< 1> Thursday, 28th May 1998.< 2> <BRIAN WEEDON< 3> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MANSFIELD (continued)< 4> MR LAWSON: I should say before we resume that the< 5> problem I referred to yesterday evening, the question< 6> I posed about Mr Brooks giving evidence, has now been< 7> answered and I am indebted to Mr McDonald for< 8> assisting can us.< 9> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr McDonald. He gave<10> evidence on the Monday as well I understand.<11> MR MCDONALD: Yes, he did and we have managed to<12> locate the transcripts of that.<13> THE CHAIRMAN: Will you make quite sure our copy is<14> in sequence and complete. Thank you very much. You<15> are still under oath of course, Mr Weeden.<16> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.<17> MR MANSFIELD: Mr Weeden, yesterday late afternoon I<18> had been dealing with the decision to arrest and<19> criteria and the recording, or lack of it, in<20> relation to that matter.<21> Before moving on to the corollary, and that is<22> liaising with the family about the arrest, can I ask<23> you one detail and it is this. Just before the<24> arrests you had in fact procured body maps,<25> photo-fits, artists' impressions, however described,

. P-6076 WEEDON

< 1> E-fits, from two eyewitnesses, one from Mr Brooks who< 2> was also a victim and the other was Mr Westbrook?< 3> A. Mr Shepherd, I believe.< 4> Q. I am sorry, Mr Shepherd. You are quite right.< 5> In relation to those two, and the Shepherd one in< 6> particular, of course, you indicated formed part of< 7> your thinking vis a vis the arrest. Was that your< 8> decision to have those done?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. It was. Did anyone in the team say: "Hold it,<11> Mr Weeden, you can't do this because it is<12> prohibited. There are rules that recommend we should<13> not do it"?<14> A. No, I don't recall that being done.<15> Q. You see it has been suggested by another<16> officer, in fact by your deputy, who has remembered<17> it since -- he didn't remember when interviewed by<18> Kent but he has remembered it here -- but it had been<19> honed into him, that was the word he used, that the<20> one thing you should not do prior to an<21> identification parade where you have suspects in mind<22> is to do this kind of thing; in other words, go to a<23> witness ask for E-fits and photo fits and so on.<24> Were you aware of anything like that?<25> A. My view about the matter is that, if a suspect

. P-6077 WEEDON

< 1> is available to be put on an identification parade,< 2> that is the normal course of events that will< 3> follow. If -- certainly witnesses should not be< 4> shown photographs in advance of an identification< 5> parade if the suspect is available. In terms of the< 6> E-fits, that was my decision, and the reason is this:< 7> that by the, I think it was the weekend of the 1st,< 8> probably the 1st May, I was concerned that there had< 9> not been the progress in terms of obtaining any<10> evidence to associate the offenders with the murder<11> and aware of the time that was passing. It was by<12> then just over a week. I was concerned that the<13> eyewitnesses should not lose the mental image of<14> anyone they may be able to identify, and I took the<15> view that this would be perhaps a useful exercise to<16> help them keep it at the forefront of their mind.<17> Q. May I make it entirely clear, we are exactly in<18> agreement in terms of what I am putting to you in<19> that there is nothing -- in fact, if I may put it<20> this way, the other way round, it is an entirely<21> desirable procedure to ask a witness to translate<22> what they have put in words into pictorial form?<23> A. Yes, I would say it is not commonly done.<24> Normally I would say, having made a witness<25> statement, the usual and perhaps the most preferable

. P-6078 WEEDON

< 1> course is then for the identification parade to< 2> follow as soon as possible after. But there is no< 3> prohibition, as far as I am aware, to creating E-fits< 4> in the interim.< 5> Q. We have dealt with the question of delay before< 6> so I do not go back over that. It was just a< 7> footnote to what other officers had been saying about< 8> that.< 9> The question of the family over these two weeks<10> and, in particular, obviously, keeping them<11> informed. May I just put it in this way first of<12> all, Mr Weeden: you recognise as a senior officer<13> that it is important in any case, irrespective,<14> particularly a murder case where it had a traumatic<15> effect, or is likely to have a traumatic effect on<16> the nearest and dearest relatives to the person<17> murdered, that they should have as much support as<18> possible, firstly, and, secondly, as much information<19> as possible?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Part of the support process (and in a sense I am<22> asking you to put yourself in the position of a<23> grieving parent for a moment) for those who have lost<24> somebody is clearly the need to know what has<25> happened, how it has happened, why it has happened

. P-6079 WEEDON

< 1> and who did it. All those are the obvious questions,< 2> are they not?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Those are the sorts of questions that often< 5> arise plainly, for example, at an inquest?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. So you recognised, did you, in 1993 that those< 8> would be potentially burning questions within the< 9> minds and hearts of those affected?<10> A. Yes, I did.<11> Q. I am dealing with this critical first two-week<12> period particularly. It would be of significance and<13> importance to the family to know how the<14> investigation is progressing. Do you agree?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. And, of course, and I am going to be particular,<17> whether there is within your sights the possibility<18> of an arrest or, well, I will deal with it in stages<19> -- of an arrest first of all. Do you agree?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. You agree. And, secondly, whether you have<22> within your sights potential suspects or offenders as<23> you see it, without naming anybody for the moment?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. One of the major complaints that I want to put

. P-6080 WEEDON

< 1> to you on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lawrence in the first< 2> two weeks is, firstly, that no-one actually kept them< 3> up-to-date with the progress of the inquiry; in other< 4> words, the developments, whether you had suspects,< 5> whether there would be arrests. That is the< 6> complaint. I want to ask the questions. Did you< 7> yourself ensure, and I will come to your own contact< 8> or lack of it, that those who did have contact were< 9> at least telling Mr and Mrs Lawrence how things were<10> developing?<11> A. Yes, I gave instructions to the victim liaison<12> officers to do precisely that.<13> Q. Did you gather whether they were doing that or<14> that they were not?<15> A. Yes, I was reassured on that point.<16> Q. By whom?<17> A. By DS Bevan and WDC Holden. I instructed them<18> to emphasise the commitments we had to solving the<19> crime, to keep the family properly informed about the<20> fact that we did have suspects, but I directed that<21> they should not give individual names, and generally<22> to offer what support they could and, if there were<23> any contentious areas, to let me know; but I said the<24> most beneficial way of advancing this is for me to<25> meet the family.

. P-6081 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Well, let us deal with that then. Because, in< 2> essence, you see, they were not, I suggest to you,< 3> they were not kept in informed of how it was< 4> progressing, that you had suspects, let alone that< 5> any of the names they were putting forward, do you< 6> follow, because they were putting forward names that< 7> had come in to them, they did it through their< 8> solicitor and they did in person with Mr Illsley on< 9> the 6th?<10> A. Yes, to the best of my recollection both from<11> the family and representatives during that first<12> two-week period up to and including the 6th May, I<13> believe we had received the names of ten nicknames,<14> or names of ten suspects, 3 of whom I believe we had<15> already identified and were working on in terms of<16> research, and 7 I believe who were subsequently<17> eliminated; and, of course, there were further two<18> suspects, just to finish the point, whose names had<19> not been given by the family but were subsequently<20> arrested and one of them was identified.<21> Q. That may be a synopsis of the overall position,<22> but of course what the people who are giving the<23> information would like to know is what is it being<24> acted on?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6082 WEEDON

< 1> Q. And is it relevant?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. You see they were not even told that?< 4> A. They should have been told that certainly.< 5> Q. You agree they should have been told that. One< 6> of the ways to ensure that in fact, as the Senior< 7> Investigating Officer with, as is it were, the finger< 8> on the pulse of the information, or should have had< 9> the finger on the pulse of the information, is for<10> you yourself to meet with the family and tell them?<11> A. I totally agree, and I made every effort to do<12> that but, unfortunately, my requests to meet them<13> were not taken up.<14> Q. You see, in fact, looking back on it all, you<15> never did meet them, did you?<16> A. Yes, I did.<17> Q. Sorry in the first two weeks?<18> A. No.<19> Q. I am dealing with the two-week period. In that<20> period you never did meet them. There were<21> opportunities for you to have met them had you wanted<22> to?<23> A. Well, I was creating the opportunities, but they<24> weren't being taken up.<25> Q. I will deal with one specific opportunity you

. P-6083 WEEDON

< 1> could have followed up if you had wanted to, and one< 2> of the obvious times, and I will come to letters in a< 3> moment -- one the obvious times was on the 6th when< 4> there was a meeting arranged with them and, of< 5> course, the 6th is a very important day, do you< 6> follow. You knew about that meeting that day?< 7> A. Yes, and to the best of my recollection, and I< 8> think this may be in the policy file dockets, I in< 9> fact suggested that I should meet with the family on<10> the 6th.<11> Q. Who decided that you should not?<12> A. If I can refer to the policy file, perhaps that<13> may assist my recollection.<14> Q. It is (MET/0051). It is decision 25, is the<15> date of arrest, so it is somewhere in this area?<16> A. Prior to that I would imagine during that week.<17> Q. 24 possibly. (MET/0051/0069). I do not know if<18> that is the one you are thinking about. That is<19> about press enquiries?<20> A. No, that doesn't ----<21> Q. The one before that is 68, which is decision 23?<22> A. I think it is going to probably be before that<23> one.<24> Q. This does mention the family. Well, it mentions<25> the SIO and the family on the 6th?

