< 1> Wednesday, 13th May 1998.< 2> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson, just before you begin, it< 3> has been brought to our notice, with some abhorrence< 4> that the memorial stone to Stephen Lawrence has been< 5> attacked again. Of course, we do not know full< 6> details, but we wish to express our disgust that this< 7> has happened and to inform those who might have done< 8> it, should they have the intimation that it has come< 9> before us, that it will not deflect us in any way<10> from our search for the truth but we express our<11> sympathy to the family in this awful repetition of<12> damage done some time ago.<13> MR LAWSON: If I may, I am sure, sir, that I can<14> speak for everybody here in associating ourselves<15> with that.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much.<17> MR LAWSON: Sir, I am proposing in a moment to call<18> Mr Crampton. Can I, before I do so, in an attempt<19> giving morning notices just give notice of something<20> completely different. As you know, sir, one of the<21> issues that arises relates to the Crown Prosecution<22> Service and what they did and did not do in relation<23> to the original prosecution and any assistance they<24> may give relating to the later private prosecution.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

. P-4642

< 1> MR LAWSON: We have had substantial statements from< 2> representatives of that service which have been< 3> copied to all parties and it would be very helpful to< 4> the Inquiry to know, in the light of those< 5> statements, what contentious issues arise.< 6> THE CHAIRMAN: Quite.< 7> MR LAWSON: I hope it would not be unreasonable to< 8> ask that we should have notice of any contentious< 9> issues relating to those witnesses by the end of next<10> week.<11> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It has struck me that<12> there may be no strong contentious issues about that<13> because, of course, what they did they did on the<14> information given to them by the Metropolitan Police<15> and they made a judgment at the time as to what they<16> should or should not do. It may not be necessary to<17> call volumes of evidence about it when the time<18> comes, but perhaps people will take note of what<19> Mr Lawson has said so that the Inquiry can know what<20> issues do arise in connection with that decision made<21> by the CPS.<22> MR LAWSON: Thank you. Now, sir, can I call<23> Mr Crampton, please.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.<25> <IAN CRAMPTON, (sworn)

. P-4643

< 1> <EXAMINED BY MR LAWSON< 2> THE WITNESS: Ian Crampton.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: Would you sit down, Mr Crampton.< 4> Thank you very much. Thank you for coming.< 5> Mr Lawson, on behalf of the Inquiry, will ask you< 6> questions first.< 7> THE WITNESS: Yes, my Lord.< 8> MR LAWSON: Mr Crampton, at the time we are concerned< 9> with you held the rank of Detective Superintendent in<10> the Metropolitan Police Force, did you not?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Retiring from that service in July 1995?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Mr Crampton, you were, were you not, the senior<15> investigating officer in relation to the<16> Stephen Lawrence murder investigation for the first<17> 72 hours or so, more specifically, from the early<18> hours of 23rd April until you handed over to<19> Mr Weeden on the Monday morning, the 26th?<20> A. That's correct, sir.<21> Q. Is that right? Mr Crampton, with a view,<22> hopefully, to seeing if any issues can be narrowed<23> here, I wonder if I can ask you this generally.<24> Obviously, you have looked with some care back at<25> what happened in those few days. With hindsight, is

. P-4644

< 1> there anything now that you wish you had done< 2> differently?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. And what is that?< 5> A. Well, one of the things I have to say with< 6> hindsight is that knowing what I know now I would< 7> have arrested earlier.< 8> Q. What, in particular, is it that you know now< 9> that causes you to be of the view that you would have<10> arrested earlier or should have done?<11> A. The strategy that I adopted was unsuccessful.<12> Q. Because it did not work?<13> A. Because it didn't work and I had gone for an<14> option then hindsight would tell me that quite<15> clearly the other option may well have worked.<16> Obviously, I cannot say it would have done, but the<17> answer to the question is, with hindsight, yes, I<18> would have done something differently.<19> Q. In your hindsight view, are there any other<20> areas in respect of which you acknowledge criticism<21> could properly be made?<22> A. There may be other areas, no doubt questions<23> will be asked, but there is nothing dramatically that<24> I can say I felt necessarily that I should have done<25> differently at the time. Every decision I took at

. P-4645

< 1> the time was a considered decision and I felt that I< 2> was dealing with things in a professional way and in< 3> a way that should have been done.< 4> Q. Thank you. Let me first, if I may, and then ask< 5> you a little about your professional career. For< 6> these purposes can I have on the screen< 7> (PCA00290013). I am only using this for< 8> convenience. Can we look at the bottom half of the< 9> form. Can you tell us if this is accurate. It<10> refers to your joining the police in 1965. Yes?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. You became a Detective Constable in 1968 and all<13> of your service thereafter was as a detective, was<14> it?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. You became a Superintendent in April 1991 which<17> rank you retained until you retired on completing 30<18> years service?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. As this document reveals you have not been the<21> subject of any substantiated complaints; is that<22> right?<23> A. That's right, sir.<24> Q. And you had a substantial number of<25> commendations that are there set out?

. P-4646

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. In addition, I am going to turn to this a little< 3> later, you had some training on the HOLMES system, we< 4> see?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. In 1990?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Also, in 1992 you attend a serious and series< 9> crime course at Bramshill Police College?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. We know from elsewhere that you spent a<12> substantial time on what we describe as specialist<13> duties, most of which were on the special<14> intelligence section; is that right?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Somewhat eight years?<17> A. In total probably, yes, sir.<18> Q. The other matter is this: I think it would be<19> right, from what you told the Kent Police who<20> interviewed you, that you had never, prior to this<21> case, worked yourself on a racially motivated murder?<22> A. That's correct, sir. I don't think I had as<23> long as eight years on the special intelligence<24> section, sir, slightly less.<25> Q. All right. Mr Crampton, in connection with the

. P-4647

< 1> 1993 investigations you did make a witness statement,< 2> did you not, which we have in its HOLMES produced< 3> form at (PCA00390319)?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You will be familiar with this having refreshed< 6> your memory from it prior to giving evidence, no< 7> doubt?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. This was a statement made by you on 7th October<10> 1993. Are you able to assist us as to why the<11> statement was made?<12> A. I think it was requested for purposes of the<13> inquest that was due to take place later that year.<14> Q. Are we to take it that you do not have available<15> to you contemporaneous notes beyond those that might<16> be called contemporaneous notes contained in briefing<17> policy documents?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. That is right?<20> A. That's correct, sir.<21> Q. Let us, if we may, just start with what is in<22> this statement before dealing with some other<23> matters. In this you indicate that your initial<24> involvement was at about half past midnight. Yes?<25> A. That's correct, sir.

. P-4648

< 1> Q. When you were called. Was that called at home?< 2> A. Telephoned at home, yes, sir.< 3> Q. Just explain briefly, you were what was called< 4> the Duty Superintendent, were you not?< 5> A. Yes, I was the Duty Detective Superintendent< 6> on-call for major incidents.< 7> Q. Would that be for this area or for more than one< 8> area?< 9> A. For the south-east London.<10> Q. For south-east London. So it would be<11> anticipated that if there was a serious incident,<12> such as this, then you would be called up?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. I think we will see a little bit more of this<15> later on. That duty, was that something you do on a<16> weekly basis?<17> A. Yes, sir. It was a rota system between the<18> Detective Superintendents attached to the Area Major<19> Investigation Corp.<20> Q. And this was towards the end of your week, was<21> it not?<22> A. That's correct, sir, it was the Thursday --<23> well, the early hours of Friday morning I was<24> actually informed.<25> Q. Right. You having received the information you

. P-4649

< 1> say you were told that a male youth called< 2> Stephen Lawrence had been attacked a couple of hours< 3> earlier at Eltham?< 4> A. That's correct, sir.< 5> Q. Taken to hospital and died from his injuries?< 6> A. That's correct.< 7> Q. At that stage you were not told what the nature< 8> of the attack was or the nature of the injuries?< 9> A. I knew or I had been told before I left home<10> that he had been stabbed.<11> Q. Before you left home?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Sorry, the reason for my hesitating as to that<14> is if you look to the next page, (PCA00390320) at the<15> foot of the page, do you see halfway down the page<16> you refer to asking, during the course of the night,<17> the Coroner Office to be contacted?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. So it could not be done until 9.00?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. "However, I was subsequently informed that death<22> had been caused by stabbing". That is why I was a<23> little surprised at what you said a moment ago?<24> A. What happened, sir, in actual fact was that I<25> had been told at home that he had died and it was a

. P-4650

< 1> stabbing and that a friend, who I now know to be< 2> Duwayne Brooks, had been taken to Plumstead Police< 3> Station to make a statement. I knew that before I< 4> left home. On my way to the scene I decided to call< 5> in to Plumstead Police Station to see Duwayne and the< 6> police officer or police officers who may be there.< 7> I got an explanation from Duwayne as to what had< 8> occurred and at that stage he said that what he had< 9> witnessed was somebody striking Stephen with either a<10> piece of metal or wood. I went to the scene----<11> Q. Can we just pause there. You told us this on<12> the first page of your statement. We will see that<13> on the screen now. You went to the police station<14> about 1.30 in the morning; is that right?<15> A. Approximately, yes sir, approximately 1.15----<16> Q. And there spoke to Mr Brooks?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. That was presumably a very brief conversation,<19> was it?<20> A. Yes, sir, just basically spoke to him, you know,<21> what he was able to tell me very briefly of what had<22> occurred. Made sure he was okay; did he want anybody<23> there with him. I mean, I have later found out other<24> things that, in fact, it is quite possible his mother<25> had already been to the police station but I didn't

. P-4651

< 1> know that and just generally that he was okay to make< 2> a statement and went through that with him and< 3> gave -- I can't remember now whether Cooper had< 4> actually started taking a statement or was taking< 5> some notes or whatever but certainly having satisfied< 6> myself that Duwayne was okay and wanted to make a< 7> statement I gave Cooper at that point the go ahead to< 8> take a statement. I know I have read other< 9> statements since which sort of says 3 o'clock he<10> started making a statement according to Cooper and<11> this sort of thing. This is what actually occurred.<12> Q. Whether he was actually taking or about to take<13> it perhaps does not matter a great deal. A lengthy<14> statement was taken in the early hours of that<15> morning?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. When Duwayne Brooks spoke to you he gave you a<18> brief description according to your statement of what<19> had happened?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Did he tell you anything about that led you to<22> believe this was a racist attack?<23> A. Yes, sir he told me the comment that had been<24> made, they had said: "What, what nigger?"<25> Q. So that is at the very outset?

. P-4652

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. How did you approach this in terms of whether or< 3> not this was a racist attack?< 4> A. Well, from the point of view of police policy< 5> and procedure the fact that that comment had been< 6> made put it fairly and squarely in the province of a< 7> racist murder.< 8> Q. When the Kent policeman asked you about this,< 9> can we see it on the screen at (PCA00490250), bottom<10> of the page?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. You said:<13> "I treated it as a racist, racially motivated<14> crime from the word go once I had spoken to Brooks<15> and he told me it was unprovoked, that it was by<16> white people and they called him nigger. From that<17> moment on until it could be proven otherwise in my<18> mind it was a racist murder."<19> A. That's correct, sir.<20> Q. Yes. You were asked then, were you not, where<21> you recorded that decision?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. You were asked a number of questions about<24> records that you made, were you not?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4653

< 1> Q. And your policy file. Can you help us about< 2> this, please: the first entry you made in the policy< 3> file we can see at (PCA00450175). This is your first< 4> policy decision, is it not?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. It bears the date the 23rd. The decision was< 7> AMIP was taking this on?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. The reasons that you recorded are murder,<10> identity of suspects unknown, possible racial motive?<11> A. Correct, sir.<12> Q. How does that reconcile with your assertion from<13> the word go that this was undoubtedly a racist crime?<14> A. A disclosable document, sir, that may end up in<15> Court later and if it was proven that this wasn't a<16> racial motive or whatever reason you've got to keep a<17> completely open mind, whilst it was going to be<18> treated as a racial crime. If you got to Court later<19> and it was proved that it wasn't a racist crime then<20> you put yourself in a situation where: Hang on a<21> minute, you never thought this was such and such a<22> crime. So you've got to keep, certainly, your<23> options open. Although it was put as a possible<24> racial motive it was treated as a racist crime.<25> Until some enquiry had been made quite clearly you

. P-4654

< 1> don't really know what the motive is going to finish< 2> up as but at that moment in time it was being dealt< 3> with as it was a racist motive.< 4> Q. Do you stand by this, as you said in your< 5> interview, you treated it as a racist crime from the< 6> word go?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. And had no doubt about that in your own mind?< 9> A. In my own mind, yes.<10> Q. You did not record that reason in your policy<11> document because of concerns if or when this was<12> disclosed?<13> A. Well, you would try and put, you know, leave the<14> situation open. Motive, yes, as far as I was<15> concerned it was a racial crime. Certainly within<16> the fact that, you know, the derogatory remark about<17> race that had been made put it fairly and squarely<18> into that situation. There is nothing here that is<19> meant to suggest that I didn't feel it was racial.<20> Q. You presumably acknowledged that reasons that<21> are given on policy documents have to be accurate?<22> A. Well, I feel it is accurate, sir. It was a<23> possible racial motive.<24> Q. Can we go back, please to, the statement of<25> (PCA00390319). Can we pan down, please. I am not

. P-4655

< 1> going to go through all of this, you have the brief< 2> description Mr Brooks gave you. He stated he had no< 3> knowledge of any of the persons who carried out the< 4> attack. Yes?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Something about how many of them there were and< 7> then the iron bar. Yes?< 8> A. That's correct, sir.< 9> Q. What about his ability to describe or recognise<10> any of them?<11> A. The thing that I can recall him particularly<12> remembering and I know now in a number of statements<13> it is described as "frizzy hair". I particularly<14> remember him describing it as "bushy hair".<15> Q. You were aware of some part, at least, of the<16> description he was able to give?<17> A. Of the description, yes.<18> Q. Did you find out that night of the descriptions<19> he had given very quickly to Constable Gleason at the<20> hospital?<21> A. I cannot recall, sir. What I am able to say is<22> by later that morning that I, although I know now it<23> wasn't in the statement, the colour of the hair, I<24> have recorded it as brown. Whether that was as a<25> result of what Duwayne had told me or whether at some

. P-4656

< 1> later stage I had read something else, such as an< 2> officer's statement, I cannot now recall to be< 3> honest.< 4> Q. Presumably, one of the things that you would be< 5> most interested in as early as possible would be< 6> whether there was any witness who was able to< 7> describe the attackers?< 8> A. Any other witness?< 9> Q. Any witness, including Mr Brooks?<10> A. Well, I was aware there was one other person a<11> statement had been taken from.<12> Q. You do not actually have any recollection of<13> seeing Gleason's note?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. You have seen it since?<16> A. I have seen it since, yes, sir, yes, sir.<17> Q. I can put it on the screen?<18> A. I have seen it.<19> Q. That certainly should have been drawn to your<20> attention, presumably?<21> A. What, the fact that he made one or----?<22> Q. Well, it is contact, the descriptions that are<23> contained?<24> A. He quite possibly had been.<25> Q. Well, it should have been drawn to your

. P-4657

< 1> attention, should it not?< 2> A. Yes, I suspect it should, but of course----< 3> Q. You have no recollection of whether it was or< 4> whether it was not?< 5> A. Not now, sir, no.< 6> Q. Let us go on with the statement, please, on to< 7> the second page of it, page 320. You refer there to< 8> going to the scene. Yes?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Arriving at about 1.45?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Bear in mind you got to the police station you<13> thought about 1.30, so that is why obviously it was a<14> very brief conversation with Mr Brooks, where the<15> area was still cordoned off and you spoke to<16> DI Jeynes?<17> A. That's right, sir.<18> Q. Who was actually in charge of the scene when you<19> arrived there?<20> A. DI Jeynes.<21> Q. Were there other senior officers present, above<22> and beyond constables who were standing around on<23> cordons?<24> A. No, sir.<25> Q. Were there other police officers present apart

. P-4658

< 1> from Mr Jeynes?< 2> A. There was DC Pye, who was a Detective Constable< 3> from Plumstead.< 4> Q. Yes?< 5> A. I had arrived with Detective Sergeant Turnbull< 6> who just by chance, I think, as I was leaving< 7> Plumstead he had arrived there and there was some< 8> uniformed officers at the cordons.< 9> Q. So Mr Jeynes was apparently in charge. Do you<10> remember any uniformed inspector being about?<11> A. No, sir.<12> Q. Do you remember being told anything, Mr Crampton<13> -- when you arrived there you obviously received a<14> brief briefing, at least, from Mr Jeynes, were you<15> told anything at that stage about the Astra car? I<16> am sure you know what I am talking about?<17> A. No, sir, I wasn't told about it and I do know<18> what you are talking about.<19> Q. When was that drawn to your attention, do you<20> recall? Not precisely but was it sometime later?<21> A. The Saturday, I think.<22> Q. You say in your statement, as we have on the<23> screen, that you were told by Jeynes about certain<24> house-to-house enquiries. Yes?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4659

< 1> Q. And the search had been made for likely weapons,< 2> including knives --< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. -- although it had not been confirmed at that< 5> stage that the victim had been stabbed. You tell us< 6> you had been told about that?< 7> A. I had been told at home that he had been< 8> stabbed. When I got to the scene and I spoke to< 9> Jeynes I said:<10> "I have been to the Plumstead Police Station, I<11> have spoken to Duwayne, he talks of a metal bar.<12> What has caused death?" I couldn't get an actual<13> straight answer of what had happened. So, it was at<14> that point I asked for the Coroner's Office to be<15> contacted in order, if necessary, that we could carry<16> out a post-mortem in order that we knew where we<17> were, what we were looking for and what was the cause<18> of death.<19> Pye was then despatched up to the hospital by me<20> shortly after at some stage and then in the meantime<21> before I had heard back I had ascertained that death<22> was by stabbing. It was clear and the initial<23> explanation I had got had been the correct one. I<24> then got a later message that the post-mortem<25> couldn't be done any way and it was going to be done

. P-4660

< 1> at 9 o'clock in the morning.< 2> So that was the actual situation as it unfolded.< 3> Q. To summarise, there had been, as you understood,< 4> a general search carried out, including for knives,< 5> even though there it had not been known there was a< 6> stabbing for certain?< 7> A. I think it had possibly been known for them to< 8> be searching for knives. What I couldn't get was a< 9> definitive answer at the scene.<10> Q. Right?<11> A. Therefore, that's what I wanted.<12> Q. How extensive had the search been, as you<13> understood it?<14> A. I understood there had been an extensive<15> search: Dogs had been brought in, TSG units had been<16> involved and quite extensive in the area in which the<17> suspects were known to run off and in the surrounding<18> streets.<19> Q. Quite an area was cordoned off when you arrived<20> there?<21> A. There was, sir.<22> Q. You directed in due course that the cordons be<23> lifted?<24> A. I did, sir.<25> Q. Was that while you were at the scene?

. P-4661

< 1> A. I was still at the scene, yes, sir.< 2> Q. Is that, I wonder, if we look on the screen at< 3> (PCA00450335), which is part of a CAD message, not a< 4> brilliant copy, can you make out the entry for< 5> 2.52 am:< 6> "Scene has been examined and road re-opened."< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Does that record, in effect, your direction?< 9> A. That would be correct, sir, yes.<10> Q. Going back, if we may, please, then to your<11> statement of (PCA00390320). Do you recall in that<12> what you had been told about the position in relation<13> to Stephen Lawrence's family?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. That appears on the screen. You say that<16> Mr Jeynes told you that he had received information<17> that the family did not want to see anybody until the<18> morning?<19> A. That's correct, sir.<20> Q. Is that right?<21> A. They had been asked not to be disturbed, I think<22> was the----<23> Q. Who went to see them in the morning?<24> A. DI Jeynes.<25> Q. Why not you?

. P-4662

< 1> A. Because I had to go to the post-mortem, sir,< 2> which had been set for 9 o'clock. In order to get< 3> there it meant me sort of leaving at 7.30ish. I felt< 4> that a reasonable time, if the family had not wanted< 5> to be disturbed, they are not going to have got much< 6> sleep, clearly, if any, but that a reasonable time< 7> would be about 8.30 and that's what I directed Jeynes< 8> to do.< 9> Q. Right. So you gave various further directions<10> at the scene. Yes?<11> A. Well, photography, you know, photographing and<12> liaison.<13> Q. We will not go into the detail of that. You say<14> at the foot of the page you went to Plumstead?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Go over the page, please. You say that<17> arrangements were being made or were made for a<18> search team to attend at dawn?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. And for Mr Jeynes to visit the family. At 6.30<21> in the morning you say you contacted the<22> Chief Superintendent. That is Illsley, is it?<23> A. That's correct, sir.<24> Q. And told him what was going on. Was that the<25> first time you spoke to him about it?

. P-4663

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Then you made arrangements for the staff to< 3> attend at Eltham Police Station?< 4> A. Yes, sir as a result of speaking to Mr Illsley,< 5> it was decided or agreed it would go on to HOLMES and< 6> that Eltham would be the most appropriate place to< 7> deal with it.< 8> Q. I think there are certain police stations that< 9> have the facility of dealing with HOLMES and some did<10> not, is that right?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. I will not go into the details of it but<13> Plumstead did not and Eltham did; is that correct?<14> A. That's correct, sir.<15> Q. Then you refer going to the post-mortem and<16> later to seeing Mr Lawrence, Stephen's father?<17> A. That's correct, sir.<18> Q. And for the press conference that was convened?<19> A. Correct, sir.<20> Q. Until you handed over to Mr Weeden on the Monday<21> morning?<22> A. Correct, sir.<23> Q. That is the outline of your involvement as set<24> out in your statement. Now, what I would like to do<25> is to ask you for your assistance in a number of

. P-4664

< 1> respects. First, as you are the first of the senior< 2> investigating officers, three senior investigating< 3> officers, to be called, Mr Crampton, let us introduce< 4> the matter. There are job descriptions, there is a< 5> definition of what it is one is supposed to do as the< 6> superintendent on an AMIP investigation?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Can we look at, please, it is at (MET00510295).< 9> In fact, maybe you are familiar with these, there is<10> page after page of them. We will not go through all<11> of these. This job description you would acknowledge<12> presumably, applies to the role that you were<13> fulfilling on the weekend after Stephen Lawrence's<14> murder; is that right?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. We see there is a heading there we can see on<17> the screen "main job activities"?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. Perhaps I should pause before we get to that.<20> The first arrow or bullet point under paragraph 2 of<21> "purpose and objectives" refers generally to you<22> leading and managing the investigation?<23> A. Sir.<24> Q. As directed by the Detective Chief<25> Superintendent?

. P-4665

< 1> A. Sir.< 2> Q. So, in your case, what this translates to -- and< 3> forgive the simple and clumsy language -- you were in< 4> charge of the investigation over that weekend subject< 5> to the direction of Mr Illsley?< 6> A. Correct, sir.< 7> Q. Is that right?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. We look at some of the activities for which you<10> were responsible, panning down the page. Others may<11> want to take you to some others, I do not know. At<12> 3.7?<13> A. Sir.<14> Q. "Expected to attend and take control of the crime<15> scene ensuring action is taken for the preservation<16> and investigation"?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. "Gather information, informally discuss,<19> evaluate, prioritise and initiative investigation<20> activities"?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. "Confirm with the office manager and the deputy<23> investigating officer if present." Pausing there, we<24> know that became certainly Mr Bullock, did it not?<25> A. At that stage it was Jeynes.

. P-4666

< 1> Q. Yes, but Bullock was then appointed?< 2> A. He later became, sorry, sir, yes.< 3> Q. "Deciding the initial scope and pattern of the< 4> investigation". Yes?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. At 3.9, over the page, your responsibility< 7> included "ensuring the correct treatment of persons< 8> injured or affected by crime"?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. "Appointing one or more victim liaison<11> officers"?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. "Ensuring adequate briefing, support facilities<14> and victim support for as long as necessary"?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. "Irrespective of the length of the<17> investigation"?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. Pausing there, is that a responsibility which<20> you sought to discharge by the appointment of Bevan<21> and Holden?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. We will pause and deal with this discreetly<24> then. We know that Bevan had never done the job<25> before. Did you know that?

. P-4667

< 1> A. Quite possibly, yes, sir.< 2> Q. How did you ensure that he was adequately< 3> briefed as to what he was supposed to do?< 4> A. I briefed him as to what he should do.< 5> Q. Which was what?< 6> A. That he was to facilitate the needs of the< 7> family; to keep the family informed of what was going< 8> on and to place themselves at their disposal. To< 9> discuss any other support that they might need and<10> generally be there for them.<11> Q. Did you actually have any directions given to<12> you, so to speak, in your training as to what it was<13> a liaison officer was supposed to do or was it just<14> common sense?<15> A. I think it is difficult to actually recall any<16> actual instructions, but I am sure quite clearly on<17> the serious and serious crimes course and that sort<18> of thing these things would be discussed and best<19> practice obviously discussed. That's to the best of<20> my recollection I can answer that.<21> Q. You are aware, I know this is not contentious,<22> you are aware, presumably, Mr Crampton, that<23> unfortunately -- put the reasons to one side -- the<24> family liaison did not work, did it?<25> A. Ultimately, I am very aware obviously, sir.

. P-4668

< 1> Q. Is there anything further you think you could or< 2> should have done that weekend in order to----< 3> A. Can I just say----< 4> Q. ----give it a better chance of working?< 5> A. Over that weekend, I wasn't aware there were any< 6> major problems over that weekend. The feedback that< 7> I was getting was from the police officers that they< 8> were finding it difficult to actually be able to sit< 9> down with the family on their own because there were<10> so many people there. I personally did not see that<11> as a problem. It was what I would have expected in<12> my own house in similar circumstances. The fact that<13> they had support to me was a good thing. I didn't<14> see that as a problem to the officers. I said to the<15> officers, you know, that is what you would expect<16> particularly over a weekend period. I envisage<17> possibly by the Monday that situation may change. As<18> I say, I didn't see it as a problem. But that to me<19> was to the best of my knowledge where there was any<20> problems occurring and it was coming from the<21> officers and not from the family. On the Friday I<22> had spoken to Mr Lawrence prior to the press<23> conference and explained what had happened at the<24> post-mortem and what was going to happen and the fact<25> that there would be, because we had already

. P-4669

< 1> determined by then, two liaison officers. On the< 2> Saturday the officers had gone to see him and quite< 3> clearly I was busy on the Saturday and I didn't go< 4> myself and I never did meet Mrs Lawrence; and on the< 5> Sunday I know the officers went and we had a message< 6> later from Mr Lawrence thanking us for our attendance< 7> or whatever, I can't remember the exact wording now< 8> but that they wished to be left alone on the sabbath< 9> and that was the situation on the weekend.<10> If I can just come back to Bevan and the fact<11> that he had never done the job before, which is quite<12> possible, Bevan had actually served under my command<13> previously and I was aware and knew that he had some<14> form of training in I now know it was human awareness<15> and I think I did at that time, but I knew he had<16> this ability and he used to go and lecture on it and<17> talk at the Hendon Police College, as I understand.<18> That was my reason I wanted a supervisory officer, a<19> supervisory rank of detective sergeant and he had<20> that attribute and I wanted a female officer and I<21> had one who also had the training for counselling and<22> that sort of thing. So it wasn't as if -- I mean<23> clearly, I had to pick the officers from those<24> officers put at my disposal but it was not just a<25> matter of them selecting two ad hoc. I am just

. P-4670

< 1> trying to tell you there was some thought that went< 2> into it.< 3> Q. Right. Go on with your obligations. 3.14 we< 4> can see on the screen. They included "a requirement< 5> to attend the incident room regularly to read< 6> reports, statements, relevant message, endorse< 7> initial actions, sign secondary actions and monitor< 8> the performance of the officer manager and the< 9> deputy"?<10> A. Yes, sir. I think that is an instruction aimed<11> more over a longer period of time. Quite clearly it<12> is very hectic over the first couple of days and you<13> start to consolidate things to a greater degree<14> later, but depending on each incident, of course.<15> Q. Well may be, Mr Crampton, although you were only<16> temporarily in charge of the investigation as senior<17> investigating officer, as you acknowledged yourself,<18> over that weekend the buck stopped with you?<19> A. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is this<20> particular instruction I think you've got to read<21> that as over a longer term. There is no dispute over<22> the period that I was the SIO I was exactly that, the<23> SIO.<24> Q. I refer to that and you probably know why I<25> refer to that because it does require, if requirement

. P-4671

< 1> is necessary expressly, the SIO to acquaint himself< 2> with all relevant messages?< 3> A. Of course.< 4> Q. You were not acquainted with a very relevant< 5> message, were you?< 6> A. That's correct.< 7> Q. To a family we are calling "DD"?< 8> A. That's correct.< 9> Q. I think although -- I am not saying this at all<10> critically -- there had been some speculation as to<11> what may have gone wrong there, you do not actually<12> know why that did not come to your notice, do you?<13> A. No, sir.<14> Q. Additionally, so far as your duties are<15> concerned, 3.21. Can you go down the screen a<16> bit. "For each investigation to hold briefings<17> usually twice a day at first ensuring all members of<18> the investigation team attend. Review cases, canvass<19> and assess opinions and suggestions, set out<20> immediate and long-term actions and polices"?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Yes?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. Was that discharged, that obligation over the<25> weekend or those obligations?

