned about lots of things.<18> Q. Tell us, how does it assist you in your<19> investigation?<20> A. How does it assist me?<21> Q. In your investigation, a matter being classified as<22> being a racial incident?<23> A. I do not see how it really assists my<24> investigation.<25> Q. I see. As far as AGPO is concerned, in fact given

. P-3314

< 1> that definition and classifying the case as racist is< 2> of no assistance whatsoever when it comes to this< 3> investigation; is that your view?< 4> A. My view is that it is a murder.< 5> Q. You said that a number of times?< 6> A. I still maintain that, sir. I will not change my< 7> opinion of that. I am a detective, I am totally< 8> impartial, I am an impartial human being.< 9> Q. Can I make a suggestion to you --<10> A. Not really.<11> Q. -- does it assist you as to sourcing information as<12> part of your investigation?<13> A. Sourcing my information.<14> Q. If this was a racist murder would it assist you as<15> to what sources you go and research, you go and look<16> into in carrying out your investigation?<17> A. I am sure you are right it would do, sir.<18> Q. I see but that had not occurred to you before?<19> A. I am really getting quite lost here, in what<20> respect, sir, in what occurred to me and what did not<21> occur to me.<22> THE CHAIRMAN: Hang on. It just strikes me that you<23> have the answer several times now and the sourcing of<24> information has been dealt with, has it not, in<25> connection with the racial background? Ask anything

. P-3315

< 1> further if you need to.< 2> MR YEARWOOD: I would agree in the more general context< 3> but I think it is also important to get into the mind< 4> of the individual officer because that effects in the< 5> long run the way they approach their job.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Ask what you wish.< 7> THE WITNESS: If you are going to stick to that remark,< 8> sir, I have to say this: I am not a racist. I look at< 9> everything impartially. I am totally not a racist,<10> totally.<11> Q. Is there a resistance in your experience, Mr<12> Budgen, within the Metropolitan Police to classify<13> cases as racist?<14> A. No, sir there is no resistance at all to that.<15> Q. Have you ever reported a racial incident?<16> A. I have dealt with some racial incidents.<17> Q. Have you ever reported one?<18> A. I don't report them, sir. I am a detective, I<19> investigate them.<20> Q. How many cases would you say you have investigated<21> which have been racist in nature?<22> A. About three.<23> Q. That is in 18 years you told us earlier?<24> A. Yes, sir, but then we are talking about a change of<25> different policy here. You are standing there quoting

. P-3316

< 1> AGPO, that is not a decision that has been going on< 2> for 18 years, that is not a definition going on for 18< 3> years.< 4> Q. You have been in the force for 18 years?< 5> A. I have seen all sorts of thing happen in 18 years.< 6> Q. You would not need AGPO to define for you what any< 7> of us with common sense would know to be racial< 8> incident, would you?< 9> A. It was a recent thing, it is not operating for 18<10> years.<11> Q. Definitions aside?<12> A. You are the one sticking to AGPO definitions.<13> Q. Let us put definitions aside, you would not need<14> that to tell you when something is clearly racist,<15> would you?<16> A. Not all the, not in the slightest.<17> Q. Can I come to the question of the arrest which you<18> said came out of the blue?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. There was the discussion on 6th May. Am I right<21> there were in fact two briefings, one at 4 o'clock in<22> the afternoon and another at 8 o'clock later on that<23> evening?<24> A. From my recollection that must be the case, I<25> cannot recall whether it was two or one or whatever.

. P-3317

< 1> Q. You were asked earlier about Mr Weeden wanting to< 2> convert information into evidence and --< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. -- PACE considerations?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. It is right, is it not, that none of that had< 7> changed when the decision was made to arrest?< 8> A. I am not aware if there were any changes.< 9> Q. Any changes at all?<10> A. No, I am not aware.<11> Q. You said that Mr Imran Khan had come up in your<12> conversations, your meetings as a subject of<13> discussion?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. I know you have been asked this questions earlier<16> but I ask you again: are you sure that on 6th May that<17> as part of your discussions surrounding the arrests,<18> the question of the Lawrence family being seen in the<19> company of Nelson Mandela had not, in fact, been<20> raised?<21> A. Not from my point of view, no. Not from my<22> recollection, sir, no. I don't recall that at all.<23> Q. You do not. Were you aware that there was a<24> proposed march to be carried out on 8th May?<25> A. By whom, sir? A march by whom?

. P-3318

< 1> Q. A number of people?< 2> A. I was aware of a march by the National Front as< 3> well.< 4> Q. There was to be a march into Welling by a number< 5> of people who supported the campaign in respect of the< 6> Stephen Lawrence investigation?< 7> A. Right.< 8> Q. Were you aware that such a march was proposed?< 9> A. I was aware of various marches or a march in<10> relation, you know, opponents of the National Front<11> movement.<12> Q. Quite. Was that a subject of any discussion<13> surrounding this question of the timing of arrest?<14> A. No, sir, not that I am aware of, not from my<15> personal recollection and if it had it made no<16> difference to what I said or thought at all.<17> Q. One other thing you can help me with, it was<18> intended from the outset that you would be part of the<19> team that would be carrying out interviews?<20> A. I was informed, obviously, at the briefing.<21> Q. At the briefing?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. So, in fact, there was no preparation, certainly as<24> far as you were concerned, for interviews before the<25> 6th May?

. P-3319

< 1> A. That's right, sir.< 2> Q. So although nothing had changed, you say the< 3> evidence had not changed in any way?< 4> A. Not from my point of view.< 5> Q. Up until 6th May there had been no prior< 6> preparation of any of the material which you had in< 7> your possession up until that date before the briefing< 8> in respect of arrest, that is right, is it not?< 9> A. No.<10> MR YEARWOOD: Thank you.<11> THE WITNESS: Can I answer that point? You asked me a<12> question there, what you are saying is whether I was<13> aware of it. I was not aware of any preparation that<14> had gone on because I had not been preparing it.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: Hang on. You can only deal with your<16> own personal knowledge. You had no knowledge of<17> preparation for the interview which you conducted with<18> the other officer.<19> THE WITNESS: That's right.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Gompertz.<21> MR MANSFIELD: There was one question I asked Mr<22> Davidson about it but it relates to Mr Budgen, may I<23> just put it very quickly.<24> <FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD<25> Q. Were you aware that either of the two senior

. P-3320

< 1> officers, that is either Mr Weeden or before him Mr< 2> Crampton had singled you out as an officer that should< 3> be watched?< 4> A. No, sir.< 5> MR MANSFIELD: Thank you.< 6> THE WITNESS: Can I answer that, sir, just to say I< 7> have never worked with them before that prior to that,< 8> I never worked with them before.< 9> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ<10> Q. Can we see what was done about the information<11> which James Grant provided -- and you will appreciate<12> I am asking you these questions on behalf of the<13> Commissioner.<14> Can we have on the screen (PCA00470363), which is<15> your message 40. Can we go down to the bottom of the<16> page please and see what was put in. This is not your<17> writing at the bottom against the word "action", is<18> it?<19> A. Not all the, sir.<20> Q. Not your writing. Let us look at it:<21> "Identify and fully research Jamie and Neil<22> Acourt." That has been given and action number, A78;<23> is that correct?<24> A. Yes, A78.<25> Q. And A5?

. P-3321

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Secondly: "Identify and fully research David< 3> Norris."< 4> A. A7.< 5> Q. Thirdly: "Identify and fully research assault on< 6> Stacey Benefield." A83. You have been asked about< 7> that already.< 8> Fourthly: "Identify and fully research assault on< 9> Pakistani youth in Well Hall."<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. That is given an action number on the left-hand<12> side, which I think is 86.<13> Then if we go on over the page and down to the<14> bottom of the page, please, Grace. Thank you. That<15> in 1992 refers to the assault in Well Hall Road?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Fifthly: "Identify and fully research Peter<18> Thompson." That is action 88?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. I think it says four again, it should say six:<21> "Identify and fully research assault on young<22> male Lee", that is Pearson "at Woolwich." Action 89?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. I am not going to ask you what was done to follow<25> up those actions, we have had some of the evidence and

. P-3322

< 1> no doubt we will have some more.< 2> Let us look very quickly at what else was done in< 3> relation to the informant James Grant: can we go, I< 4> think we can leave out the next contact, which is< 5> Saturday the 24th, the next day.< 6> You have been shown DS Davidson's duty sheet and< 7> we saw that there was a meeting at 4.30 with that< 8> informant --< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. -- at Eltham?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. That does not appear on your duty sheet for the<13> same day, does it?<14> A. No.<15> Q. Let us leave that contact, the next day, and go on<16> to the next one, which I think is Friday 30th April.<17> Can we have (PCA00320198), please. If we go I think<18> to the left-hand side of the page. Thank you.<19> On 30th April, which would have been the<20> following Friday, is there an entry there at 8.41, is<21> it?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. This is your writing, is it?<24> A. Yes, to RM.<25> Q. Which is?

. P-3323

< 1> A. The incident room.< 2> Q. Yes?< 3> A. Meet re: James Grant.< 4> Q. Thank you. I do not think that any message was< 5> created as a result of that meeting, at least we do< 6> not have it?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Do you recollect meeting that person on that day?< 9> A. I don't recollect whether he turned up or not.<10> Q. Would you have put it in your duty state if he had<11> not turned up?<12> A. No.<13> Q. No. Let us go on to the next one, that is Sunday<14> 2nd May, if I have it right, on the same page. If we<15> go down to the bottom at, I think it is 3.15, I must<16> say I find is very hard to read what you have written.<17> Is it 3.15?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. What have you written there?<20> A. "To RW", which was Woolwich, "then to Plumstead for<21> checks, then to the Vista re meet with James Grant".<22> Q. This has gone over to the right-hand side of the<23> page?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Right. Again, no message, I do not think, or

. P-3324

< 1> other documentation I have been able to trace came< 2> into existence as a result of that occasion.< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Let us go on to what I think is the final one in< 5> this sequence of events, I think I may have left one< 6> out, we will come back to it, on Thursday 6th May we< 7> have message 276, which is (PCA00470447). Can we go< 8> up to the top of that, that involves you. Right?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. I do not think we need trouble to see whether you<11> put it in your duty state or not but you seen that<12> several times, the one I have missed out, and I<13> apologise, is going back to Tuesday, 27th April, which<14> is (PCA00470403), which again we have seen several<15> times. I will just remind ourselves, top of the page,<16> please, that is you and Davidson on 27th?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. That means that between the 23rd or including the<19> 23rd April, when James Grant first came into the<20> police station, and 7th May, when the arrests were<21> made, he was seen and some record, either a message or<22> a reference in a duty state, was made on I think six<23> occasions?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Right. Thank you.

. P-3325

< 1> One other topic only: you mentioned when being< 2> asked by Mr Mansfield, I think it was, the training in< 3> national investigative interviewing techniques,< 4> commonly known as NITs, I think?< 5> A. Yes, that is correct.< 6> Q. That had not come into being, I do not think, at< 7> the time so far as general training of Metropolitan< 8> officers was concerned, at any rate, by the time you< 9> were carrying out interviews and other officers were<10> carrying out interviews in connection with this case.<11> I see you nodding, do you agree with that?<12> A. From recollection -- obviously I have since been<13> trained -- I remember doing the course, you have NITs,<14> which is the National Interview Techniques course but<15> there was also courses before that as well.<16> Q. No doubt?<17> A. Maybe I am confusing NITs with those courses.<18> Q. I am not suggesting you had not been trained in<19> interviewing techniques but there was a change of<20> policy, which I will not deal with you in any detail<21> because it is a matter for more senior officers?<22> A. I accept.<23> Q. Just listen, there was a change of policy, was<24> there not, as a result of the Home Office informing<25> the chief constables that the training package was

. P-3326

< 1> complete and available to all police forces at the< 2> beginning of 1993. Perhaps you do not remember?< 3> A. I don't.< 4> Q. I will deal with it with somebody else.< 5> MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you very much, sir.< 6> <QUESTIONED BY DOCTOR STONE< 7> Q. Mr Budgen, can you clarify one thing briefly for me< 8> before we all break up for lunch. I am looking for< 9> the notes of the meeting the evening before the<10> arrests were made when we saw some of Mr Budgen's<11> information there. I think it was on the evening of<12> May 6th. (PCA00320014).<13> Is Mr Budgen on this one or another meeting?<14> MR MANSFIELD: He is on that one.<15> DR STONE: Mr Budgen, there has been some imprecision<16> about whether these are notes or minutes of a meeting,<17> but it does say there was a meeting. As you can see<18> the fourth entry is the one about you and when you<19> describe the business about, "fascination with knives<20> and usually hide them under the floorboards."<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Do you have any memory of attending a meeting<23> there or would, do you think, possibly, the<24> information that you presented was perhaps presented<25> to a meeting you were not at?

. P-3327

< 1> A. I believe I was there, sir.< 2> Q. You were there. Thank you very much.< 3> As you can see a lot of other names are mentioned< 4> as well, would that have been a meeting, can you< 5> remember, where all of these people were present at< 6> once, sitting around exchanging information and people< 7> coming and going; can you remember how it was?< 8> A. I mean at times it was a case of sitting there and< 9> going from one person to another --<10> Q. So?<11> A. -- literally. That was done by Mr Weeden to find<12> out exactly what we were doing. In other words he<13> would know we had been tasked with actions to go and<14> do them and he would then query to see whether we had<15> done them and what we had obtained from them.<16> Q. The point I wanted to ask you, really, would you<17> therefore expect that all of the other people whose<18> names were there would have heard you give the<19> information about hiding the knives under the<20> floorboards?<21> A. Yes.<22> DR STONE: Thank you very much.<23> <QUESTIONED BY BISHOP SENTAMU<24> Q. Sorry to delay you any more, did you form the<25> opinion that the suspects would stab anybody because

. P-3328

< 1> of the this term "the Krays". You really did not have< 2> evidence that was so, did you?< 3> A. No, I didn't but----< 4> Q. So what gives you the impression that they would< 5> have been out that night about stabbing anybody< 6> regardless?< 7> A. Because they had stabbed people before.< 8> Q. But the ones they stabbed before there were< 9> relationships established, so what still gives you<10> that very strong, almost conviction, and in any case<11> none of them as to date have ever been convicted, so<12> what gives you that impression, that strong almost<13> conviction about it?<14> A. Although I do not deny they are racist, I still<15> maintain they are out and out thugs who are determined<16> to kill people, whether they be black or white. You<17> know, what would have happened if Mr Benefield had<18> been stabbed to death we would have been dealing with<19> a murder inquiry in relation to the Krays, it would<20> have been the Eltham Krays have murdered Stacey<21> Benefield.<22> The reason I come to my view is that they were<23> out to stab anybody. Yes, I am not saying that they<24> did not stab Stephen because he was black, I am not<25> saying that. All I am saying is that, you know,

. P-3329

< 1> somebody obviously shouted out what they shouted out,< 2> which is what gave you the view to what you believe.< 3> What I am saying is that I believe they would have< 4> stabbed anybody, I still maintain, they would have< 5> stabbed anybody to join their gang. I think they< 6> would stab anybody.< 7> Q. One other thing, I think you and I agree murder is< 8> murder regardless.< 9> A. Exactly right, sir.<10> Q. Do you think sometimes it is helpful to classify<11> murder, for example if a paedophile gang was going<12> around killing young people you would want to say it<13> is being committed by a paedophile or would you treat<14> it as murder because it is murder?<15> A. Obviously a paedophile would be deemed a<16> paedophile.<17> Q. Do you think it is quite also possible that the<18> senior officers on that press conference classified<19> this as a racist murder because they believed it was?<20> A. Yes no doubt they did believe that. I am not<21> saying it was not racist. You know, all I am trying<22> to say is that, you know, is this conviction that he<23> was purely black and he was murdered because he was<24> purely black.<25> You could go on further and say, these guys were

. P-3330

< 1> walking the streets of Eltham looking for a black guy< 2> to stab. I don't take that view. I take the view< 3> that they stabbed anybody, that is my view. And to< 4> join their gang had you to stab anybody. They had< 5> previously stabbed two white guys. Whether as a gang,< 6> we are talking about a gang here, of going out and< 7> doing it. I still maintain they would stab anybody< 8> and they will stab people.< 9> BISHOP SENTAMU: Thank you.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your evidence<11> and thank you for coming. That is all are you needed<12> for.<13> THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson it will be Mr Hughes after<15> lunch.<16> MR LAWSON: Mr Hughes whose evidence will be hopefully<17> be capable of being completed briefly and then we get<18> on to Sergeant Bevan. Thank you very much.<19> <(The Witness Withdrew)<20> (Luncheon Adjournment)<21> <MARTIN HUGHES, (sworn)<22> <EXAMINED BY MISS WEEKES<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Sit down, you will want the microphone<24> fairly close. Do not lean over it. We had somebody<25> who was talking right into it this morning. We do not

. P-3331

< 1> need that. Thank you very much.< 2> MS WEEKES: Thank you very much. Could I right at the< 3> outset, just so that we are clear which Hughes we< 4> have, because we have had evidence from another< 5> Hughes, you are Martin Hughes?< 6> A. I am, yes.< 7> Q. Your present rank please?< 8> A. Detective Constable.< 9> Q. I think it is right, you were a Detective Constable<10> back in 1993 on the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry?<11> A. Yes, I was.<12> Q. Can I ask you immediately, before we turn in any of<13> your statements because, of course, you gave<14> assistance to the Police Complaints Authority when<15> they invited you to ask questions and make a<16> statement?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. You were not being accused of anything at that<19> stage, is that right?<20> A. So I understand.<21> Q. Can I ask you what was your role please in 1993?<22> A. Well, I joined the inquiry 6 days into the murder.<23> Q. 28th April. Does that help?<24> A. Yes. I was one of the outside team and my<25> principle duties were to follow up actions.