. P-6084 WEEDON

< 1> A. That particular document which is on the screen< 2> at the moment, that is where, having discussed< 3> liaison arrangements with Mr Illsley, we have agreed< 4> that it would not be sensible for the liaison< 5> officers, Sergeant Bevan and WDC Holden, to meet with< 6> the family until a senior officer has been able to< 7> speak to them, and the reasons for that are shown< 8> there in front of us. I will outline them if you< 9> wish.<10> MS WOODLEY: Can I say to assist, (PCA/00450202), I<11> think, is the decision the officer is referring to.<12> It is dated the 4th May.<13> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, it is number 22. It is the<14> previous page.<15> THE CHAIRMAN: The 4th May.<16> MR MANSFIELD: Yes, that's right. "Suggest to Philpot<17> I attend the meeting that he has arranged with the<18> family on the 6th." There is a recording there.<19> There is apparent dissatisfaction regarding liaison<20> with police and so on?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. That is what you are referring to, yes?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. What happened between the 4th, that is the date<25> of that decision as entered up by you, and the 6th,

. P-6085 WEEDON

< 1> whereby you did not attend?< 2> A. To the best of my recollection I had been having< 3> discussions with Detective Chief Superintendent< 4> Illsley, I am not sure if it would also have involved< 5> Commander Adams, and I think the outcome of any< 6> discussion was that Mr Illsley would be the< 7> appropriate person to meet with the family, but I< 8> think that was after I had thought it would be a< 9> useful exercise for me to attend the meeting on the<10> 6th.<11> Q. You see, you have agreed that really the person<12> in the best position to keep the family updated on<13> the day to day running of this inquiry plus keep them<14> informed of how near or far away you are from arrest<15> is, in fact, you?<16> A. That is absolutely right and that has been the<17> position in every other murder I have ever<18> investigated and I have never had any opposition or<19> difficulty in the past.<20> Q. What is the difficulty here that Mr Illsley then<21> appears to have about you going on the 6th?<22> A. Well, the difficulty precedes the 6th in actual<23> fact, because as I have outlined a couple of days ago<24> verbal invitations and written invitations for me to<25> meet them have not been taken up and indeed not been

. P-6086 WEEDON

< 1> replied to and an invitation for me to meet them< 2> privately at the Incident Room have not been agreed< 3> to, so it was becoming rather difficult, and I saw< 4> this as possibly a further opportunity when I could< 5> meet them.< 6> Q. May I just deal with those because has it not< 7> occurred to you that perhaps there has been a break< 8> down in communication here. Can I deal first of all< 9> with the question of a letter from you to the<10> Lawrences, do you remember, a draft of it is, in<11> fact, in your notes, is it not?<12> A. Yes an incomplete draft, I believe.<13> Q. It says "to finish". I will make it plain on<14> behalf of Mr and Mrs Lawrence, or perhaps I should<15> put the precursor -- Mr and Mrs Lawrence have been<16> from everybody's accounts utterly straightforward<17> with the police, cooperative and a perfectly<18> respectable family, are they not?<19> A. You are indeed a perfectly respectable family<20> and I very much regret the fact that there appears to<21> have been some suspicion about police motives and<22> police enquiries which seem to colour the liaison<23> arrangements.<24> Q. I am not going into that with you in terms of<25> what has coloured anything but you accept that as a

. P-6087 WEEDON

< 1> straightforward reasonable family, having been, you< 2> say, sent a letter. That is what I want to ask: if< 3> you look at (PCA00330127), there are two letters in< 4> sequence, that is the first one to Mr Khan which is< 5> drafted but not sent, as you have put a note there?< 6> A. I don't have it in front of me.< 7> Q. (PCA00330127) at the bottom.< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Then if you turn to 128, this is where there is<10> a draft of the letter to Mr and Mrs Lawrence. Over<11> the page to 129 it says "finish this off". Do you<12> see?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Mr and Mrs Lawrence never received this letter;<15> do you follow?<16> A. Well, that is the first I have heard of it.<17> Q. We have asked very carefully about this. There<18> is no recollection by either of them -- because what<19> I want to put to you is you are not the kind of<20> people who if they received a letter like this would<21> ignore it, not reply to it or do not nothing about<22> it, do you follow, you are not that kind of person?<23> A. Yes. I am trying to fathom why they did not get<24> it and my first thought is DS Bevan and WDC Holden<25> probably hold the key to when they delivered it and

. P-6088 WEEDON

< 1> to whom.< 2> Q. Was it to go by hand?< 3> A. Yes, it was by hand. In fact my recollection is< 4> from looking at the duty states of Holden and Bevan I< 5> believe they booked out to the addresses on the< 6> following day, that is probably the 28th and I think< 7> they are also shown as having booked out to the< 8> addresses of Mr Brooks' parents, who were living< 9> apart.<10> Q. Yes I am not dealing with Mr Brooks at the<11> moment. It is just Mr and Mrs Lawrence?<12> A. I am only making the point to put it in context<13> and I think all three addresses were visited.<14> Q. Yes. What I am suggesting to you is that<15> Mr and Mrs Lawrence are not the kind of people if<16> they had a letter from you along the lines -- in fact<17> the letter that is placed there is obviously<18> communicating your concerns, your sympathy and the<19> fact that they should speak to John Bevan and Linda<20> Holden. All right?<21> A. Yes and my offers to meet them, of course.<22> Q. Could you just look through the letter as<23> drafted?<24> A. I made it clear, Mr Mansfield, this is an<25> incomplete draft --

. P-6089 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Yes?< 2> A. -- and if we look at the document which was< 3> actually sent, I think it will contain two< 4> invitations.< 5> Q. The PCA reference is (PCA00450060), the MET< 6> reference is slightly different, (MET00410128). Do< 7> you have that on the screen, yes. Scroll it up so< 8> you can see it. It is clear looking at the draft< 9> that some of it is lifted straight out of the draft:<10> "Please speak to John Bevan", that is what you<11> have in the draft.<12> Then you have: "Should you wish me to visit you<13> at any time please let them know."<14> You enclose copies of recent correspondence,<15> that is with Mr Imran Khan of Messrs JR Jones:<16> "We are aware of some the irresponsible<17> rumours", and so on, "I look forward to meeting you<18> and your family in due course."<19> Of course I have made the position clear that<20> this is a letter somehow or another that did not get<21> through to Mr and Mrs Lawrence but in any event what<22> you are actually saying is that you look forward to<23> seeing them at some time?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Did you ever write to JR Jones and say, listen I

. P-6090 WEEDON

< 1> do feel it is important that we meet and I suggest we< 2> meet on such and such a date?< 3> A. I think I did write to Mr Khan.< 4> Q. There are letters to JR Jones, in fact it is< 5> (LAW00100006). This is a letter from you on the< 6> 27th; do you see?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. In fact there is no reference in that particular< 9> letter from you to them, that that is what you would<10> like to arrange, in other words a personal visit?<11> A. I think it was perfectly clear from my verbal<12> instructions to DS Bevan and WDC Holden and was<13> reemphasised in the letter. I am not sure what they<14> have had to say about the letter, but the point I<15> made a day or two ago was that I was very keen to<16> focus my attention on the family themselves. Whereas<17> I was perfectly prepared to cooperate with Mr Khan I<18> didn't want any intermediary to be a hinderance<19> rather than a help.<20> Q. Can I just deal with that, you do appreciate<21> that where there has been, really, a disaster of this<22> kind a family sometimes can be helped by having<23> someone else who can take the weight off their<24> shoulders of making formal enquiries; that is<25> perfectly reasonable, is it not?

. P-6091 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes, it is unusual but I wasn't defensive about< 2> it and initially I thought it would be a useful and< 3> helpful idea.< 4> Q. A good idea, yes. Just in relation to that, the< 5> solicitor in writing to you was not saying that< 6> effectively the only liaison with the family had to< 7> be through him, was he?< 8> A. I would need to see the letters.< 9> Q. Yes, certainly. It is (LAW00100001)?<10> A. I think there was several letters in three days,<11> if I recall.<12> Q. I have tried to take the first one and I think<13> this is a letter which you enclose --<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. -- when you write to them?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. If you just run your eye over it because it may<18> be sometime since you have seen it?<19> A. It is. Yes.<20> Q. In fact, can we just turn over the page to 0002<21> please:<22> "A tragic loss. We have agreed with the family<23> to liaise directly with you in an effort to take<24> away from them some of the strain you are presently<25> under." That is a letter on 26th?

. P-6092 WEEDON

< 1> A. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation but I< 2> think it is implicit in we have agreed with the< 3> family to liaise directly with you in an effort to< 4> take away some of the strain. I think that is< 5> implicit in my view that they want the liaison to be< 6> through them.< 7> Q. Well, of course, but in terms of the< 8> significance of a meeting with the family you see as< 9> far as the Incident Room and a visit to the Incident<10> Room that was never communicated, I suggest, to the<11> family on the basis that the reason for coming to the<12> Incident Room on their own was to have a personal<13> meeting with you as opposed to looking at computer<14> screens, was it?<15> A. It is unfortunate if that was not conveyed<16> because that was clearly my purpose in inviting them<17> and for the reasons which I think we saw in policy<18> decision number 20, so that I could personally and<19> directly communicate with them, reassure them on any<20> points, giving them further information, perhaps,<21> about sensitive areas which the liaison officers felt<22> unable to deal with. That was the purpose, the prime<23> purpose, to have a face-to-face meeting with them<24> directly without the victim liaison others being<25> present, without the need for intermediaries, if

. P-6093 WEEDON

< 1> possible.< 2> Q. That is fully understood. What I am trying to< 3> get at here is, how a very simple operation, before I< 4> leave the Incident Room point, what they were told< 5> was would they like to come down to the Incident Room< 6> and see how hard you are working, words to that< 7> effect, not come to the Incident Room for a personal< 8> meeting with Mr Weeden, who is the Senior< 9> Investigating Officer, who wishes to ensure that you<10> know everything about the enquiry. It was not put<11> like that you see?<12> A. Well, it is difficult for me to understand how<13> that wasn't communicated because I recall having<14> clearly communicated that to the others and if I<15> failed to make myself clear then it is difficult to<16> understand how that happened.<17> Q. It must have got through to you at some point in<18> these two weeks that actually communication was not<19> working?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. There is, I suggest to you, there would have<22> been, I appreciate you have a lot on your plate as a<23> senior officer, but one the priorities along with all<24> the others is in fact the one I have already<25> identified, making sure Mr and Mrs Lawrence are aware

. P-6094 WEEDON

< 1> of where you had got?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. You knew their address?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. And they had a telephone?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Did you ever consider, well there is something< 8> going badly wrong here: I have sent a letter, they< 9> have not replied; I put out an invitation, it does<10> not seem to be bearing fruit. I think the only way<11> to ensure that things do not break down is for me<12> personally to ring them up. Did you think about<13> doing that?<14> A. I can answer that in this way, and I will keep<15> this as brief as possible, but really it is a sort of<16> calendar of the first week: 26th, a verbal invitation<17> to them through the officers for me to see them;<18> 27th, a verbal invitation and the letter;<19> 28th, there is a note in the office meeting<20> notes from a member of the family saying the family<21> don't want to be disturbed for the next two days<22> unless there are developments. By then, of course, I<23> had received I think two letters, two faxes and<24> perhaps a phone call or two from Mr Khan asking that<25> liaison be through him, so that is the 28th asking no

. P-6095 WEEDON

< 1> contact for a couple of days. On the 30th, I think< 2> there was another family representative and it is< 3> again reflected in the office meeting notes. That< 4> says: "The family are going to be away for the< 5> weekend and they don't want to be disturbed." I did< 6> consider is it going to be useful to make a direct< 7> approach? And I had to balance that with the< 8> family's requests and the family's saying, you know,< 9> "Please don't disturb us at the moment", and,<10> indeed, when they are not going to be there at all,<11> coupled with the fact, is it likely to be seen as<12> provocative and perhaps insensitive to sideline<13> Mr Khan, go directly to the family -- I think it had<14> the potential possibly of making things better, but<15> equally I think there was a potential of it being<16> misunderstood and being seen to be counter<17> productive.<18> Q. One does not want to be too clever with<19> hindsight, but if I may suggest to you that the<20> human, straightforward way is you ring up Mr Khan and<21> say: "Look, communication doesn't seem to be<22> satisfactory. I would like to meet your clients<23> directly. I can't seem to get through. I haven't<24> had replies. Do you mind if I telephone<25> Mr and Mrs Lawrence"?