. P-4672

< 1> A. There was a meeting once a day, sir.< 2> Q. What about canvassing and assessing opinions and< 3> suggestions?< 4> A. At the meeting, sir.< 5> Q. Yes?< 6> A. Yes, sir. One of the major reasons for holding< 7> them.< 8> Q. Presumably, well you tell us, was there any< 9> canvassing of opinions and suggestions about the<10> possibility of arrest that weekend?<11> A. Yes and a discussion of, you know, whether we<12> should or shouldn't and the fact that with had no<13> actual evidence.<14> Q. Presumably, the single most important<15> decision -- negative decision made that weekend?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. And not recorded anywhere?<18> A. Well, when you say "not recorded anywhere", the<19> fact that the arrest wasn't made is implicit. I<20> would -- I think you are probably talking about the<21> policy document here. If there had been evidence on<22> which to arrest somebody and a decision had been made<23> not to do it for some reason, then quite clearly that<24> would have been a policy decision. But in every<25> murder you get information in and the fact that you

. P-4673

< 1> do not arrest on that information and you are still< 2> working on it or whatever, is not a decision. It is< 3> a negative decision and not one that I would< 4> necessarily put in a policy docket. There is nothing< 5> to say quite clearly that you can't, but it is very< 6> much each investigative officer's own way of dealing< 7> with things as to what is put in a policy file.< 8> Quite clearly now for my own benefit I wish it had< 9> been more fully recorded but nevertheless it wasn't.<10> Q. Forgive me, I wanted to allow you to have your<11> full say in relation to that. Do I understand<12> correctly, and I thought I had, that a positive<13> decision was made not to arrest that weekend. It was<14> not just an oversight. You thought about it and<15> decided not to; is that right?<16> A. That's correct.<17> Q. It is not just in terms of policy dockets I am<18> asking you this question. Is this any record<19> anywhere of that decision and the reasons for it?<20> A. No, the only place you would put that to the<21> best of my knowledge now is in the policy file.<22> Q. Let us just look at what is required for the<23> policy file so far as the job description is<24> concerned. It may be helpful to do that. If you go<25> to the next page of this document, please. At

. P-4674

< 1> paragraph 3.27 you see it there on the screen,< 2> "maintain a policy docket". That is what we are< 3> talking about, a policy file?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. "Examine and sign every decision recorded< 6> therein"?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. "Ensuring that reasons are shown correctly."< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. What do you understand the object of that<11> exercise to be, it is not just paperwork for<12> paperwork sake presumably?<13> A. One of the main things of a policy docket is to<14> record decisions that you are going to take that may<15> have an effect on manpower, budgetary, decisions, for<16> example, to go public on any particular topic that is<17> going to get a lot of response and need manpower to<18> respond to it that you may not have and any decision<19> that is going to affect in that way. Also, the lines<20> of your enquiry and in this the lines of the enquiry<21> were to follow up all of the information that was<22> coming in at that early stage, quite clearly. Where<23> I can see what is being said here is that I didn't<24> document the fact that we didn't have any evidence<25> and, therefore, I had taken a decision not to arrest,

. P-4675

< 1> and that is the situation. I didn't do that.< 2> Q. Do you think you should have done?< 3> A. It is every officer's decision as to what he< 4> puts in that and there is no -- I suppose there is no< 5> way other than what you see here of setting it out< 6> and it is perhaps to a degree an interpretation.< 7> Certainly, yes, I wish I had. It would have helped< 8> me no end.< 9> Q. Before we leave this document and go to some of<10> the documents that were created at the time, can we<11> go to the top of the page we are on, please. One of<12> the many obligations, and there is an awful lot of<13> them, imposed on the SIO at 3.24 --<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. -- relates to informants. Yes?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. Then:<18> "Manage informants and intelligence gathering as<19> part of the integrated intelligence system."<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. "Ensuring that all useful information is<22> collected, reported and actioned."<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. So your responsibility as the was to ensure that<25> such information is collected, recorded and actioned?

. P-4676

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. There is only one other thing I want to ask you< 3> about from this document before we move on. If we go< 4> to the next page, page 298, the skilled profile,< 5> so-called, in relation to detective superintendent.< 6> If you count down the arrows five:< 7> "A detective superintendent must have a good< 8> knowledge of relevant legislation and service polices< 9> and legal processes." Do you think you had that skill<10> at the time?<11> A. I would like to think so, sir.<12> Q. Right. In the context of the job description,<13> referring to briefings being required, it might be as<14> well if we just look at the briefing notes, such as<15> they are, as they survived?<16> A. They are headed "briefing notes" but they are<17> not briefing notes as such. They were not briefing<18> people particularly they were the office meeting<19> notes.<20> Q. These are notes of meetings?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Which is all we have?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. Make sure we are talking at the same thing. The<25> first one I have is (PCA00320002)?

. P-4677

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. I do not know if there were any other notes of< 3> any kind but if there were they certainly have not< 4> survived?< 5> A. No, they are meeting notes, which is as headed,< 6> yes.< 7> Q. "I said I was doing this in the context of the< 8> obligation to hold briefings."< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. "Usually twice a day at first, ensuring all<11> members of the team attend."<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. These are the notes of such briefing meetings,<14> are they not?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. The first one is Friday. Yes?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Which has Mr Bullock now involved?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. At 2 o'clock briefing the TSG on house-to-house<21> enquiries?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Then a meeting at 5 o'clock -- the 2 o'clock<24> meeting is not so much a briefing meeting it is a<25> specific briefing of a specific task?

. P-4678

< 1> A. That's correct, sir.< 2> Q. 5 o'clock is the briefing meeting?< 3> A. The office meeting, yes, sir.< 4> Q. As to what is happening?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. I do not think I need to go through this, but< 7> there is a brief summary of what has been going on?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Is that right?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. As you told us, at this early stage, as you told<12> the Kent Police and confirmed to us, there was no<13> doubt in your mind whether this was a racist attack?<14> A. I'd just left a press conference at 2.30 where<15> we made that quite plain, yes, sir.<16> Q. There was obvious concern, it appears on the<17> face of this document, was there not, about race<18> issues?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. At least in a public order sense?<21> A. That's right, yes.<22> Q. Yes?<23> A. That's correct, yes.<24> Q. Putting it briefly?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4679

< 1> Q. At this early stage what enquiry had you made or< 2> caused to have been made of local police officers as< 3> to any known racists, violent racists?< 4> A. What had happened in the early hours of the< 5> morning we decided to call in PC Fisher, who was a< 6> racial incidents officer, who would have that< 7> knowledge of racial incidents on that division and< 8> anything that may be of value to us. Also, because< 9> of his contacts with the people within the community,<10> the Council, and that sort of thing, dealing with<11> such issues, and the fact that he had previously<12> acted as a victim liaison officer in a previous<13> murder of a black youth. So for those reasons he was<14> brought on board very early.<15> There wasn't, as I understand, anything in his<16> indices. The other thing from the point of view of<17> local knowledge -- I had the local Crime Squad<18> brought in at a very early stage by 8 o'clock the<19> Friday morning. The crime squad consist of officers<20> who have been uniform officers on the division, who<21> in the main want to become CID officers, whose job<22> and duties it is to go and police the area, cultivate<23> people within the community, informants, and who, to<24> my mind, would have probably the best knowledge of<25> everybody, of any suspects for this type of offence

. P-4680

< 1> and who the local criminals were. I brought them on< 2> board at a very early stage and there was nothing< 3> forthcoming from them either.< 4> Q. Tell me about this, Kent asked you:< 5> "Did you ask any local officers who they thought< 6> the offenders might be?" You said: "I can't< 7> specifically say so."< 8> A. Quite clearly, obviously I have had a lot of< 9> material and gone over this a lot more in my mind<10> before I was with Kent. The picture I had before I<11> was being questioned by Kent, did I single out<12> officers and specifically go to them, which I<13> didn't. The actual things I did were the things I<14> just told you. I think I did mention Fisher,<15> actually.<16> Q. You did mention Fisher, yes. If you want to be<17> reminded of that. You said in respect of Fisher when<18> they asked you about him:<19> "He was the racial enquiry's officer. He was<20> attached to the squad and his name was Fisher." The<21> chap you brought in?<22> A. That's right.<23> Q. Page 235, if anyone is interested in following<24> up the reference.<25> I do not think I want to ask you anything

. P-4681

< 1> further about the briefing note for the Friday< 2> evening at 5 o'clock?< 3> A. That is correct, sir. It is timed at< 4> 5 o'clock. Whether it started on time I can't say.< 5> Q. We know, if we look on the screen, please, at< 6> (PCA00370034), this is message number 4. I know you< 7> have been asked about this previously, Mr Crampton?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. An anonymous caller -- yes?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. -- was recorded earlier that afternoon, the<12> Friday, saying:<13> "There is a group of youths on the Kidbrook<14> Estate who always carry large knives and threaten<15> people. They may have been involved in last night's<16> stabbing and two of them are..." The name Neil Acour<17> is written down and Dave Norris?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. And an address?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Which we know actually to be the Acourt's<22> address?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. That does not feature in the meeting note on the<25> Friday evening, does it?

. P-4682

< 1> A. No, sir.< 2> Q. This appears to be, I grant it is pretty big,< 3> the first indication and first information being< 4> received suggesting who the killers might be?< 5> A. That's correct, sir.< 6> Q. That should certainly have been drawn< 7> immediately to your attention, should it not?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. If it was drawn immediately to your attention<10> surely this would have been something that would have<11> been mentioned at this briefing meeting?<12> A. I would imagine it would certainly have been<13> mentioned at the briefing meeting and I imagine also<14> that it would have been noted. Obviously, what you<15> have to appreciate, if you look at the length of some<16> of the meetings, the notes are very brief and clearly<17> do not reflect everything that was said.<18> Q. Do you think this was mentioned at the meeting?<19> A. I don't, sir. I don't think it was.<20> Q. No. It should have been?<21> A. Quite clearly it should have been, sir. It had<22> been actioned obviously.<23> Q. That is during the day on Friday. You went<24> off-duty that evening, did you not?<25> A. I did, sir.

. P-4683

< 1> Q. And came on on the Saturday?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. We have a meeting note for the Saturday,< 4> (PCA00320003). There is a number of matters< 5> indicated to have been discussed. Yes?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. About the drains. There is the Astra being< 8> mentioned?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Reference to Mr Shepherd's statement?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Somewhat elliptical terms given re decision to<13> re-examine body of victim re punching and kicking. A<14> couple of entries further down it says:<15> "As a result of the Shepherd statement<16> identified at bus stop, bus driver seen, et cetera,<17> people to be traced, Brooks to be reinterviewed re<18> apparent conflicts (fighting)."<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. We do not need to dwell on that. Mr Shepherd in<21> his statement, as you reminded yourself since,<22> described the gang of white youths as surrounding<23> both the boys, did he not?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. And assaulting both of them?

. P-4684

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Mr Brooks from his description, getting away< 3> almost immediately but being party to the initial< 4> assault upon him?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Mr Brooks, of course, did not say that?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. So that is presumably what is being referred to< 9> there?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Further reference to the house-to-house<12> enquiries being required to be followed up.<13> Then: "Re, male anon informant ID known to SIO"?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. As you now know this is the chap we call Grant,<16> is it not?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. The meeting note says:<19> "Information supplied re named suspect, the<20> Acourt twins, Norris. Anonymous letters, including<21> those above and additionally Dobson."<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Pausing there, the anonymous letters, that is a<24> reference to what we call the kiosk letter and a very<25> similar letter that was, in fact, left on the

. P-4685

< 1> windscreen of a police car?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. We will look at those in due course. All of< 4> which were to be fully investigated at this stage?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Can I pause there for a moment. Here we are on< 7> Saturday evening where one of the matters being< 8> discussed is the Grant visit to the police station< 9> the previous evening?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. As you know now that was at 7.45. This is not a<12> memory test. Perhaps you would take that from me?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Would you?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. We have the message which is message 40. Let us<17> look at it, (PCA00370035). That is a copy of the<18> original message as taken down or recorded by<19> Budgen. Yes?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. It has the disadvantage you cannot read most of<22> it because of the highlighting. You can remember, I<23> have no doubt, its contents, (PCA00500165). Just for<24> convenience, there is set out the text of it?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4686

< 1> Q. This was specifically identifying by name, and< 2> accurately by name, the Acourt brothers. Yes?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. And Norris and two others unknown?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. And allegations about the Krays?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. An allegation about their propensity for< 9> carrying knives and weapons?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. An echo of the earlier anonymous information<12> that had been received?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. And then a new allegation, so to speak, that<15> Norris had stabbed Benefield?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. There is reference to the young Pakistani boy<18> murdered in Well Hall Road, Peter Thompson the<19> culprit, as part of the gang?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Alleging that in fact one of the Acourts had<22> been responsible?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. An allegation of a stabbing of somebody called<25> "Lee". We know now that is Lee Pearson?

. P-4687

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. And a description of what occurred to him and a< 3> description given of the youths. Yes?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. And believe identity of informant established.< 6> Obviously very important information?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Would you agree?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Now, you know, pausing in relation to this, you<11> know because the Kent Police officers asked you about<12> it, did they not?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. That allegedly and I say it in that manner<15> deliberately as we are yet to hear from him,<16> Mr Bullock appeared to be less than interested in<17> this?<18> A. Allegedly, sir.<19> Q. In that, to remind you briefly, Budgen went to<20> tell him that he had got this informant at the desk<21> downstairs and he was told: "Well, make a note of<22> it", that was it?<23> A. That is as has been suggested.<24> Q. You, I think, described that, did you not, or<25> agreed that that was vital very important

. P-4688

< 1> information?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. You told the Kent Investigators that you would< 4> have expected your deputy, Mr Bullock, having been< 5> told if he was, that the informant was at the< 6> police station himself to go and see him straight< 7> away?< 8> A. If the informant had still been at the police< 9> station, yes.<10> Q. We know apparently he was and if he was it would<11> have been inexcusable not to, would it not?<12> A. I can only give my recall of the impression I<13> was given the next morning, that Bullock had been<14> told, as I understood it and I think it is said in my<15> Kent Report, that I was under the impression he had<16> left before Bullock was aware, but that may not be<17> right.<18> Q. It is not the evidence we have heard?<19> A. Okay.<20> Q. We are yet to hear from Mr Bullock. The story<21> as we have hard it so far is Budgen goes to Bullock<22> and says the chap downstairs has this information and<23> Bullock says "go and write it down"?<24> A. I appreciate what has been said since. What I<25> was trying to give you was my understanding and

. P-4689

< 1> impression of the next morning as to what had< 2> occurred.< 3> Q. You told Kent, did you not, that you thought< 4> that this information when it came to your notice was< 5> information that was required to be taken seriously< 6> and it was considered to be good information, be it< 7> information and not evidence?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Is that a fairy summary?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. It was not drawn to your attention on the Friday<12> night, was it?<13> A. I wasn't contacted on the Friday night, no.<14> Q. Should it have been?<15> A. The action that was taken was to research it and<16> to make enquiries into that information which is the<17> instructions at that stage that I would have given.<18> What I was trying to portray in my interview to Kent<19> was that Bullock had actually given instructions to<20> deal, leaving aside of course the interviewing of the<21> individual himself, actually on the information he<22> had done what I would have given the instructions to<23> do. The fact that I had been on all day and all<24> night and had gone home and he had taken the decision<25> upon himself to do it, I was trying to portray to

. P-4690

< 1> Kent that, you know, I was satisfied the action he< 2> had taken and that he had not called me, but quite< 3> clearly he had two options and he could just as< 4> easily have called me. The outcome, I suspect, of< 5> the actioning of that message would not have been any< 6> different.< 7> Q. But it was drawn to your attention the next day< 8> as were the letters that were recovered. Yes?< 9> A. Well, this was brought to my attention and then<10> subsequently the letters were recovered later.<11> Q. During the course of Saturday?<12> A. During the course of the day, yes, sir.<13> Q. We do not look at both of them because I think<14> you acknowledge that they were of a similar effect?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Let us look on the screen, please, at<17> (PCA00370044). Nothing turns on this. I think this<18> is a slightly misleadingly letter entitled "recovered<19> from litter bin". I think this was the one from the<20> car?<21> A. That's correct.<22> Q. The police were called and told there was<23> something in the bin?<24> A. That's correct, sir.<25> Q. We need not worry about that. This is the

. P-4691

< 1> translation of the manuscript letter. It named the< 2> Acourt brothers, Norris and Dobson, did it not?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. It said they were involved in the stabbing?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. And then reference to the Wimpy Bar stabbing< 7> alleging that Neil Acourt and Dave Norris had been< 8> involved in that. Was that Gurdi Bhangal?< 9> A. Yes, I think Gurdi Bhangal.<10> Q. Then the same two being involved with Benefield<11> which is what the informant the previous night had<12> said, is it not?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. Addresses given, repetition of all known to<15> carry knives openly. Openly they are all said to be<16> very dangerous. Yes?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. And some other observation that we have looked<19> at before, but that information came to you as having<20> been the subject of these two letters during the<21> course of Saturday?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Yes?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. If we go back then to the discussion on the

. P-4692

< 1> Saturday evening at the meeting at (PCA00320003)< 2> under the heading "re, male, non-informant". Yes?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. We will not waste time of whether he was< 5> anonymous or not. First of all, it is right that his< 6> actual identity was known to you?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. When this was discussed, that is his information< 9> and the information contained in the anonymous<10> letters?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Was there any consideration given at that stage<13> to affecting arrests?<14> A. By that Saturday evening consideration had been<15> given and a strategy adopted.<16> Q. Was there discussion involving the canvassing<17> and assessing of opinions and suggestions from the<18> investigating officers about arrest?<19> A. That is the format the meeting would have took.<20> They would have been told the decisions and the<21> strategy we had made and we would have thrown it open<22> for discussion and any ideas, anybody's comments.<23> Q. There is no record of that?<24> A. Of that being said? No, sir.<25> Q. Or of the topic of arrest being discussed?

. P-4693

< 1> A. No, sir.< 2> Q. The note of the meeting -- and I appreciate I do< 3> not think it is your note, is it?< 4> A. No, sir.< 5> Q. I think we have been told, we believe it is< 6> Mr Bullock who probably prepared these notes?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. "consideration" it says "being given to OP" that< 9> is observation point?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. "on suspect's address"?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Looking ahead a bit, the next day you decided<14> there ought to be some surveillance, did you not?<15> A. There came a stage where I decided that we<16> would, or in consultation, request a surveillance<17> team as from the Monday because an OP on its own it<18> was felt they needed mobile surveillance to really<19> achieve anything worthwhile of what we were looking<20> for at that stage.<21> Q. So you needed a specialist surveillance team?<22> A. We needed a surveillance team, yes.<23> Q. I think the answer to my question would have<24> been yes, would it not? It was on the Sunday that<25> you decided to do that?

. P-4694

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Right. Just help us about this, if the< 3> surveillance team had been available would you have< 4> moved more quickly and got them in over the weekend?< 5> A. I don't necessarily think so, sir, as the way< 6> the thing sort of evolved.< 7> Q. To what extent, if at all, were the< 8> implementation of a decision to request assistance on< 9> surveillance affected by the apparent budgetary<10> consideration that surveillance do not ordinarily<11> work at weekends?<12> A. I don't think the budgetary considerations<13> played any particular part in it. If it was felt<14> that there was a need for the surveillance team with<15> a view to obtaining primary evidence of the offence<16> of murder then they would have been brought in at the<17> earliest stage in order to do that. But the whole<18> strategy that had been developed, it was never<19> envisaged that the surveillance as such was going to<20> give us direct evidence which is what we were seeking<21> at that stage of the murder, evidence in order to<22> arrest. What we looked at later and what I hoped the<23> surveillance team would provide was current<24> association between the people named, possibly<25> intelligence with regard to clothing, possibly other

. P-4695

< 1> addresses, other suspects and that sort of thing,< 2> supportive, possibly becoming corroborative evidence< 3> in due course, but not envisaged that it was going to< 4> provide us direct evidence of the murder.< 5> Q. You have mentioned possible information in< 6> relation to clothing just now?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. So the sooner you acted the better?< 9> A. You have to look at the whole strategy and<10> decision that had been made. There was no one<11> specific point taken and it was acted on as a whole<12> and I had looked at the whole situation.<13> Q. Would you agree that if you are hoping to get<14> evidence of clothing being disposed of or whatever,<15> you would have to act quickly?<16> A. No, sir, this is what I am saying you have to<17> look at the overall decision and the decision I have<18> made 36 hours on. I took the decision if clothing<19> was going to be disposed of it was very likely that<20> it would have been disposed of and if it hadn't been<21> disposed of by then, then it is very likely that it<22> might not be disposed of.<23> Q. What was the information or evidence in relation<24> to clothing that you told us you had in mind that the<25> surveillance team might assist you with?

. P-4696

< 1> A. If the subjects were seen to be wearing clothing< 2> of the nature that the various eyewitnesses described< 3> then that would be very useful to us.< 4> Q. But money was not a problem, I take it?< 5> A. Money -- in a situation of a murder over the< 6> first weekend I would say is never a problem.< 7> Q. One of the reason that is you put forward for< 8> deferring arrests and not carrying them out that< 9> weekend was it would have been impossible to arrange<10> identification parades?<11> A. It was never meant to be one of the reasons for<12> not arresting. It was one of the considerations that<13> was taken into account when making the decision<14> whether to arrest or not or where we were likely to<15> be left. You had to consider forensics, you had to<16> consider interviewing on information alone and you<17> had to consider what you might be left with at the<18> end of the day which may only be identification<19> parades; and you had to look at if that was all you<20> were left with, was it the most sensible thing to<21> arrest them at a time when you knew that in all<22> probability you would not get effective<23> identification parades off the ground.<24> Q. I will not argue semantics with you. It was,<25> let us call it a consideration, to use your word. It

. P-4697

< 1> was one of the considerations?< 2> A. It was one of the considerations that went to< 3> make the whole.< 4> Q. Help us about this: why is it difficult or< 5> impossible to get an identification parade together< 6> at a weekend?< 7> A. Because the way that the people who are going to< 8> stand on the parade, they are got from the various< 9> places, factories and these sort of places that the<10> officers who run the ID suites there. Other than<11> that, you've got to try and get people off the<12> street. If you are going to arrest four people and<13> have four identification parades with 30-odd people<14> that you've got to try and get off the streets on a<15> Sunday, what I'm saying is, whilst it shouldn't be<16> the case, experience and practicalities tell you that<17> it would not occur in all probability and you would<18> have finished up bailing out people to come back for<19> ID parades.<20> Q. Are the specialists identification suites open<21> for prisoners on a Sunday?<22> A. No, but you could call people out.<23> Q. Ordinarily would you have to justify having a<24> parade arranged for a Saturday or a Sunday?<25> A. Quite clearly, if you were in a position to

. P-4698

< 1> arrange parades then you would do them at the most< 2> convenient time when they would be most effectively< 3> handled. If you have a situation where an identity< 4> parade, because somebody was in custody, needed to be< 5> carried out then every step would be taken to do so.< 6> What I am saying here is slightly different, and what< 7> I was portraying to Kent is what we come back to, is< 8> that my own experience told me with all of the< 9> considerations one of them was that if we finished up<10> relying solely on identification that in all<11> probability effective identification parades would<12> not have got off the ground on a Sunday. It was<13> that.<14> Q. Are practical difficulties or contemplated<15> practical difficulties in relation to arranging an<16> identification parade, are they justification for not<17> arresting?<18> A. No, sir and it was never suggested that it was.<19> Q. No, I know you said it was a consideration not a<20> reason. Can I ask you two things please about the<21> document in front of you before inviting the Chairman<22> for a short break. Let us deal with this document.<23> We have seen already a couple of references to<24> Mr Shepherd?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4699

< 1> Q. Who you knew also had given descriptions?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Why was he not asked immediately to do what I< 4> think is called an E-fit?< 5> A. That would not -- over that weekend it was< 6> certainly all the time leading up, from my own point< 7> of view, and I know what went on later, I would treat< 8> E-fits, photo-fits and similar in the same way and in< 9> the policy that I would with photographs of<10> suspects. If suspects were named, and I had no doubt<11> that these people would be arrested, whatever<12> happened they would be arrested, it was just the<13> timing of the arrests, that to tamper in any way with<14> their recollection in advance of giving them the<15> opportunity to see people on the parade was not the<16> way forward. You would deal with it the same. If<17> you know of a suspect who is going to be taken in and<18> who is going to go on an identification parade, if<19> there is a photo of him once he had been identified<20> you would never show it to any other witnesses. In<21> the same way, I feel you wouldn't get E-fits until<22> the people had been on an identification parade. I<23> had never envisaged and I make no adverse comment<24> here of anything that followed me, but I had never<25> envisaged perhaps that it might go as long as it

. P-4700

< 1> did. But quite clearly my own view is you don't do< 2> any E-fits or something if you have got people who< 3> are going on an ID parade.< 4> Q. Is that based on some training or instructions?< 5> A. It is my understanding. Clearly, I would never< 6> have done E-fits over that weekend anyway. What I am< 7> really saying is I wouldn't have gone on to do them< 8> in the week either if the suspects were there to be< 9> arrested and had gone on an ID parade.<10> I mean there are all sorts of reasons in<11> addition. I mean, when you come to Court you know<12> that E-fits can often be made that they are perhaps<13> not a likeness and you are weakening your evidence.<14> The best evidence that you can have is a witness<15> going on an identification parade to see if he can<16> identify the suspect.<17> Q. We will come back to that. Let me ask you<18> finally in relation to this document: the note<19> records, the final bit of the note on the screen,<20> that there was agreement or instruction to research<21> incidents of a similar nature --<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. -- with a view to identifying involvement of<24> alleged suspects identified from the information?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4701

< 1> Q. That obviously is directed at the Acourts,< 2> Norris and Dobson?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. What was actually done at the weekend?< 5> A. I think it was aimed at researching the< 6> incidents of a similar nature that had been -- and< 7> the information that had been provided by Grant and< 8> the female, the stabbing of Benefield, identifying< 9> Lee, that sort of thing.<10> Q. Did you access the collator's cards or LIO's, as<11> I think they were called then?<12> A. There was an officer -- I think the first action<13> went out on the Friday evening from the message that<14> I wasn't aware of until the Saturday and then<15> certainly Grant's information. Certainly by early<16> Saturday morning there was an officer who was<17> searching the named suspects.<18> Q. What I want to know, particularly, was whether<19> you then called for the LIO's or collator's cards.<20> A. That would have been part of the research, to<21> look at all areas where possible information lay.<22> Q. Did you see Norris' collator's cards?<23> A. I can't specifically recall seeing it.<24> Q. There was one?<25> A. I understand there is one but I can't----

. P-4702

< 1> Q. Later on you have justified no surveillance< 2> being commissioned on Norris because you did not know< 3> his address?< 4> A. At some stage we knew his address, I think on< 5> the Sunday.< 6> Q. You should have known it straightaway because it< 7> was written down in black and white?< 8> A. Well, it would have been whenever the officer< 9> found it.<10> Q. When did you first hear of Norris' involvement<11> in the Witham case?<12> A. I don't think I was aware of it over the<13> weekend.<14> Q. You knew he had actually been charged with<15> wounding in that case?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. In fact the case had just been discontinued just<18> before the time of this murder?<19> A. Yes, sir. I think it was on the Sunday that we<20> identified Norris' address, late on the Sunday, at<21> some stage. If it was identified for that reason, I<22> mean what was happening was we wanted to get<23> addresses and details of the individuals.<24> Q. Information was readily available. Could we see<25> this before we break, (MET00970044). That is Norris'

. P-4703

< 1> LIO or collator's card?< 2> A. From which police station, sir?< 3> Q. I do not know?< 4> A. You've got to know where to look for it to find< 5> it.< 6> Q. Where did you look for it?< 7> A. The officer that was researching looked for< 8> them.< 9> Q. How many police stations would there be to ask?<10> A. Well, wherever. You've got to start from a<11> certain point. You would start with the yard at CRO<12> and do a check there to start off with.<13> Q. How long does that take?<14> A. It doesn't take long. Quite clearly it would be<15> done on the PNC terminal, but the officer that I<16> think had got Norris and the Acourts, and what have<17> you, would have to get all of the information that<18> was available on them.<19> Q. Just help me about this, please, because I do<20> not want to get the wrong end of the stick, enquiry<21> into Norris was apparently actioned from a document<22> that was action 7 (MET00820067)?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. In fact, this action, you see has "originating<25> documents" towards the foot of the screen, another

. P-4704

< 1> reference to message 4 higher up as well?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. That is that first anonymous message we looked< 4> at?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. That was recorded as the Acauls and Norris. It< 7> derived initially from that and then, of course,< 8> further information had been received.< 9> Go down the screen, please, on the 23rd, the<10> Friday, in the afternoon, the action was raised and<11> allocated to Chase?<12> A. That's correct, sir.<13> Q. It is shown as being completed on 28th April?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. The result we can see underneath the date 29th<16> at 15.41, it is to referred to Norris and his<17> address?<18> A. The information was known before the 28th,<19> that's when the officer put the action back in.<20> Q. All readily available?<21> A. And obtained.<22> Q. Known to you before you left the Inquiry?<23> A. That is difficult to say, but I think that the<24> Norris address was known on the Sunday probably.<25> Q. Sir, I wonder is that a convenient moment?