. P-3332

< 1> Q. Right. Can I ask you this: a short description< 2> please of the team itself. We know that there is an< 3> inside team which really deal with the whole question< 4> of processing the information, in particular, making< 5> sure it goes on to the HOLMES computer?< 6> A. That's right, there is a receiver who receives any< 7> information that comes in.< 8> Q. Do you know who that was when you joined on the< 9> 28th, if you cannot remember do not worry.<10> A. I really don't.<11> Q. Who was the office manager at that stage?<12> A. I believe it was DS Fluke and later Luther.<13> Q. We know that at that stage, 28th April, that Mr<14> Weeden must have been your Senior Investigating<15> Officer?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Mr Crampton had left?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. What are we talking about in terms of numbers for<20> both teams inside and outside. Give an average, I do<21> not expect you to be specific?<22> A. It is difficult to remember after five years but<23> there was certainly at least 3 indexers working the<24> HOLMES computers, the DS. Mr Bullock and Mr Weeden<25> would be termed as inside staff and I believe there

. P-3333

< 1> were 3 or 4 DS's and probably about 8 PC's initially.< 2> Q. One of the first things that would have happened< 3> was that you would have been brought up to date by< 4> some form of discussion or briefing?< 5> A. I arrived late in the afternoon of the 28th. I was< 6> given a brief briefing by DS Fluke and then I was< 7> invited to read the -- if I can explain, when< 8> information comes in, or statements come in, they are< 9> immediately photocopied. One copy is kept for the<10> SIO, one is kept for the inside staff and one is kept<11> for the outside staff; and the outside staff's copy of<12> these documents was made available to me and I read<13> them to bring myself up to date.<14> Q. Right. Thank you for explaining that. So that<15> each statement that is produced the Senior<16> Investigating Officer has his own personal copy, he<17> can mark that up himself and give additional<18> directions for actions to take place?<19> A. That's right, what normally happens is the SIO<20> will highlight points that he wants reinvestigated and<21> then it goes back to the allocator or the office<22> manager who would allocate or creates a new action and<23> allocates an officer to deal with it.<24> Q. Thank you. Can I turn, if I may please, to your<25> statement to the PCA, it is (PCA00300292). If we look

. P-3334

< 1> at page 293, please, right at the top of the page< 2> "early on in the enquiry was made aware", that has< 3> been blanked out "and photographs were obtained of the< 4> Acourts leaving a premises carrying bin liners. I was< 5> also aware that there was not a surveillance team< 6> available to follow the suspects with the bags."< 7> I want to deal with that because it is almost one< 8> of the first important things that you mention within< 9> that statement. It may have been as a result of a<10> question that was being asked of you.<11> It is clear then that you were being told about<12> surveillance?<13> A. I was told very early in the enquiry but exactly<14> when, I am afraid I can't recall that.<15> Q. Certainly before interviews that you may have<16> assisted Mr Davidson on?<17> A. I can't say for certain but I believe so.<18> Q. Maybe I will come back to that when we have had a<19> look at the interview so you have had a chance to<20> consider that reply. Can I ask you this: it may be a<21> difficult question and may not be one that you can<22> even answer. I was aware that there was not a<23> surveillance team available to follow the suspects<24> with the bags. Were you told why there was not a<25> surveillance team available?

. P-3335

< 1> A. No, I wasn't.< 2> Q. Can I just ask you this: your experience at the< 3> time in 1993 was how long?< 4> A. I last worked in uniform in 1971, I joined the< 5> police in 1969.< 6> Q. Can you speak up?< 7> A. I am sorry, I last wore a uniform in 1971 so I have< 8> been effectively a CID officer since then. I joined< 9> the police in March 1969.<10> Q. So how many years experience in 1993?<11> A. At that time I had 24 years.<12> Q. 24. I have asked you that so I can ask you this<13> question: you have been on surveillance before?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. And in your experience, your 24 years of experience<16> of having been in the police force, it would be rather<17> unusual and perhaps counter productive to send out to<18> surveillance team with no back up?<19> A. Certainly it would affect the effectiveness of the<20> surveillance. However because of logistics and<21> because of finance it occasionally does happen.<22> Q. The finance obviously in respect of this<23> surveillance and in fact the account for this<24> particular murder investigation is not something that<25> you can talk about?

. P-3336

< 1> A. No, it is not.< 2> Q. Can I ask you please to go to a number of matters I< 3> am going to take reasonably shortly because it is< 4> clear that you were acting under instructions to carry< 5> out actions and you often conducted these actions with< 6> other colleagues?< 7> A. Yes, I did.< 8> Q. Can I just ask you this: actions and messages, you,< 9> in fact, conducted quite a lot of actions in this<10> case. Would I be right in saying that?<11> A. I was one of the longest serving officers on the<12> initial inquiry, yes.<13> Q. One can see, I will not have to turn them all up,<14> you arrive on the 28th and on the 29th at least 5<15> actions are allocated to you?<16> A. That is probably, I can't be sure.<17> Q. Maybe more?<18> A. Possibly.<19> Q. Can I ask this, that is not unusual that one<20> officer is allocated more than 2 or 3 actions on the<21> same day?<22> A. No, at that time obviously I was fresh. I hadn't<23> anything to clutter me, so I was in a position to take<24> perhaps more than I would if I had been in the inquiry<25> right from the beginning.

. P-3337

< 1> MR GOMPERTZ: Sir, it is quite difficult to hear.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Pull the microphone towards you and< 3> please still imagine that you are in the witness box< 4> because you see particularly the shorthand writer has< 5> to hear you across the room. There are loud speakers< 6> for others but please speak louder.< 7> A. Certainly sir.< 8> MS WEEKES: Can I deal with that again because it may< 9> have been an important reply, certainly for others<10> here. It is not unusual for an officer to be<11> allocated two or three or four actions on the same<12> day?<13> A. No, it is not.<14> Q. You were fresh to the inquiry, you tell us, you had<15> no other work on going you were obviously keen to get<16> in and help?<17> A. That's right.<18> Q. When the situation occurs that one is given more<19> than one action, how do you know what is the most<20> important one to start first?<21> A. Well, as I said earlier, you would equate yourself<22> with all the facts involving the incident and then you<23> would just prioritise. You would decide which you<24> felt was the most important.<25> Q. So priority is for the individual discretion of an

. P-3338

< 1> officer?< 2> A. In most cases but not in all cases. It might be< 3> that an action is flagged as being particularly< 4> important, so obviously that would be the first that< 5> you deal with. But if all were issued equally then< 6> you made your own decision.< 7> Q. I want to ask you about those that are flagged. Let< 8> us deal with the Stephen Lawrence enquiry and not your< 9> general experience. Were there actions that were<10> flagged and if so what was the procedure, I need to<11> understand because it may be important for the<12> Chairman and his colleagues and the rest of us to<13> understand that some actions were being picked out as<14> being very important and urgent and others just took<15> their course?<16> A. I don't recall any specific instance in the Stephen<17> Lawrence enquiry. However I can say that I am sure<18> that a number would have been shown as high priority<19> actions and they would have been those which should<20> have been dealt with first.<21> Q. You did not personally yourself come across any<22> high priority?<23> A. I can't remember, I may have done.<24> Q. How would one see a high priority, is it marked on<25> the action itself?

. P-3339

< 1> A. Occasionally it is marked on the action but< 2> occasionally when it is allocated to you you are told< 3> that it is high priority and it must be dealt with< 4> early.< 5> Q. I am going to deal with one or two actions you< 6> specifically dealt with, as I said there were a< 7> number, so I am not going to deal with every single< 8> one.< 9> They will come up on the screen so you can have a<10> look at them. Can I look at with you action 168, it<11> is (MET00830019) please. You may not have looked at<12> this for quite a while, would you like to cast your<13> eye down it to remind yourself of the contents. Just<14> for the record, and because this is a public inquiry,<15> this action has been allocated to you to make<16> enquiries of someone who has given information about<17> the Acourts to the Inquiry?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Somebody by the name of Carty?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Just to summarise the information, which will save<22> us reading it all, it is about the fact that the word<23> on the street is that the Acourts have disappeared?<24> A. Yes, that's right.<25> Q. That they might be somewhere in a local wine bar?

. P-3340

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Date?< 3> MS WEEKES: The date of that message is, in fact, the< 4> 28th.< 5> A. I returned the action completed on the 29th, sir.< 6> Q. We are going to come to that in a moment. The< 7> message itself was phoned in on the 28th, so it was< 8> actually the very day you arrived. So, it is not< 9> unreasonable that it is not allocated to you until the<10> 29th, it is only the next day?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. If we look down slightly, we see it is allocated on<13> the 29th to you?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. You complete this "it resulted" often means it is<16> completed?<17> A. That's right.<18> Q. I can take that as being a good indicator, 4th<19> June, 1993?<20> A. That's right, yes.<21> Q. When one looks at the time span it looks as if<22> there is quite a gap there, does it not?<23> A. It does.<24> Q. You may have had a large number of other things<25> going on at the time?

. P-3341

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Can I just ask you, and I will assist you by< 3> looking, really, at the question of the importance of< 4> this particular piece of information when it came in.< 5> This is on the 28th of the fourth, not so long after< 6> the murder -- we know the murder took place on the< 7> 22nd?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. So within a week almost, we are talking about the<10> following Tuesday, thereabouts, word on the street is<11> they have disappeared?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. That would be important information to the Inquiry<14> team?<15> A. Certainly.<16> Q. Because you would want to know where the suspects<17> are?<18> A. Yep.<19> Q. And if they are deliberately trying to disappear<20> that might be important information, again, for the<21> team?<22> A. Certainly.<23> Q. You in your experience would consider that to be<24> something which should be followed up with high<25> priority, would you?

. P-3342

< 1> A. Yes, I would.< 2> Q. I do not know now whether we can find any document< 3> with high priority on it -- but this was allocated to< 4> you, did you consider it high priority?< 5> A. Yes, I did and that is why I attended the address< 6> the day that I received it and made my initial< 7> enquiries.< 8> Q. All right.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: That is what it says, yes.<10> MS WEEKES: You have indicated that you went to the<11> address the same day?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. What happened after you had gone to that address,<14> does it indicate at all on there? I do not think it<15> does, does it?<16> A. It doesn't. I mean the informant gave me the<17> information, that he had obviously had secondhand, and<18> he assured me that although he wouldn't make a<19> statement he would make further enquiries. What I<20> attempted to do was to find out who his source was.<21> The informant was supposed to contact me again. I<22> gave him time to get back to me, that is why I didn't<23> complete the action or return the action on the day<24> that I completed it.<25> Q. That is what I wanted to ask, because the action

. P-3343

< 1> was to interview the man called Carty --< 2> A. It was.< 3> Q. -- that is strictly what you were being asked --< 4> about any information that he might give.< 5> I want to ask you this: did anybody, yourself or< 6> anyone else, consider going to the premises, because< 7> you knew where the premises where?< 8> A. I did visit the premises. I didn't actually go< 9> into the premises but I did go and view them.<10> Q. Is there anywhere there that tells us when you<11> viewed those premises?<12> A. It would have been, I imagine, the same day.<13> Q. But you cannot recall now whether you made a record<14> of it anywhere?<15> A. No, but I do -- this is the first time I have seen<16> the action since 1993 -- recall that the wine bar was,<17> in fact, on the first floor of an address in Woolich,<18> I do recall the premises.<19> Q. Just to help you, because it would be only fair to<20> complete any other matters which are mentioned about<21> this wine bar, can we have action 246 on the screen,<22> (MET00830107). I appreciate you have not looked as<23> these in detail for a while. If we have a look at<24> this, officer, we can see this is further actions in<25> relation to this wine bar?

. P-3344

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Am I right?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. There is another follow up about the wine bar< 5> itself. This is allocated to you on 5th May 1993, it< 6> is about two days before the arrest, because we know< 7> the arrest is on the 7th?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. You go to the wine bar on the 5th?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. So could that be when you did, in fact, visit the<12> wine bar?<13> A. No I am sure I visited it earlier than that, but I<14> actually conducted my enquiries, such as to find out<15> who the licensees were and that kind of enquiries on<16> the 5th. I might have re-visited it.<17> Q. I see. I raise it, you can see, the enquiries<18> raised certainly by me in terms of questions because<19> it does not appear to be clear from either of these<20> two actions that you did visit the wine bar, staked<21> out, had a look as a matter of priority?<22> A. I certainly didn't visit -- by meaning I attended,<23> I looked at the wine bar but didn't go into it.<24> Q. Yes. You have agreed it clearly would have been<25> something that was quite high priority, to find out

. P-3345

< 1> whether, in fact, they had been hiding there?< 2> A. Certainly.< 3> Q. Neither of these two actions indicates that< 4> specific enquiries were made about who could have been< 5> hiding there, whether, in fact, anybody fitting their< 6> description had hid in the wine bar?< 7> A. No, I mean I hadn't time to, as you say, stake it< 8> out. As you told me, I had 5 actions on the 29th.< 9> Q. If you did not have time why did you not request<10> further assistance, another man on the job?<11> A. I don't really recall now. I mean, obviously it<12> was important, the actions were important. I am<13> speculating now, but it might have been that we had<14> other information that all the suspects were still at<15> home --<16> Q. All right.<17> A. -- which obviously proved to be the case when we<18> came to arrest them.<19> Q. There is only one other action I want to ask you<20> about, others may ask you about others. Could I have<21> a look at (MET00880224), just have a look at that. The<22> redactions are to protect the names of witnesses who<23> do not want their identity known, just to warn you. .<24> Does that ring a bell?<25> A. Yes, it does. I spent a considerable time with

. P-3346

< 1> this related action.< 2> Q. You know which one we are referring to?< 3> A. I do, yes.< 4> Q. I want to ask you, this particular Inquiry was< 5> clearly very difficult in the sense that no-one really< 6> wanted to come forward and give a proper statement,< 7> sign a statement, to be upfront about the information< 8> they were giving you?< 9> A. Well no, it is not quite as simple as that. Two of<10> the people named in this action were prepared to<11> assist.<12> Q. Right?<13> A. But couldn't give any direct evidence. The third<14> person to whom both the mother and the third person<15> referred to was the only one that could give any<16> evidence and he was the one that refused.<17> I spent a considerable amount of time with DC<18> Tomlin in trying to attempt, trying to persuade the<19> one subject:<20> (A). To see us;<21> And then to make a statement;<22> And further time with his brother, who I<23> believe genuinely tried to get him to give evidence.<24> Q. Can I just ask you this: two were prepared to<25> assist. You formed the view that whatever they were

. P-3347

< 1> prepared to assist with would not have amounted to< 2> evidence. Did you, in fact, never mind your view,< 3> take a statement from them?< 4> A. No, I didn't.< 5> Q. Why not?< 6> A. All they could tell me was hearsay, what they had< 7> heard from the third person.< 8> Q. There are hundreds of hearsay statements taken in< 9> this case, you may not know that, hundreds?<10> A. My policy is if somebody is able to give direct<11> evidence and they give hearsay at the same time I will<12> take a statement. If all they can give is hearsay<13> then I won't take a statement.<14> Q. The question of evidence and its admissibility is<15> clearly a matter for the lawyers and the Crown<16> Prosecution later on?<17> A. However, it is something the police officers are<18> also trained in, so I know the difference between<19> evidence and hearsay.<20> Q. I understand that. Nevertheless you did not take<21> those two statements?<22> A. No, I didn't.<23> Q. Do you now remember which of the two they were?<24> A. I can't identify them by the----<25> Q. Do you know them personally yourself?