. P-6096 WEEDON

< 1> A. In fact, I believe that on the 28th I think I< 2> telephoned Mr Khan's office, I think I spoke with a< 3> Mr Ratipe, and I said I would like to speak with Mr< 4> Khan. I don't know -- I think there was a message.< 5> Q. You made a slight slip there. Did you say you< 6> would like to speak to Mr Khan or did you say Mr and< 7> Mrs Lawrence?< 8> A. I wanted to speak with Mr Khan.< 9> Q. May be you did, but I cannot dispute ----<10> A. I think there is a message.<11> Q. What I want to know is did you before the arrest<12> get through to Mr Khan and say to him: "Look, things<13> are hotting up or", whatever word you wanted to use,<14> "it is really essential that I do speak directly to<15> Mr and Mrs Lawrence so they know how far we have<16> got", because on your account arrests are just a<17> matter of days; it is a matter of timing. It is<18> going to happen, but the timing will depend on all<19> the factors we have been through. Do you get through<20> to Mr Khan in those two weeks and say to him,<21> personally, "Look, I know you said liaison is through<22> you. Well, I am liaising through you: I want to meet<23> Mr and Mrs Lawrence before it is too late"?<24> A. I believe that on the 28th I left a message at<25> Mr Khan's office for him to contact me.

. P-6097 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Did you speak to Mr Khan?< 2> A. No, I am saying I spoke to someone at his office< 3> and left a message.< 4> Q. You see, one appreciates everybody is busy, but< 5> this is a priority, and I suggest that at the end of< 6> the day, at the end of the day, by the time we get< 7> (and I will ask you to look in a moment) to the< 8> crucial period, the family, do you appreciate, by the< 9> eve of the arrest were really no more in the picture<10> about what had happened than they were on the night<11> of the murder?<12> A. I think there had been a number of opportunities<13> for us to get together and to meet. I think I had<14> made a considerable number of approaches and<15> efforts. I very much regret that they weren't taken<16> up. At the end of the day there does need to be a<17> degree of cooperation and communication. It is a<18> two-way process: it takes two to tango. I am<19> disturbed to learn that some of the information and<20> some of the requests apparently weren't communicated<21> clearly, if that is the perception of<22> Mr and Mrs Lawrence, but I do feel that the efforts<23> that were made should not be marginalised or ignored.<24> Q. What I want to suggest to you it is much like<25> the investigation as a whole: you may have had many

. P-6098 WEEDON

< 1> thoughts but they weren't translated into action at< 2> the end of the day?< 3> A. I disagree. I think there were positive actions< 4> taken but they weren't taken up.< 5> Q. I am going to suggest to you that Mr and Mrs< 6> Lawrence were unaware of these opportunities you say< 7> you had in mind until ----. Can we look at your notes< 8> in relation to this (PCA/0033/0160). These are the< 9> notes relating to the 6th and 7th. At the bottom of<10> 160 -- I have dealt with other matters on this page<11> yesterday, but at the bottom underneath consulting<12> with DCS and all the rest of it, do you see: "DCS<13> meeting with family." That is Mr Illsley, is it?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. This is your note of what he told you?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. About that. And this is sometime much later in<18> the evening?<19> A. I think this was around 8 o'clock.<20> Q. Around 8 o'clock in the evening. We will hear<21> from him about all of this?<22> THE CHAIRMAN: Of the 6th.<23> THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.<24> MR MANSFIELD: Of the 6th. He is indicating who was<25> at the meeting, or you are noting down who he said

. P-6099 WEEDON

< 1> was at the meeting. Then on the next page, 161, I am< 2> going to suggest to you this reflects< 3> Mr and Mrs Lawrence's responsibility in this< 4> matter: "There is some misunderstanding; they realise< 5> can't be told everything; they weren't sure about the< 6> home phone numbers and the role of that; they will< 7> only ring if urgent", and so on. "They say they< 8> aren't being told anything: kept in the dark. They< 9> don't want lines of inquiry. Ring them up regularly;<10> visit when necessary. Something exciting denied by<11> John Bevan. They knew about wrong number on poster,<12> informed them re: arrests. Inform them now."<13> Before Mr Illsley met with Mr and Mrs Lawrence<14> you had taken the decision to arrest, according to<15> you?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Did Mr Illsley know when he went to meet them<18> that you had already taken the decision for arrest to<19> be effected?<20> A. I believe that I tried to get in touch with<21> Mr Illsley, but I couldn't get in touch with him.<22> Q. This is another case where you are saying it is<23> rather like Mr and Mrs Lawrence. I would like to<24> know when efforts you made, because you knew this<25> meeting was happening with the family?

. P-6100 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Because you were not going to go?< 3> A. That's right.< 4> Q. For reasons which we will hear reasons from< 5> Mr Illsley, why you weren't going to go. It would be< 6> or paramount importance for Mr Illsley to know at the< 7> soonest juncture that you were going to effect dawn< 8> arrests, would it not?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Where did you try to reach him?<11> A. I can't recall now. I probably tried his<12> office.<13> Q. Where did they say he was?<14> A. Well, I am trying to be as helpful as possible.<15> But, bearing in mind we are talking about something 5<16> years ago.<17> Q. I appreciate?<18> A. I think I almost certainly would have tried to<19> get in touch with him. I am saying would have rather<20> than -- I am trying to recall. I am sure I would<21> have communicated, attempted to communicate this to<22> him after the----.<23> Q. Was there somebody at his office?<24> A. I mean, I can't recall. Clearly I didn't<25> actually communicate this to Mr Illsley, because he

. P-6101 WEEDON

< 1> obviously wasn't in a position to tell the family.< 2> So I am just trying to recall where I rang and who I< 3> may have spoken to.< 4> Q. Would there be a record of the phone calls or< 5> your efforts?< 6> A. If it is not at the office, probably not.< 7> Q. You do not indicate in your notes here, although< 8> there are notes about developments on that day, you< 9> do not indicate -- you do other various things, but<10> efforts to contact Illsley about the decision taken<11> you say at about 4 o'clock do not appear to be noted?<12> A. No, I think the meeting started at 4 o'clock,<13> and I think the meeting would have finished somewhere<14> around about 5.30'ish and that was when the decision<15> was made; so it may have coincided with him being on<16> way to the 6 o'clock meeting.<17> Q. Did you know where the 6 o'clock meeting was<18> going to be?<19> A. I can't remember now, no.<20> Q. You would have known then where he was meeting<21> them?<22> A. Probably, yes.<23> Q. If even you did not know where it was, you could<24> have easily found out through your aids: "Look, where<25> is Mr Illsley. I need urgently to speak to him"?

. P-6102 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes, I am sure that is probably right.< 2> Q. Did you try to get him at the meeting?< 3> A. I am sure that I would have thought of trying to< 4> get in touch to communicate it with him. Obviously< 5> it is clear that I hadn't because it is not reflected< 6> in that note of what happened at the meeting with the< 7> family.< 8> Q. At the very least ----< 9> A. But bearing in mind after the 5.30 meeting there<10> was -- I am not saying it is unimportant or whatever,<11> but we are now -- this is the busiest time of the<12> whole inquiry, and we are now going to arrest all the<13> people. Clearly it is important the family should<14> know; Mr Illsley is in the best position to inform<15> them. But also there is a host of other things which<16> are which needed to be done.<17> Q. I perfectly understand that, but we do have, if<18> you do not mind me saying, a plethora of senior<19> officers here in this case. You have a deputy, you<20> have Mr Illsley and there are officers above him and,<21> in fact, it has been decided in this case that<22> Mr Illsley is going to do effectively the family<23> liaison?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Can I move on with this because, even if you did

. P-6103 WEEDON

< 1> not get through to Mr Illsley and tried, Mr Illsley,< 2> on your version, would have known from your 1.15< 3> conversation, or when exactly it was, that this was< 4> being contemplated at this very moment that he is< 5> meeting them?< 6> A. Yes, it is a possibility, yes.< 7> Q. He did not say a word to the family on that day,< 8> that----< 9> A. That is something I think that should clearly be<10> addressed to Mr Illsley.<11> Q. You did not tell Mr Illsley: "Look, when you<12> have this important meeting with the family don't<13> tell them a word", did you?<14> A. I don't recall a conversation of that character.<15> Q. So they did not know. Just to go back to 161,<16> where it is reported to you what Mr Illsley had said<17> about the meeting, did you say to him, did you tell<18> them anything about potential arrests because you<19> have got this line: "Inform them re arrests". Do<20> you see, it is the last line. "Inform them<21> re arrests"?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. Is that what?<24> A. That is what he is telling me.<25> Q. He is telling you that they should be informed?