. P-4705

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. There is just one thing in my< 2> mind: you knew about the specific allegation about< 3> Stacey Benefield on the Saturday?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Why did officers only go and see him on the< 6> Sunday evening?< 7> A. I don't know when they first attempted to see< 8> him, sir. I mean they would have been given the< 9> action and they would have, depending on what they<10> were doing, they may have tried to see him before<11> that, I'm not aware, sir.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: We will see later. Thank you very<13> much. We will have a break now. Of course, as you<14> know full well, you must not speak about the evidence<15> to anyone and do not let anyone approach you. It has<16> happened that people have approached witnesses, so<17> just ignore them if they try to?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. We will start at 11.35?<20> <(Short Adjournment)<21> MR LAWSON: Mr Crampton, we were looking at the note<22> of the meeting on the Saturday and the information<23> that had by then at least been received, Saturday<24> 24th. Yes?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4706

< 1> Q. As your meeting was going on, as we know it now,< 2> there came in information from the witness "DD"?< 3> A. That is what has been stated, sir.< 4> Q. Yes. That is the timing on the message at< 5> least. I want to come to that in a moment or two.< 6> That was not information that was actually available< 7> to you on the Saturday; is that right?< 8> A. No, sir.< 9> Q. Well, it is right?<10> A. Yes, it is right. No, it wasn't available.<11> Q. Right. Two things I want to ask you about<12> before we go on, please, with reference to<13> (PCA00320003) where it says "in respect of the male<14> anonymous informant identity, ID known to SIO" to<15> you?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You knew his real name you told us. Did you<18> know him?<19> A. No, sir.<20> Q. Did you know anything of him?<21> A. No, sir, just that his identity had been made<22> known to me.<23> Q. That is really the information that Budgen had<24> obtained and checked up on?<25> A. That's correct.

. P-4707

< 1> Q. Obviously, it was very important to follow him< 2> up presumably?< 3> A. To follow up the----< 4> Q. The man who came to be known as "Grant"?< 5> A. From the point of view of----< 6> Q. Trying to find out where he got his information< 7> from?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. What did you do specifically about that?<10> A. I placed Detective Sergeant Davidson to work<11> with Budgen to get any further information from the<12> man "Grant" that he was able to supply.<13> Q. Was Davidson perceived to be the best detective<14> on the team?<15> A. He was perceived to be perhaps, by me, the most<16> experienced from, perhaps, where he had served.<17> There was another experienced detective, McKenzie.<18> They were all experienced detectives. Where he had<19> served was -- McKenzie, but he had already been<20> detailed off in charge of the house-to-house.<21> Q. The other thing can I ask you before we move on,<22> you have told us on a number of occasions about the<23> strategy you formulated?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. By the Saturday?

. P-4708

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. I probably missed it, but what was the strategy?< 3> A. Not to arrest, sir.< 4> Q. That is a negative strategy. What was the< 5> positive strategy?< 6> A. To try and obtain evidence in order to arrest as< 7> opposed to arrest in the hope of finding evidence.< 8> Q. You acknowledge, do you, that you could have< 9> arrested on the Saturday?<10> A. We could have arrested on reasonable grounds to<11> suspect based on the information that Grant and the<12> other anonymous information and letters, the<13> information we have been discussing.<14> Q. Who did you discuss the question of whether you<15> should make arrests on Saturday with?<16> A. The initial discussions were with Detective<17> Chief Superintendent Illsley and Ben Bullock. As I<18> have said, you know, the sort of open forum<19> discussion about the way we are going forward,<20> et cetera, at the office meetings subsequently.<21> Q. Can we just look, please, so that we give proper<22> credit to it as what you put forward as your<23> reasoning when Kent asked you about this?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Which you did I think at some length, did you

. P-4709

< 1> not. If we look at the screen on page< 2> (PCA00490287). You are asked by Clapperton if you< 3> could help with the pros and cons of arresting at< 4> that stage?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. The advantages and disadvantages. Yes?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Let us just run through these, if we may?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. "Disadvantages, the possibility of forensic<11> evidence"?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Forensic scientific evidence. That<14> possibility. The possibility of it being found if we<15> moved. Yes?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. You refer to having been advised by the<18> pathologist that the amount of clothing Stephen was<19> wearing would have reduced or prevented significant<20> blood splashing?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. Yes?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. The probability would be that there would not be<25> blood splashing?

. P-4710

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. On the assailants, is that it?< 3> A. In all likelihood, yes, sir.< 4> Q. Does this translate to the point that you were< 5> of the belief that it was likely to be obvious< 6> bloodstaining and that non-obvious bloodstaining< 7> would probably be found later anyway if you had< 8> deferred the arrest?< 9> A. That was one of the considerations and the<10> possibility of that, yes, sir.<11> Q. Is that what it boils down to, what I call the<12> blood point?<13> A. The fact that I think after 36 hours any<14> obviously bloodstained clothing or weapon would have<15> been disposed of and that if that was the case then,<16> as I say, 36 hours on, it has happened. If, for<17> example, there was a small spec of blood or something<18> on the knife that was then put into a pocket or<19> something, the possibility was that there was some<20> transference but it would not be, in fact, noticeable<21> as such and if the clothing had not been got rid of<22> already and retained then it was going to be retained<23> perhaps beyond the period we are actually talking of<24> here when I am making the decision.<25> Q. So that is the first reason. Yes?

. P-4711

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Which you put as a disadvantage of arresting at< 3> that stage. That is a reason you put forward as< 4> justifying deferring arrest, is it?< 5> A. One of the reasons, yes, sir.< 6> Q. On the next page, do draw my attention, or of< 7> course the Tribunal's as we go through this, at the< 8> top of the page where you are still talking, are you< 9> not, about the blood point?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Then you say a few lines down you had to<12> consider whether you were going to make arrests in<13> the hope of finding weapons or clothing on anonymous<14> information.<15> "When I say anonymous I appreciate one man had come<16> in"?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. "And had been unable to give us evidence or<19> information" -- this is Grant you are referring to,<20> is it?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. "We had to consider over that weekend we were<23> very unlikely to get an identification parade off the<24> ground."<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4712

< 1> Q. That's the consideration you told us about< 2> before?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Which you repeated?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. You were, of course, aware that a number of the< 7> witnesses already Mr Shepherd and Mr Brooks had been< 8> able to give descriptions?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. And thought they might at least be able to<11> identify some of the assailants?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. You would appreciate from experience that by and<14> large it is best to have an identification parade as<15> soon as possible while memories are fresh?<16> A. As soon as is practically possible.<17> Q. Is there any reason there could not have been<18> identification parades on the Monday, for example?<19> A. Probably not, sir.<20> Q. Then you go on, having made that point, to say<21> from the point of view of arresting people one had to<22> consider the grounds of arrest you would give. Yes?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. The first question of a solicitor would be:<25> "What is your evidence?"

. P-4713

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. "Rather than it is anonymous or someone has< 3> called in and said they did but cannot give us a< 4> reason or source. It is felt we had very little to< 5> put to them other than they had stabbed other people< 6> in the past and asked them where they were on the< 7> night"?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. That does justice to your reasoning at the time,<10> does it?<11> A. Basically, yes. Quite clearly, you know, I<12> could expand on it.<13> Q. Can we look at this, please, look ahead a little<14> bit. (PCA00380317). Just for convenience, this<15> happens to be at the top of the screen, one of<16> Mr Davidson's statements, yes, relating to the arrest<17> that was carried out on 7th May?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. If you see at the foot of the screen now he<20> records what he said when arresting Dobson. Yes?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. "My grounds for arresting you are as follows",<23> we know from him this was a pre-arranged script. I<24> am not saying that critically?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4714

< 1> Q. "(1). You fit the description of the youth< 2> involved; you with others have a history of being< 3> involved in recent stabbings in the area and we have< 4> received information from various sources that you< 5> were involved in this."< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. He goes on to say: "Do you understand?"< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Those grounds for arrest would have applied with<10> just as much force on Saturday 204th, would they not?<11> A. The grounds for arrest, yes, sir.<12> Q. As they did two weeks later?<13> A. Yes, but what I'm saying is that I didn't think<14> it was the best way at that stage of going about it.<15> Q. Because you were hoping to get some more<16> evidence?<17> A. Certainly hoping and that's what we were geared<18> towards trying to do.<19> Q. Go back to (PCA00490288). We will finish this<20> in fairness to you at the foot of the page. You go<21> on to refer to the fact that you were considering<22> surveillance. Yes?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. You were approving association?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4715

< 1> Q. Was that to get information or evidence?< 2> A. It was to get evidence I suppose but evidence of< 3> current association between these people that had< 4> been described as a gang. Intelligence as well and< 5> of course as the surveillance went along evidence may< 6> have arose as well, but the primary, the reasons for< 7> putting it up -- when I say evidence might have come< 8> along, some supporting evidence, it was not envisaged< 9> necessarily that we were going to get the direct<10> evidence proving the murder from this means.<11> Q. So the evidence was going to have to come from,<12> what, eyewitnesses or what?<13> A. It was going to have to come from the people in<14> the community in all probability the people of the<15> same age group, the people that we were trying to get<16> into out there in the community to try and get<17> evidence.<18> Q. You told the Kent Investigators you were<19> particularly interested, obviously, in the authorship<20> of those anonymous letters, the so-called kiosk<21> letter and the one from the phone box. Yes?<22> A. Quite clearly, it would have been an advantage<23> to know who had written them.<24> Q. You were hampered in knowing much about that by<25> being kept in the dark about the "DD" information,

. P-4716

< 1> were you not?< 2> A. I don't think "DD" information necessarily would< 3> have thrown up the letter writer at that stage.< 4> Q. All right.< 5> A. Quite clearly I know from how things moved on.< 6> Q. Can we look at that message please this is< 7> (PCA00370066). This has been heavily redacted to< 8> obscure the identity of the "DD" family. Yes? I< 9> think you have seen it in unredacted form, have you<10> not?<11> A. I think so, yes.<12> Q. I do not think you are disadvantaged in seeing<13> it in this way. As we have said already, we do not<14> have to recover this ground. As you have<15> acknowledged this was not, in fact, drawn to your<16> attention, was it?<17> A. No, sir.<18> Q. Plainly it should have been?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. At that time I think you have indicated that you<21> were very much working hands on over the weekend and<22> that you felt you had a good grasp of the situation<23> and the way things were developing?<24> A. From the information that was made available.<25> Q. This message, you described when asked by Kent

. P-4717

< 1> about it, if we look at (PCA00490283). You say half< 2> way down, just on the screen there. With reference< 3> to that message, you have never seen it before,< 4> "never brought to my attention"?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. What you told Kent was the first time you had< 7> seen it was when they gave you papers?< 8> A. That's correct. In fact, when they served the< 9> papers, yes.<10> Q. "Never brought to my attention. The whole<11> strategy we had developed would have to have gone and<12> treated that as probably the most significant thing<13> we had."<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Presumably priority would have been to get hold<16> of the witness "EE", yes?<17> A. EE is the female, yes.<18> Q. No?<19> A. Sorry.<20> Q. EE is one of the family?<21> A. That would have been the ultimate aim. It would<22> have been the informant, the message first of all.<23> Q. Yes. Page 285 in the same respect in the middle<24> of the page or there on the screen now. You said:<25> "I can't necessarily agree the information was

. P-4718

< 1> available because it hadn't been brought to my< 2> attention."< 3> A. That's correct, sir.< 4> Q. :"I can't say which of those pieces of papers I< 5> had actually read but obviously I was aware of the< 6> anonymous information, namely the Acourts."< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. :"What I was not aware of was someone suggesting< 9> there was a potential witness near the scene." This<10> goes back to the DD message?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. That would have put a whole different<13> complexion, possibly, on the inquiry because there<14> would have been a real live witness?<15> A. Well, a potential real live witness. I am<16> saying this because I know what occurred for a long<17> time afterwards.<18> Q. So far as that potential real live witness is<19> concerned you said you were not aware of his<20> existence?<21> A. No, sir.<22> Q. Well, what went wrong?<23> A. I don't know, sir. What I do know is that<24> message wasn't actioned to see anybody until later in<25> the week and what I cannot understand is how. I

. P-4719

< 1> understand Bullock clearly wasn't aware of, I wasn't< 2> aware of it, the office manager presumably wasn't< 3> aware of it otherwise he would have actioned it and< 4> brought it to attention.< 5> Q. The first action, as you rightly say,< 6> (PCA00470269). I think that is what you have in< 7> mind. It refers to the message?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. It then sets out the message extensively?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. If we go down the page, please, it is raised as<12> the action on 30th April --<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. -- and allocated to Chase?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. Yes?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Obviously this should have been actioned much<19> more quickly, should it not?<20> A. Of course, sir, yes.<21> Q. You do not know what went wrong?<22> A. I don't. What I do know is the officer that<23> made this message out had said she had brought it in<24> or taken it into a room that the investigation team<25> were using at 5.30 and that's when we was in the

. P-4720

< 1> middle of an office meeting.< 2> I have no knowledge of a female officer walking< 3> into the meeting and I doubt it would have happened< 4> in the middle of the meeting. She would have had to< 5> walk the length of the room into where the office< 6> manager was sitting, where the trays were, et cetera,< 7> put it in and walk out again and I don't think that< 8> would have occurred.< 9> Q. It certainly had not come to your notice before<10> Monday morning?<11> A. No, sir.<12> Q. Would that have been material to be considered<13> for you in deciding whether to maintain your strategy<14> of not affecting arrest?<15> A. It would have depended upon what occurred when<16> we saw witness DD and then witness EE, if we saw him,<17> because, as I understand, when he was seen he denied<18> having such knowledge.<19> Q. That does not tell us what might have happened<20> if it had been followed up more quickly, but it<21> should have been?<22> A. It should have been, of course.<23> Q. The last of the meeting notes during your<24> involvement with this case is the one at<25> (PCA00320004), Sunday afternoon?

. P-4721

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. There is a reference first to the Wimpy Bar< 3> attack?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Reference to another crime being reported.< 6> House-to-house enquiries continuing. Then reference< 7> to Mr Westbrook's statement which had been obtained?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. In which he included some reasonably detailed<10> descriptions. Yes?<11> A. One description, sir.<12> Q. Presumably, he was not asked to do an E-fit<13> either in case it contaminated his identification<14> evidence?<15> A. Nobody would have been asked over that weekend<16> to do an E-fit description where there were suspects<17> being named.<18> Q. There is reference to soldiers seeing<19> something. There is reference to Mr and<20> Mrs Lawrence, not by name, but the parents of the<21> victim, and to their solicitors involvement. I need<22> not dwell on that. Brooks' mother was seen. Her son<23> was not in the hospital. You told Kent the problem<24> you had was you could not find Brooks over the<25> weekend?

. P-4722

< 1> A. That is correct.< 2> Q. Why did you want to find him?< 3> A. We wanted to go through with him the Shepherd< 4> statement, where it is said Brooks had been< 5> attacked -- where Brooks had said he hadn't been< 6> attack, quite clearly he hadn't been attacked. There< 7> was no evidence of physical attack on him and the< 8> post-mortem findings didn't tie up with what Shepherd< 9> was saying actually occurred, so we needed to see<10> Duwayne again with a view to, perhaps, seeing what<11> his views were and whether, you know, after a period<12> of time whether they had altered.<13> Q. Was that something that had affected any<14> decisions to arrest or not?<15> A. If the decision had been made that we would go<16> and arrest it wouldn't have stopped me, but quite<17> clearly the fact that we hadn't seen him, perhaps, to<18> a degree, supported the strategy and the decisions<19> that were made in developing that strategy.<20> Q. Did you become aware as the weekend wore on that<21> there was more and more information coming in and I<22> use the word "information" deliberately, about the<23> Acourts and knives and their possible involvement?<24> A. Yes. I was aware that there was other<25> information coming in that perhaps their names were

. P-4723

< 1> being mentioned in relation to carrying knives or< 2> whatever, but not actually taking matters any< 3> further.< 4> There wasn't anybody coming in with anything< 5> that was suggesting direct evidence or who we should< 6> go and see, perhaps, to get direct evidence, to my< 7> knowledge. Nothing in the direct evidence that we< 8> were seeking.< 9> Q. It was making them more and more obvious<10> suspects?<11> A. You have to consider whether what is by that<12> stage after three days how much rumour is going<13> around and how much things are being repeated, and<14> what have you, but what it does do and then you have<15> to, perhaps, look at each piece in isolation as well<16> in the overall context, but what you have to look at<17> is how much each piece takes you on a step further or<18> if it gives you another piece to, you know, act on.<19> Q. You had something firm to act on, which was the<20> Benefield allegation, did you not?<21> A. Yes, we did.<22> Q. Eventually, that was followed up by Sunday<23> evening?<24> A. He was seen on Sunday evening.<25> Q. You are not sure why it was not before that.

. P-4724

< 1> You were aware he had been seen and had confirmed he< 2> had been the victim of a knife attack?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Identified his assailants and was willing to< 5> give evidence?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. That was evidence, was it not?< 8> A. That was evidence of another crime.< 9> Q. Which would have entitled you to arrest Norris<10> and Neil Acourt?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Why did you not?<13> A. That information or that statement did not come<14> to my knowledge until the Monday. I think Davidson<15> obtained it by 9 o'clock or something and I think he<16> booked back into the police station at 9.30. I had<17> some difficulty in remembering with Kent when I was<18> interviewed the sequence of the Benefield matter, but<19> it is clear from the hand over notes of Brian Weeden<20> that I wasn't aware and it was later in the morning<21> that we were made aware that a statement had been<22> taken.<23> Q. Certainly once that statement had been taken, if<24> there was any doubt about it before, there was more<25> than ample justification for arresting Norris and

. P-4725

< 1> Neil Acourt, was there not?< 2> A. For a stabbing on Benefield.< 3> Q. Yes?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Then what could have been done, Mr Crampton, by< 6> the arresting officers when they arrested him, if< 7> they had, done for the Benefield stabbing?< 8> A. They could have searched the address of each of< 9> them.<10> Q. Well. There would be nothing wrong in that,<11> would there?<12> A. Nothing at all, sir.<13> Q. You seem to think there was something wrong in<14> it when Kent asked you about it?<15> A. No. That discussion became a discussion of<16> arresting them -- this was my understanding at the<17> time -- for another crime, the stabbing of Benefield,<18> as a means of arresting them for the murder. What I<19> was trying to say was we didn't need means to arrest<20> for the murder. We had made a strategy. We wanted<21> to get some evidence. We wanted to get some evidence<22> that we could put to them that would enable us to<23> perhaps hold them and enable us to put to the<24> solicitor when he asked us, "what is your evidence?",<25> give him some. Not let them learn more from us than

. P-4726

< 1> we could get from them.< 2> Yes, we had in the bag by that stage evidence of< 3> two of them stabbing somebody over a month before,< 4> but that hadn't taken us actually any further on< 5> getting evidence of the murder. It was similar fact< 6> but to have similar facts you have to have your< 7> evidence and the crime you are investigating, and< 8> that was what I was trying to portray.< 9> Q. Let us go back to the question I was asking you,<10> it arises out of the interview of (PCA00490304) at<11> the bottom of the page. They are asking you about<12> Benefield?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. "You had evidence in relation to Stacey<15> Benefield"?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. "Sufficient grounds for arrest, particularly the<18> Acourts"?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. "You had evidence and you could actually have<21> arrested those two young men, searched the premises<22> and searched for forensic evidence."<23> "Of the murder", you ask.<24> Clapperton: "For whatever job you are looking at<25> in relation to the stabbing, couldn't you take

. P-4727

< 1> advantage of that situation?"< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Then you responded:< 4> "You say, we go in and tell them we are< 5> arresting them for the murder. Yes, we could have< 6> done that and gone in and arrested them for murder.< 7> "We could not go in for clothing, weapons used< 8> in a murder on the pretence we were going in on< 9> something else."<10> A. That's what I was saying.<11> Q. "That would have been wholly wrong in my<12> opinion."<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Do you resile from that opinion now?<15> A. I appreciate that once you arrest somebody you<16> can search for evidence of a similar crime.<17> Q. That is precisely what they were suggesting to<18> you and you were saying it would be wholly wrong to<19> do that. Mr Clapperton:<20> "Do you remember I asked you about the<21> requirement contained in the job description for your<22> good knowledge of the relevant legislation and you<23> know what I'm talking about now, do you not, the<24> provisions of PACE?"<25> A. What I was trying to put across here, sir, is

. P-4728

< 1> that we wouldn't have had people arrested until we< 2> went into the address. When we go into the address< 3> we've got to tell them why we are coming in.< 4> Now, if we are going in on the murder, because< 5> that's what is being suggested, we go in and arrest< 6> them for the stabbing and search for stuff on the< 7> murder, at a later stage in Court I am going to be< 8> asked:< 9> "What was your intention when you went into that<10> house?" And if I have to answer that question it has<11> got to be that we were arresting them for the<12> stabbing and we were looking for evidence in relation<13> to the murder.<14> Then: "Why don't you tell them that you are<15> going in on the murder?" What I was trying to say<16> there is that if we were going in at that stage to<17> arrest for the murder or with any preconceived ideas<18> that we were going in on the murder that is what we<19> should be telling the people that we are doing. That<20> was the way I was----<21> BISHOP SENTAMU: I am finding this not straightforward<22> for me. Supposing there was a case of rape and you<23> have evidence that somebody has committed rape and<24> while you are there searching the house you discover<25> that there is a lot of drugs hidden away, are you

. P-4729

< 1> telling me that you wouldn't even go into that when< 2> certainly the evidence throws itself up?< 3> A. The difference, sir, is that if you go in for< 4> the rape and you find the drugs then you could< 5> obviously deal with it. If you go in----< 6> Q. What I think counsel was putting to you was you< 7> could have gone in on the grounds of the stabbing of< 8> Benefield, searched the house, and it might have< 9> actually thrown up other things. That's what<10> Mr Lawson is on about?<11> A. Can I explain where I am coming from: what I am<12> saying is -- your example, sir, you go in on the rape<13> and whilst searching you find drugs, that you had no<14> knowledge of, then you have told them when you go<15> in: I am coming here on the rape, whatever it is,<16> and I'm going to search these premises. If you find<17> the drugs then so be it.<18> But if I'm going in looking for drugs and I'm<19> going in saying, I'm coming in here because of rape<20> that in my opinion is wholly wrong. You should be<21> telling the people why you are going in. You are<22> duty bound to.<23> If I've got it wrong, I've got it wrong. What I<24> am saying is, at the stage I would have gone in, what<25> is being suggested is, here is a route to get you in

. P-4730

< 1> the door to search for murder material on the pretext< 2> that you are going in on assault for something else.< 3> What I was simply trying to portray is if we go in on< 4> the murder we go in on the murder and tell them we< 5> are coming in here we are arresting you for the< 6> murder and we are going to search your house. That< 7> is the crime we were investigating at the time and we< 8> had certain information. I don't know whether that< 9> makes sense to you or not. I can see you are shaking<10> your head.<11> MS WOODLEY: Sorry, sir, this witness cannot be<12> expected fairly to give evidence if there are<13> distractions from the public gallery.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I was looking away at the<15> moment. If anybody interrupts from the gallery they<16> will be asked to leave. Please, please restrain<17> yourself because it is very difficult for everybody<18> involved if you do not. I am sure you understand<19> that. Thank you.<20> MR LAWSON: So is the short answer then, Mr Crampton,<21> that your understanding of the law, I am not going to<22> cross-examine you about the law, but your<23> understanding of it was that you could not arrest him<24> for the Benefield attempted murder and then search<25> his premises looking for stuff for the murder?