. P-3348

< 1> A. Yes, I do.< 2> Q. If necessary you can write that down but I am not< 3> going to ask you further about it at the moment.< 4> Can I move on to another topic, but relevant to< 5> the matters which you told the Kent authorities about,< 6> and it is the arrest and interviews of suspects. You< 7> dealt with two, one was Dobson the other was Luke< 8> Knight?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. In respect of the arrest of Dobson and Luke Knight<11> you went to search those premises as well?<12> A. I did.<13> Q. Davidson was with you, a colleague hauled Houlden?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. They were part of your team?<16> A. Certainly with Dobson. There were other officers<17> involved in the arrest of Luke Knight as well.<18> Q. There were different officers, I think?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Before going out there would have been a briefing<21> about the search and the arrests?<22> A. Yes, there would. I believe, well I know we had<23> two meetings on the night before the arrest of Dobson.<24> I can't recall if we had a briefing on each of those<25> meetings but we certainly had a briefing on one or

. P-3349

< 1> both.< 2> We had a further briefing the following morning< 3> for the benefits of the search teams who joined us, so< 4> we knew exactly what we were going there for and what< 5> we were looking for.< 6> Q. There may be questions asked of you of the arrest< 7> and search and what was found and where people looked< 8> but I want to move straight on, if I may, to an< 9> interview you had with Dobson. In fact he was<10> interviewed four times during the same day?<11> A. Yes, he was.<12> Q. He was about 16 at the time of the interview?<13> A. No, I think he might have been an adult. I don't<14> recall there being an appropriate adult there. Luke<15> Knight was certainly a juvenile.<16> Q. That may be right, yes, that is probably right. He<17> had a solicitor there, not an appropriate adult?<18> A. Yes, I think that is right.<19> Q. Interview teams, that is what they are called, are<20> they not, comprise of officers who are going to<21> specially conduct interviews?<22> A. That's right.<23> Q. You are called upon for no doubt your experience in<24> interviewing?<25> A. That is one of the considerations. However, when

. P-3350

< 1> four suspects are being arrested at one time you need< 2> two interviewing officers and sometimes you make do< 3> with who you have got.< 4> Q. Yes. There was not any difficulty here with having< 5> sufficient people to interview?< 6> A. No, there wasn't.< 7> Q. Before the interview would commence, you are bound< 8> to talk amongst yourselves about how you are going to< 9> approach the interview?<10> A. Certainly.<11> Q. Because you want to have a coherent approach, a<12> consistent approach and you want to make sure that all<13> of the interviewing officers know background?<14> A. Certainly.<15> Q. Did you do that in this case?<16> A. Yes, we did. In fact, I recall Davidson and I sat<17> over breakfast after booking Dobson into Bromley<18> Police Station and discussed how we were going to<19> conduct the interview.<20> Q. I think it is right to remind ourselves what you<21> did say to the Police Complaints Authority about<22> interviewing. (PCA00300294) and if we scroll slightly<23> towards the end please. "My interviewing is mainly",<24> if we start there. Can you see that sentence?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3351

< 1> Q. "My interviewing is mainly self taught and< 2> experience of the National Interview Techniques Course< 3> was not in existence at this stage"?< 4> A. That's correct.< 5> Q. That is something you are referring to that was< 6> developed in the Met sometime after 1993?< 7> A. I believe it was '95 I attended my course.< 8> Q. But you say here prior to the incident you had< 9> taken part in thousands of interviews including<10> murder suspects, rape suspects and robbery suspects?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. "I considered interviewing to be one of my strong<13> points. Having booked Dobson into custody, DS<14> Davidson", who just gave evidence, "and myself<15> discussed our intentions for the interview over<16> breakfast"?<17> A. Yes, that's right.<18> Q. You were involved with Mr Davidson in all of the<19> interviews in respect of Dobson?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. You in fact on most occasions sat and witnessed,<22> occasionally asked a question but Davidson asked most<23> of the questions?<24> A. Certainly he led the interview.<25> Q. I am going to take matters shortly with you and

. P-3352

< 1> just raise one or two matters in that interview. It< 2> is clear that breaking the interview into four you< 3> were giving him a break which was one thing, which is< 4> important?< 5> A. Yeah.< 6> Q. You were ensuring the interviews did not go on for< 7> too long and there would not be any accusation of< 8> pressure?< 9> A. That's right. We were also liaising with Eltham<10> to find out what had been happening with the other<11> interview teams.<12> Q. I will come back to that. I want to just remind<13> myself that very early on, you were not able to date<14> it, you were aware of the observations?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. And surveillance that had taken place on the<17> inquiry team?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Before you and Davidson entered the interview,<20> bearing in mind you say you were aware of the<21> surveillance, no doubt you said to Davidson or indeed<22> to your Senior Investigating Officer: what about the<23> surveillance, did you have any photographs I can look<24> at?<25> A. I am not sure, as I said earlier, exactly when I

. P-3353

< 1> found out about the surveillance photographs. It< 2> would certainly have been something that I would have< 3> considered. However, when dealing with surveillance< 4> photographs I also would have considered from where< 5> they were taken and whether we had compromised the< 6> observation post by showing surveillance photographs.< 7> I am really not sure whether I knew about the< 8> existence of the photographs at the time of the< 9> interview or not, I just don't remember.<10> Q. Did you ask for any material on surveillance?<11> A. I really don't remember.<12> Q. You are bound to agree, I hope, that if you are<13> sitting in the middle of an interview and you say to a<14> young man: Do you know X? And he says: No, I don't<15> know him. But you have in your possession a<16> photograph which does not compromise anybody's<17> surveillance point, showing that he clearly does know<18> this person and there is several shots of him, you<19> would want the photograph, it would be helpful?<20> A. Not necessarily. If we have evidence that he is<21> lying to us, we do not necessarily have to produce it<22> there and then. The defence often use the defence of<23> trap. Occasionally it would be nice to surprise the<24> defendant when he receives it with the other case<25> papers before committal.

. P-3354

< 1> Q. Just one other example. Mr Dobson said: "I think I< 2> know of a David Norris but I don't really know of the< 3> David Norris you are talking about." He was being< 4> unhelpful about his knowledge?< 5> A. Certainly.< 6> Q. Of David Norris, do you remember that?< 7> A. I remember very well. In fact, I have read the< 8> interview transcripts recently.< 9> Q. Yes, can you help. If you had a photograph of<10> David Norris and Dobson together, you might want to<11> say to him: "Well have a look at this David Norris, do<12> you know this particular David Norris?" You might want<13> to do that?<14> A. Might, it was clear from the initial interview that<15> he was doing his utmost to avoid referring to David<16> Norris at all and it was only very very reluctantly<17> later in the day that he admitted he might have known<18> somebody by that name. I was of the opinion that he<19> would have continued to deny having any personal<20> knowledge no matter what we did.<21> Q. I am glad you have reminded me about the fact he<22> eventually said he might know David Norris. Did<23> either you, yourself or Davidson, follow that up?<24> "Might", tell me who was this David Norris you know,<25> "might"?

. P-3355

< 1> A. Without referring to the transcript, I can't< 2> remember.< 3> Q. You read it recently, you know there was not a< 4> follow-up, do you not?< 5> A. I really don't remember.< 6> Q. I am not going to ask you about interviews of Mr< 7> Night. I think you will be asked questions about< 8> that. If anybody wants to follow-up questions about< 9> Dobson, I am sure they will. I just want to ask you<10> two other matters that came out of the interview and<11> it is the aspect of whether the murder, Stephen<12> Lawrence's murder, was a racist attack. You remember<13> questions were being asked by Davidson about that very<14> fact in the Dobson interview?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Do you need me to turn to it or do you remember?<17> A. I remember the gist of it.<18> Q. It may be helpful actually to have that part of it.<19> Let us have a look and see which page it is at.<20> (PCA00460360). There is a question "DSD", that is<21> Davidson, is it not?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. "Personally I don't think it was particularly a<24> racist attack. From what I found out with you and<25> your gang, the bloke could have been yellow, green,

. P-3356

< 1> blue, black or white he just happened to be there at< 2> the wrong time when a gang of thugs, you and your< 3> mates one of them seems to be a bagpot with a knife< 4> decides to plunge a knife into somebody." He< 5> continues: "Nothing to do with colour" and he< 6> continues: "The fact that there was a comment about< 7> him being a nigger or being a black bastard or< 8> something in that line which is regarded as a racist< 9> comment by everybody. It is pretty racist, the<10> comment." A further question: "I think that is purely<11> incidental".<12> A. That is me.<13> Q. Then there is a question by you?<14> A. No, then Davidson goes.<15> Q. Davidson goes back: "Put it into context because I<16> think it is incidental because there are a number of<17> stabbings that we believe that you lot have been<18> involved in have been black, white, green and blue. I<19> don't think your little gang are racist, I just think<20> you like stabbing people". I want to ask you about<21> that sequence of questions. Was that a tactic, an<22> interview technique or were you both expressing your<23> views?<24> A. That was Davidson's view. My view was that the<25> incident was racist from the beginning. I believed

. P-3357

< 1> that the reason poor Stephen Lawrence was killed< 2> wasn't because he was black. I think he was killed< 3> because he was a youth on the street at the time. I< 4> have no doubts that youths involved in killing him< 5> were racist but that wasn't the primary reason for< 6> killing him. I am sure though that when they saw< 7> Stephen Lawrence standing at the bus stop they< 8> mentally rubbed their hands before making their< 9> comments that made him stand his ground.<10> Q. Do you have any evidence as to what their reasons<11> were?<12> A. I mean we found during the course of the inquiry<13> that they had been involved in a number of incidents<14> involving knives. Three of them had been with white<15> youths and a 4th had been with an Asian. I personally<16> believe that whilst they were racist their main<17> objective was to stab anybody in order to join the<18> little clique.<19> Q. Can I just ask this: at the time this particular<20> attack and murder took place the gang had been formed<21> as a gang as far as you can see on the evidence<22> because of previous other attacks?<23> A. Yes, they had certainly been around together for<24> some months.<25> Q. And the same names or principal names within that

. P-3358

< 1> gang had cropped up on the other allegations of< 2> assaults before the Stephen Lawrence cause?< 3> A. A combination of the same names not necessarily the< 4> same five on each occasion.< 5> Q. But a combination of them?< 6> A. Certainly.< 7> Q. Which would have indicated, if you looked at all of< 8> the allegations together, you could then say this is< 9> part of the gang or pretty much the centre of the<10> gang?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Moving on from that issue, was it a discussed fact<13> in the inquiry team that as this was a race attack,<14> that is your view, I use your words, that enquiries<15> should or could be made locally of people who might be<16> responsible for such a ghastly attack?<17> A. We had a considerable amount of information that<18> the Acourts, Norris and Dobson were responsible. At<19> some stage I was given actions or certainly at least<20> one action to look into previous racial attacks and<21> also to interview somebody who -- I have given thought<22> to this morning -- had been involved or implicated in<23> a previous racial attack but either had never been<24> charged or had been acquitted. I recall, I can't<25> remember his name, but I do remember interviewing him

. P-3359

< 1> in the presence of his father. That was some time< 2> after the arrest of our suspects.< 3> Q. Yes I was going to ask you that. Making some< 4> enquiries locally, whether it might be with the< 5> Plumstead race unit or just within the Eltham area< 6> would be quite important, would it not?< 7> A. It would if we were looking or if we had not named< 8> suspects. But we had named suspects and obviously our< 9> priority was to research them rather than to look for<10> somebody who might not necessarily exist.<11> Q. But in terms of the racist element of the murder,<12> it would have helped the Inquiry, would it not, to<13> have made some investigations and research about that<14> aspect?<15> A. It would only have assisted if our five suspects<16> had been named in other racial incidents and by<17> researching those five suspects, we would have<18> achieved the same results anyway.<19> Q. Two of the allegations, Kevin London was a race<20> attack, he was black?<21> A. As I recall, Kevin London was black. At the time<22> we, Davidson and I, interview Dobson we weren't aware<23> of the fact he was black. It wasn't an attack as I<24> recall, it was merely -- all that was said was "you<25> are next". I don't remember the context in which it

. P-3360

< 1> was said but there certainly wasn't enough there to< 2> consider it an offence.< 3> Q. All right. Did you stay on the inquiry until the< 4> end of the first--< 5> A. I was on it for about 11 months.< 6> Q. So you actually went on a little bit perhaps into< 7> 1994?< 8> A. Yes, I did.< 9> MISS WEEKES: Thank you, if you wait there, there will<10> be some questions.<11> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD<12> Q. Mr Hughes, I represent Mr and Mrs Lawrence and I<13> just want to ask you about the question of the<14> information you had in relation to Kevin London. You<15> knew that he was black, did you not, at the time of<16> the interviews?<17> A. I don't believe I did, sir, and in fact I read my<18> transcripts last weekend for the first time for years<19> and was quite surprised in there to show that both<20> Davidson and I showed surprise when Dobson told us he<21> was black.<22> Q. I would just like you to look at a passage, it is<23> part of the third interview (PCA00460347). Do you<24> have that?<25> A. I am not sure what you are referring to.

. P-3361

< 1> Q. Sorry towards the bottom of (PCA00460347). There is< 2> a question there, it is not entirely clear which of< 3> you because whoever is doing the transposing does not< 4> always put the initials in, I am afraid, but you see< 5> at the bottom there there is reference to or the fact< 6> that "Kevin London is a black kid and he is saying"?< 7> A. If you go further back in that, sir.< 8> Q. That interview begins on the page before, which is< 9> 0046?<10> A. Perhaps we could have the transcript of the<11> interview prior to that, sir.<12> Q. That is the second interview which is at 212 which<13> is (PCA00460376) and there are references in this<14> one,I have it at 399?<15> THE CHAIRMAN: We saw it yesterday when it was apparent<16> that it was news to the two officers that he was<17> black, is that right?<18> A. That is as I recall it, sir.<19> MR MANSFIELD: Can we look at (PCA00460402). First of<20> all, can I ask you this, it is in the middle of the<21> page, did you know a message had come through,<22> information had come through from a fellow officer, I<23> am not saying it was his information but he got it<24> from someone else, about the threat that Dobson had<25> made, in fact it is two or three days before this?

. P-3362

< 1> A. I really don't remember, sir. I don't remember how< 2> this came into the system.< 3> Q. 402 is, in fact:< 4> "Do you remember a couple of days ago", and in< 5> fact the officer says, "a couple of weeks." I cannot< 6> tell whether it is you speaking or the other officer.< 7> "I am not sure of the time but certainly after< 8> the murder saying to him, 'you are next'." There is no< 9> answer to that:<10> "Saying to him 'you are next'."<11> "What, I said to him, 'you are next'."<12> "Do you remember saying that?"<13> "No."<14> "Pulling a knife on him and saying, 'you are<15> next'."<16> Can I pause there for a moment, leaving aside the<17> question of whether you knew London was black or not,<18> if this had happened, this was serious, was it not,<19> this threat?<20> A. It was certainly a threat, yes, sir.<21> Q. It amounts to a criminal offence, does it not?<22> A. It is an assault.<23> Q. Yes. It amounts to a criminal offence?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. So the material that you had in relation to Dobson

. P-3363

< 1> was serious, well, if true was serious, was it not?< 2> A. It was an assault, yes, sir.< 3> Q. I think a moment ago you were trying to say it did< 4> not amount to very much but it does amount to quite a< 5> bit, does it not?< 6> A. It is an assault, sir, yes.< 7> Q. Particularly if it is being linked, as the< 8> information suggests it might be, of course, to the< 9> fact that he is next after Lawrence?<10> A. That is why it was put to him, yes.<11> Q. Of course. So this information, I leave aside the<12> source originally and whether it is true, this was a<13> serious matter?<14> A. It was certainly relevant to the Stephen Lawrence<15> murder inquiry, yes, sir.<16> Q. Yes. He says:<17> "It is a lie."<18> "You seem to have a lot of enemies."<19> "You mean other things on that?"<20> "No, I am just saying everything is lies and that<21> is a big lie."<22> He got very excited, did Mr Dobson, about this<23> particular allegation?<24> A. He did.<25> Q. He got very excited about the suggestion that he

. P-3364

< 1> might be racist?< 2> A. He suggested that he might be perceived as being< 3> racist because London was black.< 4> Q. I just want to ask you this, as you have just been< 5> over it a moment ago, in that context, that is the< 6> question of whether the Stephen Lawrence case was a< 7> racist attack, you were anxious it would appear along< 8> with Mr Davidson, as it were, to calm him on that and< 9> really say, well it was not your view that it was a<10> racist attack, were you not?<11> A. No, I didn't say that, sir, if we can go back----<12> Q. 00460360?<13> A. I just said nothing to do with colour.<14> Q. Yes, well, that is absolutely wrong, is it not, on<15> anybody's view. Nobody could possibly say that this<16> incident had nothing to do with colour, could they?<17> A. I believe that the motive for Stephen Lawrence's<18> death had nothing to do with colour. I agree that it<19> is a racist attack. Stephen Lawrence in my opinion<20> was killed because he was there not because he was<21> black. I agree that it was a racist incident and I<22> agree that they must have----<23> Q. Mr Hughes, I am going to intervene, if I may,<24> because many of us would like to know what the<25> distinction is. If this is a racist attack, how is it