. P-6104 WEEDON

< 1> A. That is my interpretation of it now looking at< 2> that. I think those are probably things he is< 3> mentioning to me.< 4> Q. Why on that evening did you not ensure, even if< 5> you do not have time yourself, that somebody< 6> telephones them or, better, somebody goes round to< 7> the house that night where they live, one of the< 8> liaison officers for example, and says to them:< 9> "Look, we would like it not broadcast but, just for<10> your information so you don't wake up and learn about<11> it on the news, there are going to be arrests<12> tomorrow morning." You do not have to say who they<13> are, where they are, just let them know there are<14> going to be arrests at dawn. Did you instruct anyone<15> to do that?<16> A. No, I didn't. I have never done that in other<17> cases when victim's parents are being kept informed;<18> and I am bound to say that none of them have<19> expressed dissatisfaction about knowing as soon as<20> possible when the arrests----<21> Q. I am sorry, Mr Weeden, in this case you knew<22> from long before this day that there was a problem?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. And you knew on this day about the extent of the<25> problem, namely, that they were being kept in the

. P-6105 WEEDON

< 1> dark, was the phrase. Do you follow? That is what< 2> they thought?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. I suggest that is what in fact had happened?< 5> A. I still am not certain, even now, that I would< 6> have broken from what the normal position would be,< 7> and that is not informing them the day before arrests< 8> are going to be made but informing them as soon as< 9> possible and certainly before it is publicised.<10> Q. You see, they did not know on this occasion<11> before it was publicised. We went over it yesterday<12> about the discontinuance proceedings and how that was<13> badly handled. They did not know before this was<14> broadcast that in fact you had made arrests or were<15> going to?<16> A. Well, to the best of my recollection, and I am<17> relying on my notes of 7th May -- I think it must<18> appear probably on page 102 -- I have a note that the<19> family representative was formed at 7.15 am, I<20> believe.<21> Q. 102 is in fact just there. 161 -- could it be<22> scrolled up?<23> A. I just need to have a look. I think it may be a<24> little bit later. I think it may be a little bit<25> later when I was confirming what time the family

. P-6106 WEEDON

< 1> ----. It needs to go on a bit.< 2> Q. Do you want to the next page, 162?< 3> A. Yes, I think I may need to go up a bit more.< 4> Q. It is at the bottom of 162?< 5> A. 105 there, item 2, "Things to do: Inform family< 6> of arrests." I have drawn a line through it and that< 7> had been done at 7.15 am. I am not sure if there is< 8> a message in the system. I think the family may -- I< 9> am not sure if they were informed directly, or<10> whether it was Mr Khan, but that is shown as having<11> been done at 7.15 am in the morning.<12> Q. You see, the arrests were effected at what time?<13> A. I think it was 6.30.<14> Q. Yes, so it is after the arrests that they are<15> informed effectively?<16> A. I think it was 6.30. Certainly there would have<17> been no publicity before that.<18> Q. Again I am going to make clear on their behalf<19> that whoever was supposedly doing that, in other<20> words, making the phone call after the arrests, the<21> message about the arrests did not get through to the<22> family until after they both saw it individually on<23> television and radio?<24> A. At what time, sir?<25> Q. I cannot give you the times of the broadcast,

. P-6107 WEEDON

< 1> but one the broadcasts was much later in the day:< 2> Lunchtime?< 3> A. Well, I don't see how that could be possible. I< 4> mean, I have got a note there, someone has informed< 5> the family or their representative at 7.15 am. I< 6> don't know if there is actually a message in the< 7> system showing who has informed at that time the< 8> 7th.< 9> Q. Can I move on from this period in time because<10> there after -- when was it that you did, in fact,<11> first meet Mr and Mrs Lawrence?<12> A. I believe it was 4th May, 1994.<13> Q. So it was?<14> A. 3rd or 4th.<15> Q. About a year later?<16> A. Yes. Which was, of course, far too late to be<17> as beneficial as an earlier meeting would have been.<18> Q. One other matter I want to ask you about and it<19> is this, it is in relation to another officer and an<20> event that took place after the arrests, this first<21> batch of arrests, or the second arrest, that is of<22> Mr Luke Knight: in relation to this there was<23> arranged an identification parade and an officer<24> called Crowley, do you know him, went and accompanied<25> Duwayne Brooks to the parade?

. P-6108 WEEDON

< 1> A. I didn't know him before 3rd June but naturally< 2> I know about his involvement in the identification< 3> parade.< 4> Q. Do you agree, if we look back on it, that what< 5> happened on that day, putting it in a neutral way,< 6> was unfortunate in the extreme, was it not?< 7> A. It certainly was, yes.< 8> Q. Because officers deputed to accompany are really< 9> not "supposed to get involved", they are not supposed<10> to get involved with the witness and discussions<11> about the nature of the identification or the<12> offence, they are not supposed to do that, are they?<13> A. No indeed, and it should not be an officer who<14> is from the investigation team, that is why an<15> officer with absolutely no connection was drawn from<16> another division. I didn't nominate the officer, I<17> didn't know who it was until after the parade had, in<18> fact, taken place.<19> Q. When did you first discover that something<20> untoward, can I put it that way, had occurred on this<21> day?<22> A. To the best of my recollection this was when I<23> had left a meeting with the Crown Prosecution<24> Service, I think the meeting began at 2.30, I am not<25> sure what time it finished, and I was on my way back

. P-6109 WEEDON

< 1> to the Incident Room and I believe I was contacted by< 2> someone in the Incident Room and advised that this< 3> problem had arisen and I gave instructions about what< 4> should happen.< 5> Q. I want to ask you carefully about this,< 6> particularly as Mr Fluke is coming, apparently,< 7> today?< 8> A. Mr Fluke, I am not sure if he was still there at< 9> that time.<10> Q. Whoever is in charge of the office at this<11> time. If Mr Crowley, as he says he did, telephoned<12> in at least twice before actually arriving at the<13> Incident Room there should be a record of his<14> telephone calls, should there not, because he is<15> conveying a message?<16> A. Ideally, yes.<17> Q. Yes. As yet we have not seen any record of any<18> messages that he is telephoning in on that day, that<19> is 3rd June, and there are no office meeting notes<20> for that day now available; do you follow ?<21> A. Well, clearly he must have telephoned into the<22> Incident Room because the Incident Room in turn<23> relayed to me what happened and I directed he should<24> attend the Incident Room and if he had not already<25> made notes he should do so immediately and I wanted

. P-6110 WEEDON

< 1> to see him at the Incident Room so I could< 2> investigate the matter and get a written statement< 3> from him.< 4> Q. Did you make any notes about any of this?< 5> A. I don't think I did actually, no.< 6> Q. No. As it is such, I suggest, a rather uncommon< 7> occurrence, an untoward occurrence why did you not< 8> make a record of what had happened on that day?< 9> A. Because when I saw the officer at the<10> Incident Room he had explained what had happened and<11> I directed him immediately to make a written<12> statement and that was going to -- I mean, I don't<13> see it would have added anything if I had written<14> something down.<15> Q. I want to ask you about this because I think you<16> do accept as a first principle anyway that this was<17> unfortunate, would you agree, and uncommon for<18> something like this to have occurred?<19> A. Yes it was unwelcome because it cast a shadow<20> over my prime witness.<21> Q. In fact the only evidence you got at this point,<22> the only evidence and evidence is the word you have<23> emphasised, was, in fact, coming from Mr Brooks, was<24> it not?<25> A. The only direct evidence, yes.

. P-6111 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Without him at that stage you really would not< 2> be able to even put the case up to the CPS, would< 3> you?< 4> A. It was very difficult and, as I say, it was a< 5> very unwelcome development.< 6> Q. I want to ask you carefully why, when it may not< 7> go in the policy book -- is it the kind of thing that< 8> ought to be entered in the policy book?< 9> A. No I can't think in what form I would make an<10> entry, no.<11> Q. I accept you may not want to put it in the<12> policy book but you are known to be meticulous, that<13> is your repetition, in terms of note taking and<14> writing everything down?<15> A. As far as possible, yes.<16> Q. As far as possible. But there is a complete<17> absence of documentation, do you follow, it is not<18> just you, Mr Bullock, if he did we do not have the<19> note and he cannot help about that now, there is just<20> nothing existing on this day as to this untoward<21> occurrence; do you follow.<22> The reason -- you asked a question of me so I am<23> going to put it back to you as a question -- why it<24> might be important for you to have kept a record of<25> what this officer was saying was to see, because once

. P-6112 WEEDON

< 1> you get different accounts you begin to see whether< 2> and how accurate this officer is about what happened,< 3> do you follow?< 4> Now I cannot ask you, can I, what was it that< 5> this officer told you when he arrived and spoke to< 6> you?< 7> A. It is very difficult to recall 5 years on but I< 8> think there had been some conversation between< 9> Mr Brooks and DS Crowley and I think there was a<10> suggestion that he may have been relying on something<11> other than his recollection of what he actually saw<12> on the night in terms of who he had picked out.<13> You say that there were no notes kept, in fact<14> the officer was directed to make a statement<15> immediately, an action was raised for officers armed<16> with that statement to go round and see Mr Brooks and<17> get his version, so there is documentation.<18> In terms of why I didn't keep any notes, I mean,<19> you will see I have a full note for about the first<20> couple of weeks up and until the weekend of 9th May.<21> The reasons for that are twofold: they are much more<22> detailed than I would normally keep, but that is<23> because I was aware of the difficulties we were<24> having with the system and I needed a fuller note<25> because I couldn't be entirely confident about being

. P-6113 WEEDON

< 1> able to recover details quickly.< 2> When I came back on duty at the end of, I think< 3> it was somewhere round 16th or 17th it came to my< 4> attention that some matters were not going into the< 5> system, in other words people were writing things< 6> down on bits of paper, so I directed that things< 7> should be put on messages, actions so that there< 8> would be a fuller account of things.< 9> In terms of this particular discussion I had<10> with Mr Crowley, who I had never met before, he gave<11> his version, I gave him clear instructions and then<12> took appropriate action to get Mr Brooks' account.<13> Q. What had happened on that day, according to<14> Mr Crowley, this is his version, is that in fact all<15> these things happened at a police station but in fact<16> he had not in the presence of Mr Brooks written any<17> of it down; had not shown it to Mr Brooks; had not<18> told Mr Brooks he was going to report it; did not<19> tell the Inspector at the identification suite the<20> full extent of what the problem was, et cetera.<21> There is a lot of things he had not done?<22> A. I thought that the problem arose after they<23> left, but perhaps that is my misapprehension.<24> Q. Did you?<25> A. Yes I mean----