. P-4731

< 1> A. No, I am not saying that, sir. What I am saying< 2> is, I was investigating a murder and there was< 3> certain information that could have given me< 4> reasonable grounds to go in. If I then go in at that< 5> stage with the intention of looking for anything that< 6> might provide evidence of the murder then I should be< 7> telling them that.< 8> Q. That is your understanding of the law?< 9> A. I think that's my understanding of -- if I<10> hadn't done that then at a later stage at Court<11> questions could have been asked of what my intentions<12> were; what was my line of requesting; what were they<13> told, because people must be told why you are there<14> and what you are going to search for and the reasons<15> for doing it.<16> Q. I do not want to dwell on this, is the answer to<17> my question yes?<18> A. Can you repeat the question?<19> Q. Yes. Was that your understanding of the law?<20> A. It was my understanding of -- yes, the law, the<21> policy and the way you could act, yes.<22> Q. Just after you were asked about that and you<23> volunteered the opinion that you did, you see at the<24> top of the screen, you also asked a further question<25> about Benefield and you said:

. P-4732

< 1> "I think it was Norris who stabbed him and we< 2> didn't have Norris' address. We may have had his< 3> address but it wasn't firmed up properly."< 4> This is something I was asking you about before< 5> the break, is it not? What, on reflection, do you< 6> think the position was?< 7> A. Well, if you see -- I would like you to go back< 8> where Kent started speaking about Benefield and you< 9> will see that it started off I told them I wasn't<10> sure of when that statement came in and I was unclear<11> in my mind, they told me it was on the Sunday night,<12> et cetera, and I had gone in and accepted a<13> situation, but it became clear later that, in fact, I<14> wasn't aware until the Monday of the Benefield<15> statement. So, therefore, I was talking about the<16> Sunday evening and I think that is when the Norris<17> address came in.<18> Q. When you asked for the surveillance to be set up<19> to start hopefully the following day, you did not ask<20> for surveillance to be set up on Norris' address, did<21> you?<22> A. No, sir. We were going to get one team and we<23> were going to put it on, which we did do, or they did<24> do, was on the Bournbrook Road, which is the obvious<25> starting point.

. P-4733

< 1> Q. Yeah. Did it cross your mind to have Norris'< 2> address kept under surveillance?< 3> A. I didn't think that we would necessarily get two< 4> teams, possibly, but it was more the coming together< 5> of them.< 6> Q. You did manage to ascertain doubtless during the< 7> course of the weekend and if only from the LIO card< 8> or other similar information what Norris' apparent< 9> address was, did you not?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. So ignorance of Norris' address is not any<12> reason for not arresting him?<13> A. Oh, no, I'm not saying that----<14> Q. Fine, as long as that is understood. It is not<15> a reason for not having surveillance upon his<16> address?<17> A. No.<18> Q. You chose not to?<19> A. Yes, the surveillance was put on Bournbrook Road<20> where two of them lived.<21> Q. Did you know who David Norris' dad was?<22> A. I can't say I knew at that stage, but I<23> subsequently knew when he had been identified.<24> Q. Clifford?<25> A. Clifford Norris.

. P-4734

< 1> Q. Presumably, you had heard something about him,< 2> had you?< 3> A. He was known -- he was wanted, as it transpired,< 4> but----< 5> Q. Had you had any dealings with him?< 6> A. No, I have never had any dealings with him.< 7> Q. Have you ever met him?< 8> A. No, not to my knowledge. In the Kent Report< 9> they put it as a tenuous link is I had cause to on<10> the previous murder I was dealing with a victim<11> called Norris for disclosure purposes at some stage<12> evidence of fact that the deceased Norris wasn't a<13> member of the Clifford Norris family.<14> Q. Just to explain that, you were coincidentally<15> involved as the officer in charge of the case of a<16> contract killing on somebody else called David<17> Norris?<18> A. That's correct.<19> Q. Is that right?<20> A. That is correct.<21> Q. One query has arisen as to whether there was any<22> relationship between him and the Clifford Norris<23> family, if I can call them that?<24> A. That's right.<25> Q. And you understand there was not, do you not?

. P-4735

< 1> A. I know there wasn't. As a result of that< 2> previous enquiry where the deceased Norris' brother< 3> made a statement.< 4> Q. Saying he was nothing to do with that?< 5> A. That's right.< 6> Q. Was that the case that demanded your attention< 7> and was that a or the reason why you did not remain< 8> with the Stephen Lawrence investigation?< 9> A. The fact that the other Norris case was at the<10> Old Bailey.<11> Q. Yes?<12> A. That is correct.<13> Q. That is right, is it?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Because you were asked about this by Kent, were<16> you not?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. You explained at (PCA00490215), just glance at<19> that. First, you described the duty call system,<20> yes, which led to you being, in effect, appointed in<21> the first place?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. Then you go on to explain why it was that you<24> had to hand over to somebody else, which is the other<25> case, the David Norris case; is that right?

. P-4736

< 1> A. Yes, sir, yes, sir.< 2> Q. Is it, do you think, undesirable that you should< 3> start off an inquiry for a few days and then hand< 4> over to somebody else?< 5> A. I mean, ideally that shouldn't happen, but it is< 6> not always possible that it doesn't.< 7> Q. Was the trial then about to start at the< 8> Old Bailey?< 9> A. It had already started.<10> Q. It had started already?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. So what were you required to do?<13> A. I was the officer in the case at that moment in<14> time there were protracted witnesses giving<15> evidence. For reasons that I was able to be on-call<16> for part of that week, I think it was the Tuesday,<17> Wednesday, Thursday, Friday as Mr Mansfield had other<18> commitments in the Appeal Court and, therefore, the<19> Old Bailey trial had to stop.<20> Q. I think you may have one of the few cases that<21> Mr Mansfield has not been in. Be that as it may,<22> that is why you left the Inquiry as you did?<23> A. The reason that it was going -- if it went on<24> beyond the weekend that Brian Weeden would take it on<25> was in order that because of the nature of the

. P-4737

< 1> offence that it quite sensibly required an officer or< 2> a senior investigating officer that would be there< 3> full-time and not away at court during the day.< 4> Q. You anticipated, as I understand it, from a very< 5> early stage that it was likely that you would be< 6> handing over to Weeden; is that right?< 7> A. Yes, sir, if it went on beyond the weekend.< 8> Q. To quote you: "If I didn't crack it over the< 9> weekend then it would be passed over."<10> A. Yes, but if I could have cracked it over the<11> weekend then, quite clearly I could have kept it.<12> Q. You told Kent you knew probably on the Friday or<13> the Saturday that Weeden would be taking over?<14> A. No, Weeden would be taking over if it weren't<15> cracked.<16> Q. Does that make a difference to your approach to<17> it?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. You had no conversation with Brian Weeden over<20> the weekend?<21> A. No, sir.<22> Q. You spoke to him on the Monday, did you, at the<23> time of the hand over?<24> A. I saw him at Catford yes, sir.<25> Q. By that time you and others had made the all

. P-4738

< 1> important strategy decision not to effect the< 2> arrests, the negative decision?< 3> A. The decision not to arrest, yes, sir.< 4> Q. That is the one. That was a decision that had< 5> been taken or approved by your superior Illsley; is< 6> that right?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. But not recorded?< 9> A. No, sir.<10> Q. Can you just help us, please, about your policy<11> file. You have made some comments about this<12> already, but let us deal with it briefly. Could you<13> look on the screen, please, we have looked at the<14> first one already but we will have it back,<15> (PCA00450175). This is the first one, is it not, we<16> glanced at before?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. "AMIP to deal, murder, identity of suspects<19> unknown, possible racial motive"?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. If we go on to page 177, please. Then on the<22> Friday. Yes?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. "Decision to conduct a search". Yes?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4739

< 1> Q. "Of a defined area" and there is a map. We need< 2> not look at it. There is a marked map attached?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. "For weapons"?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. The reasons for that are the nature of the< 7> injuries to the victim?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. The next one, 178, is your decision to open the<10> HOLMES incident suite at Eltham?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. It was Illsley's decision. I am grateful.<13> Mr Illsley's decision signed by you?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. So you made the entry in the record, did you?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. And the reason for that was the nature of the<18> Inquiry. Was that Illsley's reasons or yours?<19> A. I think it was agreed, sir, that it should be a<20> HOLMES -- go on the HOLMES.<21> Q. Presumably, that was pretty obvious, was it?<22> A. To me it was, sir, and to Mr Illsley.<23> Q. Having made that decision, the next decision is<24> made by Mr Illsley, I must be careful to point out,<25> page 179. It was the same day?

. P-4740

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. You again made the entry in the policy file?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Is that right?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. This was concern with staffing levels, was it< 7> not?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Of the team. This again presumably was the<10> subject of some discussion between yourself and<11> Mr Illsley, was it?<12> A. The discussion was that I needed as many staff<13> as he could give me.<14> Q. Yes. Did you have enough?<15> A. You could always do with more staff, I suspect.<16> What I had there was more staff than I would have<17> expected in a normal murder for a number of reasons.<18> Q. Can you tell us the reasons?<19> A. Within the Met certainly you would expect to<20> get.<21> Q. Can you tell us the reasons?<22> A. Because of the potential high profile of the<23> murder being a racist incident; that it was a street<24> crime involving a number of people and the potential<25> for it to sort of spread out and, therefore, there

. P-4741

< 1> could be the use of the computer system was the< 2> obvious result of that or the use of it result of< 3> that.< 4> Q. Using HOLMES. If you are using HOLMES, you have< 5> to have people to run it?< 6> A. Well, that's correct, yes.< 7> Q. Did you have enough people to run the HOLMES< 8> system, effectively?< 9> A. Well, I never had enough to run the HOLMES<10> system. You would never have enough to run the<11> HOLMES system. Of course in the MET if you were<12> running the Card Ex system you would still be short.<13> Q. Would you ask for any more then?<14> A. There wasn't any more to have.<15> Q. Is this just a resource problem?<16> A. It is. It is just the number that were trained<17> in the area. The number of murders we were dealing<18> with and the situation. It is no different to the<19> situation that we face in every murder. We were<20> always complaining about it but nevertheless that was<21> the situation that prevailed.<22> Q. You were doubtless aware, I do not expect you<23> remember the detail, of the advisory levels of<24> staffing for AMIP enquiries that were laid down<25> within the Met.

. P-4742

< 1> Have a glance on the screen, if you will, at< 2> (MET00510315). Would you accept from me, do not feel< 3> obliged to, that this was a category B murder?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. That is defined as where the victim is known but< 6> the motive and the suspects are unknown?< 7> A. That is correct, sir.< 8> Q. Certainly treated as a category B. This is what< 9> is suggested, is it not?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. You have a detective inspector and that role was<12> filled by Bullock, was it not?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. In due course. Then you have three detective<15> sergeants who are engaged on the office side: office<16> manager, receiver, and so on?<17> A. Should have, yes, sir.<18> Q. Should have. Four indexes?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Explain to us, are those the chaps who go<21> through the statements and messages marking----<22> A. They are the people that actually index it on to<23> the system.<24> Q. They put it on to the system?<25> A. Yes.

. P-4743

< 1> Q. You are quite right. It would be one of the< 2> DSs, would it, who would do the selecting, so to< 3> speak?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Yes?< 6> A. A statement reader, if you had a statement< 7> reader.< 8> Q. If you were lucky enough to have one?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. You did not have a dedicated statement reader,<11> did you?<12> A. No, sir. It was very unusual in the Met to get<13> that.<14> Q. Do I understand correctly that you, in fact, had<15> one detective sergeant fulfilling all of these roles?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: Fluke?<18> THE WITNESS: It started off with Sheridan, who was<19> my detective sergeant, and then Fluke took over<20> because he was Weeden's sergeant.<21> MR LAWSON: Yes. I think so-called "bag carrier" as<22> the job description is referred to?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. Four indexes. Yes?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4744

< 1> Q. You had three?< 2> A. Yes, sir, and the accounts manager I think. I< 3> had two indexes on the Friday and a third one joined< 4> on the Saturday. The accounts manager was acting in< 5> the capacity of indexer.< 6> Q. You had, it seems, made available to you -- and< 7> Mr Crampton understand there is no hint of criticism< 8> to you in this -- you had made available to you less< 9> than the level of staffing that was recommended in<10> the staffing levels we were just looking at?<11> A. Yes, but more than we would have got for any<12> other murder, I would suggest.<13> Q. That must have been a rather disturbing state of<14> affairs for you?<15> A. One we commented on regularly, sir.<16> Q. Did you ask for new more resources?<17> A. I had asked for as much as I could have and that<18> is what I was given. So there was little point in<19> asking for more.<20> Q. It is complete, the review of your or<21> Mr Illsley's policy decisions. (PCA00450180), again,<22> the Friday decision to hold a press conference?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. The reason being witness appeal and media<25> attention?

. P-4745

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Number 5 appears at page 182: this is your< 3> decision, actually?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. As well, is it not?< 6> A. It is my decision.< 7> Q. Yes. "To conduct house-to-house enquiries".< 8> Yes?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Marking shown on the plan. "Use the TSG from<11> the Plumstead Crime Squad"?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Reasons being: "Witness information as to<14> direction suspects decamped." Someone said they had<15> gone off down Dickson Road?<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. Go to 184, a couple more of these. Your<18> decision the next day to extend the house-to-house<19> enquiries as a result of information received?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. The next page, please, 185: "Inform the press<22> that a witness from the bus stop had been traced as a<23> result of contacting police." I don't know whether<24> that was Shepherd or Westbrook, perhaps it does not<25> matter very much, one of the two?

. P-4746

< 1> A. That was Shepherd.< 2> Q. Possibly may encourage the two others to do the< 3> same?< 4> A. The two outstanding as far as we knew were< 5> Westbrook and the female, sir.< 6> Q. That is the French girl as it transpired to be,< 7> Alexandra Marie?< 8> A. Correct, sir.< 9> Q. She was tracked down, was she not, while you<10> were still on the case, so to speak?<11> A. Her employee rang in at I think about 9 o'clock<12> on the Sunday evening informing us that she had an au<13> pair and she believed we were sort of seeking and we<14> would need an interpreter to take a statement from<15> her.<16> Q. That was actioned straight away, was it?<17> A. It would have been -- I think she was told at<18> the time we will get somebody to see you the<19> following day.<20> Q. You were off the case by then?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Lastly number 8, 187, is about seeking help from<23> the Council in searching the drains?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. What we just looked at, if we look at the next

. P-4747

< 1> one, page 188, we can see a change of handwriting< 2> immediately. Perhaps you recognise Mr Weeden's< 3> signature at the bottom of the page?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. Recording Weeden taking over on the 26th?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. So we have the nine policy entries that you< 8> made. That is the totality of your policy file, is< 9> it not?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Nothing about arrests or ----<12> A. No, sir.<13> Q. ---- strategy?<14> A. No, sir.<15> MR LAWSON: Thank you. That is all I want to ask.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Mansfield, are you going next?<17> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I am.<18> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD<19> Q. Mr Crampton, as you are aware I represent Mr and<20> Mrs Lawrence. Just to, first of all, begin by<21> checking that you had in advance from those<22> representing Mr and Mrs Lawrence a notice indicating<23> various issues and suggestions in relation to<24> failures and so on?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4748

< 1> Q. There were, in fact, in all, in your case eight< 2> of those and I am not going to go through them as< 3> they are listed there, but I will touch upon each< 4> them starting from the moments you arrived at the< 5> scene.< 6> Mr Crampton, I want to, if I may, begin at the< 7> other end, as it were, at the point of hand-over on< 8> the Monday when you are handing over and you are at a< 9> meeting, is that right, on the Monday?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Do you remember the meeting itself now?<12> A. I remember being at the meeting, yes, quite<13> clearly.<14> Q. And do you remember who was there?<15> A. I know Brian Weeden was there, Mr Illsley was<16> there. I couldn't detail which of the other<17> detective superintendents on the AMIP were actually<18> there, but there would be some of those present or<19> all of those present.<20> Q. Yes. I just want to ask you: what would be the<21> point of the meeting on the Monday? It may be an<22> obvious question, but what is the point of the<23> meeting?<24> A. It is the only time that the detective<25> superintendents under Mr Illsley's command come

. P-4749

< 1> together once a week to discuss whatever issues have< 2> to be discussed, to bid for overtime, that sort of< 3> thing.< 4> Q. Right.< 5> A. And update on the various cases you are dealing< 6> with.< 7> Q. Was a note being kept of that meeting?< 8> A. There was a note being kept of what I was saying< 9> by Brian Weeden.<10> Q. Brian Weeden. Did you at that meeting indicate,<11> that is the meeting on the Monday, the 26th, did you<12> indicate then the strategy that you had been<13> pursuing?<14> A. That we needed evidence and that we were looking<15> for evidence to arrest.<16> Q. Well, there are two points: first of all, did<17> you indicate on the Monday that you had taken a<18> decision, first of all, not to arrest? Did you tell<19> the others that?<20> A. Yes, Mr Illsley was quite clearly aware of it.<21> What I was giving the rest of the people was an<22> overview of the offence that had occurred and the<23> situation and the details of it and, obviously, one<24> of the points would be that we had not arrested and<25> the reasons for not arresting at that stage.

. P-4750

< 1> Q. So, on the Monday, I want to be clear about< 2> this, you would been indicating one way or another< 3> that there had been a decision not to arrest and what< 4> the reasons for not arresting were?< 5> A. Yes, that we had no evidence.< 6> Q. And that is one aspect of it. The other aspect< 7> of it was the question of surveillance. Had that< 8> been decided before the Monday?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. By you?<11> A. I had decided we should have surveillance and<12> the use of the surveillance team. Bullock had rung<13> up and, in fact, I spoke to the surveillance man<14> myself as well on the Sunday. They had other<15> commitments first thing Monday and they would come<16> over to the Incident Room on the Monday.<17> Q. Now, in relation to those two major decisions,<18> in other words not arresting -- the reasons for not<19> arresting and the reasons for a positive decision for<20> surveillance, that was all spelt out by you on the<21> Monday, was it?<22> A. Not necessarily in that detail to the other<23> officers. They wouldn't necessarily have been -- I<24> mean, I spoke to Brian Weeden again afterwards. This<25> was the general meeting.

. P-4751

< 1> Q. That is the start of the week and obviously we< 2> will be asking others about their records at the< 3> beginning of the week, but up until that moment on< 4> the Monday when you went to that meeting, any notes< 5> of the major decisions on this Inquiry, namely not to< 6> arrest, and to set up surveillance, really were< 7> within your responsibility; do you agree?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Just looking back, therefore, from the Monday,<10> back over the weekend, there is not, as we have been<11> through today, there is not a record, first of all,<12> anywhere, and you have been through the meeting notes<13> now, have you not, that relate to the Sunday the<14> 25th,, Saturday the 24th, Friday the 23rd? I<15> appreciate it is Mr Bullock's notes of the meetings<16> themselves. There is no record there of either of<17> those two major decisions, one not to arrest and the<18> reasons and the other to set up surveillance and the<19> object of the surveillance, is there?<20> A. No, sir.<21> Q. Did you look at the notes that Mr Bullock was<22> keeping ever just to see what the record -- I mean,<23> you did not keep a record?<24> A. I have to admit that my first recollection of<25> the note, whether I did or not, but my first

. P-4752

< 1> recollection now of those notes was when they were< 2> served upon me.< 3> Q. So at the time over that weekend you never< 4> checked to see whether these two important aspects of< 5> this investigation over that weekend, not arresting< 6> and deciding to do surveillance, you did not check< 7> whether any record was being kept anywhere of that?< 8> A. The record with regards to surveillance I should< 9> have put in the policy file.<10> Q. I will come to that in a moment?<11> A. The answer is no.<12> Q. The answer is no?<13> A. That is correct.<14> Q. That is so far as Bullock is concerned. You did<15> not check his notes to see whether there was a<16> record?<17> A. Not to my recollection now.<18> Q. I realise he may have an explanation to give<19> when he comes, but can you think yourself, and I am<20> not asking you to speculate, but be realistic as a<21> working senior officer, how your deputy manages to<22> omit any reference to the two major decisions that<23> you have taken over that weekend?<24> A. Well, I mean, he was noting down particular<25> pieces of information and what have you that arose,

. P-4753

< 1> but the whole thrust of the Inquiry was into certain< 2> individuals by this stage, and the fact that we< 3> didn't have any evidence, you know, at the time it is< 4> quite a natural thing. You haven't got any evidence< 5> you are not arresting anyone at this stage.< 6> Q. Yes, but -- do go on?< 7> A. No, there was not a record of it.< 8> Q. I know there was not, but it is whether< 9> realistically you can explain why there was not a<10> record kept by him. How it could come about that<11> your deputy throughout this period could manage to<12> omit any reference at all report?<13> A. I can't answer it.<14> Q. You cannot answer it. Dealing with the records<15> that you kept, and again you have been through them<16> today, and I am not going to -- there is very little<17> of them to go through, as you would concede, would<18> you not? The policy file is in your case sparse,<19> indeed, is it not?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. And you have kept a policy file before, have you<22> not?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. So far as policy files are concerned it is not<25> routine that they are disclosed in criminal

. P-4754

< 1> proceedings, is it? Policy files of the officer are< 2> not routinely disclosed in criminal trials, are they?< 3> A. It depends who is defending normally, sir.< 4> Q. I will not comment on that?< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Or who the Judge is.< 6> MR MANSFIELD: But the question was rather more< 7> finely phrased than that and that is they are not< 8> normally, commonly disclosable in criminal< 9> proceedings, are they? They are not served as a<10> matter of course as part of the prosecution case, are<11> they?<12> A. I would probably think not, but under disclosure<13> there may not be any reason for it not to be served<14> therefore it would have to be offered.<15> Q. It is a different point; do you follow? The<16> policy file is never disclosed, is it, as part of the<17> prosecution case? We will take it in stages. Do you<18> agree?<19> A. Probably not.<20> Q. Never disclosed as part of the case and rarely,<21> if ever, is it made part of what is called the unused<22> material in a case. In other words, not being used<23> by the prosecution as part of their case. It is not<24> disclosed at that stage either, is it, commonly?<25> A. Not commonly, but there is always the fact that

. P-4755

< 1> it could be.< 2> Q. I will come to that. In fact, the position is,< 3> so far as your experience is concerned, is it not, is< 4> that policy files are rarely disclosed in criminal< 5> proceedings?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. You would agree?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. What was your understanding of the significance<10> of a policy file as the senior investigating officer?<11> A. One of the main things was to allow your senior<12> officer, in this case Mr Illsley, to see the way you<13> were conducting your Inquiry. I know it is not any<14> real reason, but one of the things in this particular<15> instance was that he was party to the decisions with<16> me, but that does not really say it is a reason for<17> not having documented them anyway. Quite clearly it<18> is for any later record, circumstances to exist.<19> Q. Yes. By this time in 1993 you had been -- your<20> service in the police force was considerable, was it<21> not?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. You would regard yourself and others would<24> regard you as a very experienced senior detective.<25> Would that be fair?

. P-4756

< 1> A. I have been marked up as that, yes, sir.< 2> Q. You, above all, would recognise that there is a< 3> very serious and important need to ensure for the< 4> whole of your squad and yourself and the benefit of< 5> the public in the long run that major decisions, and< 6> I do not mean minor ones that may just be purely< 7> administrative as to who may be sitting at what desk,< 8> but major decisions, although it may be inconvenient,< 9> have to be recorded, do they not?<10> A. Yes. I mean, ideally, if it is something you<11> feel that should go in the policy file then you<12> should record it in the policy file.<13> Q. It is not really a question of complete<14> discretion, is it? You have some discretion. So you<15> cannot write down every single decision, like when<16> you are going to get up and come into work and that<17> kind of thing, but you appreciate that the two we are<18> dealing with here. I am concentrating on the two<19> central decisions you took that weekend, not to<20> arrest and to institute surveillance on the Monday.<21> You do regard those as major decisions, do you not?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. And taking them in turn, let us take the most<24> positive of all, that is the establishment of<25> surveillance on the Monday. That is an important

. P-4757

< 1> decision plainly, you have agreed?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Because it involves expense, that is not the< 4> only reason, of course, but that would be one of the< 5> reasons, it is very necessary to be sure why you are< 6> having the surveillance in the first place. Do you< 7> agree?< 8> A. Yes, sir.< 9> Q. Because you might need to justify it on a<10> budgetary basis as to why you did launch into<11> surveillance on the Monday, if somebody asked; well,<12> we had all this specialist squad so we do not need to<13> know why you thought it was necessary. That is all<14> very obvious, is it not?<15> A. It is obvious why it was necessary as well.<16> Q. I will come to that in a moment as to why it was<17> necessary. So there is overwhelming reasons in the<18> positive decision to mount surveillance that such a<19> decision should be recorded in the policy file?<20> A. Yes. I mean, what would normally have happened,<21> had I been there on the Monday, that policy would<22> have gone in.<23> Q. Sorry, when was it decided?<24> A. On the Sunday.<25> Q. On the Sunday. I just want your decisions,

. P-4758

< 1> which start at 177. Go to the bottom, decision< 2> number 1. Do you follow?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. A decision, which according to your record, was< 5> taken on the 23rd, but if you look at the bottom, is< 6> that your signature there?< 7> A. It is, sir.< 8> Q. And you have dated it?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Dated on the 24th; is that right?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. So it looks as though the policy file in your<13> case was not started until the Saturday; is that<14> right?<15> A. That's correct, sir.<16> Q. And then if we go quickly to the next page we<17> see again it is the 24th at the bottom?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. And the next it is the 24th. I know that is<20> Mr Illsley, although it is your signature at the<21> bottom on some of these. In fact, on that one. You<22> are filling all of this in on each page?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. As we go through -- can we just turn over the<25> pages so we can see it is the 24th. A lot is

. P-4759

< 1> happening on the 24th in terms of you writing it up.< 2> Now, you are also writing in the file -- it is< 3> decision number 8. It should be 84 -- 184. Is that< 4> decision 8? That is 8, is it? Yes. The date of the< 5> decision is the 25th, that is the Sunday. Yes?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. Can you just run your eye down it to see the< 8> nature of the decision being taken on the 25th?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. That is being written up on the 25th which is<11> the Sunday?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. It is a decision about searching drains which<14> may be important, but its importance is not as great<15> as a decision to establish surveillance, is it?<16> A. No, sir. Well----<17> Q. I will not quibble about it. Let us say it is<18> about the same because you might find the knife, of<19> course, I appreciate that. When you were writing<20> that up, decision number 8, why do we not have<21> decision number 9, not one written up by Mr Weeden<22> the next day, and we can see his is on the next page,<23> but why have you not written it up on the Sunday;<24> that you decided to mount surveillance?<25> A. What the situation really would have been this:

. P-4760

< 1> had I spoken to the surveillance team seeking< 2> surveillance and it had been refused then I would< 3> have put that in straight away at the time. The< 4> surveillance team we were going to get and what I< 5> could clearly have put in was surveillance teams< 6> spoken to, commence surveillance on Monday. I didn't< 7> do that. What normally would have happened once I< 8> had spoken to the surveillance team, got the< 9> surveillance, had I been there on the Monday, spoken<10> with them and decided this is the way we will go,<11> this is what we have got, one team. This is where we<12> are going to base it. Then the decision would have<13> been made. The resources that were going to been<14> deployed and used. It would have gone in and I would<15> normally have done that had I stayed on the murder.<16> I didn't do it on the Sunday.<17> Q. Yes, I appreciate that. Of course the squad<18> itself may say no or somebody might refuse. The fact<19> is, as I have asked you carefully, the decision to<20> mount it, the decision was taken on the Sunday?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. By you. You are the one who is responsible for<23> handing over a ready made decision, are you not?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. And the officer who you are going to hand over

. P-4761

< 1> to has to know precisely what you had in mind, does< 2> he not?< 3> A. He would be told.< 4> Q. Well, I dare say, but we will come to that as< 5> well. There is little or no record of any of this.< 6> Do you follow, Mr Crampton?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Unless, of course -- and I ask you now plainly< 9> -- the surveillance operation itself was merely a<10> ploy or a delaying tactic by you, was it?<11> A. No, sir, it was never envisaged that<12> surveillance was anything other than a means of<13> possibly getting some form of supportive evidence and<14> because the arrests had not occurred and we had not<15> made them over the weekend, it was deployed as from<16> the Monday for that purpose. If you like, almost as<17> ancillary to try to get the main evidence of the<18> murder and it was utilised. Now, it was never ever<19> envisaged that surveillance, and I discussed this<20> with Weeden, it was never ever envisaged that arrest<21> should be delayed necessarily for surveillance if<22> something came forward to alter that. That was<23> always a flexible decision, a decision that could<24> have been altered immediately.<25> Q. Where is all this recorded, you see. It is all

. P-4762

< 1> very interesting?< 2> A. I have spoken to Brian Weeden. Yes, of course< 3> it should ideally be documented.< 4> Q. The answer really on the surveillance before I< 5> pass back to the other major decision is, there< 6> really is not any explanation that is reasonable for< 7> not entering up the whole of this matter, the taking< 8> of the decision, the reasons behind it, the factors< 9> involved in it, all of it. There is just no reason<10> that you did not enter. That is acceptable, is it<11> not?<12> A. I accept that it should have been entered and it<13> wasn't.<14> Q. Yes. On the other major decision that weekend,<15> that is the decision not to arrest, you recognise<16> that in itself is a decision, is it not?<17> A. Yes, it is a decision not to arrest quite<18> clearly, but, I mean, there were other names coming<19> in and, yes, you know, it is a negative decision if<20> you like. We have not got any evidence so we are not<21> going to arrest.<22> Q. That in itself, you have been asked and<23> Mr Lawson said: "Let us call it a positive decision<24> not to arrest" and you accepted that. I do not care<25> whether you call it a positive decision not to arrest

. P-4763

< 1> or a negative decision that you are not arresting.< 2> Plainly, just stepping back for a moment, you are< 3> familiar with murder inquiries. You must be familiar< 4> with them in the past, other cases?< 5> A. Sir.< 6> Q. Were you familiar at this time with the other< 7> murder case that had occurred not far from where< 8> Stephen Lawrence met his death?< 9> A. The kebab shop----<10> Q. That's right?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. Did you know about that in 1993?<13> A. I knew of it.<14> Q. It is difficult now because, of course, it has<15> been talked about quite a bit, but it is the Duggal<16> case?<17> A. Yes, I would have known from the outline of the<18> Monday morning meeting from the SIO dealing with that<19> case.<20> Q. That is the Monday morning meeting. I am<21> wondering before when you are driving to the scene on<22> the night of 22nd or early hours of the 23rd more<23> precisely. Did you have cause to think: "Wait a<24> minute, there was another murder down this road."<25> A. That is very difficult for me to say now, sir.