. P-3365

< 1> that it has nothing to do with colour if it is a< 2> racist attack?< 3> A. I am not saying that it isn't a racist attack,< 4> sir. What I am saying is the reason for the attack< 5> had nothing to do with Stephen's colour. The fact< 6> that he was black and was there was the reason in my< 7> opinion that he was killed. It is still a racist< 8> attack because it is perceived as being a racist< 9> attack.<10> Q. I see. It is only because Mr Brooks, for example,<11> said in his statement that he heard the words: "Nigger<12> nigger", for example?<13> A. No, sir that makes it -- that assists to make it a<14> racist attack. However, I firmly believe that those<15> words were used merely to get Stephen to stand his<16> ground.<17> Q. I see. They see somebody in the street and they<18> say, "nigger nigger" in order to, as it were, get him<19> to stand still so they can attack him, is that it?<20> A. That is my opinion.<21> Q. That is your view?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Having read everything in this case?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Yes, I see. What is your definition of a racist

. P-3366

< 1> attack then?< 2> A. I believe a racist attack or a racist incident is< 3> an incident where anybody perceives a racial element< 4> in it.< 5> Q. That is, in fact, part of the AGPO definition, is< 6> it not?< 7> A. I think it is yes.< 8> Q. Do you know what it is?< 9> A. I can't quote the definition, no, sir.<10> Q. Have you had race awareness training at any time<11> before his incident?<12> A. Not as such, no, sir.<13> Q. No. Were you aware of the procedures that had to<14> be adopted in relation to racial incidents?<15> A. How do you mean?<16> Q. I am asking the questions, were you aware of any<17> procedures that had to be followed if the incident was<18> regarded as a racial one because a witness or others<19> indicated there was an element of it that was racial?<20> A. I am aware that racial incidents are treated<21> differently, yes, sir, also with sensitivity. Also<22> that they are indexed in a separate index to a normal<23> crime. Other than that I don't know what else that I<24> am supposed to know.<25> Q. I am just interested in what you knew, you see. We

. P-3367

< 1> will learn what was known.< 2> A. That is all that I was aware of.< 3> Q. That is all you knew. If, according to the< 4> definition, at least, that you were aware of that if< 5> somebody attributes a racial element to it, this was a< 6> race attack, why did you not say to Mr Dobson, well< 7> this was a race attack because a witness indicated the< 8> words, "nigger, nigger" were shouted out. Why did you< 9> not say that to Mr Dobson?<10> A. I really don't no, sir.<11> Q. The answer is, is it not, the simple answer, Mr<12> Hughes, is that you did not want to categorise it as a<13> racial attack, did you?<14> A. I had already categorised it as a racial attack,<15> sir.<16> Q. You were at pains, in fact, to say on this one<17> page, 360, that it was purely incidental. Those are<18> your words, are they not?<19> A. All I said on that page is nothing to do with<20> colour and I still believe that.<21> Q. You still believe that. So far as the group is<22> concerned, I appreciate this is material that has come<23> to light later, but I want to ask you now whether you<24> are really prepared to review the whole position. Do<25> you think, in fact, your comments in the Dobson

. P-3368

< 1> interview are really totally misplaced about the< 2> nature of the attack?< 3> A. No, sir, I don't.< 4> Q. You do not. Are you aware there was, in fact,< 5> another surveillance operation mounted on this group?< 6> A. On a subsequent Inquiry, yes, sir.< 7> Q. Much later?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. A subsequent Inquiry under another officer mounted,<10> as it were, a probe?<11> A. I am aware of that.<12> Q. Basically they were overheard to say a lot of<13> things?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. You are aware of all that. I am not going to go<16> through the details of it, except to say it was<17> perfectly clear, was it not, on the later observations<18> and surveillance that members of this group were in<19> fact thoroughly racist and the one thing they would<20> enjoy, above all else, was to cut black people up in<21> the market and leave them with stumps?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. You are aware of that, are you not?<24> A. Absolutely.<25> Q. That is pretty, is it not?

. P-3369

< 1> A. It is, yes.< 2> Q. They are a racist group, are they not?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. They are happy to attack blacks randomly, are they< 5> not?< 6> A. The only evidence -- the only information that we< 7> had of them attacking anybody was --< 8> Q. May I just interrupt, I am asking you about now.< 9> Mr Hughes, are you prepared now, in the light of that<10> information that I have just put to you, that you said<11> you were aware of, to review what you put to Mr Dobson<12> and agree that what you put was totally misplaced in<13> the light of the information which is on extensive<14> surveillance taking place later?<15> A. No I am not, sir.<16> Q. Not even in the light of what I have just put to<17> you?<18> A. I said initially today that I believe that they are<19> racists. I mean there is no doubt about it in my<20> opinion that they are racist. However, I really --<21> although it is technically a race incident, Stephen<22> Lawrence's murder, I do not believe he was killed<23> because of his colour.<24> Q. So this is, as far as you are concerned,<25> technically a race incident?

. P-3370

< 1> A. No, sir it is a race incident.< 2> Q. Those are your words, officer?< 3> A. Stephen Lawrence was not in my opinion killed< 4> because of his colour.< 5> Q. That was the view, was it, of Mr Davidson?< 6> A. I think so, yes.< 7> Q. Was that the view of a large number of other< 8> officers in the squad, that he was not killed because< 9> of his colour?<10> A. That was what information and evidence pointed to.<11> Q. I am only asking now, not about you, was that<12> really the view of the whole squad, that he had not<13> been killed because he was black?<14> A. I don't know what the view of the whole squad was.<15> Q. The officers you came into contact with?<16> A. I really don't know.<17> Q. When officers saw this interview did anybody say:<18> Excuse me? Did any senior officer come to you and<19> say: I think that was out of order or any reservation<20> at all about this interview?<21> A. No, sir.<22> Q. Nobody did?<23> A. Never.<24> Q. No. I just want to link this interview with the<25> question of surveillance that was taking place in the

. P-3371

< 1> week you joined the squad. You knew about it early< 2> on, did you not?< 3> A. I don't know how early.< 4> Q. You knew about it early on, did you not?< 5> MR GOMPERTZ: It is all very well my learned friend< 6> repeating the question at an ever higher pitch, but it< 7> is a very vague question and if he would, please, say< 8> by what he means by "early on" perhaps the witness< 9> could answer the question.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, things do run away with<11> you occasionally.<12> MR MANSFIELD: I accept. These are words coming from Mr<13> Hughes.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: We are simply trying to get the facts.<15> We have the picture. We know when this officer joined<16> the squad, could you do it in relation to the 28th.<17> MR MANSFIELD: You knew on or about the 28th, did you<18> not?<19> A. I knew early in the enquiry sir, I can't say when.<20> Q. You knew before the arrest of Mr Dobson?<21> A. I might have done, sir, I don't know. I don't<22> recall now.<23> Q. I am sorry to emphasise the words but they are your<24> words. Would you look at (PCA00300293). You can see<25> the context. You are dealing with, you are joining

. P-3372

< 1> the squad, that is on the previous page. Bear me with< 2> while I read the last sentence about office meetings< 3> were open and so on and information that you had got,< 4> you cannot recall who actually kept the minutes of the< 5> meetings. This is long before anything to do with the< 6> arrest, do you follow, which come much later in your< 7> statement:< 8> "Early on the enquiry I was made aware that" then< 9> you go on that: "that photographs were obtained of the<10> Acourts leaving the premises carrying bin liners I was<11> also aware" that is the surveillance team point:<12> "These events took place the weekend prior to me<13> joining the team. During the first week I was<14> involved", it is all to do with the first week, is it<15> not?<16> A. No, it is not, sir, it is early in the enquiry. I<17> was on the enquiry for 11 months.<18> Q. When you come to give your statement to Kent on the<19> 11th September 1997, one of the things you put near<20> the beginning of the chronology because you go<21> through, do you agree, chronologically in this<22> statement?<23> A. Not always, sir, no. There are occasions where<24> things are out of time.<25> Q. Is this out of time then?

. P-3373

< 1> A. I don't know what was in my mind when I made the< 2> statement and I honestly cannot remember exactly when< 3> I learned about the surveillance photographs. I was< 4> aware of them quite early in the inquiry but I don't< 5> know how early.< 6> Q. I do not want to disclose anything that is too< 7> sensitive but effectively it is not just photographs,< 8> you were aware -- I am going to put it carefully but< 9> these are the words I was going to use, if there are<10> photographs you are obviously aware that there was a<11> photographer being used?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. You were aware of where the photographer was. I<14> don't want you to say where it was, just that you were<15> aware at the place from which the photographs were<16> being taken?<17> A. At this time, I can't say yes or no to that. I<18> know the street he was in, that is all I can say.<19> Q. What I am suggesting is that is what is underneath<20> the redaction, do you follow?<21> A. I have my own copy of that statement. Can I refer<22> to it?<23> Q. Yes, certainly.<24> A. In fact I recall now, I referred to an "OP" under<25> that.

. P-3374

< 1> Q. I was going to ask you not to say----< 2> A. It doesn't identify the observation post, sir< 3> because I don't think I was ever aware----< 4> MR LAWSON: Forgive me we made clear at an earlier< 5> stage that an observation point for the purposes of< 6> this inquiry would consist of premises or a vehicle< 7> and we are being no more specific than that.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: If you need to pursue it, we have the< 9> point there Mr Mansfield.<10> MR MANSFIELD: Have you ever seen any of the<11> photographs?<12> A. Of course.<13> Q. You have?<14> A. I have.<15> Q. When did you see them?<16> A. Early in the inquiry, sir.<17> Q. I am sorry to pursue it because in this rather<18> important interview with Mr Dobson -- and I do not<19> want to go through the details other than to summarise<20> it -- it has been accepted that Dobson was seen as the<21> weak link?<22> A. Yes, he was.<23> Q. He was seen to be the one who might crack first?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. If you have something that might crack him, you

. P-3375

< 1> would want to use it?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Provided obviously it is perfectly legitimate and< 4> so on. The one thing that might crack Dobson is if he< 5> is proved to be lying?< 6> A. Possibly.< 7> Q. You have got a limited armory with Dobson, have you< 8> not?< 9> A. We had a limited armory with all of them----<10> Q. I am only dealing with Mr Dobson for the moment.<11> You had a limited armory with Dobson?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. The only thing that was really of good substance<14> you would want to use it, not keep it back for some<15> surprise later because you might never charge him?<16> A. Possibly.<17> Q. He was seen as the key to all the other interviews,<18> was he not?<19> A. We were told that he might be the weak link.<20> Q. Exactly. Before you sat down and interviewed<21> Dobson over breakfast with the other officer, did you<22> say I think we ought to ask the senior officers for<23> all the background information on Dobson?<24> A. I believe that at the time we thought we had all<25> the background information on Dobson.

. P-3376

< 1> Q. I am so sorry, did you hear the question Mr Hughes,< 2> it would be much quicker. Did you ask any senior< 3> officer can we have all the background information on< 4> Dobson before we begin this enterprise of questioning?< 5> A. No, because I believed we had all the background< 6> information.< 7> Q. You would not know, would you, whether you had< 8> everything unless you checked with a senior officer;< 9> have we got everything here?<10> A. We were having regular office meetings, sir, and<11> information was passed both ways.<12> Q. Was information passed in office meetings about an<13> observation which was extensive which showed an<14> association between all four people on the very first<15> day it started on the 26th with photographs showing<16> one at least, possibly more, removing bin liners<17> ending up at a dry cleaners etc and in addition to<18> that association with a man called Zak who might be<19> important, I am summarising it. Do you follow?<20> THE CHAIRMAN: You must be slower if you are going to<21> ask a long question like that.<22> MR MANSFIELD: Were you aware of that type of<23> information before you began the interview with<24> Dobson?<25> A. I really don't remember, sir.

. P-3377

< 1> Q. I am going to persist a little. Did you ask Mr< 2> Weeden, Mr Bullock: look, do we have everything we< 3> need to know?< 4> A. Sir, I have answered, I don't remember, there is< 5> nothing else I can say.< 6> Q. Because the one thing that might have in fact< 7> caused Mr Dobson considerable thought was that if he< 8> thought because you told him, we have got photographs< 9> of you in a car with Mr Norris that would have caused<10> him considerable time to think, would it not?<11> A. Probably.<12> Q. Yes. That is why I want to know whether if you had<13> photographs you see of when you had them, all you can<14> say is repeatedly early on. Do you remember in what<15> context you saw the photographs?<16> A. Only that they were in the office.<17> Q. They were in the office, in the incident room, do<18> you mean?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. In the incident room, in the office. Did someone<21> point them out to you or were you left to find them<22> for yourself?<23> A. I don't know, sir.<24> Q. I would like your help a little more, considerable<25> trouble has been gone to have this surveillance

. P-3378

< 1> mounted as to what it was your doing, when you looked,< 2> was another officer identifying people to you?< 3> A. I don't remember sir.< 4> Q. You do not remember any of it.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, you did have the strongest< 6> exceptance from Sergeant Davidson of the points you< 7> are making, but ask a little more if you need to. You< 8> understand what I am saying.< 9> MR MANSFIELD: I do not want to duplicate. The concern<10> we have is what the true position was about the<11> surveillance operation and the product.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: I simply make the point because it was<13> raised in detail with him.<14> MR MANSFIELD: You see Mr Davidson, it would appear --<15> you were here yesterday, were you?<16> A. I was.<17> Q. You heard what Mr Davidson said about all this?<18> A. No, I didn't. I heard some of Davidson's evidence<19> but not all of it.<20> Q. Effectively, he did not know about the<21> surveillance operation, he did not know about the<22> photographs, he had not been told anything. Does that<23> surprise you?<24> A. It surprises me if he didn't know at all. But as I<25> have said, I don't know when I was first aware of it.

. P-3379

< 1> I was certainly made aware of it early in the inquiry< 2> so it surprises me that Davidson had no knowledge< 3> whatsoever. It wouldn't be less of a surprise if he< 4> had said: well, I didn't know at the time we< 5> interviewed Dobson. But to say that he had no< 6> knowledge whatsoever then I do find that surprising.< 7> Q. I want to ask you about one or two other enquiries< 8> besides.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: At 20 past please. You are in the<10> witness box so you will not talk to anybody, will you?<11> A. No, sir.<12> (Short Adjournment)<13> MR MANSFIELD: Could you see please (MET00850198)<14> please. That is to do with Casserly. I have to tread<15> carefully because there are two officers called<16> Hughes, it is not entirely clear which is which, so I<17> have a whole stack of actions here and I do not know<18> which is which. Does this refer to you or is it the<19> other one?<20> A. Can I see the whole of the action, sir?<21> Q. I think it is you?<22> A. It might be, I honestly don't remember, it might be<23> me, sir.<24> Q. It is the 28th May so a bit later, allocated to DC<25> Hughes. Can you help about it?