. P-6114 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Right. That may be the truth. When did you< 2> learn it may have happened after?< 3> A. I am saying I don't know when this conversation< 4> took place, it was a long time ago, I don't know when< 5> it took place.< 6> Q. That is a recollection you have, is it?< 7> A. No I am just saying I don't know when -- you are< 8> saying that he didn't tell the Inspector at the< 9> ID parade and what I am saying is, did it happen<10> while he was still at the station?<11> Q. No, it didn't, you see, that is one of the<12> suggestions and that is why I want to know whether<13> you have a recollection any more than that. What<14> else do you recollect that you were told by<15> Mr Crowley?<16> A. I think I seem to remember there was something<17> about clothing, about whether someone appears to be<18> in custody or whether he had been prompted.<19> Q. Right. Did you contact Inspector McIlgrew?<20> A. I have heard the name, I have seen it on<21> dockets.<22> Q. Did you contact him as the officer in charge and<23> just say: I am a little concerned about what may<24> have happened today, can you help?<25> A. No. Without seeing Crowley's statement -- I

. P-6115 WEEDON

< 1> don't know when this was supposed to have happened,< 2> but I didn't contact the Inspector. It seemed to me< 3> that the priority at that stage was to get him to< 4> record in great detail what he said had happened and< 5> then to get the account of Duwayne Brooks.< 6> Q. I can call up the statement. Would you take it< 7> from me that Mr Crowley's version -- did you see< 8> Crowley's statement that day, having asked him to< 9> make one did you then have a look at it?<10> A. Yes. I think we had a handwritten copy of it<11> because I said to the officers: you will need to<12> take this with you when you get Mr Brooks' account.<13> Q. That account essentially is that almost<14> immediately after the parade and the identification,<15> almost immediately, there was a virtually unprompted<16> monologue, no questions, nothing said other than a<17> monologue from Mr Brooks to Mr Crowley at the<18> identification suite or the police station where it<19> happened; does that come as a surprise?<20> A. You know now I can't recall whether I had that<21> information at the time or not.<22> Q. That is in his statement?<23> A. Is it?<24> Q. Mm?<25> A. I would have seen the statement at the time, you

. P-6116 WEEDON

< 1> know now I have not seen that statement for 5 years.< 2> Q. You see, would you agree that if such a< 3> conversation happens at the identification suite the< 4> extent of this conversation should have been brought< 5> to the attention of Mr McIlgrew; it should have been< 6> entered up at the police station, whilst the< 7> Inspector and Mr Brooks were still present; Mr Brooks< 8> should have been asked for his comments on that< 9> account, long before getting to you, should he not?<10> A. If I personally had been the officer that is<11> certainly something I would have thought of doing.<12> Q. It is not difficult to think of it, is it?<13> A. It is something that I think I would probably<14> have considered.<15> Q. The only documentation, essentially, relating to<16> this other than Mr Crowley's statement made about the<17> event -- and there is the following day when there<18> are meeting notes suggesting that the MG 11, or<19> whatever you call it, should be taken to Mr Brooks<20> for his comments, there are notes for the following<21> day, the 4th, there is just nothing on the 3rd; can<22> you help us as to why that is?<23> A. I don't think there is anything particularly<24> sinister. I am not sure if Mr Bullock made a note of<25> the meeting, whether indeed there was a meeting that

. P-6117 WEEDON

< 1> day. Normally I would say in the absence of a note< 2> there may not have been a meeting.< 3> Q. Mr Crowley says that when you got to the< 4> Incident Room you were in a meeting and a note, he< 5> thought, was kept?< 6> A. A full office meeting?< 7> Q. I don't know whether one calls it a full office< 8> meeting, he called it an office meeting or a meeting< 9> in the office, whether it is a full meeting I don't<10> know?<11> A. The only point I am making is I may have been<12> with DI Bullock, I had come back from the CPS with<13> him and I may have been discussing something with the<14> office manager, that would constitute a meeting but<15> may not have been a full meeting where notes were<16> kept.<17> Q. Who was the office manager at this period?<18> A. Can you remind me of the date, 3rd June?<19> Q. Yes.<20> A. I think this is around about the change over<21> period when I lost my office manager DS Fluke --<22> Luther. I am not sure of Fluke's actual retirement<23> date, so I can't be certain.<24> MR MANSFIELD: Thank you, that is all I ask.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be sensible to break now?

. P-6118 WEEDON

< 1> Mr Gompertz, how long do you think you will be?< 2> MR GOMPERTZ: Some considerable time.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: We will break now until 11.15.< 4> (Short adjournment)< 5> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR GOMPERTZ< 6> MR GOMPERTZ: Mr Weeden, can we deal first with the< 7> topic that you were asked about at the end of< 8> Mr Mansfield's cross-examination, namely, your< 9> contact with Detective Sergeant Crowley after the<10> identification parade.<11> First of all, can I just tell you what Sergeant<12> Crowley had to say about the telephone calls when he<13> was asked about them by Mr Mansfield in<14> cross-examination. And I am looking, if anybody<15> wants to follow this, at Day 23, page 4379.<16> Question, line 7: "From there you contacted the<17> Murder Squad and spoke to Sparrowhawk there." Answer:<18> "I had previously spoken to him at Southwark Police<19> Station as well." Question: "You left a message in<20> effect for the SIO; is that right?" Answer: "Yes, I<21> gave an account of how long I would be to arrive back<22> at Eltham Police Station."<23> Then Day 24, page 4562, question: "You make a<24> second call from Rotherhithe?" Answer: "Yes."<25> Question: "This time you remember who it is you speak

. P-6119 WEEDON

< 1> to?" Answer: "Yes, it was Detective Constable< 2> Sparrowhawk." "This time you explain a bit more, do< 3> you not according to you?" Answer: "I tell him that I< 4> need to contact the superintendent and to locate< 5> because of the conversation I had with Duwayne< 6> Brooks. I explained to him my anticipated time back< 7> to Eltham so all persons could be present."< 8> I am not saying that those are the only two< 9> references in Sergeant Crowley's evidence, but with<10> messages of that kind arriving in the incident room<11> on the telephone to the effect of: "I am coming back<12> to the incident room, I would like to see the<13> superintendent", would you expect messages like that<14> to be recorded?<15> A. No, not necessarily.<16> Q. So far as Mr Sparrowhawk was concerned, he gave<17> evidence of receiving a call from Sergeant Crowley,<18> and I have not checked the transcript but the<19> recollection Mr Beer and myself was that he was not<20> asked about that at all, be that as it may. And we<21> then turn to see what was said by Mr Brooks as to<22> where the conversation took place between himself and<23> Sergeant Crowley. (PCA00300040) please --<24> (PCA00380040), I am sorry. This is Duwayne Brooks'<25> statement made on the 4th June. If we go down the

. P-6120 WEEDON

< 1> page a bit we see the sentence: "After the< 2> identification parade had taken place I went to a< 3> waiting room. There I was joined by the Detective< 4> Sergeant. He had come into the room and he said:`Do< 5> you think you picked the right person'", and so on.< 6> I am not going to go all the way through it; we have< 7> already had this read. If we look there and at the< 8> next page, the conversation which Duwayne Brooks is< 9> reporting seems all to have taken place at the police<10> station, not in the motor car. Do you follow?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. What was your understanding? Was it that it had<13> taken place at the police station or on the journey<14> or what?<15> A. My recollection is that I had been at the<16> meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service and,<17> whilst at that meeting, I received a telephone call,<18> I believe, from the Incident Room saying that<19> Mr Brooks had made an identification, and that indeed<20> was of Luke Knight. At the conclusion of the meeting<21> -- I mean, I had some discussion with the CPS<22> representatives on that topic whilst I was there, and<23> then I subsequently left that meeting, and it was<24> whilst I was on my journey back to the Incident Room<25> that I received a message from the Incident Room

. P-6121 WEEDON

< 1> saying that there was this development concerning< 2> Duwayne Brooks and Sergeant Crowley. My assumption,< 3> bearing in mind the time between when I had first< 4> been contacted at the CPS meeting, and the delay by< 5> the time I got the second information about the< 6> Duwayne Brooks/DS Crowley conversation, I assumed< 7> that they had also left the police station and so< 8> that was basically my understanding of the situation.< 9> Q. I follow. Just to complete the picture, can I<10> just remind you, you may not know it, that in<11> Mr Duwayne Brooks' statement to the Inquiry, and I am<12> looking at paragraph 45 -- this of course is not<13> scanned -- he said: "I see that there are two<14> statements from me both dated 4th June 1993. I don't<15> remember signing two separate statements on the same<16> day, but I did make both of those statements. The<17> statements are accurate insofar as they go, but bits<18> are left out." He then deals with bits of<19> conversation which he says were left out. Then he<20> does say in paragraph 47: "On one stretch of road by<21> Greenwich Park, about 4 minutes from home, Sergeant<22> Crowley said something to the effect that I was<23> guessing. I got angry; we had an angry along the<24> lines of the rest of my statement to DC Doel. I got<25> out of the car at home and told him to fuck off."

. P-6122 WEEDON

< 1> That is all I want to ask you about the Crowley< 2> incident. Can I then go back, please, to the< 3> beginning of the cross-examination by Mr Mansfield< 4> and deal with the informant James Grant.< 5> The position, as I understand it, was that you< 6> were told of the existence of Grant at the initial< 7> briefing by Mr Crampton on Monday the 26th when you< 8> took over; is that right?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You know and we know that Grant was seen<11> subsequent to your taking over by Davidson and<12> Budgen; right?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Then, I do not think we need look at this, we<15> have seen duty state of Wednesday the 28th April to<16> the effect that Messrs Davidson and Budgen went to<17> Greenwich in order to register James Grant as an<18> informant?<19> A. Yes, sir.<20> Q. Did you know that they were going to do that?<21> A. I think that on Monday the 26th DI Bullock told<22> me either that the informant had been registered or<23> was in the process of being registered. I cannot now<24> specifically recall whether that was within my<25> knowledge on the 28th April.

. P-6123 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Can I ask you to look please at (PCA00330131),< 2> which is a page from your notes as typed up, and< 3> there is a list, is there not, a summary of things to< 4> do as at 10.00 pm, 27/4/93. Do you see that?< 5> A. Yes, sir.< 6> Q. The third item down is: "Speak DCI Owen< 7> re: informant", is it? Is that what INFT means?< 8> A. That is what it appears to be.< 9> Q. "RG section"-- what is RG section?<10> A. Greenwich.<11> Q. Owen was at Greenwich, was he?<12> A. Yes, he was a DCI there.<13> Q. Can I ask you to consider carefully and try and<14> recollect what that entry there means?<15> A. Well, it seems to indicate that I am going to<16> speak or indeed have spoken to DCI Owen about an<17> informant in RG section, that is Greenwich. I am<18> trying to recall the actual content of any<19> conversation that took place, because I know that I<20> was also anxious that the DCIs at both Greenwich<21> Division and Plumstead Division should be tasking<22> informants; but in that there doesn't appear to be<23> any reference to Plumstead, so, by process of<24> deduction, I would say there is a fair chance I have<25> discussed with DCI Owen about the informant Grant.