. P-4764

< 1> But I would have known it would have been solved.< 2> Q. You knew it had been solved. That is the point< 3> I want to ask you about. Did you know how quickly< 4> that one had been solved?< 5> A. Not to my knowledge. I mean, not that I can< 6> recall now.< 7> Q. Without going into the precise dates, there was< 8> an incident on one day and an arrest within a very< 9> short space of time the following day and a charge<10> from that as well. In other words, it all happened,<11> that is the incident, the arrest and the charging<12> process within a maximum of two days. Did you know<13> that?<14> A. I can't say that I did, sir, no.<15> Q. The point I want to make to you and ask for your<16> help about this is time, you will appreciate in cases<17> like this, that is public street stabbings, disorder<18> where people evaporate into side streets, time is of<19> the essence, is it not?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. The longer things get left it is quite clear and<22> obvious that people will disappear, evidence will<23> disappear. You agree?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Therefore, so far as this is concerned, that is

. P-4765

< 1> the decision not to arrest, it is actually quite a< 2> significant decision if you are not going to arrest< 3> in a case like this where time is of the essence and< 4> particularly where you already have names coming in.< 5> Then it becomes a really rather important negative< 6> decision, does it not?< 7> A. I think that the main consideration, sir, has to< 8> be the amount of time that has passed from the time< 9> of the offence to the time that you are actually<10> aware of the suspect's names and the situation that<11> that has created.<12> Q. I appreciate that. I will come back to the<13> lapse of time and whose responsibility it was. You<14> accept, do you not, the decision, therefore, in the<15> context of this type of case, the evaporation and so<16> on, the point you have recognised, this decision,<17> therefore, comes of particular significance if you<18> are not going to arrest, do you agree?<19> A. Of course. It is always a risky decision.<20> Q. Well, I will come to how risky in a moment.<21> Therefore, there is not any reasonable explanation in<22> this case either for you not noting down yourself<23> anywhere in the policy file how you have arrived at<24> such an important decision, still less that you have<25> actually arrived at it. There is not a reasonable

. P-4766

< 1> explanation, is there?< 2> A. No. I mean, I accept that it should have been< 3> put and I wish it had of been put because of course< 4> it would help me a great deal now.< 5> Q. Looking back on it, as you were asked to do by< 6> Mr Lawson at the beginning of today, and it is a< 7> question I have been asking every witness, looking< 8> back on it, we will deal with whether it was< 9> something you should have dealt with at the time,<10> looking back on it it is perfectly clear (1), that<11> you could have arrested that weekend and (2), that<12> you should have noted down the reasons why you did<13> not. That is perfectly clear, is it not?<14> A. Yes, I mean with hindsight, yes, I should have<15> noted it down.<16> Q. What is the added bit, the hindsight, we are<17> dealing with recording for a moment. It does not<18> really require hindsight by an officer of your<19> seniority and experience to need to look back on the<20> sparseness of the record in the policy file compiled<21> by you. It does not really require hindsight, does<22> it?<23> A. I think it must do because I didn't do it at the<24> time and now I wish I had. Therefore, that is<25> hindsight.

. P-4767

< 1> Q. Unless there were other factors, do you follow,< 2> bearing on this case, other factors as to why the< 3> arrest wasn't made and why the reasons were not given< 4> and the surveillance decisions was made and the< 5> reason not given. Were there any other factors in< 6> this case bearing upon those decisions?< 7> A. Not to my knowledge, sir, no.< 8> Q. I am going to start by, as it were, going back< 9> to the beginning as to how you came to those<10> decisions on the ground. Just before lunch and<11> before I do, can I ask you this: did you ever think<12> that the family itself, Mr and Mrs Lawrence should,<13> in fact, be told, how, you know, that you have made<14> this decision not to arrest although you know the<15> names and so on, all of the things we have just been<16> through, did you ever think of telling Mr and<17> Mrs Lawrence that?<18> A. Yes, I mean, not to be specific quite clearly.<19> The effect of it would be just to antagonise them.<20> What the instructions were just to let Mr and<21> Mrs Lawrence know whatever information came into the<22> Inquiry room would be examined and researched and if<23> evidence existed it would be acted upon. That would<24> be the sort of thing. I don't know that I felt it<25> necessary to go down and say: "Look, we've got A, B,

. P-4768

< 1> C and D. These are the names that have come into us< 2> and we are not going to arrest them." If the< 3> situation had been that we had evidence and for some< 4> reason we were taking a decision not to arrest that< 5> might have been slightly different.< 6> Q. You see, here what I want to suggest is, you do< 7> not have to give any names away, in fact names were< 8> being provided by all sorts of people, I just want to< 9> ask you whether you said to any officer or you<10> yourself, personally -- perhaps I just should put a<11> precursor to this. Have you had any race awareness<12> training before '93?<13> A. Not to my knowledge. Not race awareness<14> training. There would be various perhaps areas<15> touched upon on different courses and that sort of<16> thing, but, no ----<17> Q. Were you familiar with the -- I will put it<18> generally -- the race policy of the MET and the<19> various documents that had been turned out, in fact<20> since the early '80s, one after another very<21> regularly? Were you aware of any of them?<22> A. I would be aware of certain of them. I would<23> not say I was aware of them all.<24> Q. Were you aware of what some of the priorities<25> within that policy were?

. P-4769

< 1> A. In respect of what ----< 2> Q. No, just crimes that may be categorised as< 3> racist crimes. Are you aware of the priorities that< 4> the MET Police claimed were being pursued by< 5> Metropolitan Officers?< 6> A. I would have obviously had a certain amount of< 7> knowledge and I think it is reflected in the way ----< 8> Q. We will come to how you reflected it, but what< 9> were the priorities in 1993 of the MET Race Policy?<10> A. Basically, for the awareness and the community<11> and the need to deal with these matters in a<12> sensitive manner.<13> Q. Yes. Anything else?<14> A. I can't specifically recall.<15> Q. Would one of the priorities be to ensure,<16> particularly in race crimes, were you aware of this,<17> that the victim's family or close friends or<18> relatives be sensitively dealt with and be kept<19> informed of the progress of the investigation? Were<20> you aware of that priority?<21> A. That would have been a priority in any murder<22> for any family.<23> Q. Right. Well ----<24> A. But my instructions were that they be kept<25> up-to-date as much as we could unless there was

. P-4770

< 1> anything specifically they shouldn't be. But your< 2> original question was did I ever think of going and< 3> spelling it out, basically, the situation.< 4> Q. I have just addressed it in this way, because I< 5> do not expect a senior officer would give away< 6> absolutely everything he has got, because there is a< 7> risk attached to that. As far as you were concerned,< 8> Mr and Mrs Lawrence were an utterly respectable and< 9> trustworthy family, were they not?<10> A. Of course.<11> Q. What I am suggesting is having taken two major<12> decisions that weekend you considered whether you<13> should make sure, either personally or by another<14> senior officer, that the family are aware that you<15> have the names of various likely suspects: part 1.<16> There appear to be at least five of them and, in<17> fact, if you wanted to make it four to be sure,<18> because there were four names more regularly than<19> five. You have four regularly repeated names:<20> "We are intending to arrest. It is only a<21> matter of time and this coming week I am afraid I've<22> got to stand down but somebody else is coming in and<23> we are mounting a special operation."<24> Do you follow all of that?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4771

< 1> Q. Now, all of that is perfectly reasonable, is it< 2> not?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. None of it was communicated to either Mr or Mrs< 5> Lawrence, was it?< 6> A. As I understand, no, sir.< 7> Q. Can you explain why not?< 8> A. Well, because obviously there is more than one< 9> way of dealing with matters and I had instructed the<10> officers to keep them abreast and to tell them that<11> any information that came in would be acted upon. If<12> at the time I had felt, and along the lines that you<13> say that that was necessary, then quite clearly, yes,<14> it could have been done.<15> Q. I would like your view now. Plainly, on the<16> race policy MET priorities that should be done,<17> should it not?<18> A. I suspect it should be done. Yes, all right in<19> the race, but in every case. It is to the degree<20> that you go on to tell them.<21> Q. I have mapped it out for you and you have<22> accepted it. It does not involve giving away<23> anything?<24> A. (inaudible) the following week -- I don't know<25> if I would go into that detail.

. P-4772

< 1> Q. You accepted a moment ago that it is perfectly< 2> reasonable?< 3> A. It is reasonable.< 4> Q. Yes?< 5> A. And it is an option, yes.< 6> Q. Why did you not, I appreciate you are a very< 7> busy man and you have another case coming up on the< 8> Monday and so on. I appreciate all of the< 9> difficulties that a senior officer faces, but before<10> signing off this Inquiry did you think of<11> communicating with the Lawrences and saying: "I am<12> sorry, I don't have a lot of time. I've got another<13> inquiry starting. Somebody else is taking over, but<14> let me just assure you this is what we have done so<15> far and the next other officer will continue in the<16> same vein." Did you think you should do that<17> yourself?<18> A. I had had a conversation with Mr Lawrence<19> earlier but, clearly, we didn't have the information<20> then. The fact that we didn't do it, no, I clearly<21> didn't, but the thing is I had seen Mr Lawrence, I<22> put the victim liaison officers on. The whole thing<23> is to have continuity and not different people<24> going. Whilst I'm quite sure they wouldn't have<25> minded me doing that at all and obviously would have

. P-4773

< 1> been looking for it now and, as you say, welcomed< 2> it. At that moment in time, he had asked not to be< 3> disturbed on the Sunday, I felt over that weekend I< 4> had acted in all reasonable ways with the family and< 5> what I had put into motion. I was not aware of any< 6> dissatisfaction of the family. Had I been, I would< 7> have acted differently.< 8> Q. But, you see, you do not have to wait until< 9> there is dissatisfaction; do you follow? As a senior<10> officer you want to ensure there is satisfaction, do<11> you not?<12> A. I wasn't aware that there wasn't satisfaction,<13> sir. That is what I'm trying to say.<14> Q. The only way you can ensure there is<15> satisfaction is making sure you allow the information<16> that is necessary to keep to the race policy or the<17> murder policy, generally, as you put it, that victims<18> are informed. Can I pause for a moment. You are<19> aware over the last decade that victims of crime<20> particularly have become very anxious about the fact<21> that they have not been informed. They felt excluded<22> through the whole process. You are aware of that?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. And that victims have actually become much more<25> active to the extent there are organisations and

. P-4774

< 1> protests and all sorts of things now on behalf of< 2> victims?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. And that has arisen, has it not, in part because< 5> they have not been given sufficient information,< 6> generally?< 7> A. Quite possibly.< 8> Q. You know that as a senior officer, do you not?< 9> A. I would assume, obviously, that is one of the<10> factors.<11> Q. The bottom line on this particular topic is you<12> made absolutely no effort before you handed over on<13> the Monday morning to ensure that the Lawrences were<14> up-to-date with the Inquiry, did you?<15> A. I had -- I had ensured by the fact that there<16> were two victim liaison officers there to answer any<17> of their questions and to update them on the<18> situation. The situation was that certain<19> information was coming in and would be dealt with and<20> acted upon. No, I didn't go beyond that and say the<21> sort of things you are suggesting.<22> Q. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?<23> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly.<24> Mr Crampton we will stop now until 2 o'clock.<25> Thank you very much.

. P-4775

< 1> <(Luncheon Adjournment)< 2> MR MANSFIELD: Mr Crampton, just before lunch we were< 3> just going through the records in relation to the two< 4> major decisions and the position now is that there is< 5> nothing in the policy file about these two major< 6> decisions, there is nothing in Bullock's notes of< 7> meetings, insofar as he took notes, there is one< 8> final document I want to put to you or ask you about< 9> which concerns the note that was taken of the meeting<10> you described at the start of my cross-examination<11> that took place on Monday 26th, at the end of your<12> period of tenure of office in this case.<13> You said there was one, you said that you<14> explained to the officer the sort of things that you<15> had been over to do with the arrest or rather<16> non-arrest and surveillance and you explained all<17> that you said?<18> A. I gave them a broad outline of what the case was<19> about.<20> Q. Sorry, I am going to be specific, did you tell<21> them, I want to get it clear you said this morning<22> you did, did you explain to them on the Monday<23> morning you had taken a decision not to arrest for<24> the following reasons and you had taken a decision to<25> institute surveillance if a squad could be got

. P-4776

< 1> together, did you tell them that?< 2> A. Yes, I think it is in the notes about the< 3> surveillance; what I would have said is that no< 4> arrest had been made because there was no evidence< 5> forthcoming and that was the decision.< 6> Q. Now, I would like you to see, again there is< 7> somebody else's record of a meeting with you, these< 8> are in an appendix G which is (PCA00330003), these< 9> are Mr Weeden's notes, in the first place they are in<10> writing, that is just to give you a flavour. It says<11> "Monday 26th at 8 am"?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Rather than trying to read the writing which is<14> difficult somebody has typed up what these notes<15> translate to and the translations as it were in typed<16> form comes at (PCA00330117). There it is typed up;<17> do you see?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. There are various things there, if Grace could<20> scroll down the page, if you flick your eye over<21> that, then if we go to 118, scroll to the top,<22> please, it has a page heading, because they have been<23> typed up differently, this is page 3 of the notes.<24> There is a reference there to you giving a briefing<25> meeting; do you follow?

. P-4777

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. I am going to do it as carefully and as quickly< 3> as possible. If you can just run your eye down the< 4> page as it stands and Grace could slowly scroll it< 5> up. What we see on this page is a description of the< 6> original incident itself and information which you< 7> had from eye witnesses about that and injuries and so< 8> on, do you follow, on that page, that is 118?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Now can we turn over to 119. Then there is a<11> rundown, if we can put it on this page, of<12> information about suspects, "not much information re<13> suspects, probably coming from the same source"; do<14> you see that?<15> THE CHAIRMAN: You have gone a bit quick.<16> MR MANSFIELD: Then it has a synopsis of the anonymous<17> female on the Friday, we have seen a message for<18> that. "A man came in on Friday" and that is obviously<19> a reference to "Grant" and so on. Then there is more<20> information partly redacted and so on. If you go<21> down that page you will see that it is a summary of<22> some of the information that had come in over the<23> weekend.<24> Now could we go to page 120, there is more<25> references on this page to again an account at

. P-4778

< 1> various meetings that had taken place, victim liaison< 2> officers, and so on. If you go down the page to the< 3> bottom there is a reference there to the note that< 4> you have been asked about in the left; do you follow?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. Am I going too fast or can you follow?< 7> A. It is okay, sir.< 8> Q. Have you seen those notes before?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Did you see them at the time they were made or<11> did it come later?<12> A. No it was when the PCA material was----<13> Q. The Kent Inquiry showed them to you?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Right?<16> A. The Kent Inquiry never showed it to me, it was<17> in advance of this hearing, sir.<18> Q. Right so since Kent and before now have you been<19> shown these notes. Right.<20> Page 121, just a little bit more to do on this<21> page again, now there is a reference there, about a<22> third of the way down, this is the first reference<23> anywhere in any of the documents so far available to<24> FIB, which is the intelligence bureau; do you follow?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4779

< 1> Q. "Need evidence of association"?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. "Photos, is there a guy with frizzy hair?" Now,< 4> that is all it says at that point in the note in< 5> relation to surveillance. In other words, no other< 6> details in relation to addresses, clothing or any< 7> other possible reason, the only one that is given< 8> there is "FIB need evidence of association", it does< 9> not say that the decision has been taken either, does<10> it?<11> A. This is a background briefing to all of the<12> superintendents, Mr Illsley is an aware of the<13> situation and Brian Weeden is going to have it<14> explained to him in detail. The other<15> superintendents do not need to know in fine detail of<16> this and what you also have to remember is I am<17> speaking at the normal speed, as I am speaking now,<18> in briefing and you will notice that these notes made<19> by Brian Weeden stop halfway through sentences and<20> everything else and they are quite misleading. They<21> are not full.<22> Q. I see. Do you regard Mr Weeden, others have<23> asked about him in particular, Mr Illsley has been<24> asked about, Mr Weeden; do you regard him as a<25> meticulous note taking officer. That is one of the

. P-4780

< 1> descriptions that is given of him; do you agree with< 2> that?< 3> A. My only knowledge of Mr Weeden I have never< 4> actually worked with him is basically his note taking< 5> from this case.< 6> Q. Do you agree that if you explained the reasons< 7> for and the fact that a decision had been taken for< 8> FIB to be involved he certainly has not put it down,< 9> has he?<10> A. No.<11> Q. Just run down the rest of that page, I am not<12> intending to read it out, you can see for yourself<13> some of it has been crossed out, "possibly done".<14> Over the page 122, do you see that, the last bit<15> there. The final reference to the fact that somebody<16> has, Benefield in particular, has made a statement.<17> Which have you dealt with. Then there is a line and<18> it deals with other matters. I am not going to go<19> through the rest?<20> A. Those last bits are not notes made with me.<21> Q. Then we can stop at an earlier page if that is a<22> proper synopsis. I am just dealing with the record<23> for a moment -- (Pause). Just at the bottom there of<24> this -- can I check the page, this is 122 at the<25> bottom, there is a list under "FIB 26 for research

. P-4781

< 1> and 27 team, TSG". Do you see that?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. Right. I think you were saying that these, some< 4> of this page, are not notes made in relation to you,< 5> that is what you were saying.< 6> A. That's right, these are notes when I think< 7> either he is on the phone to Fluke or when he has< 8> gone back to the office, this has been made up and< 9> ----<10> Q. In relation to conversations with you and going<11> to the second major decision, there is no reference<12> in the notes that he took on the Monday that you had<13> taken a decision not to arrest and the reasons,<14> particularly in this case, for that non-arrest, is<15> there?<16> A. No, that would have been a matter of discussion.<17> Q. Well I am only dealing with the record at the<18> moment of what you say happened in relation to<19> important decision. So the total picture therefore<20> is there is absolutely no record from anyone anywhere<21> in the case about these decisions that you took and<22> their reasons, is there?<23> A. The decision to delay arrest?<24> Q. The decision to delay arrest and reasons and the<25> decision to mount surveillance and reasons?

. P-4782

< 1> A. That's right.< 2> Q. So I make it clear to you in relation to the< 3> notice, I suggest the failure which is effectively< 4> paragraph 5 to record any of those major decisions is< 5> because -- I am going to ask you about the< 6> possibility that other forces were at work, there< 7> were other reasons. May I come to other aspects of< 8> this. I am going to do it in this way, if I may,< 9> concentrating on the major.<10> After you had got to the scene on the early<11> hours of the Friday, now we are dealing with 23rd, I<12> will come back to various odd details in relation to<13> that but eventually obviously you go back to the<14> police station and you remain on duty at the police<15> station during the 23rd, do you, most of the time?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. So the idea of remaining at the police station<18> is to gather your wits a bit and start thinking about<19> how you are going to deal with this crime?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. Again, may I just deal with it generally, in<22> terms of this kind of crime in this particular case<23> where it is, a street assault with people<24> disappearing into the night. You do not have often<25> very much to go on, do you?

. P-4783

< 1> A. Very often possibly you don't, it depends on the< 2> offence.< 3> Q. We will come back to what you could have< 4> discovered at the scene later. As far as your< 5> position is concerned is it this: by the time you got< 6> back to the police station what you knew was there< 7> had been an attack by five or six youths on Stephen< 8> Lawrence and his friend near a bus stop and the< 9> youths had run off down a particular road, Dickson<10> Road, you knew all that?<11> A. That is correct, sir.<12> Q. There was the possibility that another witness<13> had seen the group prior to the assault. In other<14> words, somebody who lived near the roundabout,<15> Mr Nugent. You knew about that?<16> A. I think when you say "prior to the assault" my<17> recollection is, you can probably put it up, he saw<18> them running up Dickson Road which I imagine is after<19> the assault.<20> Q. That is also the case that they went down<21> Dickson Road. I leave it on the basis just for the<22> moment that it is 5 unidentified, unknown white<23> youths running off down Dickson Road. That is the<24> base line?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4784

< 1> Q. Is it also a feature of cases like this that< 2> unless, in fact, you are able to have detained< 3> anybody near the scene, in a case of this kind the< 4> longer it goes the less likely it is you are going to< 5> get the kind of evidence that you are talking about.< 6> In other words, direct evidence of participation in< 7> murder; do you agree?< 8> A. I think every case is different and you know it< 9> is difficult to say and generalise, I mean----<10> Q. Let us look at the general nature of this one,<11> in general terms first, we will come to the<12> particulars, you are dealing with, likely to be<13> dealing with young men, teenagers, first of all<14> appeared, if that is what they were?<15> A. They were teenagers to early 20s.<16> Q. Yes. Who were plainly, and a word has been used<17> besides the question of race, which I will come back<18> to, plainly thugs of the worst order; you would agree<19> that?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> Q. They are not going to rush forward and confess<22> that they have done it. You would be surprised if<23> any of them did that. It could happen but you would<24> be surprised?<25> A. It was one of the considerations for not

. P-4785

< 1> arresting, sir.< 2> Q. You would be surprised if they rushed forward< 3> and confessed?< 4> A. I would not expect it.< 5> Q. In fact, even on arrest you would not expect any< 6> of them to confess to doing what is an alleged?< 7> A. That's correct.< 8> Q. The direct evidence, if I put it that way, in a< 9> case of this kind, is this fair, is unlikely to come<10> from the group of five or six -- unlikely?<11> A. Correct.<12> Q. Now, you also knew in this case, and it is very<13> common with a large number of other cases of this<14> kind, that you had a situation in which nobody who<15> saw the event, whether it be Mr Nugent or people at<16> the bus stop or Duwayne Brooks, the other victim/eye<17> witness, nobody was able to name anybody, were they?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. So you did not have any names from them. You<20> had some descriptions. So far as it had gone by the<21> time you are back at the police station on the 23rd<22> no obvious weapon had been recovered?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. As, I think you agreed, the longer the hours<25> ticked by with none of this direct evidence. In

. P-4786

< 1> other words nobody coming forward and saying: "I did< 2> it"; nobody coming forward and saying: "I saw who did< 3> it and it is so and so"; nobody coming forward with a< 4> knife with traces of blood on it. The longer it goes< 5> the more difficult it is going to become for you,< 6> correct?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Do you agree that?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. Right. So it must be mana from heaven for a<11> senior investigating officer in that, what I am going<12> to call a powerless situation, very little to go on,<13> if while you are at the police station you get some<14> very specific information. That is going to be or<15> potentially is extremely important to you because you<16> are really floundering around a bit; would you agree?<17> A. What sort of information are you talking about?<18> Q. I think you know what sort of information I am<19> talking about, but if you get specific information<20> coming into the police station where you are even<21> before you have asked by a public appeal for people<22> to come forward, somebody who therefore has come<23> forward very quickly indeed with specific<24> information, could be very important, could it not?<25> A. I thought we were talking about the early hours

. P-4787

< 1> of the morning.< 2> Q. No, no, no?< 3> A. I'm sorry.< 4> Q. I have summarise that. The early hours of the< 5> morning through to when you are back at the police< 6> station?< 7> A. Okay, sorry.< 8> Q. You do not have very much. You do not have any< 9> names from -- all that?<10> A. Yes, I understand all that.<11> Q. So what I have described, your position back at<12> the police station during the morning of the 23rd,<13> the daylight hours of the morning, 7 o'clock onwards,<14> the morning of 23rd, as the hours ticked by you have<15> in fact got this static picture of five people who<16> have disappeared into an estate, down a road and some<17> descriptions and that is it, really, to go on?<18> A. That's right, sir.<19> Q. If you get information -- specific information<20> coming into the police station when you so little<21> else the information becomes potentially very<22> significant, does it not?<23> A. All information is potentially significant.<24> Q. It is, but it is particularly important in a<25> case when have you so little else to go on; do you

. P-4788

< 1> agree?< 2> A. I would say that all information can be< 3> particularly significant and you cannot have too much< 4> quite clearly.< 5> Q. I am sorry. I realise that in any case< 6> information is important but in this one, in a case< 7> of this kind, where you have people disappearing< 8> possibly into a community where they may be shielded,< 9> and that must have been something that occurred to<10> you, yes?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. Well, did it?<13> A. Whether they may have been shielded?<14> Q. Yes. In other words, their friends and<15> relatives might be quite anxious to ensure they do<16> not get arrested, yes?<17> A. That would always be the case, yes.<18> Q. That would always be the case. Could we have<19> (PCA00470359). It is something you saw this morning<20> briefly, but I want to ask you about it more<21> particularly. This is a record of the first message<22> that comes through. This is at 1.50. It is before<23> any public appeal by you or anyone else and do you<24> agree, as has been observed by the Kent investigation<25> in relation to information, that early information is

. P-4789

< 1> sometimes, particularly when nothing much has been< 2> made public, is sometimes some of the most reliable< 3> because it means, if I may just finish the< 4> observation, that the person who is giving you the< 5> information may be rather close to the action. Do< 6> you follow?< 7> A. Can be, yes.< 8> Q. So the early information is ones you have to< 9> look at particularly carefully, because once it is<10> out in the street it is rumour building on rumour and<11> you cannot tell second from third from fourth hand.<12> Do you agree?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. This person ringing in gives you a specific<15> address, 102 Bournbrook Road, or it is put as<16> "Close", in fact, I think, Kidbrooke Estate.<17> May I pause there. Did you see this message<18> when it came in or shortly thereafter?<19> A. Would it be better if I explained my movements<20> of that day, sir.<21> Q. It may take longer that way?<22> A. Okay. No, I didn't see this message.<23> Q. Sorry?<24> A. No, I didn't see the message when it came in. I<25> wasn't at the police station.

