les balkwell foreword

8/3/2019 Les Balkwell Foreword

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/les-balkwell-foreword 1/6

1

STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 9AM ON MONDAY, 30 JANUARY 2012

FOREWORD

On 18 July 2002 Lee Balkwell was found dead at a farm in Upminster, Essex with hishead and shoulders wedged between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer. Hisfamily was understandably devastated at their loss and expected Essex Police tothoroughly investigate the incident.

At an early stage, Lee Balkwell’s father, Mr. Leslie Balkwell was dissatisfied with thepolice investigation and made a number of formal complaints. As a result, a review ofthe police investigation commenced in March 2003. Mr. Balkwell remained unhappyand made further complaints, which led to another review being undertaken by EssexPolice Professional Standards Department between July 2006 and December 2009.

Early in 2008 the inquest into Lee Balkwell’s death took place and a verdict of unlawful killing through gross negligence / manslaughter was reached. The matterwas referred back to Essex Police to continue any appropriate investigation.

Mr Balkwell continued to be extremely dissatisfied with the original investigation intohis son’s death and the subsequent reviews undertaken by the force and he wrote tothe IPCC in December 2007. Essex Police referred his complaints to us in February2008 and it was decided that an independent IPCC investigation would beundertaken.

Mr Balkwell has campaigned tirelessly to find the truth, whilst also enduring thetrauma and grief associated with the loss of a son. His persistence anddetermination have been admirable, but have undoubtedly taken a massive toll onhim and his family.

Although he has made many complaints, in essence what Mr. Balkwell has beenseeking is to:

know how and why his son died

have anyone responsible for the death brought to justice

have any police officers responsible for failing to properly investigate this case tobe held to account

These demands are unquestionably reasonable and no more than anyone who haslost a loved one in such terrible circumstances should be able to expect. The firstissues are not a matter for the IPCC and are beyond the scope of any investigationwe could undertake. For this reason, after the initial stages of our enquiries Irecommended that Essex Police bring in another force to reinvestigate Lee Balkwell’sdeath. The Chief Constable considered this recommendation and decided he wantedan external force to review the earlier investigations prior to making any decision inrelation to re opening the case. West Midlands Police undertook this review andmade more than 90 recommendations about further action that should beundertaken. Essex Police accepted all these recommendations and commissionedKent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate to carry out this work. The criminalinvestigation into Lee Balkwell’s death is still ongoing.

Our investigation has looked at allegations relating to:



2

Failure to carry out thorough investigations

Interviews of witnesses and suspects

Delays/failure in obtaining relevant statements

Lack of forensic investigation

Issues regarding how the cement mixer was examined and dealt withincluding complaints that it was deliberately tampered with by officers

Issues around CCTV examination

Production of inaccurate computer generated images

Alleged corrupt practices within Essex Police

Failure to consider re-investigation by an outside force

Interaction between Essex Police and Mr Balkwell

We have found that Mr. Balkwell’s belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwell’sdeath was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outsetit was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrialaccident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnessesand failed to treat the death with an open mind. Reviews and further investigative work havebeen undertaken but the all important first hours of this investigation, where vital evidencemust be preserved, had been lost. The failure of the investigation at that early stage has leftevidential gaps which may never be filled.

As a result Mr Balkwell lost all faith in the police service he had a right to rely on to give himthe answers he sought. As a consequence he has developed his own theories about how his

son died and developed a view there was a conspiracy by the police to cover up thecircumstances of his son’s death. The IPCC has sought to find some answers for MrBalkwell about how the police handled his case. He came to us with more than 130complaints, making this a complex and difficult investigation to handle, especially given thelength of time since Lee Balkwell’s death.

Mr Balkwell made complaints about many police officers, some had already retired by thetime the complaints were made, 18 were served with notices, and six have retired during ourinvestigation. The IPCC investigation can be broken into stages and this also helps show thechronology of events:

Initial investigation

Suspect interviews

Forensic examination

Quality and standard of Investigations

Corruption/Impartiality

Communication and quality of service

The investigation has found that many of the substantive and serious allegations have beenupheld. It is these key failures that have led to the raft of follow-up complaints, the

speculation and the complete breakdown in communication between Mr. Balkwell and Essex



3

Police. Of the remaining complaints some are partially substantiated and someunsubstantiated. Whilst our investigation has provided evidence of poor police work, wehave found no evidence to support any allegations of corruption or a conspiracy theory.However in the light of Essex Police’s prolonged failure to fully address his concerns, it isperhaps understandable how and why Mr. Balkwell reached such conclusions himself.