. P-3380

< 1> A. If I saw Casserly's statement I could tell you< 2> whether it was me or not but I really don't remember.< 3> It could be me. I know the other Hughes was only on< 4> the other enquiry, he certainly wasn't on the enquiry< 5> full time before I arrived.< 6> Q. In fact it is not a statement from Casserly anyway,< 7> it is a statement from someone else, I am not going to< 8> announce her name in public but it is there. In fact,< 9> it is someone else all together who is a friend of<10> Casserly's?<11> A. It might well have been me.<12> Q. Who names Michelle Casserly as a school friend<13> because this person had discovered from Casserly who<14> had done the murder and they were named as the Acourts<15> yet again, only as Almund on this occasion and Dobson.<16> I just want to ask you about this: "She went on to<17> state that Michelle had shown Katie her diary and<18> later said that she had been told by one the group<19> that they had committed the murder and she had been<20> threatened not to assist police." Is this something<21> you followed up and help with or not?<22> A. I really don't remember, sir, it is probably me,<23> but I don't remember.<24> Q. I want to ask you about, you already had it, I am<25> not going to have it put up again but you recall you

. P-3381

< 1> were asked about an action in relation to a wine bar< 2> and in that same action there was reference to the< 3> fact that there was information that Stephen had been< 4> stabbed twice, do you remember, once in the arm and< 5> once in the chest?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. This was particularly private information, it< 8> wasn't be broadcast publicly, was it?< 9> A. No, I don't think it was.<10> Q. I want to follow that through because this arose in<11> relation to somebody who you saw but who declined to<12> make a statement. Do you remember?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. It is that person. Are you aware of somebody who<15> has become known as "B" in this whole investigation?<16> A. I heard it mentioned yesterday.<17> Q. Did you have dealings with "B" later?<18> A. If it is the person I think it is, then I tried,<19> with Davidson, to see him, but I believe that we<20> called at his address and whilst his mother was<21> answering the door to us he went out through the back<22> and I don't know if I ever met him or not.<23> MR LAWSON: Do you want him to see who "B" is?<24> MR MANSFIELD: Yes.<25> A. No, I am thinking of somebody else. I did see "B",

. P-3382

< 1> yes, sir.< 2> Q. I am having to do it this way: is the person you< 3> saw, who you did see as "B", the same as the person< 4> who was on the action you were shown today. If you< 5> want to see the action again I can put it up< 6> (MET00830019). "Word on the street is the Acourts did< 7> the murder" and so on and then there is the wine bar.< 8> Further down: "4th June DC Hughes", I expect it is< 9> you, "attended an address, declined to make a<10> statement." Do you see that at the bottom?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. It is in that message that there is a reference to<13> the two injuries that the victim had been stabbed and<14> so on. Is the person you are talking about there in<15> that action, are you able to help, the same as "B",<16> who you now say you did see?<17> A. The person I spoke to is not the same person.<18> Q. So it is two different sources saying this. So far<19> as "B" is concerned, the person you now recognise you<20> did meet, could we have (MET 00830144) please. Right<21> at the bottom. DS Davidson, then it says:<22> "Saw twice, once with (inaudible) and second time<23> with DC Hughes."<24> A. That is me, sir.<25> Q. That is you. When it says "saw him", you actually

. P-3383

< 1> did see him?< 2> A. I did, yes, sir.< 3> Q. It is not the person going out the back of the< 4> premises. Was he directly spoken to by both of you?< 5> A. He was.< 6> Q. Can you recall when this was? The date of it< 7> entering here is 19th May, that is the date it is< 8> entered in at 12.30, but that may not be the day on< 9> which you have seen this person?<10> A. I really don't know what day we saw him.<11> Q. You do not remember?<12> A. It would have been either, well it would have been<13> sometime between the action being allocated and it<14> being returned, I really don't know, sir.<15> Q. Do you recall what B told you on that day that you<16> saw him?<17> A. I recall the gist of what he said, yes.<18> Q. What did he tell you on the occasion that you saw<19> him?<20> A. He described being on a bus, travelling in Well<21> Hall Road towards the roundabout.<22> Q. Yes?<23> A. He described seeing a black youth being stabbed by,<24> I can't remember whether he named them or not, but<25> certainly by people that he knew outside the Well Hall

. P-3384

< 1> Pub.< 2> Q. Right. It may not be called the Well Hall Pub, the< 3> Welcome Pub or whatever the pub is.< 4> A. By the traffic lights.< 5> Q. I want to try and put these things together, of< 6> course it is accepted he may have got the scene wrong.< 7> Can I put the overall picture, this could be a person< 8> who actually did see it but begins the whole process< 9> of telling others about it by distancing it, so he<10> puts it a little distance away, then he puts himself<11> on a bus, do you follow, the whole operation may have<12> been that he was actually a bit closer to the action?<13> A. That is possible, yes, sir.<14> Q. That is one of the possibilities. Can you bear<15> this in mind for one moment, when you go to see him<16> were you aware that there was, in fact, an informant<17> called Grant?<18> A. I was aware that there was an informant, yes. I<19> didn't know his name or his pseudonym.<20> Q. Did you know about the information that the person,<21> whoever he was, had given before you arrived?<22> A. I think it was pretty general knowledge throughout<23> the Inquiry.<24> Q. One of the bits of information that he had given<25> was about B, did you know that?

. P-3385

< 1> A. I don't recall, I mean if you were to jog my< 2> memory, perhaps.< 3> Q. The specific bit of information that he had given,< 4> and this much is accepted by Mr Davidson, was that he< 5> had given the name of the person on a bus, so it is< 6> the same person, and he had specifically indicated< 7> that there were two stab injuries, that is why I am< 8> linking it to the other bit of information about two< 9> stabbings, if you like.<10> Did you know that, that that is what he had been<11> telling, that is what Grant had picked up at a very<12> early stage and had been able to tell the Inquiry team<13> on 23rd April?<14> A. I do have some recollection of having knowledge<15> that B was referring to two wounds.<16> Q. Right.<17> A. Two injuries.<18> Q. The point I want to ask you is, was B asked about<19> this information that you got from Grant, in other<20> words that you had actually seen these injuries, seen<21> two stabbings taking place?<22> A. Very probably.<23> Q. I mean, you do recognise the significance of this.<24> Of course he could have made it all up but on the<25> other hand if he has actually seen the stabbing and he

. P-3386

< 1> knows the people who did it, this is somebody who has< 2> to be, again, treated with some care?< 3> A. Absolutely. I mean, he was considered possibly to< 4> be our only witness to the incident --< 5> Q. Yes?< 6> A. -- apart from Duwayne Brooks.< 7> Q. Apart from Duwayne Brooks. In the case of this< 8> witness, you see, the only notes we have, he< 9> eventually makes a statement, all right, it is in<10> November. He eventually makes a statement, accepts he<11> has not told the truth and then he comes with an<12> account. In these early-ish days, that is prior to<13> 19th May, you only seeing him what, the once?<14> A. I only saw him once.<15> Q. Did anybody keep a record of what he was saying and<16> what was put to him on the occasion you saw him?<17> A. Only mentally, sir. It was of such importance it<18> was something you wouldn't forget, sir, over a short<19> period of time.<20> Q. I understand that and no doubt what Duwayne Brooks<21> was saying was of such importance you would not forget<22> it. You have to have it down clearly as to what he is<23> saying. In other words, who is he identifying? I<24> mean one cannot tell from that note who he is<25> identifying, can one?

. P-3387

< 1> A. No.< 2> Q. One cannot tell who it is he is saying has a knife< 3> in the hand, let alone where on the body it lands,< 4> etc?< 5> A. Mm.< 6> Q. Nor who else was there?< 7> A. No.< 8> Q. No. Is there any reason that no careful note was< 9> kept of what he was saying?<10> A. I really don't know, sir. This was Davidson's<11> action. I went with Davidson to see him and he told<12> us that he had seen an incident. I don't recall<13> making any notes myself and I don't think Davidson<14> did.<15> Q. I am not being critical of you, I appreciate it is<16> Mr Davidson's responsibility, and I have already<17> asked him about this, but was this Mr Davidson really<18> saying to you: Walter Mitty, as he is describing him,<19> I do not think we will take any notice of him. Was<20> that really how he was being dealt with, B?<21> A. No. I think we were concerned that his description<22> of the incident seemed very, very accurate and very<23> close to what Duwayne Brooks had told us, however the<24> main reason for not taking him as seriously as we<25> might have done is the fact that he appeared to have

. P-3388

< 1> moved the scene some 500 yards up the road which< 2> obviously destroyed his credibility.< 3> Q. Of course. You have come across in inquiries< 4> before where people at the beginning either distance< 5> themselves or distance the incident because they are< 6> frightened?< 7> A. Right.< 8> Q. Therefore in order to ease them into the situation< 9> you have to let them know that you are prepared to:<10> 1. Believe them, support them, protect them. All<11> of those things.<12> A. I think we did offer him protection, sir.<13> Q. Was he offered protection?<14> A. I think we probably did.<15> Q. At this stage?<16> A. Yes. I mean obviously one of the concerns we had<17> was that he had deliberately changed the scene to<18> distance himself from it. Knowing that we were aware<19> of what he told other people he couldn't go back and<20> deny everything. We considered that he might have<21> possibly changed the venue so we took less notice of<22> what he was saying.<23> Q. You see, none of that is entered up here?<24> A. No, it isn't.<25> Q. Was that a view you communicated to senior

. P-3389

< 1> officers. At this time it would be Mr Weeden?< 2> A. Yes. That would have been brought up in an office< 3> meeting.< 4> Q. That there would be need, this whole approach,< 5> namely you are now describing that perhaps he has the< 6> truth to tell, he has distanced the incident, he needs< 7> protection and we have offered it. This should all be< 8> in an office meeting?< 9> A. Yes, it would be. I think, sir, you said that he<10> subsequently made a statement, well, his potential was<11> considered seriously enough that he was seen again,<12> despite Davidson saying that he considered him a<13> Walter Mitty, so he wasn't just dismissed.<14> Q. Do you follow, there is no proper record until<15> November of what he was saying, save this one?<16> A. There was no record, I don't like the use of<17> "proper".<18> Q. There was no record?<19> A. There was no record.<20> Q. No record at all, which is I suggest to you is<21> worse for one of the main witnesses, possible<22> witnesses?<23> A. Possible witnesses, sir.<24> Q. Yes. So may I just finish by indicating, it is a<25> minor point, I looked up the references as carefully

. P-3390

< 1> as I can, in the question of whether the officers knew< 2> London was black. The first reference appears to be< 3> 402 in interview 2 and the second reference is 347 in< 4> interview 3?< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to look at them?< 6> MR MANSFIELD: I am just asking -- if anyone wants to< 7> make a note these are the references in order of< 8> interview. It is 402, 347 and both of those come< 9> before the reference that was mentioned yesterday,<10> that you, sir, mentioned which is 361. Those are the<11> three in order. I have no other questions.<12> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MISS WOODLEY<13> Q. I ask questions on behalf of Mr Weeden and other<14> senior investigating officers. Just two matters,<15> please, when you joined the AMIT team on 25th April<16> also attached was Police Constable Fisher, a racial<17> incidents officer; do you remember that?<18> A. I don't remember.<19> Q. You do not remember that?<20> A. No.<21> Q. You probably will not recall that because of urgent<22> duties elsewhere he had to leave the team on 4th May;<23> does that jog your memory?<24> A. Not at all. There was quite a coming and going of<25> officers throughout the months that I was there.

. P-3391

< 1> Q. Can we please have, Grace, "PCA00450200". Can you< 2> go to the top, please. This is the policy file, dated< 3> 4th May:< 4> "Police Constable Alan Fisher back to the Racial< 5> Incident Office. Ensure close liaison is maintained< 6> between him and the Incident Room by attending< 7> briefings and updating as necessary.< 8> "The reasons for him having to leave the AMIT< 9> squad are that he was urgently required for community<10> work on his own division because demos were planned."<11> That decision is signed at the bottom of the page by<12> Mr Weeden?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. So whatever the views of individual officers it is<15> quite clear, certainly, that Mr Weeden regarded this<16> matter as a racial murder?<17> A. I don't think there was any doubt about that.<18> Q. Thank you.<19> Secondly, can I turn to this topic, and it is the<20> question of surveillance and photographs, you were<21> told in the course of office meetings that there had<22> been surveillance and that photographs had been taken,<23> I think, from Bournbrook Road of the Acourts and also<24> Dobson?<25> A. Yes.

. P-3392

< 1> Q. Unbeknown to the Inquiry team Norris also appeared< 2> on those photographs, that was not known on 7th May?< 3> A. I really don't recall.< 4> Q. Let us see if I can refresh your memory, can we< 5> have (PCA00320014). If we scroll up to the top, those< 6> are the notes of the office meeting on 6th May,< 7> because I suggest that there was concern expressed at< 8> that meeting that there was no apparent known< 9> photograph of Norris, there was concern as to how he<10> could be identified. Do you see the third line from<11> the top there is reference to identifying Norris?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. I think suggestions were invited as to how it would<14> be possible to secure a photograph of Norris. If we<15> can scroll down please to further down the page to<16> Detective Constable Holbrook I think he raised the<17> suggestion that maybe the Samuel Montague Boys Club<18> might possibly have a photograph of David Norris; do<19> you see that?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. In other words he was putting that up as a<22> suggestion as to how officers might get a photograph?<23> A. I recall that because I believe Norris played<24> football for the boys club.<25> Q. Yes. If we can scroll further down the page

. P-3393

< 1> please. Detective Constable Chase, if we look at the< 2> third line in relation to his entry, again it says:< 3> "Norris no photo," so the team did not, so far as they< 4> were aware, have a photograph on 7th or 6th May?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. There is then a passage which has been redacted, it< 7> is a short redaction and I do not think there is going< 8> to be any difficulty with it, having spoken to counsel< 9> for the Inquiry, I am told there is no difficult<10> about this. There had been difficulties with the<11> location of Norris's address. Because of its location<12> it was difficult to park outside unobtrusively and<13> therefore no photographs had been able to be taken of<14> his address?<15> A. It was in a cul-de-sac which would make it very<16> difficult to mount a surveillance operation.<17> Q. Yes. So there was concern raised at that meeting,<18> at which you were present, we can see you produce some<19> input at the bottom of the page, there was concern at<20> that meeting that the Inquiry team did not have, or so<21> they believed, a photograph of Norris?<22> A. So it appears.<23> Q. For that reason subsequently are you aware that a<24> photograph was taken?<25> A. I don't remember.

. P-3394

< 1> Q. Several days later?< 2> A. I don't remember.< 3> MS WOODLEY: I think other officers can deal with that.< 4> Thank you.< 5> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR EGAN< 6> Q. One matter please, I represent a number of officers< 7> including Sergeant Davidson. It is about the Norris< 8> interview, you were asked questions by Miss Weekes< 9> about whether you followed up this suggestion that he<10> knew a David Norris. You may remember an invitation<11> was made for others to respond if you had followed it<12> up. Accepting that invitation, could I invite you to<13> look at Dobson's interview as (PCA00460371) please.<14> The part you were asked about appears halfway down the<15> page: "I don't even know David Norris. I know of a<16> David Norris." You remember the question was put: Did<17> it occur to you to ask which was his David Norris etc<18> and I think we moved on. But just so we see whether<19> that is a good point or not, could I just ask you to<20> look over the next page please because there lasts a<21> number of questions. Could we scroll down the page<22> please. The questioner of course is Mr Davidson, not<23> you, "there must be a reason" about 3 lines, 4 lines<24> up "must there not, we are not going to say we have<25> got to blame somebody, let's blame Gary Dobson?" "I

. P-3395

< 1> don't know, yeah, well whoever and the Acourts and< 2> David Norris because that is the David Norris we are< 3> talking about, isn't it" says Dobson. Could you move< 4> over to the next page then please.< 5> MR DOYLE: So there is no mystery, this interview in< 6> its current form has not been redacted and there is< 7> some sensitive passages one of which appeared at the< 8> bottom half of the page.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: I see, just stick to the top.<10> MR EGAN: Could you go to the top. "Answer: No it is<11> the David you are talking about. I have told you, I<12> know of a David Norris, I don't know a David Norris.<13> I have heard the name mentioned once or twice."<14> "Yeah, well we know differently because there are so<15> many people who have told us."<16> What he seems to be saying or what you seemed to<17> have narrowed him down there is that the David Norris<18> that he has heard of it that David Norris but he does<19> not know him, if I understand what he is saying<20> correctly?<21> A. That is certainly how that appears.<22> Q. "No, it is the David you are talking about"?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. "I have told you, I know of a David Norris, I<25> don't know a David Norris." I think the first sentence

. P-3396

< 1> is perhaps the more important one?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. So at any rate you as the interviewer -- I< 4> appreciate it is Mr Davidson -- he was not asked this,< 5> you see, Mr Davidson seems to have elicited the< 6> response, you are all talking about the same one?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MCDONALD< 9> Q. I just want to ask you some questions on one topic<10> on behalf of Duwayne Brooks who I represent. In view<11> of what you have told this Inquiry about your views on<12> the nature of the murder, all I wanted to explore<13> with you, very briefly, how this might impact upon the<14> information which my client, Duwayne Brooks, gave to<15> the police inquiry and particularly in his witness<16> statement that he had already made by the 23rd.<17> In that witness statement, I think you know about<18> it, do you not?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. And you had no doubt read it?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. You appreciate that part of what Duwayne Brooks was<23> telling you was that the attack on him and Stephen<24> Lawrence had been an unprovoked attack and that it had<25> been started when he was calling out to his friend

. P-3397

< 1> about whether he had seen the bus and the attackers or< 2> the leading attacker said: "What, what nigger". You< 3> were fully familiar with that part of what he said< 4> when you were involved in your investigations?< 5> A. I was, sir, yes.< 6> Q. If I have understood your evidence, you are saying< 7> that the definition of this as a racial attack or a< 8> racial incident is all right for policy purposes?< 9> A. No, sir, I said -- what I tried----<10> Q. Let me finish my question. It is all right for<11> policy purposes, but it really has no bearing or<12> importance upon us guys in the CID who are carrying<13> out an investigation?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. For those purposes it is just a murder?<16> A. If that is the impression I have given then I am<17> sorry. I believe that it was a racial incident, a<18> racial murder. However, I think, as I said earlier,<19> that the intention of those thugs that night was to<20> attack anybody and they must have mentally rubbed<21> their hand when they saw Stephen Lawrence and his<22> friend standing at a bus stop.<23> Q. They were not standing at the bus stop, there were<24> three other people standing at the bus stop?<25> A. In the street then, sir. I think they went out to

. P-3398

< 1> attack anybody that night and they must have thought< 2> it was their birthday when they found two black men in< 3> the street.< 4> Q. The evidence on which you were conducting your< 5> enquiry was that they had immediately before laying< 6> into Stephen Lawrence?< 7> A. Racially slurred him yes, sir.< 8> Q. Had interrupted a conversation between him and< 9> Duwayne in an aggressive and racist way?<10> A. Yes, sir and I believe that they did that merely to<11> get one of them or both of them to stand their grounds<12> so they would have the excuse to stab them.<13> Q. You also said earlier that their many objective was<14> to stab anyone in order to join the little clique?<15> A. That was the information that we had, sir.<16> Q. But that was based on information, was it?<17> A. It was, yes.<18> Q. They were out recruiting that evening and gang<19> members were proving themselves, is that the<20> information?<21> A. Perhaps not recruiting but gang members were<22> proving themselves certainly.<23> Q. So far as Duwayne Brooks was concerned and the<24> information that he had given you, you see what I am<25> wondering is, if these words were of no importance

. P-3399

< 1> other than simply to catch the attention of Stephen< 2> Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks, then the actual words< 3> used, or indeed if they were used at all, is not that< 4> important. What was important was that there was a< 5> stabbing. Is that right?< 6> A. The words were important, sir, inasmuch as they< 7> were a racist slur and they did what they were< 8> designed to do. They made Stephen Lawrence stand his< 9> ground.<10> Q. On what do you base that?<11> A. Because he did, sir, he remained there while they<12> crossed the road to him. He was obviously deeply<13> offended by what they had said and he stayed there.<14> Q. But on what evidence do you base that?<15> A. He stayed.<16> Q. That is not what Duwayne Brooks said in his witness<17> statement, was it?<18> A. I am sure in his witness statement, sir, he said<19> that they both stayed for a while and then when he<20> realised they were being attacked he ran away and<21> Stephen didn't, Stephen followed him later after he<22> had been struck.<23> Q. In fact in his witness statement he said "run"?<24> A. Yes he did but he was some distance away by that<25> time.