. P-4790

< 1> Q. Fair enough. Did you get to know about it that< 2> day?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. That day?< 5> A. No, sir.< 6> Q. This message?< 7> A. That's right, sir.< 8> Q. This first message?< 9> A. That's correct, sir.<10> Q. At 1.50?<11> A. That's correct, sir.<12> Q. Pm?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> THE CHAIRMAN: The following day you said, did you<15> not?<16> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.<17> MR MANSFIELD: I appreciate you saying that about<18> Mr Grant because had you gone home and all the rest<19> of it, but this message which comes in round the<20> lunch time period; do you follow?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. You say that you did not get this message on the<23> 23rd either?<24> A. No, sir.<25> Q. You are quite sure of that?

. P-4791

< 1> A. I can tell you what my movements were and it may< 2> explain the reasons why I didn't.< 3> Q. Can I put this way: even if you are not in the< 4> police station to see it, did anybody contact you,< 5> because you are in charge of the investigation on the< 6> 23rd, so did anybody contact you on that day and< 7> say: "Look, here, we have some very specific< 8> information I think you ought to now about"?< 9> A. No, sir. If you look at this message it is the<10> type of message that does come in and there are<11> people named. It is talking about a group of youths<12> who carry knives and that group of youths may have<13> been involved in the stabbing.<14> Q. Yes, I appreciate this?<15> A. "Two of the group are", not "these two did the<16> stabbing". What that would do is come into the<17> incident room and it would be actioned. When I got<18> back that evening and went to the office meeting this<19> was not brought to my attention. Perhaps it should<20> have been, but it was not, and it was brought to my<21> attention the next morning. It was being researched.<22> Q. I will leave aside the generality of some of the<23> points in it. Do you appreciate this was potentially<24> an important message, this one?<25> A. When I saw it?

. P-4792

< 1> Q. Yes?< 2> A. I saw it at the same time as I got the Grant< 3> information so quite clearly it was important.< 4> Q. Yes, all right. Let us deal with that. This is< 5> now Saturday morning and you are back at the police< 6> station and you see this one, that is M4. Just for< 7> ease of reference we have been using M4 at a slightly< 8> different place. It is (PCA00500165), please.< 9> This is the full version of this message. I<10> want to take this carefully because, first of all, in<11> terms of the person who has come in the previous<12> night he has come in, as you know, within a very<13> short space of time of the police appeal. You were<14> aware of that?<15> A. Time -- from the police appeal, yes, sir, yes.<16> Q. You knew that on the Saturday?<17> A. Sorry, yes, the appeal, yes.<18> Q. From the appeal from the press conference and so<19> on?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. There has been a press conference, they need<22> people, and this person, the message 40, comes into<23> the police station?<24> A. That is correct.<25> Q. Where is the first message which you were

. P-4793

< 1> looking at, M4, has some generalities amongst it.< 2> This one is very specific indeed, is it not?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. And even more than the first one, M4, this one< 5> tends to suggest that the person giving this< 6> information was either at the scene himself or knows< 7> a person who was; do you agree?< 8> A. It could be either of those or it could be that< 9> he has been told this.<10> Q. Of course?<11> A. It could be he has heard it from someone who was<12> or someone who heard it from someone who was.<13> Q. Yes, of course?<14> A. You have to keep a fairly open mind.<15> Q. But because the information -- because it is not<16> just telling you about the names of the Acourts and<17> now the specific address is repeated, so you have now<18> from the first and this message you can piece it<19> together, but plainly the people being talked about<20> are Jamie and Neil Acourt of 102 Bournbrook Road and<21> David Norris. They are the three named very<22> specifically as a result of the two first messages?<23> A. That is correct, sir.<24> Q. This person is indicating not only the names and<25> addresses, but this person has a description of two

. P-4794

< 1> of them, as you will see towards the bottom.< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Do you see that, the description?< 4> A. Yes, sir.< 5> Q. It would appear that this person knows a< 6> considerable amount about their activities as< 7> individuals, both Norris in relation to the Benefield< 8> matter, and also what is known as the Duggal case and< 9> the connection with the Acourts. You see all of<10> that?<11> A. When you say he knew a lot about the Duggal<12> case, are you suggesting that Peter Thompson, who is<13> serving life, in fact, it was one of the Acourts that<14> killed the lad?<15> Q. No, no, please understand?<16> A. That is what it says.<17> Q. He is obviously somebody -- just follow the<18> question -- who knows quite a bit about the Acourts<19> and Norris and we have heard from other witnesses in<20> this case that this information in fact checked out<21> on the whole; do you follow?<22> A. On the whole, yes, sir.<23> Q. On the whole it checked out. In other words --<24> particularly in relation to Benefield, it checked<25> out, did it not?

. P-4795

< 1> A. Yes, sir. There are reasons for that and it is< 2> not a surprise.< 3> Q. He is very close to whoever was responsible,< 4> this person who is giving the information, is he not?< 5> A. Could be.< 6> Q. Could be. That will do.< 7> Without going through the rest of the messages< 8> that were coming in, what was very clear was the most< 9> common names being repeated over that weekend, I<10> appreciate one or two others were sometimes put<11> forward, but the names that came up time and again in<12> fact from the two Acourts and Norris. They are the<13> most common ones of the lot to be repeated to you,<14> were they not?<15> A. Of course, and that is why the whole thrust of<16> the Inquiry was geared towards them.<17> Q. Was it? We will come to that. Now, you knew<18> who this person was, did you not, who had come into<19> the police station; his identity was known to you?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Right. I obviously do not wish, and neither<22> does he, that his identity is ever known but the<23> identity of this person is, in fact, very<24> significant, is it not? That is all I want to<25> answer, yes or no?

. P-4796

< 1> A. In relation to something that is in here?< 2> Q. In relation to the whole case. The identity of< 3> this individual is particularly significant, is it< 4> not. In terms of judging -- so you know where it is< 5> going -- the quality of the information that is in< 6> there, knowing who the person is and what connections< 7> there might be could be very important, could they< 8> not?< 9> A. What connections there were to some of the names<10> in this.<11> Q. Yes, that is right?<12> A. One particular person that's named in this.<13> That is the thing I'm trying to -- if I am on the<14> same wavelength.<15> Q. I am not going to specify ----<16> A. I want to make sure I am not answering a<17> question I am not sure of correctly.<18> Q. The identity, do you agree, of this particular<19> individual known to you on the 23rd was of<20> considerable significance, was it not?<21> A. I knew who he was, his name and a relationship<22> with somebody else.<23> Q. Right.<24> A. If that is what we are talking about.<25> Q. That is what we are talking about.

. P-4797

< 1> A. Okay, sir.< 2> Q. Yes. So you knew on Saturday morning the 23rd< 3> -- sorry, the 24th, the following day.< 4> THE CHAIRMAN: You did say the 23rd a moment ago.< 5> MR MANSFIELD: My mistake. I mean the following day.< 6> You knew on the 24th, and so you know where this is< 7> going, the object of these questions is that you had< 8> plenty of grounds to arrest and you deliberately did< 9> not, and I will come to the reasons why you did not.<10> That is where it is going, so that you understand.<11> So the informant is known; he is particularly<12> significant and he has given you particularly<13> significant information. Now, in addition to that --<14> can I just move on to the next stage -- these names<15> that were now given by Saturday the 24th that you<16> knew about -- let us divide it up. First of all, the<17> Acourts, had you ever heard of them before the<18> 23rd/24th?<19> A. No, sir.<20> Q. But if you wanted to find out very quickly<21> whether they were known you have in fact not only got<22> a description, but you have got an address, do you<23> not?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. What is the quickest way for a police officer to

. P-4798

< 1> find out if anything is known about a particular name< 2> and an address?< 3> A. Well, the first thing if you want to know if it< 4> is a criminal record or anything of that nature then< 5> it has to go to either Scotland Yard through the PNC< 6> or a local collators unit, which is what the officer< 7> was tasked to do.< 8> Q. We will deal with how long it takes to do< 9> everything and so on, because the whole point about<10> this case, I want to suggest to you, is at a senior<11> level is delay, delay, delay. It is not that it<12> cannot be done, it is just that it is not done<13> expeditiously; do you follow?<14> A. It was not actually ever necessarily thought<15> that they he didn't -- they didn't live at 102.<16> Q. Was it not? I thought the surveillance was put<17> up for that reason?<18> A. No, sir.<19> Q. Was that not the reason?<20> A. There was no reason to put surveillance on 102<21> unless you knew who lived there.<22> Q. Right. I will come back to surveillance. So<23> far as Acourts and 102 is concerned, what time on<24> Saturday morning do you think you had this<25> information, message M4 and this one. What time did

. P-4799

< 1> you see it?< 2> A. As soon as I came in which would have been 8.30,< 3> 9.00 something like that.< 4> Q. As we are wanting to proceed with speed in this< 5> investigation you have accepted and be effective you,< 6> a senior investigating officer, would want to know as< 7> soon as possible whatever is known about the two< 8> Acourts and 102; would you not?< 9> A. That is exactly what happened.<10> Q. I will come to it. Did you find out on the<11> Saturday who they were?<12> A. I think we had some knowledge of the Acourts.<13> Q. You did. On the Saturday?<14> A. I think so, later on on the Saturday I believe.<15> Q. What did you know on the Saturday about the<16> Acourts and 102.<17> A. It is difficult for me to say now exactly what<18> we knew but I think they confirmed that they lived at<19> that address and they were known.<20> Q. What was known about them on 23rd?<21> A. It is difficult for me to say exactly what was<22> found out about what. One of them I think was known<23> to have, I think -- it is difficult for me now, from<24> what I now there was a car offence I think and a----<25> Q. An offensive weapon?

. P-4800

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. That is Jamie Acourt.< 3> A. I take your word for that, sir.< 4> Q. It may be quicker to do it this way. Could we< 5> have (MET00970020). This is a document, I am not< 6> intending to read it out in public at this point but< 7> this is a document, can you help us does this come< 8> from the central records NIB, National Intelligence< 9> Bureau?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. In order to procure this it is really very<12> straight forward indeed. In other words, you can do<13> via your terminal if you have one at Eltham or you<14> can make a phone call to get this?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. You can know almost as soon as you read that<17> message, an officer can do it over the telephone or<18> through his computer and have this sort of<19> information which you have just been saying on it, he<20> can have that back to you within half an hour or an<21> hour, can he not?<22> A. I think so, yes.<23> Q. You think so, yes. In fact, of course, if there<24> is a local collator's card in relation to this man --<25> was there a local collator's card as well?

. P-4801

< 1> A. I don't know, it is difficult really to say I< 2> think there probably would be. I don't know whether< 3> he has a conviction -- can you scroll down a bit?< 4> Q. Yes, certainly?< 5> A. Is this----< 6> Q. There is a bit more, there is another sheet in< 7> fact. I do not know whether it will help, the next< 8> sheet is 0021, it seems to have much the same< 9> information I cannot quite see the difference?<10> A. I am looking to see if it was a conviction or<11> somebody who was on bail, sir.<12> Q. He was due to appear at court on the 25th March<13> 1993, which is, in fact, only a month before these<14> offences. Do you see, the date is written on there?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. He was charged on 12th March?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. He was on bail, these are the sort of questions<19> you are wanting answered in relation to this.<20> Now would it be fair to say that in relation to<21> this Acourt anyway, there ought to be a local<22> collator's card so that if there was local collator<23> at the time all he or she had to do was look up the<24> card under that address?<25> A. If it had come through from Catford, that is a

. P-4802

< 1> point, yes.< 2> Q. As you are probably now aware, you may not have< 3> been at the time I ask you this: were you aware that< 4> Jamie Acourt had been charged on a serious assault on< 5> the Witham brothers with a man called Norris. Did< 6> you know about that?< 7> A. No, sir.< 8> Q. You did not know about that. But again a police< 9> station somewhere would have information about that<10> charging process, the incident was in 1992, would<11> they not?<12> A. Yes, sir.<13> Q. Could you get information about Jamie and Norris<14> on that charge through New Scotland Yard and the PNC<15> checks and so on?<16> A. Possibly not if they were out on police bail,<17> which I think was the situation.<18> Q. Right. So it would have to come via what then?<19> A. You would have to find out the local station and<20> once you were aware of the offence from the local<21> station, go to that station and there would be a<22> record there.<23> Q. In any event, if I summarise the position on the<24> Acourts, on the 23rd, I think are you agreeing, their<25> names Jamie and Neil and the address had been

. P-4803

< 1> discovered and they were known to police basically.< 2> You knew that by 24th?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. Right. So we are beginning to build a picture< 5> of people who might be of considerable significance.< 6> We are beginning to build a picture, are we not?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Because they are known to police does not mean< 9> to say they have done it, I appreciate that, but they<10> are not unknown.<11> I want to turn to the other name that was most<12> commonly put up over this weekend by this the first<13> message and this one. Norris.<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. Norris was a very familiar name to you, was it<16> not?<17> A. I was dealing with a person by the same name or<18> the murder of a person by the same name.<19> Q. Right. By this time that is the 23rd/24th, do I<20> understand that not only was the case of the other<21> David Norris going on at the Old Bailey, it had<22> already started and you were due to go back on the<23> Monday?<24> A. Yes, well shortly after.<25> Q. Shortly after?

. P-4804

< 1> A. Shortly after.< 2> Q. Did that case involve drugs?< 3> A. Yes, it did sir, yes.< 4> Q. Now for the purposes of that case I think you< 5> said, have I got this right, that a statement had< 6> been taken from the brother of Clifford Norris, do I< 7> have this right, in order to show there was no< 8> connection between the brother or the Clifford Norris< 9> family and the David Norris who was dead?<10> A. No, you have that completely wrong, sir.<11> Q. You tell me what the position was?<12> A. The statement was taken from the brother of the<13> deceased David Norris to say that he and his brother,<14> I think there was only basically the two of them,<15> were not in any way related to any Norris family that<16> were criminals from South East London.<17> Q. Right. But you had that statement<18> distinguishing the Norrises in the case you were<19> dealing with from the Norris family from South East<20> London?<21> A. A Norris family from South East London, yes. I<22> know now more than I did then of course that they are<23> perhaps a notorious family more notorious than<24> perhaps I was aware of at the time.<25> Q. They were notorious at the time, were they not,

. P-4805

< 1> Mr Crampton?< 2> A. They were notorious at the time, yes.< 3> Q. They were notorious at the time, this is the< 4> other lot, the Deptford Norrises with Clifford at< 5> their head, they were notorious at the time and you< 6> knew that, did you not, on 23rd/24th?< 7> A. I would have known it, yes.< 8> Q. Yes. Not only did you know that, I suggest to< 9> you a large number of other serving officers who had<10> been, as it were, around and about for a period of<11> time, such as yourself, they also would have known<12> about the Norrises at Deptford, would they not?<13> A. That is how it came about because of when the<14> other murder happened in 1991 people had come in and<15> said that David Norris was David Norris of the Norris<16> family. That is how later on for disclosure issues<17> that was just closed off as being untrue.<18> Q. That was. That meant, did it not, there was no<19> question at all but that when the name "Norris" crops<20> up, you are the one officer in South East London who<21> would have bells ringing all over the place, would<22> you not?<23> A. It didn't ring bells all over the place.<24> Q. Did it not?<25> A. What I dealt with on that other case was well

. P-4806

< 1> certainly excess of 100 South East London criminals,< 2> mainly South East London criminals, lots and lots of< 3> names, lots and lots of people. The taking of the< 4> statement from the brother that took place was not by< 5> me, I never saw the other family at all.< 6> It did not ring bells with me that this 16 or 17< 7> year old boy had to be a member of that family at< 8> all.< 9> Q. Mr Crampton, please think carefully about this<10> because not only did you not agree when Kent asked<11> you, can we have page (PCA00490216). Is it that<12> answer there: "No, sorry" there is more at the top<13> if you want to read it?<14> A. What this is talking about, of course, is when I<15> was being interviewed by Kent, by which time I knew<16> that the Norris, the suspect, was a member of that<17> family.<18> Q. I appreciate you are being interviewed by Kent.<19> I am not talking about the time when you are<20> interviewed by Kent, I am coming to the answer where<21> you are indicating the general position. Do you see:<22> "No sorry. It has not been raised in this Inquiry,<23> as far as I recall, that it was the Norrises for<24> Deptford are amongst police officers fairly well<25> known family going back over a number of years,

. P-4807

< 1> particularly the father of young David Norris." Do< 2> you see that?< 3> A. That is correct.< 4> Q. Not that they have only recently come to the< 5> attention of police and you have only just realised< 6> it, do you follow, but that, in fact, all along the< 7> Norris family of Deptford were notorious and were< 8> known to be by notorious police officers. That was< 9> the position, was it not?<10> A. That was the position but it was more known to<11> me but from what you are trying to say I should have<12> known at the time in April 1993. What I am saying is<13> that it is more to my knowledge now when I am being<14> interviewed by Kent because I knew that young David<15> Norris was a member of that family so I was aware of<16> that situation and that he was a member of a<17> notorious family.<18> Q. When the name Dave Norris came up, in particular<19> in relation to these two messages 4 and 40,<20> David Norris, are you saying as the Senior<21> Investigating Officer that the notorious South East<22> London family of the same name just did not occur to<23> you?<24> A. That is correct, sir,.<25> Q. Well, Mr Crampton?

. P-4808

< 1> A. That a 17 year old in Eltham, it did not tie up< 2> with me that he was the member of that family.< 3> Q. It is only down the road, it is not, it is not< 4> very far away?< 5> A. I appreciate that, sir.< 6> Q. You do?< 7> A. What I am saying is to the best of my knowledge< 8> if it had arisen to me, I would have put it the way< 9> the officer doing the research in. To the best of my<10> knowledge it never arose, it never arose in my mind.<11> Q. What appears to have happened it that is<12> actioned the name, it is action number 7; do you see?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. The action itself, can we have (PCA00470241),<15> that is the action; do you see.<16> A. Yes, sir.<17> Q. And I think you are agreeing that you do not say<18> to DC Chase, who has the task of following this<19> through nor do you say to anyone else: Oh, look<20> Norris, my goodness I can help you on that one, it<21> could be related to the Clifford Norris and this big<22> family". You do not say any of that, do you?<23> A. To the best of my recollection, no.<24> Q. No. Have you ever had, and I cannot suggest, I<25> make it clear, but have you ever had any kind of

. P-4809

< 1> dealings with that Norris family?< 2> A. Never, sir.< 3> Q. Socially?< 4> A. Socially?< 5> Q. Yes?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. Not professionally?< 8> A. Not professionally, socially, I don't know them.< 9> Q. You do not know them?<10> A. Never had any dealings with him.<11> Q. All right. Now, to this notorious family, and<12> this action which is actioned there, and perhaps I<13> will just follow it through. You will see where it<14> comes from. There is reference to message 4 and if<15> we turn over to (PCA00470042) it would appear that<16> the action on this name -- can we scroll up, that is<17> the<18> address -- then there is some other information<19> dealing with the assault and so on. You see the date<20> when the action is returned.<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. The 27th?<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. Well, you are not saying, are you, that it took<25> from the 23rd, effectively, when the name is first

. P-4810

< 1> mentioned and apparently actioned on the 23rd, to the< 2> 27th to discover who this Norris was?< 3> A. No, sir. That is when that action has been put< 4> back in. I have told you already I think that he had< 5> been identified by the 25th.< 6> Q. I appreciate you are saying that you think you< 7> knew the address on the Sunday.< 8> MR GOMPERTZ: I am very sorry to interrupt my learned< 9> friend. I hope he has not forgotten the evidence<10> given by the officer who carried out this action, DC<11> Chase, who examined his duty state, which if anyone<12> wants to see it is (PCA00320101), where the dates<13> when he pursued this action are given.<14> MR MANSFIELD: Yes.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is right, Mr Mansfield.<16> MR MANSFIELD: I have not forgotten.<17> THE CHAIRMAN: There are lots of nails for you to hit<18> on the head without this one. We have had a lot of<19> this, of course, through Mr Lawson who skilfully<20> examined the witness this morning.<21> MR MANSFIELD: Yes. None of the Norris ----<22> THE CHAIRMAN: I am not stopping you. I am just<23> reminding you that Mr Lawson did cover nearly all<24> this ground.<25> MR MANSFIELD: He did not cover any of the Norris

. P-4811

< 1> material. Not a single question was asked about< 2> Norris -- certainly not of this kind.< 3> MR MANSFIELD: I want to ask you and you have not been< 4> asked so far about this (MET00970004), please. Can< 5> you help us: what is this?< 6> A. Collators cards.< 7> Q. Right. It is a collators card in whose name?< 8> A. David Norris.< 9> Q. Right. Where would this be kept?<10> A. I would imagine Chislehurst or Orpington Police<11> Station. The area that takes the address, I would<12> imagine.<13> Q. So provided you know the address of Norris you<14> can certainly at least go to the station that might<15> be close to that address to discover a card like<16> this?<17> A. Once you knew who -- if his research identified<18> an address of a 17 year old, David Norris, once you<19> got his address you could go to the local police<20> station of the address and look for the card.<21> Q. Now we have (MET00970005), please. That is a<22> lot of background information in 1992 and 1993 about<23> David Norris on a collators card, correct?<24> A. Yes, sir.<25> Q. Now, in order to get to that address and that

. P-4812

< 1> police station and that collators card you are saying< 2> of course you did not tip anybody off that it was< 3> related to the Clifford Norris of interest; is that< 4> right? Is that what you are saying?< 5> A. I am saying to the best of my recollection I< 6> didn't tip anybody off because I had not tidied up at< 7> all.< 8> Q. I am going suggest that it would have been the< 9> most obvious enquiry to make and had you you would<10> have come up with this (MET00350115), please.<11> MR LAWSON: There are two versions of LIO cards on the<12> system.<13> THE CHAIRMAN: You showed us the first one this<14> morning.<15> MR LAWSON: One version has been redacted and one has<16> not and I think that is the unredacted. I was just<17> discussing something else. Can you give me one<18> moment?<19> I am sorry to interrupt, but I wonder whether I<20> can verify whether there is any objection. There is<21> not on behalf of the Inquiry, but whether any<22> objection is raised on behalf of the Commissioner,<23> because we have given the Commissioner the<24> opportunity to raise objection to some unredacted<25> material which includes addresses, CRO numbers, et

. P-4813

< 1> cetera. Can you give me a moment? (Pause).< 2> MR GOMPERTZ: I am very sorry to delay matters. I was< 3> not aware this was going to arise. I am sure it is< 4> entirely my fault. I wonder if I might have an< 5> opportunity to take instructions so that Mr Mansfield< 6> knows what I am concerned about. It is (MET00350117)< 7> and the following pages in relation to Clifford< 8> Norris.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Mansfield, can you deal with<10> it generally at the moment?<11> MR MANSFIELD: I will try. Can I give the witness the<12> document ----<13> THE CHAIRMAN: The collators card that you put up on<14> the screen was the one we saw the front of this<15> morning. We did not see the particulars of the back<16> bit. The other one you put up is a separate card.<17> MR LAWSON: I think, in fact, the one that I had on<18> the screen this morning was the son's -- was David<19> Norris' LIO, collators card. Is his father's card.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Yes.<21> MR GOMPERTZ: Miss Weekes helpfully suggests it may be<22> incapable of circumvention, the problem I mean, if<23> the witness alone sees the document as to which there<24> is no objection.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: He cannot. I can.

. P-4814

< 1> MR GOMPERTZ: If we pass him a hard copy he will be< 2> able to (handed).< 3> MR LAWSON: If you were to flick the switch you will< 4> be able to see it, Mr Mansfield, and the references.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Everyone is longing for me to do that,< 6> but I can't really see why. Still, we will have a< 7> look.< 8> MR MANSFIELD: Do you have the document in front of< 9> you?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. This is all information, is it not right, that<12> would be held at New Scotland Yard?<13> A. This is local collators cards and a great deal<14> of it, I suspect, would be held at Scotland Yard,<15> yes.<16> Q. So, again on the 24th a phone call or a computer<17> check through New Scotland Yard would have been<18> likely to produce, first of all, Clifford Norris'<19> name would be at New Scotland Yard?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. I am not going to read out the address, but the<22> addresses to which he is associated, which is on the<23> first page, 115, would be held the New Scotland Yard?<24> A. In all probability, yes.<25> Q. Therefore, if you had the address from

. P-4815

< 1> New Scotland Yard relating to this Norris, the< 2> Norris, as I call him, that would lead you clearly to< 3> local police stations and other collators cards if< 4> you wanted to?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Do you agree this is really very basic policing< 7> intelligence, is it not?< 8> A. This is what the officer was deputed to< 9> research, this type of information.<10> Q. Yes. Of course the information, and I am not<11> going to read it all out, stretches over a number of<12> pages. It includes a photograph, does it not?<13> A. Yes, sir.<14> Q. It includes, and I should have given, this dates<15> back, as you put in your answer to Kent, this<16> particular set of records dates back to 1988, does it<17> not?<18> A. I don't know if I said that to Kent, but ----<19> Q. Over a number of years you said?<20> A. Sorry, yes.<21> Q. In this context, in addition, clearly somebody<22> is keeping a pretty close check on vehicles that<23> attend that address and people connected with the<24> vehicles, are they not? You can see that on ----<25> A. I can see that, yes, sir.

. P-4816

< 1> Q. ---- 117?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. You see that you see it now, all of this was< 4> available to you on the 24th at the press of a< 5> button?< 6> A. Yes, but what I am saying is they were looking< 7> for a young David Norris aged 17. I had not tied the< 8> two up and, therefore, the officer if he had not been< 9> in some way lead down that path he is researching to<10> try and find a 17 year old youth.<11> Q. 118 is another page on which more vehicles and<12> more individuals.<13> 119, and I am doing it more quickly, is an<14> important page because on that page had you cared or<15> somebody cared to ask they would have made the<16> ultimate connection because reference is made to his<17> son David who at the time the record was made in 1989<18> indicated that he had a son called David and the<19> school that he went to?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. The school's name we have heard of before in<22> this case.<23> A. Yes, sir.<24> Q. It also makes clear just on this page, anyway,<25> and as I think you indicated yourself, that this man,

. P-4817

< 1> Clifford Norris, was wanted by the police, was he< 2> not?< 3> A. He was, yes, sir.< 4> Q. He was not wanted for shoplifting. He was< 5> wanted for serious offences, was he not?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. One of them was murder?< 8> A. I believe -- whether he was wanted for murder,< 9> but he was wanted for drug offences and I think he<10> was wanted for questioning on murder or something of<11> that nature.<12> Q. Look at 119, unless it is wrong. Do you have<13> 119 in front of you?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. It says: "Murder charge will not be proceeded to<16> owing to fear of the witnesses"?<17> A. Oh, all right. Yes, I can see that.<18> Q. One of the things that the Norris family of<19> Deptford were known for -- notoriously known for was<20> intimidation of witnesses?<21> A. That was not known to me, sir.<22> Q. That was unknown?<23> A. That was not known to me, sir.<24> Q. In addition, 119, you will see that he was also<25> wanted for drugs importation?

. P-4818

< 1> A. Yes, sir.< 2> Q. Do you see that on 119?< 3> A. Yes, sir.< 4> Q. That position, that is his being wanted for< 5> serious offences, existed in 1993, did it not?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. Somehow or another this man was evading< 8> prosecution for serious offences, was he not?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. May I just return to the message that comes in<11> on the 23rd, which you see on the 24th. You have<12> been asked about this?<13> THE CHAIRMAN: Would you take that off.<14> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, certainly.<15> Can we have (PCA00500165). You have been asked<16> about the message, but the question you not been<17> asked, and I am going to ask you now, if I may, is<18> this: having read that on the Saturday, was there<19> something rather obviously missing from this message?<20> A. I don't know quite what you are getting at, sir.<21> Q. It is not a trick question at all. If you read<22> it through to yourself is there something that would<23> occur to you as a senior investigating officer,<24> having read it?<25> A. There is not an address for Norris.