Since the death of his son, Mr. Balkwell, with the full support of his family, has dedicatedmuch of his life to his campaign to find the truth about what happened. I am deeplyimpressed by both Mr. Balkwell’s passion and commitment - which few could have sustained

– and deeply saddened that he has had to go to such lengths to get his valid demandsproperly addressed. I would like to pay tribute to his endurance and tenacity, but I am alsovery aware of the cost to him and his family.

This situation should never have been allowed to develop to this stage and an inevitableconsequence has been that it has prolonged his agony and made it impossible for him toeven begin to come to terms with his loss. Tragically Mr. Balkwell may never get theanswers to all of his questions, but I very much hope that the IPCC investigation, togetherwith the ongoing criminal investigation being undertaken by the Kent and Essex Serious

Crime Directorate, will provide at least some of the answers Mr. Balkwell is seeking. It is atestament to his dedication that finally the full circumstances surrounding the death of LeeBalkwell are being examined.

Rachel Cerfontyne

IPCC Commissioner



4

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Initial response to incident

Mr Balkwell claimed Essex Police had failed to carry out an effective initialinvestigation at the scene, including a failure to conduct thorough and independentinterviews, identify potential witnesses or seize evidence in a timely way.

The IPCC concluded that Mr Balkwell’s complaints were substantiated.

The investigation determined that, although Officer A, who was the initial officer onthe scene, had complied with Essex Police’s policy in relation to unnatural deaths, hehad failed to seize evidence promptly and secure it.

Further, the investigation found Officer D, who was asked to lead the investigationand arrived on the scene at 8.52am, failed to take statements from potentialwitnesses. In fact the officer was only present on the scene for 38 minutes, althoughhe did return later in the day when Lee Balkwell’s body was removed from the

cement mixer.

Two senior officers – Officer C and Officer B – were in supervisory roles. Officer Cdid not attend the scene while Officer B attended for 10 minutes. Neither officerconsidered the identification of further witnesses or directed others to do so.

In addition Officer E failed to ensure all potential witnesses that may have assistedthe investigation were identified and appropriate statements taken when he took overthe investigation.

Suspect interviews

Officer D, who was in charge of the investigation, conducted an interview on 6 Augustwith Simon Bromley, who attended on a voluntary basis under criminal caution.However Officer D made it clear from the outset of that interview that he regarded thematter as a tragic accident. The interview lasted 41 minutes.

The IPCC investigation concluded the interview contained no challenging questionsand the officer led Simon Bromley in his answers and made assumptions whenincomplete or vague answers were given.

The interview was deemed below the standard expected and lacking in both depthand clarity. The IPCC investigation cited this as the officer not approaching the matterwith an open mind.

This error was compounded according to the IPCC investigation by a failure to re-interview the suspect or other potential witnesses during further investigation byOfficer E and reviews of the investigation by Officer F.

Mr Balkwell’s complaints in this area were substantiated.

Forensic Examination

Mr Balkwell made complaints in relation to failures he perceived in Essex Police’sforensic examination of evidence. These concerned a pair of trainers, grey top andknife from the cement mixer, the preservation of Lee Balkwell’s clothing and thefailure to examine Lee Balkwell’s belt and the tacograph from the cement mixer.



5

The IPCC investigation concluded photographs taken on 18 July 2002 showed a pairof adidas trainers in the cab of the cement mixer. It is unclear whether thesebelonged to Lee Balkwell, although Leslie Balkwell believes they did. There is noevidence these trainers were seized and secured by Officer E on 18 July 2002.Therefore this complaint is substantiated.

In fact the trainers, grey top and knife were not recovered from the cement mixer until4 September 2003, more than a year after the incident. However there is no evidencethat Officer E or Officer F considered these items of evidential value or suitable forforensic analysis.

Officer G did give consideration to forensic analysis of the items during a review in2007. At this time a decision was taken not to submit the items due to issues withcontinuity. Officer G kept this matter under review.