. P-6124 WEEDON

< 1> Q. That is a deduction, is it, from what you see?< 2> A. I think that is more in the nature of a< 3> deduction, Mr Gompertz, because I am trying to recall< 4> the specific conversation and it is a bit difficult< 5> five years on.< 6> Q. I understand that.< 7> A. It indicates to me that I have had some< 8> conversation with him telling me he has the< 9> informant, or is getting the informant or whatever,<10> but I am only guessing about the content.<11> Q. We will look at some documentation in just a<12> moment -- the Inquiry have already seen it, but I<13> think in fairness to you I should show it to you very<14> quickly -- which it indicates you were under the<15> impression that Grant was recently registered, is the<16> term you used. We will look at it in just a moment?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Where did you understand that he had been<19> registered?<20> A. At Greenwich.<21> Q. Casting your mind back to the time of the<22> inquiry, who did you understand was his controller?<23> We know who his handlers were, but who was his<24> controller?<25> A. I believe DCI Owen, the DCI at Greenwich, was

. P-6125 WEEDON

< 1> the controller.< 2> Q. Did that role ever pass to you, as you< 3> established with Mr Mansfield yesterday, and we have< 4> heard other evidence about it, it can happen< 5> sometimes: did that role of controller ever pass to< 6> you as the Senior Investigating Officer concerned< 7> with the investigation?< 8> A. No, and indeed it hadn't in previous murders I< 9> had investigated where I was getting the product from<10> existing informants but didn't become the controller.<11> Q. Let us look quickly at the documentation we have<12> already seen. (PCA/00450076) please. Go to the top<13> of the page. You see that that is an unregistered<14> cover. It has "informant's docket" written at the<15> top and the pseudonym "James Grant" written<16> underneath the title of the document. Do you know<17> whose writing that is for a start?<18> A. It isn't my writing, so I can't guess.<19> Q. Can we look, please, at the next page, 45, 77.<20> That is a briefing note which, if we go to the bottom<21> of the page, we can see the date it came into<22> existence: 17th June 1997. And it appears, I do not<23> know if you know Detective Superintendent Patrick's<24> signature, do you?<25> A. I am not familiar with it, no, sir.

. P-6126 WEEDON

< 1> Q. It appears to be his document. If we go up< 2> again please, it seems to have been prepared for< 3> Detective Superintendent Clapperton of the Kent< 4> Investigation Team?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. What he said: "I was asked to check the records< 7> to see if an informant with a pseudonym James Grant< 8> was ever registered." Summarising it, what it comes< 9> down to is that he can find no evidence of<10> registration.<11> If we then go over the page to the next<12> document, which is 45, 78, it is a document signed by<13> Detective Sergeant Davidson on 12th July 1993, and<14> you will see in the second line that he describes<15> James Grant as a "registered informant", and in the<16> last paragraph he asks for consideration to be given<17> to an award being made to him.<18> Then if we go over to the page (PCA00450079),<19> there is a reference at the top of the page to that<20> report, apparently, 12th July. Then the rest of the<21> document is in your handwriting and signed by you; is<22> that right?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. We see that it is dated 12th July, likewise. Go<25> to the top of the page again please, you refer in the

. P-6127 WEEDON

< 1> first line to, "this recently registered informant".< 2> What was your belief then during the important period< 3> of the investigation, this is dated 12th July, so let< 4> us take it up until that date?< 5> A. My belief was that James Grant was a recently< 6> registered informant.< 7> Q. Did you know when he had been registered?< 8> A. I understood he had been registered during the< 9> first few days that I took over the Inquiry, on or<10> about 26th/27th April.<11> Q. Thank you. I do not think I need go through the<12> content of that page.<13> Can you assist at all as to how it is that these<14> are the only documents which the Metropolitan Police<15> have been able to locate which deal with the<16> registration of James Grant?<17> A. No.<18> Q. Let me go on then to deal with another topic<19> which you were asked about, which arises directly in<20> connection with James Grant and that is witness K.<21> As was made clear to you yesterday by Mr Mansfield<22> Grant when seen by the Kent officers was maintaining<23> that he had told Messrs Davidson and Budgen the<24> source of his information, right. That is what he<25> was maintaining to Kent, you understand that?

. P-6128 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Before you say anything let me just complete the< 3> picture: Messrs Davidson and Budgen say otherwise.< 4> Can we look please at message 40, which is most< 5> easily found, I think, in the body of the Kent report< 6> (PCA00500165). We have seen this many times but< 7> there is no reference in that message, which is a< 8> message of the initial contact with James Grant, of< 9> the source of his information; do you follow?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. If an informant was willing to provide his<12> source and had provided his source would you expect<13> that to be recorded in such a document?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Let us just then look on and see what happened<16> as soon as the true name of K was known to the<17> investigation, indeed, not only his true name but the<18> fact of his existence.<19> I invite correction if I am wrong, but I think<20> that the earliest mention chronologically of the name<21> of K is in a message of 4th May. Can we look at<22> (MET00840130) please. We see that that is a message<23> 252 of 4th May and it is Davidson's message. Right?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. Again this is one that we have seen before, but

. P-6129 WEEDON

< 1> can we just look at it again so that we can follow< 2> matters through. He says:< 3> "As a result of certain actions I met and spoke< 4> with Mrs Casserly and both her daughters Tara and< 5> Michelle.< 6> "Michelle states witness K visited 102< 7> Bournbrook Road on the night of and just after the< 8> murder. There he saw the two Acourts Norris and< 9> Dobson, two of whom had their T-shirts off, and all<10> had wet hair. He mentioned the assault on the victim<11> but they denied it, saying they had not been out."<12> I do not think I need read any more. If we go<13> to the bottom of the page we see that there is an<14> action, indicated as a result of that information, to<15> take a statement from witness K about his knowledge<16> of the suspects movements. Right?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. What is your recollection, is that the first<19> time that the existence of witness K was known to the<20> investigation?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Let us just see what happened, because what you<23> were accused of yesterday was dragging your feet,<24> marginalising K and not bothering with him?<25> A. Yes. I denied it emphatically then and I do so

. P-6130 WEEDON

< 1> again now.< 2> Q. You did indeed. Then can we look and see, can< 3> we see (PCA00320257) please, which is< 4> Detective Sergeant Davidson's duty state. If we can< 5> just look over to the left-hand side we see Tuesday< 6> 4th May -- I think we better take that off the< 7> screen, I apologise, I had not realised something< 8> about it -- there is the name of witness K there, is< 9> there not?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Perhaps I can say this much then: what<12> happened, according to the duty state, during the<13> afternoon of 4th May a visit was made by Detective<14> Sergeant Davidson to a certain address re witness K.<15> Right?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. There was another visit, I do not know if you<18> had time to observe this before it was taken off the<19> screen, later on that same day. It is not clear just<20> looking at the duty state whether K was actually seen<21> on that occasion, so can we then have a look at the<22> notes of the meeting which took place the next day,<23> Wednesday 5th May, (PCA00320013), please. Go to the<24> very top of the page.<25> You see, Wednesday, 5th May, 4 pm, the first

. P-6131 WEEDON

< 1> entry:< 2> "DS Davidson saw K. Did go to 102 after< 3> murder. Saw two Acourts and Dobson", and so on.< 4> It would appear, at any rate, by the time of< 5> that meeting that Detective Sergeant Davidson had< 6> seen witness K?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Is that your recollection?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. So far from dragging your feet over witness K,<11> is this right, that as soon as his identity was known<12> to the investigation he was followed up immediately?<13> A. The same day.<14> Q. Yes. It does not quite end there, because if we<15> look, please, at (MET00830142), this is action 272<16> and the first part of it relates to message 252,<17> which is set out again, perhaps we can go down to the<18> bottom of the page, and we see that on 5th May an<19> action is raised from message 252, allocated on the<20> 6th to Detective Sergeant Davidson and the allocation<21> is, of course, to interview witness K again. We see<22> the result put in on the 13th by Detective Sergeant<23> Davidson:<24> "Stated that on the night of the stabbing", that<25> is witness K of course, "he heard about it, went for

. P-6132 WEEDON

< 1> a look and presumed that as there was so many police< 2> about that it was a murder. He then called on the< 3> Acourts, would not give a reason why but when pushed< 4> he said, yes, he suspected they would have something< 5> to do with it. He said when he went there it was< 6> about 22.30. He repeated the time several times.< 7> "I think by the time he was seen it was< 8> rehearsed. He states he saw the two Acourts and< 9> Gary Dobson, among others, and that one had his<10> T-shirt off but he does not know which one. He<11> refused to name anyone else and refused to make a<12> statement."<13> I cannot read the word on the extreme -- I think<14> it is probably, "he":<15> "Although 22 years he appears to behave as a 12<16> or 13 year old. His mother will endeavour to find<17> the truth."<18> Do you remember that?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. There is Detective Sergeant Davidson and when<21> asked about this he could not give precise dates as<22> to when it was that he had been to see witness K<23> again, but there he is putting in the result of his<24> actions.<25> Just finally, perhaps we can look at

. P-6133 WEEDON

< 1> (PCA00380362), so that you can remind yourself that< 2> witness K eventually did make a statement. Right?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Dated 17th May, taken by Detective Sergeant< 5> Davidson. The Inquiry is well aware of the contents< 6> of that statement.< 7> What do you say, then, about the suggestion that< 8> this witness was marginalised, not followed up,< 9> ignored or any other suggestion of that kind?<10> A. It simply isn't true. It can be seen here as<11> soon as the identity of K was known it was followed<12> up immediately, and it looks as though it is the same<13> day, and that he was visited a number of times within<14> that two-week period and that eventually resulted in<15> a written statement.<16> Q. Would this be right: there is all this activity<17> and as soon as his identity was known indicate that<18> perhaps James Grant was unwilling to name his source<19> when he was seen by Davidson and Budgen in the early<20> days?<21> A. Yes I think that would appear to be the<22> position.<23> Q. Thank you. Can we go on to witness B, who you<24> were also asked about -- I should have just<25> emphasised that witness K, although described as