. P-3400

< 1> Q. Although Duwayne says "run" you think this was a< 2> good way of not making either of them run?< 3> A. I think they intended to make one or both of them< 4> stand their ground and to use that as an excuse to< 5> attack them.< 6> Q. What I wanted to understand from you, even although< 7> have all these views that you have expressed for the< 8> reasons that have been gone into, notwithstanding all< 9> that, as you were proceeding with your inquiry you<10> accepted, did you, for the purposes of your inquiry,<11> that what Duwayne Brooks had told you in that part of<12> his evidence, about how it had all started, was<13> correct?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. You accepted it as true evidence?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. And no doubt still do?<18> A. Yes, sir. I think the only mistake Duwayne Brooks<19> made was he said he thought Stephen had been struck<20> with an iron bar but I believe he told us the truth as<21> he saw it.<22> Q. On that part of his evidence?<23> A. Yes, on all his evidence I believe.<24> Q. So at any rate with that part of his evidence of<25> how it had all started, that would give you for

. P-3401

< 1> investigative purposes, would it not, some kind of< 2> profile of the people who had attacked?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. That they were thugs obviously, because it was< 5> unprovoked?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. They were racist because of the language used?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. And of course that they operated in a gang?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. So that would help you, would it not, in tracking<12> down your suspects because presumably you would want<13> them to fit that profile?<14> A. All the information that we received subsequently,<15> in fact, in the early stages of the murder<16> corroborated what Duwayne Brooks had told us.<17> Q. You mean what Duwayne Brooks had told you when you<18> actually tracked down the suspects that you thought<19> had done it they fitted the profile which he had given<20> you?<21> A. Absolutely.<22> Q. And that would be a very important reason, would it<23> not, as to why you and other officers were so<24> convinced that within 48 hours of this happening you<25> had got the names of the right people who had been the

. P-3402

< 1> attackers?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. That was very much assisted by the description that< 4> Duwayne had given you of how it all start?< 5> A. Yes and his statement was corroborated by the< 6> information that we had been given.< 7> MR MCDONALD: Thank you very much.< 8> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR YEARWOOD< 9> Q. Officer Hughes, I put questions to you on behalf of<10> the Commissioner for Racial Equality. This is one<11> topic maybe you can help me with which is this: I<12> think you told us earlier that you are aware of the<13> AGPO definition for racial incidents, is that right?<14> A. I believe I am sir, yes.<15> Q. Can you tell us why do you believe that such a<16> definition exists?<17> A. I think it is because race issue affects different<18> people in different ways. Some people might consider<19> a comment to be racist when others don't and if one<20> person considers it to be racist, then it should be<21> treated as racist.<22> Q. Should it affect the way in which the offence is<23> investigated?<24> A. I think, yes, we should be more sensitive if it is<25> a race issue. But it wouldn't affect the entire

. P-3403

< 1> investigation.< 2> Q. You say the entire investigation, do you think it< 3> should give direction to the investigation?< 4> A. I think, yes. I mean, if we feel it is a racist< 5> attack, then we should investigate other racist< 6> incidents in the area and it should give us a< 7> direction in which to go. However, in this case,< 8> because we were given the names of suspects quite< 9> quickly, I personally feel that we didn't need to look<10> immediately into other racist incidents.<11> Q. You say immediately, did you in fact investigate<12> this case along a racist angle?<13> A. Yes we did, sir, because as I said earlier in my<14> evidence I do recall going to see another youth who<15> had been involved in a racist murder earlier in Eltham<16> as part of the investigation into this matter.<17> Q. Can you help us what is the name of that youth?<18> A. I can't remember sir, I really can't remember. I<19> can't remember where he lived, but he certainly lives<20> at the Eltham end of, in fact, off the road running<21> down from Eltham to the Yorkshire Grey on the estate<22> on the right, I really can't remember the man's name.<23> Q. That would not be Gurdip Bangal, is it?<24> A. No it was a white youth, sir.<25> Q. It was a white youth. You mentioned, did you not,

. P-3404

< 1> the Kevin London case?< 2> A. Briefly.< 3> Q. Were you aware, in fact, that Kevin London was not< 4> only threatened with one knife but in fact two, and a< 5> knuckle duster?< 6> A. The only recollection I have now, sir, is what< 7> came from the interview. All I can say is it appears< 8> from the interview that at the time I was only aware< 9> of one knife and the one phrase.<10> Q. Sorry you voice has dropped?<11> A. From the context of the interview it appears I was<12> only aware of the one knife and the one phrase.<13> Q. I see that is the time you were interviewing<14> Dobson?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. One other matter which may be you can help me with<17> is this: you expressed a view in your statement, can I<18> take you to (PCA00320093) in respect of the arrest and<19> in which you say that that was really the result of<20> press release which were made through the<21> Commissioner. You see it is about 10 lines down?<22> A. Yes I remember this, sir. I have spoken to other<23> officers about this and it appears I am the only one<24> that has any recollection of this.<25> Q. Can you tell us what was the press release that you

. P-3405

< 1> think prompted, as it were, the arrest?< 2> A. I believe the Commissioner gave the conference not< 3> at the Lawrence Inquiry, but spoke about the Lawrence< 4> Inquiry and informed the media we were aware of those< 5> responsible.< 6> Q. When do you believe that this release was made?< 7> A. Certainly within a day or two of the arrests being< 8> made.< 9> Q. Were you aware that on the very day, in fact, that<10> conferences were held in respect of your intention to<11> arrest the Lawrence family had in fact been seen in<12> the company of Nelson Mandela?<13> A. I was aware that Mr Mandela was over here and had<14> seen the Lawrence family, yes, sir.<15> Q. Was that mentioned in the meetings which you had in<16> planning the arrests of these four boys on the 7th --<17> meetings on the 6th, arrests on the 7th?<18> A. I am not sure whether it was mentioned in the<19> meetings planning the arrests, but it was certainly<20> mentioned a meeting.<21> Q. In a meeting. Was it also mentioned that there was<22> an organised march timed for 8th May, was that also a<23> consideration in the timing of those arrests?<24> A. I don't think that had anything to do with the<25> timing of the arrests no, sir. I mean there was talk

. P-3406

< 1> of -- In fact, we know there was a candlelight vigil< 2> and then there was a later demonstration which became< 3> violent. I can't remember when they were. I can't< 4> remember the dates of either of those, the candlelight< 5> vigil or what became the following riots, so I can't< 6> really comment on this or whether they had any affect< 7> on the arrests or not.< 8> Q. Does it come to this, my final question is this:< 9> Despite the fact that some two weeks had gone by, in<10> fact, your view is that arrests, even at that late<11> stage, only came about on what you describe as because<12> of political considerations?<13> A. As I recall, sir, no, it wasn't political, sir. My<14> impression is that the arrests were made because the<15> suspects had possibly been made aware that we knew<16> their identity and might flee.<17> Q. I used the term political considerations, what you<18> call an ill-timed press release?<19> A. It wasn't ill-timed politically, sir, I don't think<20> the arrests had anything to do with politics. I think<21> it was simply because they had been warned we knew<22> their identities.<23> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ<24> Q. On that last issue on what the Commissioner did and<25> did not say, the position is that checks had been made

. P-3407

< 1> on all the newspapers of, I think, 6th and 7th May< 2> 1993 and there is no reference whatsoever to any such< 3> briefing or press release or anything of that sort by< 4> the Commissioner. There is a reference to a meeting< 5> held by the Commissioner with the Association of< 6> Crime Journalists, where the Stephen Lawrence case was< 7> mentioned briefly, but there is no suggestion that< 8> during the course of what the Commission has said on< 9> that occasion that anything was said about the police<10> knowing who was responsible for the attack. I am not<11> suggesting you knew any of that, but that is rather a<12> long preamble to the suggestion I put to you, that<13> somehow in your mind you have become confused about<14> what it was that was said by anybody, to the press or<15> anywhere else, before the arrests were made?<16> A. That is possible, sir, but that is how I recall it.<17> Q. I am not suggesting other than that you have a<18> genuine recollection, but you are prepared to accept,<19> are you, that your recollection in this regard could<20> be mistaken?<21> A. Yes, I am, sir.<22> Q. Particularly now that you have had the opportunity<23> to speak to other officers concerned with the<24> investigation?<25> A. As I said, I appear to be the only one who has any

. P-3408

< 1> recollection of this at all, sir.< 2> Q. Thank you. The only other topic I want to ask you< 3> about is the question of whether this was or was not< 4> a racial attack. You have been asked a large number< 5> of questions about that topic, first of all by Mr< 6> Mansfield, who asked you about it at some length, and< 7> you said, amongst many other things, if I heard you< 8> correctly, that by the time you were interviewing< 9> Dobson you had already catagorised it as a racial<10> attack. Did I hear you correctly?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. What did you mean when you said that you had<13> catagorised it as a racial attack?<14> A. I felt, (a), it must be a racial attack because<15> Stephen Lawrence was black; (b), the comments made to<16> get Stephen to stand his ground certainly were racial,<17> so it had to be a racial attack.<18> Q. Thank you. Of course, we know perfectly well from<19> the video probe which was used at a later stage that<20> there can be little doubt, in fact no doubt whatever,<21> that the persons concerned with this attack were and<22> probably are racists of the worst kind?<23> A. Absolutely.<24> Q. So is this the position: although you catagorised<25> it in your mind as a racial attack and you have

. P-3409

< 1> explained why, was the question of the motivation for< 2> the attack still a matter which, to you, was not< 3> necessarily racial?< 4> A. That's right, sir, and I believed that they would< 5> have stabbed anybody that night and probably in their< 6> minds they considered themselves lucky that they< 7> stumbled across Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks.< 8> Q. Emphasising that this is purely your opinion is it< 9> not?<10> A. It is.<11> Q. That if a white boy had happened to be in the<12> position where Stephen was, in your opinion, it was<13> likely that he would have been stabbed in any event?<14> A. Absolutely, sir. I heard the evidence this morning<15> of Budgen and it was suggested to him that Benefield<16> was stabbed because he intervened on the attack on<17> Farnham. That is not correct. What actually happened<18> is Farnham was attacked and ran away, followed by<19> Acourt and Dobson, and Benefield merely walked up the<20> road to investigate what was happening, when he was<21> confronted by Acourt and Dobson and he was stabbed in<22> the chest before he had done anything other than walk<23> up the road, and I believe that they were capable and<24> still are capable of stabbing anyone for no reason.<25> Q. Is this a summary of the position: yes, they were

. P-3410

< 1> racists?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. These people. Yes, it was a racial attack, but the< 4> prime motive in your mind was to stab someone, black< 5> or white?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Rather than the necessity for them to be looking< 8> for a black person to attack?< 9> A. That is my view, yes, sir.<10> Q. Anyway of course, as you have already said earlier<11> in your evidence, in answer to Miss Woodley, whatever<12> may have been your views, there can be no doubt that<13> Mr Weeden regarded this as a racial murder?<14> A. I think most of us did, sir.<15> MR GOMPERTZ: Thank you. That is all I want to ask<16> you.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, officer. That is<18> all required of you. Thank you for coming. You can<19> leave now.<20> <(The Witness Withdrew)<21> MR LAWSON: I would seek, if I may, to call Mr Bevan<22> and I anticipate, if you give me a little indulgence,<23> I can deal with the questions I need to ask of him.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: We will have this witness' evidence up<25> to the end of Mr Lawson and then we will adjourn

. P-3411

< 1> after that.< 2> MR GOMPERTZ: Can I use the interim to point out that I< 3> made a mistake a moment ago. I think I used the wrong< 4> terminology. It should have been the Crime Reporters< 5> Association, not whatever it was that I called it.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.< 7> <JOHN BEVAN, (sworn)< 8> <EXAMINED BY MR LAWSON< 9> Q. Your name is John Bevan, is it not?<10> A. That is correct yes.<11> Q. Your current rank and station?<12> A. I am acting Detective Inspector at Woolworth Police<13> Station, which is just round the corner.<14> Q. You have some 25 years police service, just over 21<15> of which have been with the CID?<16> A. That is correct, yes.<17> Q. I am going to ask you, as you know, about April and<18> May 1993. So we can identify them for the record the<19> various sources of information that we have, you<20> played a number of roles at that time, did you not.<21> You were concerned with the arrest and interviewing of<22> Norris?<23> A. That is correct, sir, yes.<24> Q. You made what I call duty statements, statements<25> in 1993 concerning that arrest?

. P-3412

< 1> A. Indeed, yes.< 2> Q. And the attempted arrest?< 3> A. Standard CID procedure is to keep duty states of< 4> day-to-day activities.< 5> Q. Those we find at (PCA00380408) and thereafter. I am< 6> not going to ask that they be put up at the moment,< 7> but you have refreshed your memory from them, I dare< 8> say?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Secondly, and at the same time, perhaps this is the<11> main reason for your being called to give evidence,<12> you were, were you not, from 23rd April through to<13> 27th May, or thereabouts, one of the two liaison<14> officers dealing with Mr and Mrs Lawrence?<15> A. That's right.<16> Q. The other being Miss Holden?<17> A. That's right.<18> Q. Obviously, you were not doing that exclusively<19> because we have already heard about your involvement<20> with Norris. You were also involved, as we see from<21> various actions which I am not going to take you to,<22> you together with others on the team were concerned<23> with chasing up enquiries of varying sorts?<24> A. That's right.<25> Q. The other discreet matter I should ask you about is

. P-3413

< 1> you had some dealings, both at that time and later did< 2> you not, with Duwayne Brooks?< 3> A. Indeed I did.< 4> Q. For our purposes additionally, in terms of< 5> information, we have the benefit of a statement that< 6> was taken from you by the Kent Investigators which is< 7> (PCA00300395), do you remember that?< 8> A. That is correct, sir, yes.< 9> Q. That statement dealt primarily with things that you<10> did concerning the inquiry other than acting as<11> liaison officer. Your dealings as liaison officer<12> were dealt with in much more substantial detail in the<13> course of the lengthy interview conducted with you by<14> Kent?<15> A. That is correct.<16> Q. We will find that at (PCA00410347). Can we have on<17> the screen, please, first your statement at<18> (PCA00300395). There we see, glancing down the<19> screen, I can take this very briefly, you refer to<20> your involvement as from 23rd April, yes, and what you<21> describe as an inception meeting at Eltham Police<22> Station when you were given some basic information by<23> Mr Crampton and others?<24> A. That's correct, yes.<25> Q. It was during the course of that, as you indicate,

. P-3414

< 1> you were selected as you explained to Kent, rather< 2> more you volunteered, did you not, from your part, to< 3> act as liaison officer for the family?< 4> A. That's right, yes.< 5> Q. Turn to the next page, please. That was, as you< 6> say there at the top of the page, a job you perceived< 7> to be extremely important?< 8> A. Very much so, yes.< 9> Q. I think it is right, and here I am drawing upon<10> your interview with Kent, I am not going to go to it<11> every time, but if you want me to show you the passage<12> I will, I think it right you had not had any previous<13> experience as acting as a family liaison officer in<14> such circumstances, had you?<15> A. No, that is correct, sir. In fact, to make it<16> clearer, this was the second murder I had worked on<17> and essentially family liaison officers were only<18> appointed in cases of that nature and the other murder<19> that I had worked on, it was towards the end of the<20> inquiry when I joined it which was a couple of weeks<21> before the untimely death of Stephen.<22> Q. You had not done it before as you said. I do not<23> think you were given any specific briefing as to what<24> was expected of you?<25> A. Not specifics, no.