. P-4819

< 1> Q. Yes. Not an address for Norris, but we have< 2> been through the Norris ----< 3> A. Sorry, that's what you ----< 4> Q. It is much more fundamental than there is not an< 5> address for Norris. He is giving you quite a lot of< 6> information. It is a very basic question, I suggest,< 7> in relation to this?< 8> A. Sorry, sir, I don't know what ----< 9> MS WOODLEY: Perhaps my learned friend could actually<10> put the question and we could save a lot of time.<11> THE CHAIRMAN: You did do this before and after a long<12> time the answer came. It is probably easier to put<13> it to him, is it not.<14> MR MANSFIELD: It is easier, but it is real question<15> here, and if I put it he will say: "I did think of it<16> and I did ask." The question is whether he was<17> taking this material seriously ----<18> THE CHAIRMAN: You are coming out of your analytical<19> and into your other mode, Mr Mansfield ----<20> MR MANSFIELD: Slightly, yes.<21> THE CHAIRMAN: Ask him once more and in not tell him<22> what the secret is<23> MR MANSFIELD: I am going to suggest it is really<24> rather obvious if you just read the message once to<25> yourself and the question is: "What is missing?"

. P-4820

< 1> What would you want to know as a Senior Investigating< 2> officer having read that?< 3> A. I want to know perhaps if we could who the< 4> identity of the other two males were.< 5> Q. You would want to know that. You might want to< 6> know the address of David Norris, yes?< 7> A. Who the other lad "Lee" was but this was all< 8> stuff that was to be researched anyway to find that< 9> sort of thing out.<10> Q. Here is a man who is clearly, as you accepted,<11> close to the action, I will safe the bated breath the<12> secret question is: "How does he know all this?"<13> Officer, how did he know all this?<14> A. That was the point, the following morning----<15> THE CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry to have to do this<16> again. When the witness faces the public gallery<17> there is -- the young ladies in the front row<18> particularly continue to laugh. You will be asked to<19> leave. Please, please do not do it because it is<20> distracting and not fair to any witness to have that<21> behaviour in the public gallery.<22> Mr Mansfield, I am sorry to interrupt you.<23> THE WITNESS: Quite clearly the following morning was<24> something that we wanted to know.<25> MR MANSFIELD: Right?

. P-4821

< 1> A. The officer -- there was 3 possibilities. (1),< 2> that because of his knowledge of a certain person< 3> there and relationship----< 4> Q. Yes?< 5> A. He was aware of something that had happened.< 6> Q. Yes?< 7> A. He had been told about possibly other things.< 8> Q. Yes?< 9> A. As a result of that and because of where the<10> murder happened and the sort of, what have you, there<11> was an assumption by him that they were the people<12> responsible.<13> Q. Number 1 is that it could be an assumption by<14> him?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Fair enough.<17> A. The second one is he is hearing rumour and<18> coming in and repeating it.<19> Q. Yes?<20> A. Or the third one is that he has been told it by<21> someone whom he knows and is not willing to say.<22> Q. There is one more, is there not, that he was<23> there?<24> A. Or that he was there; and that was the question<25> the following morning, which of these were it.

. P-4822

< 1> Q. Can I pause. Would you agree, these are very,< 2> very important questions: "Was he there?" "Was he one< 3> removed?" and so on. They are very important. If he< 4> was there he is an eye witness?< 5> A. Yes and he is coming to the police station.< 6> Q. Voluntarily?< 7> A. Voluntarily, to pass on this information and< 8> this is the information he has given us. He has not< 9> given us how he knows, whether he would or could.<10> Q. I want to come straight to that you see, because<11> if this was a serious inquiry, as you say it was,<12> intending, as it were, to arrest Norris and his<13> associates as soon as possible, the one thing you<14> would want to do is convert this information into<15> evidence; do you agree?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. The one thing have you to do is to ensure that<18> this man, who is taking some risk coming into a<19> police station, is he not, taking some risk?<20> A. What do you mean, if he is found out?<21> Q. Quite.<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. That you are able to know which of the scenarios<24> we have been through, the 4 scenarios it is. First<25> question: did you ask Mr Davidson to go to Mr Grant

. P-4823

< 1> and say: "For goodness sake find out whether he was< 2> there or whether he found out from somebody else?"< 3> Did you ask Mr Davidson to do that?< 4> A. Grant had left the police station, as I was< 5> briefed, tasked to go out and he said he was going to< 6> go out and try and find out any further information< 7> that he could about this matter.< 8> I had taken the view that the chances are that< 9> if he had come in and wanted to help us as being a<10> witness, he would have discussed that matter with the<11> officer. We had to assume and we had to take it on<12> face value that he was going go out, he was going and<13> go and be tasked and that is why I put an experienced<14> DS on it.<15> Q. Can I just go back to the beginning, it is a<16> simple question: did you ask Mr Davidson to go to<17> Mr Grant by whatever route was possible and discover<18> as quickly as possible whether he was there, whether<19> if he was not there he discovered it from somebody<20> who was there and so on. Did you ask Davidson to do<21> that?<22> A. I cannot specifically recall in detail what I<23> told Davidson to do.<24> Q. Is the truth that you did not?<25> A. Well, I don't know because if you look at

. P-4824

< 1> Grant's interview with Kent, he said that he had been< 2> given a very hard time by the police officers asking< 3> him all about the murder.< 4> Q. Yes?< 5> A. So I suggest that, yes, possibly it was done but< 6> I cannot specifically recall now what I told Davidson< 7> to do but he was being treated along the lines of a< 8> potential informant.< 9> Q. Do you know what else Grant told Kent, since you<10> brought it up?<11> A. I only know what I've----<12> Q. What has Grant told Kent about this whole<13> business about what happened at the police station<14> and what he told the police on the very first<15> occasion and the second occasion. Not just that he<16> was given a hard time but that he actually told the<17> police, he actually told the police where the<18> information had come from?<19> A. I can't believe that officer would have hidden<20> that from me for any reason.<21> Q. Unless none of you really wanted to deal with<22> Grant and he has been shuffled off to a side. Was he<23> registered properly as an informant?<24> A. First of all, if I can make a comment on the<25> first part, he was not wanted to be shuffled off in

. P-4825

< 1> any way, he was given a pseudonym and the DS was put< 2> on to work him and my instructions were that we would< 3> need to monitor him in the event that he does start< 4> to fall into the realms of an informant that needs< 5> registering, as opposed to somebody who is coming in< 6> and given one piece of information.< 7> Q. I will leave the registration to another senior< 8> officer. So far as the information is concerned, did< 9> you discover that weekend then the answer to any<10> question which you now cannot remember whether you<11> asked of where it was all coming from. In other<12> words, how he knew?<13> A. I suspect----<14> Q. No, no, not suspect----<15> A. No.<16> Q. ---- do you remember what you learned about?<17> A. I didn't learn anything further about where he<18> was getting it from.<19> Q. No. I want to deal with how you put it to Kent,<20> to put it in context (PCA00490259) please. At the<21> bottom of this page, you are asked about this very<22> message and that goes on to 260. Then at the bottom<23> of 260, you were not surprise that had it had not<24> been passed to you on the Friday night, it was<25> something to be actioned to be looked into, there was

. P-4826

< 1> no evidence from him as to say how he knew they had< 2> done the murder; do you follow?< 3> A. That is correct.< 4> Q. More questions are asked. Page 261, Kent ask< 5> you the same question at the top. Would you have< 6> been interested in where that information was coming< 7> from. You ask a question: "Was I interested or< 8> would I have been?" "The officer: "Would you have< 9> been interested as to where the informant was getting<10> his information from?" Answer: "Yes." "Would have you<11> expected that line of inquiry to have taken place?"<12> "He would have been asked where he was getting his<13> information, yes, I would have expected." Then the<14> name is mentioned "Grant" and so on. Over the page<15> again 262, you took it seriously you say to Kent this<16> information coming in. That is basically what you<17> are saying on that page.<18> 263: "Did Bullock tell what you he instructed<19> Budgen to do?" "I cannot specifically recall what he<20> told him to do but it was obviously along the lines<21> of and this I am paraphrasing in my recollection<22> was to get as much from the guy and use him as much<23> as we could, if he was going to be in a position to<24> give us some evidence regarding the murder where it<25> was coming from this information." "Officer: Did DI

. P-4827

< 1> Bullock tell you where the information was coming< 2> from,< 3> not from James Grant but from where he was getting< 4> the information from?" "No, I mean my understanding< 5> is that we didn't know. That was my understanding at< 6> the time and still is from whence he was getting it."< 7> Is that a fair summary?< 8> A. There is another question after that.< 9> Q. Yes certainly: "Are you confident the question<10> was asked of James Grant?" "Well, I wasn't at the<11> interview so it difficult for me to say."<12> A. That's right, sir.<13> Q. It goes on on the next page if you want to see<14> all of it?<15> A. What I was giving was my recollection and<16> understanding of how I had been briefed the following<17> morning and that was -- the guy, Grant, had been<18> fully debriefed and there was nothing forthcoming as<19> to where he was getting his information from.<20> Whether that was because he chose not to say it --<21> but I cannot, for the life of me, think that Budgen<22> would not have put that into a message or passed it<23> on.<24> Q. Let us put it another way, did either of these<25> officers, that is Mr Budgen and Mr Davidson, come

. P-4828

< 1> along and say to you say: "Look, we have really< 2> pressed him hard and he has refused." Did they ever< 3> say that to you?< 4> A. Not that I recall, sir.< 5> Q. No. That is what they told this Inquiry. Now I< 6> would like to ask you, Mr Crampton, whether you took< 7> the slightest interest in Mr Grant whose real< 8> identity you knew, did you?< 9> A. Yes, sir.<10> Q. How is that you never discovered where he was<11> getting his information from and you never discovered<12> the Budgen/Davidson version which is that he refused?<13> A. Because my understanding that was that he would<14> not say where he was getting the information or could<15> not say or he was hearing it or whatever.<16> Q. Or whatever?<17> A. But for whatever reason he was not saying. He<18> promised to go out and try and find out and, in fact,<19> I think when he was next seen, which was later in the<20> week, he----<21> Q. Later in the week nothing----<22> A. ---- had been trying to do that.<23> Q. ---- to do with you but the next officer he comes<24> back with an eye-witness; did you know that?<25> A. I know that he came back obviously as a result

. P-4829

< 1> of going out and came back with some more< 2> information.< 3> Q. I am going to ask about a message, which is< 4> important, I suggest. I know you say that you did< 5> not see it, I know you have been asked questions< 6> already about it but there was an aspect of it. That< 7> is (PCA00370066) please.< 8> You have read this already I am not going over< 9> the whole of it but there are some important aspects<10> here?<11> A. Yes, sir.<12> Q. If Grant had been properly tasked and you had,<13> as it were, received the information he gave Kent,<14> namely as to who the information had come from that<15> he had got, it would have lead to person we know as<16> "K". Do you follow, that is in the Grant case, it<17> would have lead to somebody called "K"?<18> A. So we have been told subsequently.<19> Q. Oh, yes, I am not going to argue about when it<20> was told. He said that he told you originally. You<21> say that you did not know anything about the source<22> of Grant's information.<23> Here comes another message. This is a message<24> which is, I would put to you, do you agree of equal<25> important to the Grant one?

. P-4830

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. (PCA00370066), do you agree?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Coming in on 24th, the same day as you have got< 5> all this other information first given to you and I< 6> want to understand how it could be that some< 7> important information of this kind never reached you< 8> over that weekend at all. Is that correct, it never< 9> got to you?<10> A. I have already explained to you, sir, it never<11> got to me and I cannot explain how it did not. I<12> have tried to explain that when it is said it was put<13> in, I cannot see it put in at that time but that is<14> only an opinion and I cannot answer that, sir.<15> Q. I appreciate you might have a meeting and<16> something come in or somebody is unlikely to<17> interrupt a meeting, I understand all of that, but<18> even if all that is right, you have a meeting it has<19> come in some tray somewhere else or whatever, there<20> was a system in this incident room for receiving<21> information, was there not?<22> A. Yes, sir.<23> Q. It was a system which you supervised in general<24> terms?<25> A. I had ultimate responsibility.

. P-4831

< 1> Q. Yes, I appreciate you were not watching every< 2> single message. The whole point whoever received the< 3> material is they would all recognise, as did Budgen< 4> when Mr Grant first came in, it is of paramount< 5> importance that is a Senior Investigating Officer< 6> gets to hear and know of information of this kind,< 7> everybody would know that, would they not?< 8> A. That is the point, sir, I didn't get it.< 9> Q. You did not get it. You see looking at it, it<10> is clear it is not just -- I am not revealing any<11> identities -- "EE" who saw something, namely, the two<12> Acourts walking around the corner and, of course,<13> they have a particular reason to be able to say that,<14> as you can see probably from redactions and<15> otherwise. "EE" is a potential eye-witness to the<16> night, is he not, potential?<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. You say you did not know anything about it. It<19> is not only "EE", if you look at the next paragraph,<20> sorry scroll up a bit, there is bit that runs also --<21> you have it there. Also, there is a redaction, then<22> there is "Emma Cook"?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. All right?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4832

< 1> Q. May I just pause. One of the things you said< 2> this morning, which is important, is to, as it were,< 3> be able to obtain witnesses from within the community< 4> who are and possibly are a associates of those who< 5> perpetrated the crime to come forward; do you agree?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. The people plainly know the assailants in the< 8> terms they recognise them by name. That is apparent< 9> on the face of it, is it not?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Here is somebody who a walking past<12> Stephen Lawrence and a friend when they were at the<13> bus stop. So she is right at the scene?<14> A. Yes, sir.<15> Q. You will have appreciated that everything<16> happened very fast so she has to be close to the time<17> when it happened?<18> A. Yes, sir.<19> Q. And there is a -- I have to be careful because<20> some are redacted and some are not. Well there is an<21> indication of where she lives -- I am not going to<22> give it -- is there not, on the message?<23> A. Yes, sir, it has been -- yes.<24> Q. It is underneath the redaction?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-4833

< 1> Q. I am going to suggest that it is a road that was< 2> there. So you have the name of the person that is< 3> right on the scene and the name of an address and, in< 4> fact, in the totality of this message you have two< 5> potential eye-witnesses coming forward or at least< 6> being suggested to the police on the 24th?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. Because you say, for some reason you cannot< 9> explain, none of it is followed up on the 24th in<10> relation to either of these eye-witnesses?<11> A. I never saw the message and the first I see is<12> when an action is raised at a later date.<13> As regards, I think Emma Cook, it was raised<14> through another channel because this message had not<15> been seen and if you scroll up a bit further.<16> Q. To bottom of the page you mean?<17> A. Yes. You will see that action 166 is marked 2<18> and that is to interview, and knowledge of the<19> incident, Emma Cook. Action 1 is 186. Now, that<20> action 166 arises from another document and that is<21> why the two numbers are not sequential.<22> 186 is because the EE -- the message as such had<23> not been seen and I think it was the 30th or<24> something. The 166 is earlier because Emma Cook had<25> been raised from another angle to be seen.

. P-4834

< 1> Q. I appreciate there are other angles and names< 2> crop up in other ways?< 3> A. From another message or another --< 4> Q. I accept that. What has happened here, and you< 5> recognise -- can I put it to you this way: this first< 6> weekend is one of the crucial periods. If are you< 7> going to get somebody you are going to have to act< 8> quickly and it has got to be in the first 36 hours if< 9> are you to get somebody?<10> A. That's correct.<11> Q. That is a realistic police approach, is it not?<12> A. Yes. If it is felt it is the best way forward<13> because obviously you have to look at how I dealt<14> with it that weekend.<15> Q. Let us get on to the strategy, which you have<16> not, as you have admitted, recorded. As it goes on,<17> first of all, the chance of people destroying objects<18> is very high. The longer it goes on they just throw<19> it away and they may have done that very quickly; you<20> agree with that?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. But, do you also agree that whilst they might<23> get rid of very obvious things, other things that may<24> not be so obvious to them, may not be disposed of?<25> A. Other things that may not be obvious to them?

. P-4835

< 1> Q. To them, yes?< 2> A. To them.< 3> Q. So to be more precise, when we are dealing with< 4> trace elements, whether it be blood or fibres, those< 5> are not things that, you know, young teenage boys,< 6> unless they have been watching LA Law or something,< 7> they will not have necessarily have worked out that< 8> they should get rid of other forms of clothing where< 9> there might be a speck of blood either on the shoes,<10> on the uppers or in a pocket or around the seams of<11> the trouser or that fibres on their jacket might have<12> come from Stephen Lawrence. They will not have<13> thought of all of that, will they?<14> A. I would disagree.<15> Q. You think they would?<16> A. I think people are far more forensically aware<17> that you might wish to portray.<18> Q. On that note, may I just end because I think we<19> are going to have a break?<20> THE CHAIRMAN: We will break now for quarter of an<21> hour until 3.35.<22> How are you getting on, Mr Mansfield? Are you<23> moving on fairly well?<24> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, I am.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: Good.

. P-4836

< 1> <(Short Adjournment)< 2> MR MANSFIELD: Now, we were just dealing with the< 3> potential destruction of evidence in a short space of< 4> time; namely, major items and also, in your view,< 5> these days maybe even trace elements might be got rid< 6> of at a fairly early stage?< 7> A. Yes, sir. Especially if the, you know, the sort< 8> examples you have given of a very notorious criminal< 9> family and then is he going to be that naive not to<10> be aware of that, I don't know.<11> Q. I quite agree?<12> A. So one has to question whether that is the case.<13> Q. Which emphasises, do you not agree, the<14> paramount importance of having specific information<15> about the targets and their names as soon as<16> possible?<17> A. Yes, but as regards making the decision as to<18> your actions on forensics and, as you said, the<19> disposing of them as quickly as possible I have to<20> look at the moment in time that I became aware of<21> that information, which was 36 hours on and I had to<22> make my decisions on forensics based on that 36 hour<23> period having lapse.<24> Q. I want to go back to the scene for a minute<25> because I am going suggest as the first senior

. P-4837

< 1> officer on the scene that you would be thinking about< 2> that possibility from the beginning; that unless you< 3> got to the people who were responsible quickly, there< 4> was a real risk that things would disappear?< 5> A. Yes, you always want to get to them as quickly< 6> as possible, but sometimes it is just not possible on< 7> the information you have or do not have.< 8> Q. Some questions about the scene. Can I just< 9> interpose them now as they bear upon the arrest<10> decisions later, because you are saying 36 hours on<11> are not too late. So it is other things. When you<12> got to the scene at 1.30, 1.45 in the morning you say<13> the senior officer, as far as you were concerned, was<14> an officer called Jeynes?<15> A. Yes, sir.<16> Q. You do not recall any other uniformed officer in<17> charge?<18> A. No, there was no other officer of senior rank<19> there; they had gone.<20> Q. Did you understand that any earlier senior<21> officers had taken any particular decisions?<22> A. Well, I know what occurred at the scene quite<23> clearly. Who had specifically given what<24> instructions I don't know. I think that obviously<25> before Jeynes had got there decisions had been made

. P-4838

< 1> to do searching and one thing and another by a senior< 2> officer, which was I think continued after Jeynes got< 3> there. House-to-house enquiries had been instigated< 4> which Jeynes extended.< 5> Q. That is what I want to ask you about, because I< 6> am now going to deal with if you cannot do much after< 7> 36 hours because it is too late let us deal with the< 8> initial period. I want to deal with the very first< 9> period in the middle of the night.<10> You are there on the scene within 6 hours so<11> this is again, would you agree, an extremely crucial<12> period?<13> A. Yes, of course.<14> Q. Of course. This is the period if they are alert<15> and alive, as it were, young criminals from big<16> criminal families this is the period of time they<17> will be getting their act together and getting rid of<18> stuff. This is the period of time that is very<19> crucial from that point of view, is it not?<20> A. Could be.<21> Q. This is the period of time, therefore, in the<22> early hours of that morning you would want to ensure<23> you are doing as much as possible in the early hours<24> of the morning, 1.30 onwards, to cover the area in<25> which such activity might take place?

. P-4839

< 1> A. There is only a certain amount you can do. When< 2> I got there at 1.30, 1.45 dealing with the scene< 3> itself and it was at sort of 3 o'clock when we< 4> finished, the murder had happened at 10.30 or just< 5> after. In that amount of time that had lapsed and< 6> what had gone on the police at the scene, in the< 7> surrounding and the side streets and everything else,< 8> you had to carefully consider if at that sort of hour< 9> of the morning, you know, I would have felt<10> personally, and I did feel that it is more likely<11> that they would have been hiding themselves away, as<12> opposed to performing some sort of activity where<13> there would be nobody else walking around the<14> streets.<15> Q. If they are hiding themselves away did it occur<16> to you, as it did to another senior officer, that in<17> the circumstances of this case the real likelihood in<18> the early hours of the morning is that because they<19> had run off down Dickson Road they these were local<20> young men?<21> A. They could be local, yes.<22> Q. They could be local?<23> A. They could quite clearly have been local.<24> Q. In the early hours of the morning did you at<25> that stage activate any kind of intelligence

. P-4840

< 1> gathering from any source to discover from any source< 2> whether any of the neighbouring streets to Well Hall< 3> Road contained people who might be responsible for< 4> this kind of offence?< 5> A. Well, obviously, I had the -- we are talking now< 6> about a racial offence, because if you are asking who< 7> might have been responsible for that type of offence,< 8> a mere stabbing, then there are going to be a lot of< 9> people.<10> The Detective Inspector was Jeynes who would --<11> or was the detective inspector at the local police<12> station of that Division and who would be in charge<13> of the crime books and of all major crime and would<14> be the best person, I suspect, to have that sort of<15> knowledge.<16> Q. Sorry, I am just going to go back?<17> A. Therefore, he was asked by me ----<18> Q. Did you -- is the question -- did you activate<19> any sources of information in the early hours of the<20> morning that might be available either through<21> New Scotland Yard or the area intelligence bureau or<22> through the local collators cards? Did you activate<23> any of those to see whether there might be some<24> information on local streets or individuals?<25> A. No, sir. What happened was when we got back at

. P-4841

< 1> that moment in time ----< 2> Q. I am going to get on to later on when you get< 3> back. I am talking about 1.30, 2.30, 3 o'clock in< 4> the morning, did you activate anything, any source of< 5> information about this area?< 6> A. No, sir.< 7> Q. No. Were there any sources of information that< 8> you could have activated in that period?< 9> A. I think the most obvious, possibly productive,<10> source of information may have been the racial index<11> at Plumstead Police Station. However, I am now fully<12> aware that the information was not in there, but I<13> appreciate the point that you are making. But what<14> we did do is at 5 o'clock in the morning speak to and<15> call out the officer responsible for keeping that<16> index.<17> Q. Well, let us take that then at 5 o'clock in the<18> morning. Did you know before this day, the 23rd,<19> what the Racial Incident Unit -- what sort of<20> information was kept there at Plumstead?<21> A. They kept information on racial incidents that<22> occurred from very, very minor to major.<23> Q. Including murders?<24> A. I would have imagined the murders. A reference<25> -- all the index done was refer you to the crime

. P-4842

< 1> book entry.< 2> Q. But would the Racial Incident Unit at Plumstead< 3> on the 23rd have enabled you to cross-reference to< 4> other racial incidents, including murders, that had< 5> taken place before the 23rd?< 6> A. Possibly. I cannot answer definitively but I< 7> would have suspected so.< 8> Q. Did you ask Mr Fisher when he came on: "Would< 9> you please immediately, even though it now 5.30,<10> activate your records to see whether there is any<11> information on there that could help us either in<12> relation to the Roland Adams case or any individuals<13> that might have been seen in red cars", and so on?<14> All of that kind of thing?<15> A. Yes, he was asked to do his indexes. Not at<16> 5 o'clock -- he was phoned up at 5 o'clock, but when<17> he came in my instructions to Jeynes was that he was<18> to be utilized for the points I have already outline.<19> Q. Did you get any information from him as result<20> of that?<21> A. The information was that there was nothing there<22> of value or was obvious that would assist us.<23> Q. Nothing. So just passing on there. So there is<24> nothing coming from the Racial Incident Unit that<25> could be of use to you. What other sources as the

. P-4843

< 1> day begins to wear on. We are passing from 1.30 to 3< 2> o'clock to a bit later, 5.00, 7 o'clock in the< 3> morning. What other sources of information?< 4> A. As to ----< 5> Q. As to the area. We are now in the early days.< 6> You do not have any names. You just know they went< 7> off down Dickson Road?< 8> A. I think we have to be realistic here. The point< 9> of trying to target people from just picking their<10> names out of an index is not the way that I would<11> proceed.<12> Q. Let me put a specific to you?<13> A. Can I just finish. What you are trying to do is<14> give the impression that I at that time knew in my<15> mind that if I drew a little circle and just managed<16> to take in Bournbrook Road that would be very<17> convenient and possibly anything that lay in there we<18> would have found it. I didn't know where these<19> people -- yes, they could be local. Norris, as it<20> turns out, was not local, but they could have come<21> locally. They could have easily come from else<22> where. I am not missing the point. What I am saying<23> is that the most obvious index to be searched and we<24> did the next best thing by getting the person out who<25> runs it. Other than that, I feel that you would be

. P-4844

< 1> going through looking at people's previous< 2> convictions with the point being presumably to go and< 3> target them in some way.< 4> Q. No. The point would be, and I am going to get< 5> to if in relation to local information. If you get< 6> local information -- I want to ask you this< 7> directly. Who is the local beat officer who is< 8> supposed to know this area well? Who would be the< 9> people who would really know the area well?<10> A. The people who would really know the area well<11> are the detective inspector would know obviously a<12> certain amount; DC Pye because they were both<13> officers from Plumstead. Beyond that, the racial<14> index officer in relation to this specific type of<15> offence.<16> Beyond that, the Crime Squad. The Crime Squad<17> that I got attached to the actual incident. They<18> would be the people that would know it probably best<19> of all.<20> Q. I want to know who was able to come back to you<21> and say -- the Eltham Krays, they are pretty well<22> known on the street. Did you ever learn that?<23> A. No, because I don't think they were known as the<24> Eltham Krays to police.<25> Q. Well, all right. Let us look at from another

. P-4845

< 1> perspective. Are you saying that as far as your< 2> local information was concerned, and the police in< 3> that particular division, they are no information at< 4> all about the Brook Estate, the Eltham Krays,< 5> previous stabbings purported to have been done by the< 6> Eltham Krays, none of that was know?< 7> A. That is my understanding. I may be wrong, but< 8> that is my understand.< 9> Q. Would you agree, looking back on it now,<10> assuming, and it seems to be the tenor of the<11> information coming into the incident room very soon<12> after this event, that local officers plainly have<13> not got their ear to the ground, have they?<14> A. There is a lot of people in Eltham and quite<15> clearly you cannot expect everybody to know<16> everything and it just may be that they could have<17> their ear to ground on a lot, a lot of things and<18> they did not know about this. It is just, you know<19> -- you cannot say they did not have their ear to the<20> ground because they did not know about a particular<21> thing or a particular family or a particular group of<22> people.<23> Q. Did you, in fact, even ask the local officers --<24> information officers who they thought the people<25> might be responsible for this? Did you even ask

. P-4846

< 1> them?< 2> A. The Crime Squad?< 3> Q. Yes?< 4> A. Yes, they were attached to the incident.< 5> Q. Yes, I am sorry ----< 6> A. They would be speaking to the police officer at< 7> the police station. We went and we briefed the night< 8> duty on the Friday night and spoke to them about what< 9> it was, the incident, and everything else. I felt<10> that at that time I had taken all responsible and<11> reasonable steps to ensure that if there was any<12> information it would come to me. What have you to<13> consider are these police officers get paid to do a<14> job and just because they are uniformed police<15> officers, they ride round in their car most of the<16> day on their own, dealing with very, very serious<17> incidents and they do not suddenly switch off and<18> lose all powers to come to me with information<19> because it a murder. That is the reality of the<20> situation.<21> Q. I appreciate what you are saying. What you told<22> Kent was somewhat different, was it not?<23> A. I am telling you what is fact.<24> Q. Did you ask any local officers who the offenders<25> might be?