. P-6134 WEEDON

< 1> having apparently a mental age much younger was 22 at< 2> the time?< 3> A. I believe that is true.< 4> Q. Witness B -- I think through a slip Mr Mansfield< 5> was at times describing him much younger -- was in< 6> fact 17 at the time of the investigation?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Can we look please at (MET00830144). Here we< 9> have an action 273, allocated to Detective Sergeant<10> Davidson. We have the message 252 in the earlier<11> part of the document. If we go down to the bottom<12> please, we can see what happens. We have seen this<13> many times before as well. This is the reference to<14> witness B being a Walter Mitty character. I am not<15> going to read what is set out there because the<16> Inquiry are well aware of it, but at that stage<17> witness B was purporting to describe an incident<18> which occurred somewhere up near the Welcome Inn; is<19> that right?<20> A. Yes, significantly away from the scene of the<21> murder.<22> Q. Yes. Did you regard witness B as a reliable and<23> helpful witness at that stage?<24> A. No.<25> Q. Nevertheless, we can see in the result that

. P-6135 WEEDON

< 1> Davidson did go and see him twice, once with Canavan< 2> and once with Hughes, although again he could not say< 3> when that was precisely, and endeavored to try to< 4> find out what is the reality of his evidence,< 5> something which did not happen until, I think, the< 6> following November?< 7> A. I think that's right.< 8> Q. When witness B made statements in which he< 9> admitted the account which he had originally given to<10> the police was not true; is that right?<11> A. That's correct.<12> Q. So again what do you say about the suggestion<13> that he was shunted out of the picture and not<14> bothered with?<15> A. I think police made every effort to develop and<16> maximise the potential evidence from witness B. It<17> is unfortunate that he did not give an honest and<18> prompt account of what he had seen.<19> Q. Can we move on to the subject of surveillance<20> briefly. Again, the suggestion was that the whole<21> surveillance operation was a charade, as it were, to<22> pass the time and give any excuse for not making<23> arrests. I am paraphrasing, of course, but that is<24> the general line of attack. Can we look please at<25> message 410, which is (MET00840195). This is dated

. P-6136 WEEDON

< 1> 13th May 1993 and the officer receiving it is< 2> Detective Sergeant Fluke. It is a message from DC< 3> Chase, and we see the body of the message:< 4> "Re: Surveillance photographs taken outside the< 5> Acourt's address", and there is reference to a< 6> particular photograph taken on the 27th. "The vehicle< 7> featured in some of the photographs Ford Fiesta,< 8> index number given, is registered to a person whose< 9> name and address has been redacted." I don't think in<10> fact the name is sensitive. The address would<11> normally be redacted, but there it is. "It can be<12> seen from these photographs that Jamie Acourt put a<13> black plastic bag into the vehicle (could this have<14> contained clothing). A check with LIO at Dartford<15> reveals no trace on the following subjects", and then<16> two names are given. "The vehicle in question was<17> seen to be driven by a female, who dropped off a<18> white male at the Acourts address", and the action to<19> be taken is to identify and research the person whose<20> name is redacted.<21> Can we go please to (MET00850131). In fact,<22> although the names higher up are redacted, if we go<23> down a slight amount, we see that there is a name<24> revealed there, just four lines from the bottom of<25> the page, which I think was a missed redaction, but I

. P-6137 WEEDON

< 1> don't think there is in fact any sensitivity about< 2> the name.< 3> If we can go back up to the top please. Can we< 4> go to the top of the page, thank you. Action number< 5> 375, is to research that name. Then the message 410< 6> is set out. Then, if we can go down to the bottom,< 7> please, to what happened on 14th May 1993, action< 8> raised from message 410, allocated to DC Crane,< 9> completed quite a long time later: completed on the<10> 25th June, and on the 23rd June we see what DC Crane<11> put in as a result: "The registered keeper of the<12> vehicle seen. She is unable to assist in any way as<13> the vehicle is driven and maintained by her daughter<14> who is witness 19. She states she is the girlfriend<15> of Zak Stuart, cousin of the Acourts. She picks up<16> both Jamie and Neil each day and drives them to work<17> together with Zak Stuart. She states she can not<18> recall events of the 26th/27th April when her car was<19> photographed. She believes the bag which Jamie was<20> carrying contained items for dry-cleaning, but this<21> was not out of the ordinary. She no longer resides<22> with her mother, but she stays with Zak Stuart. Zak<23> Stuart also seen at the address but declined to make<24> a statement."<25> Bearing in mind of course that these were

. P-6138 WEEDON

< 1> persons apparently connected with the suspects, it< 2> does seem that the car which was in those photographs< 3> was followed up, together with the identification of< 4> the persons connected with it; is that right?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Just to complete the picture, can we have< 7> (PCA00440067), please. This is action 427, and we< 8> see that it is to prepare surveillance photographs< 9> and logs for production as evidence. It is raised on<10> a date which is hole-punched through, but we can see<11> that it is in May. It is not in fact put back into<12> the system as completed until very much later, but on<13> the 19th August Mr Stoddard resulted it, but<14> surveillance logs obtained from FIB and as many<15> people as possible have been identified from the<16> photographs taken outside the Acourts' and Tyler's<17> addresses. That was being done for the purpose of<18> preparing evidence to go a court; would that be<19> right?<20> A. Yes, and that appears to have been done on my<21> directions, if you look halfway down the text on the<22> screen.<23> Q. Thank you. Apart from taking such action in<24> order to prepare the observation aspect of matters<25> for presentation at court, were these people shown in

. P-6139 WEEDON

< 1> those photographs identified as soon as reasonably< 2> practical?< 3> A. I am sure that efforts were made to identify< 4> them as quickly as possible, but I have conceded, I< 5> think, that there is some uncertainty about when< 6> specific individuals were identified.< 7> Q. You have conceded, as you have in respect of a< 8> number of matters, that either mistakes were made or< 9> matters were in some cases not acted upon as promptly<10> and efficiently as they might have been; that is<11> fair, is it not?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. The suggestion, you see, goes very much further<14> than that. The suggestion is that the surveillance<15> operation was really a charade. What do you say<16> about that?<17> A. That is simply untrue.<18> Q. Then can I in this category finally ask you<19> about the red Astra very briefly. Can we have<20> (MET00790160) on the screen please. This is message<21> 2, which again we have seen previously, emanating<22> from Detective Constable Pye. He sets out a lot of<23> information in it. If we go down the page, he<24> says: "Whilst at the scene uniformed officers (read<25> to the word) drove past a number of times with a

. P-6140 WEEDON

< 1> group of youngsters in it. They seemed to think< 2> something was humorous about this. The car had a< 3> part index. Uniformed officers may have more< 4> details."< 5> If we go to the next page, one of the actions< 6> raised, if we go down please, is of course< 7> "identified vehicle" with a part index redacted< 8> "locate driver".< 9> Can we look now, please, at (MET00820082), which<10> is action 20. We see there that the action is to<11> identify the Vauxhall Astra, and there the part<12> identification is given, and the content of message<13> two is set out. If we go down the bottom of the<14> page, again that is the action. If we go over the<15> page, please, to 83 to see what happened, we can see<16> that the action was raised on the 23rd April from<17> message 2, allocated, as we see, and then, before we<18> go down to see what happened on the 29th, can we<19> observe in passing, it has changed to "just raised<20> priority 1", and then again changed to "just raised<21> priority 4". Before I ask you what that means, can<22> we just look and see what happened on the 29th. We<23> see DC Doel's input: "Partial result. TSG revealed<24> registration redacted was thought to be attributed to<25> the Astra seen on the night. This number does not

. P-6141 WEEDON

< 1> come back as an Astra but a green Datsun. Further< 2> enquiries were based on the accuracy that the vehicle< 3> was either Vauxhall Astra or Opal equivalent and that< 4> the prefix was AGW", and so on about the registration< 5> number. "39 possible vehicles. On direction of SIO< 6> this action is now of nonpriority and no further< 7> enquiries to be made at this time. Therefore< 8> returned with print out", and there is an entry which< 9> I do not quite understand.<10> What is your recollection, Mr Weeden,<11> particularly about the direction which you gave about<12> it being nonpriority?<13> A. Well, on the 29th when I learned that the index<14> number appeared to have been incorrectly taken and<15> didn't relate to the type of vehicle to which that<16> index would have been thought to be assigned, I<17> directed that it be changed from priority 1, which is<18> of course is highest priority, to priority 4, a lower<19> one; and in view of the other competing demands of an<20> urgent nature, I thought it right and proper not to<21> expend valuable investigation time at that stage as I<22> recall.<23> Q. I suppose with every investigation of this kind<24> the Senior Investigating Officer has to make<25> judgments as to what is important, what is really

. P-6142 WEEDON

< 1> important and what is comparatively unimportant; is< 2> that right?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. Looking at it as you have just described you< 5> were at the time, you did not obviously think this< 6> was a matter of great importance?< 7> A. No, and I didn't see it could be progressed to a< 8> satisfactory conclusion quickly, bearing in mind that< 9> it appeared to be a wrong index number.<10> Q. Then if we look on, events over took your<11> decision because we see a further result: "Vehicle<12> seen on 30th April by officers who supplied initial<13> information. Index identified as, driven by Daniel<14> Copley, passenger Kieran Hyland." There is then an<15> action to research Copley and Hyland?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. We know that they were not seen for some<18> considerable time, I think, into the very beginning<19> of June; do you follow?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. Can you explain how that delay took place?<22> A. I believe, and I have made fairly recent enquiry<23> of this, that it appears that the action was either<24> misrouted or tied up with a previous document which<25> resulted in a delay, and I think it then was raised

. P-6143 WEEDON

< 1> on the 7th June and was resulted on the 8th.< 2> Q. What do you mean "tied up with another< 3> document"?< 4> A. I think there had been a reference to perhaps< 5> either message 2, or something of that description.< 6> I am not able to give a very detailed account of< 7> this, but I am not sure if Sergeant Fluke may be able< 8> to help.< 9> Q. You think Sergeant Fluke may be the person to<10> ask?<11> A. I think he may be able to offer a fuller<12> explanation, if not a complete answer.<13> Q. We have Sergeant Fluke in the building. Let us<14> not have any secrets about it: have you spoken to<15> him about this matter?<16> A. I think a couple of weeks ago when I was<17> endeavouring to find out how there could have been a<18> delay between the 30th and the date when they were<19> actually seen, and I was exploring what possible<20> explanations there could be.<21> Q. You may be asked more questions about that<22> presently.<23> Mr Weeden, I am mindful of the fact that you are<24> represented by other counsel, but can I just ask you<25> this in general terms, and that is the reason why I