. P-3415

< 1> Q. Obviously you were required to liaise with the< 2> family?< 3> A. Indeed.< 4> Q. To be sympathetic as appropriate?< 5> A. Indeed.< 6> Q. And to keep them informed as appropriate as to what< 7> was going on?< 8> A. That's correct.< 9> Q. Is that a fair summary?<10> A. It is indeed, yes.<11> Q. I will come back, if I may, to your role as family<12> liaison or one of the family liaison officers in due<13> course. Let us just deal with one or two of the other<14> matters that you refer to in your statement here if we<15> cast our eye down the page. You refer there -- we go<16> down the page a bit please, I am going to introduce<17> this unless there are others who want to ask you<18> questions about it -- we see to your being involved on<19> the 6th May with Duwayne Brooks. Yes?<20> A. That is correct, yes, sir.<21> Q. At a meeting for another purpose, therefore not<22> present at one at least of the briefing meetings held<23> at Peckham that day?<24> A. Eltham Police Station.<25> Q. But you were concerned in the briefings that

. P-3416

< 1> preceded the proposed arrests of 7th May because you< 2> refer to that in your statement. Correct?< 3> A. That is correct.< 4> Q. And you attended at an address which was thought to< 5> be Norris's address?< 6> A. That's correct.< 7> Q. You give in your statement. In fact, he wasn't< 8> there, was he?< 9> A. That's right.<10> Q. To cut a fairly long story short his mum said she<11> would make sure he came to the police station a few<12> days later?<13> A. I don't actually remember that, but it would<14> follow.<15> Q. He did anyway?<16> A. He did indeed, yes.<17> Q. You went to his home, not finding him, you did, not<18> you personally necessarily, a search was performed,<19> that's right, of those premises, was it not?<20> A. That's right.<21> Q. You said in your statement, top of page 397, 3<22> lines down, you do not have a recollection of any<23> specific directions being given in relation to a<24> search. Yes?<25> A. That's right.

. P-3417

< 1> Q. Although you knew that clothing and weapons would< 2> be of paramount importance, yes. On page 398, top of< 3> the page please, I am sure I do not need to go into< 4> this in any detail, you make reference there in the< 5> third line to the statement that you made concerning< 6> the search. Yes?< 7> A. That's correct.< 8> Q. That can be found at (PCA00380414). Let me just< 9> ask you, two-thirds of the way down the screen the<10> sentence beginning: "A cursory search". Do you see<11> that?<12> A. I do.<13> Q. "A cursory search was made, nothing was dismantled,<14> carpets not moved, floorboards were left alone no<15> panels or similar areas were touched." Explaining it<16> briefly, Mr Bevan, why only cursory?<17> A. It was obviously a view I held at the time. It is<18> hard to actually describe why but the property was a<19> mansion, in short, very, very expensive property; very<20> very expensively decorated and carpets, for example,<21> were top quality fitted. I felt and I obviously made<22> a decision at the time that the extent of my search<23> was an adequate one. Whether it be for the fact that<24> David used that address on a temporary basis, which<25> might have been indicated due to the fact he wasn't

. P-3418

< 1> there.< 2> Q. Mr Bevan, forgive me that might be taken to suggest< 3> that if you have a posh house, you are not going to be< 4> the victim of a proper search whereas if you live in a< 5> grubby council flat, you will have it turn apart?< 6> A. That is not the impression I want to try----< 7> Q. It could be taken that way, do you see what I mean?< 8> A. If I could put it another way. Obviously I< 9> conducted many many probably hundreds of searches and<10> areas where things are hidden will give some<11> indication that the areas have been tampered with. For<12> example, things underneath carpets and behind panels<13> will give some indication, albeit screwdriver marks,<14> ill fitting, moveable there will be some indication<15> that there has been tampering. I perceived none such<16> at that address.<17> Q. Can I ask you this Mr Bevan: the search of 102<18> Bournbrook Road involved specialist search teams being<19> used. Do you remember that?<20> A. I believe that is correct.<21> Q. Did you have such a specialist search team for the<22> Norris address?<23> A. From recollection we did.<24> Q. You did?<25> A. A police Pulsar team, searching team, was certainly

. P-3419

< 1> available.< 2> Q. They may have been available, were they deployed it< 3> does not sound like it, does it?< 4> A. That may well be the case, there were quite a few< 5> officers involved in the search and on the periphery< 6> who actually conducted the search. At the end of the< 7> day I couldn't be certain. Obviously I was in there,< 8> I remember Mr Chase being in there and other officers< 9> being in there but who specifically, I would find it<10> hard to say.<11> Q. Going ahead, on the 10th May David Norris<12> surrendered himself to Southwark Police Station?<13> A. That's correct.<14> Q. Were you formerly arrested him?<15> A. That's correct.<16> Q. Later on that day at Southwark you conducted an<17> interview with him in the presence of his solicitor?<18> A. That's right.<19> Q. We have that (PCA00460416). Can we show that, top<20> of the page. Is that a copy of the transcript of it?<21> A. That's right, yes.<22> Q. 19 minutes worth of interview. We see that the<23> solicitor, if we look at (PCA00460418), top of the<24> page, the solicitor is saying he has advised Norris<25> not to answer any questions and asked his own client

. P-3420

< 1> whether he intended to take that advice. He said he< 2> did and indeed he did not answer any questions, did< 3> he?< 4> A. He didn't, no, apart from he answered a couple in< 5> relation to identification parades and samples.< 6> Q. You are quite right. But in relation to the< 7> allegations, he would not answer any questions?< 8> A. That is correct.< 9> Q. Neither made any admissions, neither would he deny<10> involvement?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. Presumably you prepared for that interview in<13> advance?<14> A. Yes, that's right.<15> Q. In consultation with, would that be Mr Chase?<16> A. Indeed, yes.<17> Q. Did you know there had been a surveillance<18> operation carried out before the arrests?<19> A. I have seen other people give evidence and that is<20> a question that I have puzzled over.<21> Q. When you say "you have seen that" that is while you<22> have been waiting?<23> A. Yes, but I realised that this was a pertinent<24> question and I have tried carefully to rack my brains<25> to see whether I did know there had been a

. P-3421

< 1> surveillance. I was certainly aware at a later stage< 2> when surveillance photographs were ready and available< 3> for the whole team and indeed the team were encouraged< 4> to look through the surveillance photographs.< 5> Q. That was later?< 6> A. I think that was later because I think I would have< 7> remembered, had I had that information at the stage of< 8> interview.< 9> Q. Presumably you acknowledged that that information<10> showing as it did, or the photographs showing as they<11> did, Norris with various of the other suspects is<12> information you really should have had, should you<13> not, I am not saying it critically of you but should<14> have been with you before you conducted the interview,<15> should it not?<16> A. It would have been imperative sir, yes.<17> Q. Imperative?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. The interview produced nothing?<20> A. He refused to answer any of our questions, that's<21> correct.<22> Q. That is all I want to ask you about that topic.<23> Discreet topic: let me ask you about some of your<24> dealings with Duwayne Brooks, I know his<25> representative may wish to pursue that somewhat. You

. P-3422

< 1> visited Duwayne Brooks initially, did you not, I think< 2> it was initially about on or about 1st May. Can we< 3> have DBR 1 at page 15 please: This is a HOLMES< 4> produced version of the statement but it is recorded,< 5> if we go down a couple of lines, it refers to you,< 6> does it not?< 7> A. That's right, yes I remember that meeting.< 8> Q. You recall that?< 9> A. I do.<10> Q. You were asked to go along and see him to see if he<11> could think of anything else?<12> A. That's right.<13> Q. You talked with him obviously?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. The net result was he made this further statement<16> basically -- and I am not saying in the least<17> critically of him -- not adding much to what was said<18> before?<19> A. We could never get much more from Duwayne<20> unfortunately.<21> Q. Look on the screen if you will at (MET00820166).<22> This is the action or an action, yes, which seemingly<23> resulted in your making the visit. Yes?<24> A. That's correct sir, yes.<25> Q. It looks like it?

. P-3423

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. We see the result. It bears the date "15th" I< 3> think it is pretty obvious that is a couple of weeks< 4> later than the actual events?< 5> A. That's right.< 6> Q. "I visited Duwayne Brooks, attempted to go through< 7> the incident, immediate family were there, none were< 8> particularly helpful. Duwayne would not go through< 9> the incident in detail. A short statement was<10> obtained, he said that if we required more it would<11> have to be through or in the presence of his<12> solicitor. Unknown as to identity at this time." Is<13> that right?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. Be that as it may, you saw him further later on, I<16> will deal with this as a discreet topic, go back to<17> the DBR file. DBR 1 at page 23. There is another<18> witness statement made by Mr Brooks on 23rd September<19> 1993. Again it refers to you. Yes?<20> A. That's right, sir.<21> Q. Take it from me, will you, at the end of it, it<22> records your being present as the witness to the<23> statement and here he, Mr Brooks, was giving a little<24> bit more detail about some aspects of the incident.<25> Correct?

. P-3424

< 1> A. Yes that's right.< 2> Q. Similarly, you saw him again, did you not, for the< 3> purpose of taking the statement on page 26 of this< 4> same volume. Again take it from me, will you, your< 5> name is at the bottom of it?< 6> A. Yes indeed.< 7> Q. This concerns a separate incident he is talking of< 8> in September 1993 and what he there saw, as we can< 9> see. We can get the burden of it -- and I hope I am<10> doing justice to it -- that he is referring to an<11> incident in September you see at the foot of the<12> screen where he recognised two people who had been<13> there when Stephen Lawrence was murdered?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. A statement was taken by you in that regard?<16> A. That's right.<17> Q. For completeness as far as my questioning is<18> concerned -- and I do not suggest this to be<19> absolutely exhausted by any means -- you are one of<20> those who was asked a year later to complete a pro<21> forma relating to your dealings with Duwayne Brooks.<22> Can we have on the screen please DBR 1 at page 107. I<23> do not think you were given any specific briefing as<24> to what was expected of you?<25> A. Not specifics, no.

. P-3425

< 1> Q. Obviously you were required to liaise with the< 2> family?< 3> A. Indeed.< 4> Q. To be sympathetic as appropriate?< 5> A. Indeed.< 6> Q. And to keep them informed as appropriate as to what< 7> was going on?< 8> A. That's correct.< 9> Q. Is that a fair summary?<10> A. It is indeed, yes.<11> Q. I will come back, if I may, to your role as family<12> liaison or one of the family liaison officers in due<13> course. Let us just deal with one or two of the other<14> matters that you refer to in your statement here if we<15> cast our eye down the page. You refer there -- we go<16> down the page a bit please, I am going to introduce<17> this unless there are others who want to ask you<18> questions about it -- we see to your being involved<19> on the 6th May with Duwayne Brooks. Yes?<20> A. That is correct, yes, sir.<21> Q. At a meeting for another purpose, therefore not<22> present at one at least of the briefing meetings held<23> at Peckham that day?<24> A. Eltham Police Station.<25> Q. But you were concerned in the briefings that

. P-3426

< 1> preceded the proposed arrests of 7th May because you< 2> refer to that in your statement. Correct?< 3> A. That is correct.< 4> Q. And you attended at an address which was thought to< 5> be Norris's address?< 6> A. That's correct.< 7> Q. You give in your statement. In fact, he wasn't< 8> there, was he?< 9> A. That's right.<10> Q. To cut a fairly long story short his mum said she<11> would make sure he came to the police station a few<12> days later?<13> A. I don't actually remember that, but it would<14> follow.<15> Q. He did anyway?<16> A. He did indeed, yes.<17> Q. You went to his home, not finding him, you did, not<18> you personally necessarily, a search was performed,<19> that's right, of those premises, was it not?<20> A. That's right.<21> Q. You said in your statement, top of page 397, 3<22> lines down, you do not have a recollection of any<23> specific directions being given in relation to a<24> search. Yes?<25> A. That's right.

. P-3427

< 1> Q. Although you knew that clothing and weapons would< 2> be of paramount importance, yes. On page 398, top of< 3> the page please, I am sure I do not need to go into< 4> this in any detail, you make reference there in the< 5> third line to the statement that you made concerning< 6> the search. Yes?< 7> A. That's correct.< 8> Q. That can be found at (PCA00380414). Let me just< 9> ask you, two-thirds of the way down the screen the<10> sentence beginning: "A cursory search". Do you see<11> that?<12> A. I do.<13> Q. "A cursory search was made, nothing was dismantled,<14> carpets not moved, floorboards were left alone no<15> panels or similar areas were touched." Explaining it<16> briefly, Mr Bevan, why only cursory?<17> A. It was obviously a view I held at the time. It is<18> hard to actually describe why but the property was a<19> mansion, in short, very, very expensive property; very<20> very expensively decorated and carpets, for example,<21> were top quality fitted. I felt and I obviously made<22> a decision at the time that the extent of my search<23> was an adequate one. Whether it be for the fact that<24> David used that address on a temporary basis, which<25> might have been indicated due to the fact he wasn't

. P-3428

< 1> there.< 2> Q. Mr Bevan, forgive me that might be taken to suggest< 3> that if you have a posh house, you are not going to be< 4> the victim of a proper search whereas if you live in a< 5> grubby council flat, you will have it turn apart?< 6> A. That is not the impression I want to try----< 7> Q. It could be taken that way, do you see what I mean?< 8> A. If I could put it another way. Obviously I< 9> conducted many many probably hundreds of searches and<10> areas where things are hidden will give some<11> indication that the areas have been tampered with. For<12> example, things underneath carpets and behind panels<13> will give some indication, albeit screwdriver marks,<14> ill fitting, moveable there will be some indication<15> that there has been tampering. I perceived none such<16> at that address.<17> Q. Can I ask you this Mr Bevan: the search of 102<18> Bournbrook Road involved specialist search teams being<19> used. Do you remember that?<20> A. I believe that is correct.<21> Q. Did you have such a specialist search team for the<22> Norris address?<23> A. From recollection we did.<24> Q. You did?<25> A. A police Pulsar team, searching team, was certainly

. P-3429

< 1> available.< 2> Q. They may have been available, were they deployed it< 3> does not sound like it, does it?< 4> A. That may well be the case, there were quite a few< 5> officers involved in the search and on the periphery< 6> who actually conducted the search. At the end of the< 7> day I couldn't be certain. Obviously I was in there,< 8> I remember Mr Chase being in there and other officers< 9> being in there but who specifically, I would find it<10> hard to say.<11> Q. Going ahead, on the 10th May David Norris<12> surrendered himself to Southwark Police Station?<13> A. That's correct.<14> Q. Were you formerly arrested him?<15> A. That's correct.<16> Q. Later on that day at Southwark you conducted an<17> interview with him in the presence of his solicitor?<18> A. That's right.<19> Q. We have that (PCA00460416). Can we show that, top<20> of the page. Is that a copy of the transcript of it?<21> A. That's right, yes.<22> Q. 19 minutes worth of interview. We see that the<23> solicitor, if we look at (PCA00460418), top of the<24> page, the solicitor is saying he has advised Norris<25> not to answer any questions and asked his own client

. P-3430

< 1> whether he intended to take that advice. He said he< 2> did and indeed he did not answer any questions, did< 3> he?< 4> A. He didn't, no, apart from he answered a couple in< 5> relation to identification parades and samples.< 6> Q. You are quite right. But in relation to the< 7> allegations, he would not answer any questions?< 8> A. That is correct.< 9> Q. Neither made any admissions, neither would he deny<10> involvement?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. Presumably you prepared for that interview in<13> advance?<14> A. Yes, that's right.<15> Q. In consultation with, would that be Mr Chase?<16> A. Indeed, yes.<17> Q. Did you know there had been a surveillance<18> operation carried out before the arrests?<19> A. I have seen other people give evidence and that is<20> a question that I have puzzled over.<21> Q. When you say "you have seen that" that is while you<22> have been waiting?<23> A. Yes, but I realised that this was a pertinent<24> question and I have tried carefully to rack my brains<25> to see whether I did know there had been a

. P-3431

< 1> surveillance. I was certainly aware at a later stage< 2> when surveillance photographs were ready and available< 3> for the whole team and indeed the team were encouraged< 4> to look through the surveillance photographs.< 5> Q. That was later?< 6> A. I think that was later because I think I would have< 7> remembered, had I had that information at the stage of< 8> interview.< 9> Q. Presumably you acknowledged that that information<10> showing as it did, or the photographs showing as they<11> did, Norris with various of the other suspects is<12> information you really should have had, should you<13> not, I am not saying it critically of you but should<14> have been with you before you conducted the interview,<15> should it not?<16> A. It would have been imperative sir, yes.<17> Q. Imperative?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. The interview produced nothing?<20> A. He refused to answer any of our questions, that's<21> correct.<22> Q. That is all I want to ask you about that topic.<23> Discreet topic: let me ask you about some of your<24> dealings with Duwayne Brooks, I know his<25> representative may wish to pursue that somewhat. You

. P-3432

< 1> visited Duwayne Brooks initially, did you not, I think< 2> it was initially about on or about 1st May. Can we< 3> have DBR 1 at page 15 please: This is a HOLMES< 4> produced version of the statement but it is recorded,< 5> if we go down a couple of lines, it refers to you,< 6> does it not?< 7> A. That's right, yes I remember that meeting.< 8> Q. You recall that?< 9> A. I do.<10> Q. You were asked to go along and see him to see if he<11> could think of anything else?<12> A. That's right.<13> Q. You talked with him obviously?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. The net result was he made this further statement<16> basically -- and I am not saying in the least<17> critically of him -- not adding much to what was said<18> before?<19> A. We could never get much more from Duwayne<20> unfortunately.<21> Q. Look on the screen if you will at (MET00820166).<22> This is the action or an action, yes, which seemingly<23> resulted in your making the visit. Yes?<24> A. That's correct sir, yes.<25> Q. It looks like it?