. P-4847

< 1> A. The Crime Squad officers?< 2> Q. Did you ask any local officers?< 3> A. Well, they are local officers.< 4> Q. Well, did you ask any of them who the offenders< 5> might be? What is the answer to that?< 6> A. My answer would be yes because ----< 7> Q. Yes. You would have no difficulty about that< 8> answer?< 9> A. They were part of the team and they were on the<10> murder. It would be, I would imagine ----<11> Q. (PCA00490224), please. At the bottom of the<12> page, please.<13> Question: "Did you ask any local officers who<14> they thought the offenders might be?" Over the page:<15> "I can't specifically say, no."<16> A. No, what -- my understanding was when I got to<17> the scene did I go around asking officers: "Do you<18> know who has done this?", I didn't do that.<19> Q. You did not indicate to Kent that, in fact, as a<20> result you certainly did get, as you indicate today,<21> local crime squad officers on to the business of<22> looking for potential offenders that morning?<23> A. If is not there then quite possibly, no.<24> Q. No?<25> A. What you have to realise is I mean I have had a

. P-4848

< 1> lot more time to read and recall things in an attempt< 2> to help this Inquiry than I had when I was answering< 3> Kent's questions.< 4> Q. In any event, whichever way, whether you did or< 5> did not ask, it would appear that you had no< 6> information during the early hours before you get the< 7> information coming in from outside, no information at< 8> all from the screen either from officers or whatever< 9> as to who the particular individuals may be. The<10> first indication was that message 4; is that right?<11> A. That is correct, sir.<12> Q. Beyond individuals and potential targets and<13> potential addresses, about which have you nothing,<14> did you discover when you first arrived at the scene<15> exactly which areas had been searched?<16> A. Yes, I understood that the -- well, I say I<17> understood. I asked and I was told that part of Well<18> Hall Road itself, the Dickson Road and I think<19> Cobbett Road, which is the turning off on the left<20> off of Dickson Road, and I think Dickson Road,<21> possibly Phineas-Pitt, but Phineas-Pett may have been<22> on the house-to-house.<23> Q. Did you keep, as a senior officer arriving on<24> the scene, did you keep any kind of record so that<25> you knew there in the early hours which roads had

. P-4849

< 1> been looked for or looked at and for what purpose?< 2> A. No, I can't say I kept a record of that.< 3> Q. Why not?< 4> A. Because I was being told what roads were looked< 5> at and the officer who was there and who was liaising< 6> at the scene, DC Pye, he would be the officer to put< 7> that information into the system.< 8> Q. Did you see any record at all at the scene of< 9> any kind of log of any kind?<10> A. There was no log kept, sir.<11> Q. By anyone?<12> A. That is correct, sir.<13> Q. You knew that at the time, did you?<14> A. I knew that when I arrived.<15> Q. Yes. Did that bother you?<16> A. Clearly, it would have been an advantage to have<17> a scene log.<18> Q. Did it bother you at all? Did you say to<19> anyone: "Start it now"?<20> A. Well, there was only myself and the other CID<21> officers there and, as I say, the uniform were on the<22> cordons. They had gone to keep a retrospective log,<23> or one from that point would have been a waste of<24> time, and a retrospective log quite clearly would not<25> have been of much value because of the possibilities

. P-4850

< 1> of errors or whatever. But it had not been kept and< 2> it should have been, but I can understand to a degree< 3> why it was not.< 4> Q. Why did you not ensure that it was if were you< 5> really interested in ensuring----< 6> A. By the time I arrived there was no point.< 7> Q. Why not?< 8> A. Because it had all finished, they had all gone,< 9> the searches had been done and everything, I am then<10> asking somebody to try and find out or identify what<11> everybody at the scene had been doing to make a log<12> of it.<13> Q. Were TSG officers involved?<14> A. There were TSG officers involved, yes.<15> Q. Were any of them still there when you arrived?<16> A. No.<17> Q. They had all gone?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. TSG logs, did you ever ask to see any?<20> A. Not personally.<21> Q. To see what they had done already?<22> A. Their logs would be their logs of attending the<23> scene.<24> Q. They have suggested to us their logs might also<25> have indicated -- they have all gone missing, I am

. P-4851

< 1> asking you -- their logs might have indicated exactly< 2> what they had done on that night, which streets they< 3> had covered, it may not have every house number on< 4> it?< 5> A. I suspect it did because Pye, if you look at< 6> message 2, put in exactly what streets they did go< 7> to.< 8> Q. That is in relation to searching for weapons.< 9> Which roads had a house-to-house that night?<10> A. Well, I may be mistaken. Can I see message 2,<11> sir?<12> Q. Yes, certainly. Message 2 is (PCA00470356).<13> A. Sorry?<14> Q. It is 357. "Members of the TSG were present at<15> the scene they were" and their names were given. It<16> is the next, 358, "The TSG Dickson Road up to the<17> end, Cobbett Road to No. 2".<18> THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is the next one.<19> MR MANSFIELD: 358, there we are.<20> That is the description of the search, according<21> to the TSG?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. There is no indication there that they have done<24> any house-to-house?<25> A. That is the search for the weapon.

. P-4852

< 1> Q. For the weapon, yes. No one is disputing there< 2> may have been a search for the weapon, what I am much< 3> more interested in, the real point here is, are< 4> people who committed this crime hiding in< 5> neighbouring roads or houses; do you follow?< 6> A. Yes, sir.< 7> Q. Right. The position is that there was< 8> absolutely no record kept by anyone that night before< 9> you arrived or after you arrived of what houses had<10> been seen and whether or not there had been a<11> systematic search that night?<12> A. The house-to-house had been done, as far as I<13> was aware, in the same way as any house-to-house<14> immediately after the crime has been committed.<15> What that house-to-house is basically an<16> extension -- if you have, for example, people<17> standing around: Did you see anything? Do you know<18> anything? What happened? Can you tell us anything?<19> The fact that houses overlook the scene is an<20> extension of that and it will be done in a structured<21> format later.<22> The same houses will be----<23> Q. Too late, officer, I am going suggest. Too late<24> if you are going to do a house-to-house. Could we<25> have (MET00510441), this is part of the AMIP; have

. P-4853

< 1> you seen this before?< 2> A. It is a best practices.< 3> Q. Best practice. I am going to suggest to you it< 4> is common sense, is it not.< 5> "Initial action: Section 1, at scene: many of< 6> the actions in this section are immediate in the< 7> sense that failure to carry them out in a timely< 8> manner will mean they can never be satisfactorily< 9> undertaken." Do you agree with that?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. I am going to short circuit it, the sooner you<12> get on with house-to-house the better?<13> A. It had been done before I arrived.<14> Q. Had it? How many houses had been seen?<15> A. I don't know how many but the houses in the<16> immediate vicinity that would overlook the scene is<17> what they were doing and looking for.<18> Q. I am going to suggest to you at the very most,<19> and we await Mr House's further indication on this<20> point, at the very most 10 houses in the area?<21> A. As I understand from his analyses there were 10<22> answers to the officers knocking on the houses.<23> Q. We do not know that yet because of the column<24> and the way it was split up, we do not know whether<25> it was as a result of knocking on the door.

. P-4854

< 1> Let us put it at the highest, only 10 houses< 2> that night; do you regard that as satisfactory?< 3> A. No, sir. What they were looking, hopefully, for< 4> was anybody that could assist them as eye witnesses< 5> to the attack, that is what the officers would have< 6> been knocking on the doors to do.< 7> Q. That is not all they would be looking for: Can< 8> you help me? Have you seen anything? The other< 9> thing would you be looking for, surely, that night is<10> for people themselves, young people who might either<11> have been associates or, in fact, people matching the<12> descriptions that you had already got that night?<13> A. I suspect that the assumption was wrongly made<14> that when they ran off they ran off, that they did<15> not go into any of the local houses there and they<16> were seen to run off up Dickson Road.<17> Q. As we heard from another senior officer at the<18> scene the most likely event is that they ran off down<19> Dickson Road and they are local, just as they were in<20> the Duggal case, they all lived in the areas?<21> A. Quite possibly, sir.<22> Q. It was the most obvious conclusion in the case<23> at the beginning, the most obvious inference to draw?<24> A. I think, you know, now knowing what you know and<25> where they live it is the most obvious inference.

. P-4855

< 1> When you are out there at the scene and it has just< 2> happened and people have run off it is not as< 3> obvious, they could have gone anywhere.< 4> Q. Of course?< 5> A. It is not as obvious as it now appears knowing< 6> that they lived up the road, that of course it< 7> obvious now.< 8> Q. I am suggest a senior officer, Mr Benn if you< 9> want to know who it is, had summed all this up as<10> soon as he got there, before you, although he said<11> close to the time you arrived he left, he worked this<12> all out that the most likely event in this case was:<13> An assault by people who had come from the cinema or<14> a Wimpy bar, walked up the road, seen these two,<15> racist, in there, knock him down, kill him, run round<16> the corner. No cars involved other than the one that<17> drove up and down laughing afterwards.<18> A. The other way, of course, sir, is they walked up<19> a main road which was -- I mean it was lit but<20> nevertheless it is a bus route, okay it might not be<21> that well lit, it is a bus route, they commit an<22> offence on the junction of Dickson Road and they then<23> have the option of they were walking up Well Hall<24> Road.<25> If having committed that offence and Stephen had

. P-4856

< 1> run with Duwayne up that road I would imagine that< 2> the natural reaction would be to run down the nearest< 3> darkened road.< 4> Q. Yes?< 5> A. So there is are other connotations that you can< 6> put on it if you wish to and keep an open mind and< 7> look at the situation, as I was.< 8> It was not as obvious to me as you are trying to< 9> make out now and as obvious as it is to me now<10> knowing the full extent of the situation.<11> Q. It not hindsight, another senior officer worked<12> this out on the night, Mr Crampton. Did you talk to<13> Mr Benn? Did you learn of what he thought of that<14> night?<15> A. No I never spoke to Mr Benn.<16> Q. Do you know Mr Benn?<17> A. No.<18> Q. Would you just look at this page we are looking<19> at, initial action:<20> "SIO to decide upon priorities at the scene,<21> scenes of crime, forensic pathologist, preserve,<22> protect and guard the scene, ensure all bystanders<23> properly checked, commence a scene log, record all<24> persons present, later attending, time of arrival",<25> and so on. You have already agreed that was not

. P-4857

< 1> done?< 2> A. You have to look at this in prospective, sir, at< 3> the time I arrived at the scene you are talking about< 4> a scene log.< 5> Q. Did you ask why it had not been kept?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. You did. What was the answer?< 8> A. There was some suggestion that someone had been< 9> asked to keep one but there was nobody keeping it<10> when I went through the cordon and it was clear that<11> to me that there had not been one kept.<12> Q. One of your junior officers suggest you were<13> actually introduced to the log taker; is that true?<14> A. In that case there would be a log.<15> Q. Quite. Well there is not one. Did that happen?<16> Were you introduced to the log?<17> A. Not to my recollection whatsoever.<18> Q. No.<19> A. As I say quite clearly the first officer at the<20> scene, senior officer should ensure that there is log<21> being kept.<22> Q. There would have been nothing that night to<23> prevent you deciding, had you known how little<24> house-to-house had been done, there would have been<25> nothing that night to prevent you from asking for

. P-4858

< 1> resource, TSG carriers -- there had been plenty of< 2> TSG carriers -- there to begin a systematic search of< 3> the radius, starting with roundabout of roads,< 4> house-to-house in the way that it was carried out< 5> over the succeeding days, there was nothing to stop< 6> you, was there?< 7> A. Yes, sir.< 8> Q. What?< 9> A. That is not a practical thing knocking on doors<10> at 3 o'clock in the murder.<11> Q. Where there has been a murder?<12> A. Where there has been a murder. I appreciate<13> that we need the public here, we do not need to be<14> alienating people. With the best will in the world<15> whilst it would be the great if we could do that<16> practically the reality of the situation is that you<17> do not start systematic door to door enquiries at<18> 3 o'clock in the morning.<19> Q. Mr Crampton, did you even think of, did you<20> think of it that night?<21> A. Whether I thought of it or not is difficult to<22> say even if I thought of it I would not have<23> instigated it at 3 o'clock in the morning.<24> MS WOODLEY: I am sorry to interrupt.<25> MR MANSFIELD: I am doing it in stages and the first

. P-4859

< 1> question was: did you think of it?< 2> MS WOODLEY: I am sorry to interrupt but I feel I< 3> must, this officer is constantly being stopped from< 4> finishing his answers.< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Mansfield, you are getting< 6> antagonistic and there really is not any need for< 7> that. I use the word "focus" I am told too much, but< 8> please keep to the question.< 9> MR MANSFIELD: I asked a focused question, sir.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: Do not get angry with me, calm down a<11> bit and carry on.<12> MR MANSFIELD: I asked a focused question,<13> Mr Crampton, and it was: did you think of it that<14> night?<15> A. Unfortunately, sir, you are asking me questions<16> of 5 years ago of one liners that is really difficult<17> for me to say. What I have to tell you is the<18> experience I have and everything else and whether I<19> thought of it I cannot tell you now.<20> But even if I did think of it I would have<21> dismissed it, 3 o' clock in the morning was not the<22> time to bring out resources to start knocking on<23> people's doors to do a structured house-to-house.<24> Very unfortunate and very nice if you felt that<25> it could effectively be done.

. P-4860

< 1> Q. I am going to suggest it could easily have been< 2> done and that the local population are not going to< 3> be upset by a police force doing their job when they< 4> are look for murderers, the public expects that?< 5> A. I am sure you have done your research and you< 6> have been in many, many murders cases and you will be< 7> able to point me the direction of the ones that have< 8> done to door to door searches at 3 o' clock in the< 9> morning and instigated them on a structured format at<10> that time.<11> I would bring as many senior investigating officers<12> along here as you wish and I think you would find<13> that would be a very, very, rare, if not, totally<14> unheard of practice.<15> Q. It may be that something that the Inquiry would<16> like to consider for future reference for murder<17> cases?<18> A. It may well be because at the moment you are<19> asking me a specific question in order to put me in a<20> bad light and what I am saying to you is I dealt with<21> it in exactly the same way that I would deal with any<22> crime and I suggest any other SIO in the same<23> position would deal with it.<24> Q. Let us get to the real house-to-house when it<25> becomes systematic and the Chair asked a question

. P-4861

< 1> this morning, which I want you to answer now: when< 2> you got information on the Friday and then on the< 3> Saturday, particularly on the Saturday, in your case,< 4> there was a< 5> specific address 102 Bournbrook Road?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Why was it not attended to on the Saturday?< 8> A. A decision had been made, our strategy was that< 9> at that stage we were not going to arrest.<10> The last thing a police officer -- let me talk<11> about myself: in that situation if you made a<12> strategy you are not going to arrest do you not<13> particularly want to alert the people at that stage,<14> then the last thing you do is go and knock on their<15> door if you do not think you are going to necessarily<16> get any evidence of the nature you are looking for.<17> If we were going in there to arrest them that would<18> be one thing.<19> Q. I have made it very clear, I am talking about<20> house-to-house?<21> A. Yes, sir.<22> Q. What would be the problem on the Saturday, as<23> soon as you have this, acting again on the precept<24> that time is of the essence, why not on the Saturday<25> morning ensure that house-to-house enquiries begin in

. P-4862

< 1> Bournbrook Road, not with 102, too obvious, but you< 2> begin at number 1 and work up the road; there is no< 3> problem about that, is there?< 4> A. It did start on Saturday in Bournbrook Road,< 5> sir.< 6> Q. With a view to ensuring that having started on< 7> the Saturday in Bournbrook Road that 102 is reached< 8> long before Sunday evening at 6 o'clock; that is when< 9> they reach 102, did you know that?<10> A. Yes, sir.<11> Q. Right. The idea being to gather, hopefully, as<12> much intelligence or anything else before you go to<13> them, they are going to be the last resort. You have<14> an address, 102. I am going to suggest to you one of<15> the things you should have done on that Saturday<16> morning is ensured that one way or another that a<17> house-to-house enquiry that includes 102 is a<18> priority and is seen on the Saturday morning to find<19> out what they are saying on a Saturday morning as to<20> who lives there, where they were because the longer<21> the time they more they have time to make up answers;<22> do you follow?<23> A. Quite clearly that is one avenues of thought<24> that could possibly have been done but I took a<25> different opinion, we would work in Bournbrook Road

. P-4863

< 1> and try and gather any information, anything< 2> forthcoming, any people that may have seen people< 3> running back on the evening and pointing out that< 4> people lived at that address this is what I saw, that< 5> is what I say, so when we did go there we were armed< 6> with as much as possible and completed as much as< 7> possible.< 8> Q. I am going to suggest when you did go there that< 9> was a complete fiasco, the actual visit to 102 was a<10> complete fiasco on the Sunday evening?<11> A. I was not there, sir.<12> Q. I know you were not there but you saw the<13> product of what did happen.<14> A. In what respect, when somebody forgot to get the<15> form signed?<16> Q. A bit more than that. When did you discover<17> what happened when the officer went to 102 finally on<18> the Sunday evening?<19> A. Sunday evening.<20> Q. Yes. He did not get the form signed, that is<21> one thing that is quite important, but did he not go<22> back and get it signed but more important than that,<23> of course, it would appear from the form that he does<24> not fill in very much about the two Acourts at all;<25> he does not fill in whether they were there, he says

. P-4864

< 1> they were not there, he does not ask to go back and< 2> see them or anything: did you know all that on the< 3> Sunday?< 4> A. No. My understanding is that the forms were< 5> filled in that they weren't there, there was< 6> Mrs Acourt and Burke, I think, it is John Burke, they< 7> were the only two people there.< 8> Q. Not a lot of information has been gathered in< 9> this whole process of house-to-house re 102?<10> A. The whole idea was to go along and do a<11> house-to-house to see:<12> A. Basically if there was any other intelligence<13> that might be forthcoming.<14> We wanted to treat them, the instructions were<15> from me to treat them as a door to door enquiry.<16> If we wanted to go along and knock on the door<17> and deal with them as suspects we would have dealt<18> with them in a different way.<19> Q. Really. Did you ever ask the house-to-house<20> team, you missed the Acourts, they are not there. I<21> think you better make another appointment to go back<22> and speak to them as people who live at that address,<23> just on a house-to-house enquiry basis, nothing wrong<24> with that, is there?<25> A. I would have expected that to have continued.

. P-4865

< 1> Q. Well, it did not?< 2> A. Well I cannot answer that, sir.< 3> Q. On the Sunday did you say to the house-to-house< 4> team or anybody responsible for it, Mr Kirkpatrick or< 5> any of the outside officers, Mr Davidson or whoever,< 6> this is an important address, make an appointment to< 7> go back and see the two boys Neil and Jamie?< 8> A. No I did not, sir. What was being envisaged in< 9> due course, I do not, perhaps, want to put a time<10> scale on it, they were going to be arrested.<11> Q. In fact as you have already indicated no arrests<12> that weekend, we have been through the forensic side<13> of this. Do you agree so far as forensics are<14> concerned, I do not know whether you heard the<15> evidence of Dr Gallup, it is likely, this is one of<16> her conclusions, take blood, for example:<17> "It would be unlikely that there would be no<18> trace of blood on an assailants clothing, absolutely<19> none, after an assault of this kind." Are you aware<20> of that?<21> A. I find that surprising and possibly in conflict<22> with another scientist but quite clearly, you know,<23> each scientist has their own view.<24> Q. Besides the question of achieving clothing, you<25> agree as far as fibres are concerned that that is

. P-4866

< 1> something that is quite important and the longer you< 2> let fibres go the worse it gets?< 3> A. The situation that-- the processes that I have< 4> gone through with regards to fibres were that after< 5> that period of time, and the actual experience and< 6> previous knowledge and managing cases in that< 7> situation, I know now the case is being made< 8> basically there would have been forensics there but< 9> in the reality of the situation you had to look at<10> the brevity of the attack, how quickly it had taken<11> place, the fact that they had departed from the<12> scene, the amount of time that had passed, the<13> likelihood of getting fibre exchange would be from<14> the fibres found on the victim, which were taken very<15> quickly afterwards.<16> Q. Did you take any advice on this over that<17> weekend, on the fibre front, that if you delayed<18> arrest?<19> A. No it was basically on my own knowledge and<20> experience.<21> Q. Did you know there was a satchel found at the<22> scene belonging to Stephen Lawrence?<23> A. Yes, I do.<24> Q. Did you know that was not submitted to the<25> laboratory for analyse vis-a-vis fibres?

. P-4867

< 1> A. I know it had not gone up initially and I can< 2> only suspect that would be on the advice of the lab< 3> liaison officer because of the type of material,< 4> canvas or whatever, and the unlikelihood of forensic.< 5> Q. Did you discuss it with him?< 6> A. Me personally.< 7> Q. Yes?< 8> A. I don't recall to be fair but the fact that it< 9> was not on the lab form and sent up --<10> Q. So on your?<11> A. -- that is the conclusion.<12> Q. On your approach scientifically therefore is<13> this the position: that after the first few hours,<14> really, there is going to be very little forensic<15> worth getting?<16> A. No, sir not after the first few hours, no.<17> Q. When then?<18> A. I had to look at the situation of what I was<19> going to do once those names had come into me and I<20> was aware on Saturday morning that there was these<21> people named as responsible for the murder. It was<22> in the main, I appreciate Grant, anonymous<23> information.<24> Q. I am just dealing with forensics: as far as<25> forensic science is concerned and trace material was

. P-4868

< 1> your view that really you were not going to recover< 2> anything after the first few hours?< 3> A. After the first few hours the likelihood would< 4> start to get less.< 5> Q. But what little was there would almost disappear< 6> the longer you left it?< 7> A. There then comes a stage where you say,< 8> depending on what point you make it, 36 hours -- and< 9> the reason I keep coming back to it is because that<10> is the amount of time that had elapsed when I was<11> made aware, so my decision had to be made after that<12> time not 36 hours have passed, what could I have done<13> if I had got it two hours after the attack. I have<14> to look at the situation as it existed then.<15> Q. Beyond the forensic the longer you leave it the<16> little that is there will just disappear altogether?<17> A. Of course the longer you leave it that is why I<18> have to look at the amount of time that has already<19> passed.<20> Q. Right?<21> A. Then I have to look at what else I have to<22> consider, weighing that up, the prospect of forensics<23> or not getting forensics but still going on to<24> arrest, what am I left with? What am I going to tell<25> the first solicitor that walks through the door or

. P-4869

< 1> the first defendant, what am I going tell him when he< 2> asks me: what is your evidence, officer, against my< 3> client?< 4> Q. I will come to that?< 5> A. You have to come to it all in the whole, sir.< 6> Q. I will. Very rarely in murder cases are you< 7> able to confront a solicitor with forensic evidence< 8> the arrest just haven taken place because you will< 9> not have the results from the laboratory, will you?<10> A. That is quite correct.<11> Q. Forensic evidence in terms of what you can tell<12> a solicitor does not really come into the equation,<13> does it?<14> A. No, sir.<15> Q. You might have other evidence in other cases?<16> A. Of course.<17> Q. Or evidence of some nature. This case was going<18> to provide you with, I am going to suggest, the<19> longer it went on insurmountable problems, you had to<20> get on with it, I suggest?<21> A. As I already said this morning, with hindsight I<22> would have acted differently but I had two options<23> and I choose one. What I was looking for here was<24> not mere arrest, I had to look beyond that, I had to<25> look for best evidence and hopefully conviction.

. P-4870

< 1> Q. Mr Crampton, what best evidence were you going< 2> to get the longer you waited, let us get to the< 3> crunch of this?< 4> A. Some direct evidence.< 5> Q. From whom?< 6> A. From the people in the community people. From< 7> people if they had come forward, I know people had< 8> come forward but from EE, from K -- I don't know< 9> which names I can mention, there was a young female,<10> these sort of people.<11> If it is being suggested that Grant could have<12> told us that K had seen or done something of course<13> that is evidence for us, that is a piece in the<14> jigsaw, if that had been coming that is totally<15> different.<16> Q. You see we have been through that, I do not want<17> to go through it again?<18> A. I think it is important to weigh it up.<19> Q. There was information coming through which I<20> suggest you did not act on in any event.<21> K was information that was coming through; Emma<22> Cook was?<23> A. It never came to me.<24> Q. That is what you are saying.<25> A. Emma Cook was actioned, sir.

. P-4871

< 1> Q. Later?< 2> A. Later. As soon as it came in, sir you cannot do< 3> it prior to that. It was later.< 4> Q. I appreciate that?< 5> A. You appreciate that, sir. I do not want to< 6> mislead anybody here, I had a difficult situation< 7> facing me, an SIO's nightmare. I had to make a< 8> decision there and then. I made a decision which I< 9> considered to be right and was going to get the best<10> result in the circumstances.<11> Q. Did you establish any kind of undercover officer<12> or particular liaison officers for witnesses in the<13> community that might give you this kind of witness?<14> A. Over that weekend and talking about undercover<15> officers, sir, you are not being realistic.<16> Q. I see. Does it the follow that you were not<17> even considering other forms of monitoring or<18> surveillance<19> besides setting up an observation post<20> A. At that early stage I was considering getting<21> into the community where I felt that people with<22> evidence could lead us to evidence possibly.<23> Q. How were you going to do that?<24> A. By getting in, speaking, the door to door, as<25> the names started coming in the way they did go and

. P-4872

< 1> see these different people. The fact that it never< 2> turned out was not known to me when I went down that< 3> route, had it been of course I would have gone down< 4> the route you are now suggesting I should have done.< 5> Q. I am going to suggest to you it was all utterly< 6> predictable the approach you adopted?< 7> A. If it was I would suspect I would have gone down< 8> that route. I had what I claim, and I still< 9> maintain, was a decision and a difficult decision to<10> make. I did not make it alone, I made it in<11> consultation with my supervising officer and a<12> detective inspector, between us we had nearly 90<13> years experience, and everybody felt the same.<14> If somebody was dissenting then okay we would<15> have listened to that, we would have discussed it.<16> It was not dissented in any way. We felt we were<17> going down the best route to get the people that<18> murdered Stephen, that is what I felt and that is<19> what I wanted.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask how long you are going to be,<21> roughly?<22> MR MANSFIELD: I have another major issue to deal<23> with, that is the question of race.<24> THE CHAIRMAN: We will start again tomorrow at 10.00.<25> (The Witness Withdrew).

. P-4873

< 1> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Lawson, I was told there was going< 2> to be a matter simply connected with documents which< 3> was being to be raised, is it necessary for it to be< 4> raised today?< 5> MR LAWSON: No it is not. It is a matter that was< 6> raised by Mr Khan or Mr Khan and those who he< 7> represents. I have discussed it with him and I think< 8> we can resolve this without the necessity of a< 9> ruling.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: If not if anyone intends or proposes to<11> use a document which is already in the system and<12> there is opposition to it then the objection can be<13> taken at the time.<14> MR LAWSON: I could not speak to Mr Mansfield, I am<15> sure Mr Khan will forgive me if I relate our<16> conversation which is essentially, without prejudice<17> to any complaint or objection there might be to the<18> use made of the document there is no objection to its<19> limited dissemination.<20> THE CHAIRMAN: There are no other matters to be<21> raised.<22> MR LAWSON: No thank you.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: We will meet again tomorrow at<24> 10 o'clock.<25> <(The Inquiry adjourned at 4.20)

. P-4874