The complaint in relation to the forensic analysis is substantiated against Officers Eand F, but unsubstantiated against Officer G.

In addition Mr Balkwell complained that he was not informed about the existence of

the trainers by Officer F and that the officer and Officer G misinformed him aboutforensic tests being conducted. The IPCC found the complaints unsubstantiatedagainst Officer F. This was because it has never been established whether thetrainers belonged to Lee or what evidential value they could be. Therefore there wasno obvious reason to advise Mr Balkwell about them.

However Officer G did admit he had misinformed Mr Balkwell that a forensic test hadtaken place. This complaint is substantiated, although it is acknowledged this was agenuine mistake on behalf of the officer.

The IPCC investigation found that Lee Balkwell’s clothing had been destroyed on theinstructions of Officer E. Evidence has been found that Lee Balkwell’s partner agreedto the destruction of the clothing and that Leslie Balkwell was notified. Therefore this

complaint is unsubstantiated.Equally a complaint that Lee’s belt was not forensically examined has beenunsubstantiated. The investigation recognises that Mr Balkwell has developed atheory over time about the importance of the belt, but as the initial investigatingofficers were not looking at the potential for foul play there would have been noreason to conduct the examination. Lee’s partner requested the return of the belt andthis was facilitated by Officer E.

The tacograph in the cement mixer was seized by Essex Police on 18 July 2002.However there is no evidence that Officer E undertook any examination of this duringhis investigation. The IPCC believes this may have been a useful line of enquiry. Thiscomplaint is substantiated.

Quality and Standard of investigations and reviews

Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints regarding the initial investigationconducted by Officer E, the review conducted by Officer F and the furtherinvestigative work conducted by Officer G.

These complaints centred on allegations that officers had failed to investigate thealleged criminal background of some of the witnesses to the incident, that there wasa failure to consider the incident may be foul play rather than an accident, a failure tointerview or obtain statements from individuals at the scene and that evidence waswithheld from the Crown Prosecution Service.



6

In relation to an allegation that Officers E, F and H failed to conduct adequatebackground checks on witness, the IPCC investigation concluded the complaint wassubstantiated against Officer E.

In relation to allegations that Officers E, F and H failed to analyse statements fullyand failed to revisit the crime scene when conducting a review, the investigation

found the complaints unsubstantiated.The IPCC investigation also found that an allegation that Officer E failed to considerthe possibility of foul play substantiated. It was evident the officer had not conductedkey investigative actions or followed all lines of enquiry.

Mr Balkwell complained also that Officer E in his initial investigation, and Officers Fand I in their review, failed to investigate the positioning of the kango drills which hadbeen used in the ‘gunning out process’. The investigation found there was noevidence that the position of the drills was considered or whether the position wasconsistent with the account of the witness. The complaint has been substantiatedagainst Officers E and F.

Mr Balkwell complained that phone records had not been seized as part the initialinvestigation. The IPCC investigation concluded that it should have been a routinepart of the inquiry to apply for the seizure of telephone records to help support orrefute accounts given, establish timings or to identify other lines of enquiry. For thatreason the complaint against Officer E is substantiated. The complaint wasunsubstantiated against Officers F and G as there is evidence they applied forrecords as part of their reviews.

Complaints were also made about how witness evidence from the ambulance andfire service personnel who attended the incident was dealt with. The investigationconcluded the complaint that Officer E had failed to take witness statements fromambulance staff was substantiated.

The investigation also substantiated complaints against Officer E in relation to howhe dealt with CCTV evidence and his failure to investigate the maintenance of thecement mixer.

Allegations of Corruption

Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints that related to allegations of corruption orcorrupt behaviour by Essex Police officers. All of these complaints wereunsubstantiated.

With several complaints Mr Balkwell was unable to provide any evidence to supporthis allegations. With others either the IPCC investigation found no evidence to

support the allegation or there was evidence to explain why officers had taken thedecisions they had.

It is evident the allegations in this section were the result of the lack of trust that MrBalkwell had developed in Essex Police due to their failures at the initial stage of theinvestigation.

Communication and Quality of Service

Again, this section was made up of allegations which were evidently made as a resultof the breakdown in communications between Essex Police and the lack of trust MrBalkwell had in them. All of the allegations in this section have been unsubstantiated.

les balkwell foreword

Documents