. P-3433

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. We see the result. It bears the date "15th" I< 3> think it is pretty obvious that is a couple of weeks< 4> later than the actual events?< 5> A. That's right.< 6> Q. "I visited Duwayne Brooks, attempted to go through< 7> the incident, immediate family were there, none were< 8> particularly helpful. Duwayne would not go through< 9> the incident in detail. A short statement was<10> obtained, he said that if we required more it would<11> have to be through or in the presence of his<12> solicitor. Unknown as to identity at this time." Is<13> that right?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. Be that as it may, you saw him further later on, I<16> will deal with this as a discreet topic, go back to<17> the DBR file. DBR 1 at page 23. There is another<18> witness statement made by Mr Brooks on 23rd September<19> 1993. Again it refers to you. Yes?<20> A. That's right, sir.<21> Q. Take it from me, will you, at the end of it, it<22> records your being present as the witness to the<23> statement and here he, Mr Brooks, was giving a little<24> bit more detail about some aspects of the incident.<25> Correct?

. P-3434

< 1> A. Yes that's right.< 2> Q. Similarly, you saw him again, did you not, for the< 3> purpose of taking the statement on page 26 of this< 4> same volume. Again take it from me, will you, your< 5> name is at the bottom of it?< 6> A. Yes indeed.< 7> Q. This concerns a separate incident he is talking of< 8> in September 1993 and what he there saw, as we can< 9> see. We can get the burden of it -- and I hope I am<10> doing justice to it -- that he is referring to an<11> incident in September you see at the foot of the<12> screen where he recognised two people who had been<13> there when Stephen Lawrence was murdered?<14> A. That's right.<15> Q. A statement was taken by you in that regard?<16> A. That's right.<17> Q. For completeness as far as my questioning is<18> concerned -- and I do not suggest this to be<19> absolutely exhausted by any means -- you are one of<20> those who was asked a year later to complete a pro<21> forma relating to your dealings with Duwayne Brooks.<22> Can we have on the screen please DBR 1 at page 107.<23> This is the typescript version of it, can we use that.<24> We will dig out the original if need be. You said<25> that you did not notice abnormal or out of the

. P-3435

< 1> ordinary behaviour, do you see that?< 2> A. Can I ask when this is dated, sir?< 3> Q. Go to the foot of it, I think you will see it is< 4> May 1993, no you will not because it does not appear< 5> on there. It would have been in or around May?< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: '94.< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. About a year later. That can be checked if I am< 9> wrong and then that will be put right. Then or<10> thereabouts where you indicated you had been partly<11> involved with the victim/witness family liaison and<12> consequently had numerous dealings with Brooks.<13> You did not notice any abnormal or out of the<14> ordinary behaviour:<15> "To start with he portrayed a blase attitude but,<16> of course, this may have been a cover for his true<17> feelings. I did not believe it out of the ordinary.<18> My meetings continued and I did notice he became more<19> arrogant and distant. I had originally felt we had a<20> fairly good relationship, I put this down to the<21> influence of others." That is what you wrote at the<22> time?<23> A. At the time, that's correct.<24> Q. Let me leave that topic and go to the other one<25> which led to your being called. In respect of family

. P-3436

< 1> liaison, as you said to us already, you have not had< 2> previous experience of this and you did not have any< 3> previous specific briefing. You were appointed< 4> together with Miss Holden, who I think is apparent< 5> from your interview with the PCA Kent officers you did< 6> not previously know?< 7> A. That's right.< 8> Q. In the course of your being interviewed by the Kent< 9> officers in respect of family liaison you were shown a<10> document, which I am going to ask if we can have it on<11> the screen (MET00410189)?<12> A. I am aware of the document, if it helps.<13> Q. Would you mind having a hard copy of the document.<14> I do not know if there are hard copies available for<15> the Chairman and the advisors. The trouble is the<16> dates have not come out on this. I have them here.<17> Suffice it to say what this does, it was not your<18> document, this, but what this does is seek to provide<19> in summary form a chronological account of the<20> dealings with the family?<21> A. That's correct, yes.<22> Q. Kent referred you to it and you said after looking<23> at it, if I may quote, it may not be wholly complete,<24> "it was a good 95% worth."<25> A. Yes that is a fair summary, sir.

. P-3437

< 1> Q. Dealing with your first contact with the family and< 2> the first date, as you can see from the hard copy,< 3> there is 23rd April in the evening. Yes. The Friday< 4> evening?< 5> A. That's right, yes.< 6> Q. From your viewpoint of view of your involvement it< 7> goes through, does it not, to 27th May, just flick on< 8> 4 pages, when Mr Illsley, in effect, took over,< 9> halfway down the page; is that right?<10> Whether this may be in a sense doing it<11> backwards, at the time that you stopped being liaison<12> officers I think you completed an action, which I<13> would like you to look at please at (MET00820097).<14> This is a pretty general action in a way, is it not?<15> A. That's right.<16> Q. We see 23rd April it is raised and simply allocated<17> to you on the 24th, although they already started, you<18> and Holden, and it was to maintain liaison with the<19> family and this was in a sense your closing report,<20> was it not, in very brief terms?<21> A. In brief terms.<22> Q. Dated 1st June, you will see?<23> A. That's correct, yes.<24> Q. You maintained contact with the family since 23rd<25> April, dealing with enquiries, either by phone or

. P-3438

< 1> visits. You liaised with victim support, is it?< 2> A. That's correct.< 3> Q. "We arranged for the family to be seen by one of< 4> their counsellors."< 5> 29th April:< 6> "At the request of Doreen Lawrence I delivered a< 7> birthday card to McMillan House." I think the "I"< 8> there is Miss Holden?< 9> A. That's correct.<10> Q. Reference to maintaining contact with the Lawrences<11> and updating them of any developments re the Inquiry.<12> Reference to the anticipated release of Stephen's<13> body being told to them?<14> A. That's correct.<15> Q. Then reference to Illsley informing you that he is<16> now the victim liaison officer. Yes?<17> A. That's right, sir.<18> Q. Was proposing to meet the family with Philpot. "No<19> necessity for us to continue"?<20> A. That's right.<21> Q. The family had been told that. Right?<22> A. Yes indeed, that's right.<23> Q. That, as I say, is almost a start at the end, but<24> it was not a success, was it, the family liaison with<25> which you were involved, was it?

. P-3439

< 1> A. No, it wasn't.< 2> Q. You were asked by Kent what caused the< 3> deterioration in the relationship and you said well< 4> there was never a proper liaison from the start?< 5> A. I think that would be fair to say, that is correct,< 6> yes.< 7> Q. I want to take this relatively briefly, if I may, I< 8> will go back to the beginning to (MET00410189). You< 9> first attended, go to the top of the page please, both<10> of you, at the home address on the Friday evening<11> which is the first time you met the Lawrence's; is<12> that right?<13> A. That's right.<14> Q. Both Mr and Mrs Lawrence?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. You in due course came to refer to them, both of<17> them, to an extent as apparently being suspicious of<18> you; is that right?<19> A. At some stage.<20> Q. Not trusting you at least. Can you tell us briefly<21> please in your own words what apparently went wrong?<22> A. That is something, as you can imagine, sir, I have<23> mulled over for 5 years and I would love to have an<24> answer to that. I tried everything I could to<25> communicate with the Lawrences, I wanted to be there

. P-3440

< 1> for them. I have said in all documentation to Kent< 2> and on statements that I still want to be there for< 3> them today and I wish I could be.< 4> There was a tremendous barrier to communication.< 5> It is very, very hard to put my finger on exactly what< 6> it was, I do not think I will ever be able to.< 7> I think they were taken over, that is possibly a< 8> bad way of putting it, by lots of outside bodies who< 9> wanted to make their own statement through the<10> Lawrences and I think it is perhaps that that had the<11> biggest effect on the lack of communication because<12> very, very soon after our initial meetings we were<13> viewed with suspicion and mistrust, which I found<14> very, very sad because we wanted to be there for them.<15> Q. Do you think, Mr Bevan, it was due to any lack of<16> proper sympathy on your part?<17> A. Certainly not, sir. I have remained tremendously<18> sympathetic to this day and that is absolutely<19> genuine.<20> Q. Let me be blunt about it, were you offhand with<21> them because they were black?<22> A. No, certainly not, in no way whatsoever.<23> Q. One of the things you had to do was to act as a<24> conduit to pass on information to them, to explain to<25> them what was going on?

. P-3441

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. One thing they would have been particularly anxious< 3> to know was whether anybody had been found, the< 4> murderer or murderers had been found?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. That must have involved you, quite apart from your< 7> other duties, being kept up to date in terms of< 8> information by the senior officers?< 9> A. Whether it was from them or of my own volition I<10> would have kept myself up to date with the Inquiry.<11> Q. You would have to be up to date if you were to pass<12> accurate information to the family?<13> A. Of course.<14> Q. You would have been aware at a very early stage of<15> the investigation information started coming into the<16> police station identifying particular suspects?<17> A. That's right, yes.<18> Q. The Acourts, Norris, Dobson. Yes. And that<19> happened during the course of the first weekend.<20> No arrests occurred, though, for a fortnight, did<21> they?<22> A. That's right, yes.<23> Q. What explanation were you given of the delay for<24> you to pass on to the family?<25> A. I don't recall what I was told to pass on to the

. P-3442

< 1> family.< 2> Q. I do not imagine you disagree with this, you know< 3> about an informant, you have heard about him that?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. He has been spoken of today while you have been< 6> waiting, Grant?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Quite apart from a lot of other anonymous< 9> information. You know the sort of information he<10> gave, do you not?<11> A. Yes, that's right.<12> Q. You would recognise as an experienced CID officer<13> that was more than ample information to justify an<14> arrest, was it not?<15> A. Firstly, I don't know when we got the information<16> from Grant.<17> Q. On the 23rd?<18> A. I didn't know it was then. Secondly, I was aware<19> that we had a lot of information come in in relation<20> to a lot of different people but we didn't have any<21> evidence, and that was the one important thing that we<22> lacked at that time.<23> Q. Were you aware that the main thrust of the<24> information coming in, not by means exclusively, but<25> the main thrust of it was to point the finger of

. P-3443

< 1> accusation at the Acourt brothers, Dobson, Norris,< 2> etc?< 3> A. I wouldn't actually accept that it was the main< 4> thrust but there was certainly information coming in.< 5> Q. Were you aware, I just want to know what you were< 6> aware of if you were supposed to be passing on< 7> information to the family, there was a lot of< 8> information coming in pointing the finger at those< 9> individuals?<10> A. I wasn't aware of a lot of information, no.<11> Q. You were not.<12> A. No.<13> Q. Were you aware as to why no arrests were made for a<14> fortnight?<15> A. As I recall it was because of a lack of evidence.<16> Q. Do you need evidence to arrest?<17> A. No you don't, sir.<18> Q. What do you need for arrest?<19> A. Reasonable grounds for suspecting.<20> Q. Were there reasonable grounds for suspecting in<21> your opinion?<22> A. Yes there were reasonable grounds for suspecting.<23> But perhaps that statement needs qualification, yes<24> there was reasonable grounds for suspecting but we<25> still didn't have any evidence and those two things

. P-3444

< 1> would have had to have been balanced by the Senior< 2> Investigating Officer and his deputy as to the course< 3> of action to take.< 4> Q. Did you have any more evidence when two weeks later< 5> arrests were carried out?< 6> A. I couldn't answer that. I don't think so is the< 7> only way I can answer that fairly.< 8> Q. What, if any, explanation or information did you< 9> give to the family during that two-week period as to<10> what was going on in terms of the suspects who had<11> been accused and deferment of arrest?<12> A. Again, sir, as you can possibly appreciate it was<13> an extremely difficult task in trying to balance what<14> information I could give to the family without<15> prejudicing any subsequent police action, particularly<16> in relation to arrests. I was not in a position to<17> furnish certainly not names. I found it a hard task<18> to balance that to keep everybody happy.<19> Q. Is the answer to my question none?<20> A. I have provided what I think is fair and reasonable<21> and that is another question to this day I tried to<22> debate in my own mind, what could I have said that<23> would have made any difference to Mr and Mrs Lawrence.<24> Q. Can we just look at (MET00410190), the next page.<25> I hope you can see from the hard copy in front of you,

. P-3445

< 1> this note relates to 4th May, can you see that?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. HA is what, home attendance?< 4> A. Home address.< 5> Q. Re lack of information. Bevan attends with Fisher< 6> Mr Lawrence and his daughter there in front of a large< 7> number of people she asked why we hadn't caught the< 8> men who murdered her brother and then understandably< 9> burst into tears?<10> A. Yes, I remember that well.<11> Q. They had not been told anything about these<12> suspects having been identified?<13> A. I am quite sure I would have told them that some<14> suspects had been identified, but probably not much<15> more than that.<16> Q. You did not tell them why they had not been<17> arrested, or did you?<18> A. I can only draw assumptions from what would have<19> been likely to have happened.<20> Q. Let me ask you something else about this note, the<21> same day, there was reference made to you by providing<22> to Mr Lawrence your mobile phone number?<23> A. That's right.<24> Q. Which you asked to be given to nobody else apart<25> from Mrs Lawrence. Is it fair to say Mr Bevan that

. P-3446

< 1> you had to buy the phone yourself?< 2> A. Indeed, I bought it to facilitate the inquiry.< 3> Q. You did not have one at the beginning of this and< 4> you were not provided with one by the police?< 5> A. That's right.< 6> Q. Miss Holden had one, but that was her private one?< 7> A. That's right.< 8> Q. You acquired one yourself to assist with the< 9> inquiry?<10> A. For contact, I acquired a few for officers on the<11> team.<12> Q. If we pan down the screen a little, please, the<13> next note refers to Mr Khan phoning you on that<14> mobile?<15> A. That's right.<16> Q. In response to the invitation you had made the<17> previous day to the Lawrences to attend the Incident<18> Room, obviously that your phone number had been passed<19> on to him?<20> A. That's right.<21> Q. That is all I want to ask you. I should say, if I<22> may, for information sake and I am sure others will<23> have identified them, that there are actions or<24> messages that relate to the early dealings with the<25> family to be found at (MET00830220), for the 25th,

. P-3447

< 1> (MET00840012) on the 26th and (MET00840126) for 28th< 2> April, indications of the family not wishing on those< 3> particular days to be disturbed. I should also say< 4> formally for the assistance of others that one of the< 5> matters that you were questioned about by Kent< 6> concerned queries raised with the family about some< 7> gloves; do you remember that?< 8> A. I remember that, yes.< 9> Q. Which was a topic you raised with the family, was<10> it not?<11> A. It was actually Linda that mentioned it.<12> Q. Obviously you were aware of that?<13> A. Indeed, yes.<14> MR LAWSON: That is referred to on 14th May and there<15> is an action or message at (MET00820127). Those are<16> the matters I seek to raise.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson, can you just remind me or<18> tell me, I am not sure I remember this document, who<19> compiled this document.<20> MR LAWSON: This was a document that was compiled as an<21> annexure to a briefing note that was provided to the<22> Commissioner in mid-1993 to enable him to be briefed<23> in respect of a then anticipated meeting or hearing<24> before a parliamentary group on race in the community.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: You have seen this, Sergeant Bevan, no

. P-3448

< 1> doubt.< 2> THE WITNESS: I have, sir.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: It sets out certainly the chronology of< 4> what happened, as far as you recall.< 5> THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir. An interesting< 6> point, if I might just add, is the way in which it is< 7> written. I have been asked if I compiled this< 8> document and I said I didn't believe I had, because of< 9> the way it was set out, the typeface etc. But there<10> are references in there earlier on, I can't find it<11> immediately, where something that Linda Holden has<12> done and it is in the first person: "I have done<13> this." If you look at the mobile phone query that we<14> have just discussed it says: "To show that he had my<15> phone number." Again it is written in the first<16> person. So it would indicate, firstly Linda Holden<17> had written it, secondly, that I had written it, when<18> in fact neither of us had. I hope that does not<19> confuse things.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: You may be asked about that tomorrow.<21> You will have to come back tomorrow at 10 o'clock and<22> do not discuss your evidence meanwhile.<23> May I make one announcement which I should have<24> made at the beginning, Mr Tom Cook, the third of my<25> advisers, has been absent today, unfortunately at a

. P-3449

< 1> funeral, and he wanted me to say that he is well and< 2> will be here tomorrow and apologise for his absence< 3> today.< 4> (The Inquiry Adjourned at 4.45)

. P-3450