. P-6144 WEEDON

< 1> have gone through the considerable detail I have so< 2> far. The suggestion is, or seems to be, that there< 3> was some kind of conspiracy between Mr Crampton,< 4> yourself, Mr Bullock and no doubt others including,< 5> it seems, Detective Sergeant Crowley, either to< 6> protect the principle suspects in this case for some< 7> corrupt reason, particularly David Norris, because of< 8> a relationship alleged to exist between a police< 9> officer and his father Clifford Norris had, or<10> perhaps, alternatively, because there was an<11> underlying feeling of at more than feeling perhaps at<12> current of racism in the Incident Room that this was<13> not worth investigating in the normal way at those<14> seem to be the two suggestions and that for those<15> reasons the inquiry that you were conducting at the<16> investigation at was not conducted with the usual<17> efficiency at speed and expertise which one might<18> expect. What do you say about that?<19> A. Dealing with the first matter you raise about<20> the allegations of conspiracy at those allegations<21> are totally without foundation. There was no<22> conspiracy at any stage and I think that the attempts<23> to portray such a conspiracy are frankly ludicrous,<24> and when one looks at the matters that have been<25> advanced I think they will be seen as being very,

. P-6145 WEEDON

< 1> very thin at if not transparent.< 2> My officers did everything they possibly could< 3> to see this case through to a successful conclusion.< 4> They all worked extremely hard and the fact that at< 5> the end of the day there was no successful< 6> prosecution is not a consequence of a lack of< 7> commitment at but rather a lack of evidence.< 8> Continuing with the conspiracy allegation at not< 9> only was there no conspiracy but it will be seen from<10> the evidence available that my team and I made a<11> number of attempts to prosecute at in particular the<12> suspect David Norris at for a number of offences at<13> including the attempted murder of Stacey Benefield at<14> the stabbing of someone called Witham, which had<15> previously been discontinued. When we were preparing<16> for the arrests on 6th May we included in the<17> briefing sheet the fact that Clifford Norris was<18> wanted and if found was to be arrested. Indeed when<19> the trial of David Norris started to founder at the<20> Central Criminal Court because of an approach to a<21> juror we sought to have a retrial in order to make<22> sure the course of justice could be followed.<23> Unfortunately we were unsuccessful.<24> Turning to the alleged racism: I can say<25> absolutely categorically that there was no racism

. P-6146 WEEDON

< 1> within the team at all. To the very best of my< 2> belief all the officers treated everyone they came< 3> into contact with fairly and equally. I did not see< 4> or hear any comments of racial misconduct at any time< 5> and had I done so I would have dealt with it< 6> immediately and very firmly.< 7> I believe that all the officers in this case did< 8> their very best in very difficult and sometimes< 9> impossible circumstances and we are as frustrated at<10> the outcome of the case, in terms of an unsuccessful<11> prosecution, as the family and anyone else.<12> Q. Can I ask you to look please at (PCA00330131).<13> We have already looked at this page in another<14> context. We see that you have written a list there:<15> "Summary of things to do as at 10 pm at 27th<16> April." Right?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. We need not go over the page at but I think if<19> one does one sees that there is a total of 32 items<20> at 18 on that page and it continues on the next<21> page. I am certainly not going to take you right<22> through them but these matters that you had put in<23> that list for yourself to attend to at was that your<24> normal practice when conducting a murder<25> investigation?

. P-6147 WEEDON

< 1> A. I would from time to time at yes at have a list< 2> of things at things to do. I think that probably the< 3> list was a bit longer in this case than on some< 4> inquiries.< 5> Q. What do you say at that this list indicates at< 6> just taking this list as one example at does this< 7> indicate a desire to try and take all necessary steps< 8> to solve this murder or was this the list of someone< 9> who could not care less whether it was solved or not?<10> A. I think it indicates the level of activity and<11> commitment.<12> Q. I am certainly not going to go through all the<13> notes which you took and made at the time with regard<14> to the activity upon which you embarked and upon<15> which your investigation team embarked at but again I<16> ask you would that be your normal practice to write<17> notes of this kind?<18> A. I think I had fuller notes on this particular<19> occasion partly because of the volume of matters I<20> was attending to and my notes in general at apart<21> from the list of things to do at was fuller because,<22> to be frank it took a little while for me to have<23> more confidence in the system at the computer system.<24> Q. Let me turn to another topic at one about which<25> you were asked this morning at namely at family

. P-6148 WEEDON

< 1> liaison. Let me turn first to a specific point that< 2> was put to you about your letter of 27th April,< 3> 1993. Can we just have it on the screen< 4> (MET00410182) please. Do I have the reference< 5> wrong? That is your letter dated 27th April; do you< 6> recollect?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Inviting Mr and Mrs Lawrence to meet you.< 9> Saying that you would be prepared to meet them at<10> their convenience?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. An offer which was not taken up because we hear<13> today, for the first time, that they never received<14> that letter. Had you ever heard that said before?<15> A. I believe that is the first I have heard of it.<16> Q. I would like you to look, please, at<17> (MET00640453). These are minutes of a meeting at<18> Plumstead Police Station with at amongst others at<19> Mr and Mrs Lawrence at Mr Imran Khan and various<20> police officers at including yourself. Right?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. We see the date at 3rd May, 1994 at 7 pm. If we<23> can go over to the next page, please, to the top of<24> the page, paragraph 7. MSL is an abbreviation for<25> Mrs Lawrence:

. P-6149 WEEDON

< 1> "Mrs Lawrence pointed out to BW", that is you,< 2> "that he had never acknowledged her. She inquired< 3> if police had known the identity of suspects on the< 4> night and if they could have been seen immediately.< 5> "BW gave a detailed account of his attempts to< 6> liaise with the family."< 7> Then this: "He showed Mrs Lawrence a letter he< 8> had written to her. He explained the difficulties of< 9> having to deal with the family through a solicitor<10> and the fact that this was outside of his<11> experience." Then it carries on.<12> The point I want to ask you about is this:<13> "He showed Mrs Lawrence a letter he had written<14> to her." What letter did you show her at that<15> meeting?<16> A. The letter which appeared on the screen<17> immediately before this document, the letter dated<18> 27th April.<19> Q. Did Mrs Lawrence or indeed Mr Khan or anybody<20> else at that time say that letter was never received?<21> A. No I don't think they did. I have no<22> recollection, it would have been noted if it had been<23> a surprise, I have no recollection. I don't think<24> there was surprise expressed.<25> Q. We have heard from Detective Sergeant Bevan and

. P-6150 WEEDON

< 1> Detective Constable Holden, I do not think this< 2> matter was investigated with them in anyway -- that< 3> is a bad point, I withdraw it.< 4> At that stage it was apparently thought by< 5> Mr Mansfield that it had been sent by post, so I take< 6> that back.< 7> Also letters were written and sent to both of< 8> Mr Brooks' parents, were they not?< 9> A. Yes, delivered by hand.<10> Q. I do not think we need look at them but they<11> were letters to emphasise the fact that you and the<12> Incident Team were not regarding Duwayne Brooks as a<13> suspect in any shape or form?<14> A. Correct. I thought it right to reassure them in<15> light of rumours which had come to my attention.<16> Q. There were some rumours and you wanted to deal<17> with them?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Was there ever any suggestion that those<20> letters, as you have just said also delivered by<21> hand, had not reached their destination?<22> A. No. As far as I am concerned they reached their<23> destination.<24> Q. Has Duwayne Brooks ever made a complaint about<25> nonreceipt of those letters or anything of that sort

. P-6151 WEEDON

< 1> or his parents?< 2> A. Not to my knowledge.< 3> Q. I wonder if you would give me a moment, Mr Beer< 4> wants to tell me something. (Pause)< 5> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly.< 6> MR GOMPERTZ: I am very grateful. On another point< 7> of communication between the Incident Room and the< 8> family, Mr and Mrs Lawrence, it was, I think,< 9> suggested to you that Mr and Mrs Lawrence only found<10> out about the arrests later in the day from the<11> television?<12> A. I believe that was put to me.<13> Q. You queried whether there was a message that<14> they had been informed earlier?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Can we have please on the screen (MET00860033).<17> The time of the message is 18.35, is it not?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. It is from Detective Constable Holden. But let<20> us look at the message: "As a result of instruction<21> from Detective Superintendent Weedon, SIO, at 0715",<22> that is on the 24 hour clock 7.15 am?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. "I spoke to Mr Lawrence by phone and informed<25> that three persons had been arrested in connection

. P-6152 WEEDON

< 1> with his son, Stephen's murder and that enquiries< 2> were still continuing and that at a later stage< 3> during the day I would update him with any results.< 4> He just replied: `Thank you very much'"?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Does that accord with your recollection?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. That Detective Constable Holden was instructed< 9> to telephone to the Lawrence household?<10> A. Yes, and that also accords with my notes about<11> the time that that information was passed.<12> Q. Thank you. If there is any doubt about it, it<13> must be right because the time of the message, 18.35,<14> obviously, 19.15, which would be the time on the<15> 24-hour clock, had not been reached at that stage;<16> but I am looking at the handwritten version which is<17> (MET00860033), (MET 00860034), I am sorry, I<18> misunderstood what I was being told. I thought I was<19> being given the reference to the scanned handwritten<20> copy, but I wasn't. It quite clearly says "7.15 am"<21> on the handwritten copy.<22> Let us pass on to other matters. the question<23> of family liaison was obviously a matter which you<24> had very much in mind; would that be fair?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6153 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Would you look please at (PCA00450193). This is< 2> policy decision number 14 on the 28th April, which is< 3> the day after the date of your letter; and we see the< 4> decision is to ensure that victim liaison is focused< 5> firmly on the Lawrence and Brooks families, notice< 6> Brooks as well as Lawrence there, and not diluted or< 7> deflected, is it, in effect?< 8> A. In effect.< 9> Q. By various intermediaries who have now claimed<10> to represent the family. The reasons given are to<11> ensure that proper information and support should be<12> directed to the families to avoid confusion?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. You refer there to intermediaries. Who did you<15> have in mind when you wrote that?<16> A. I suspect principally Mr Khan, but not<17> exclusively because, for perfectly understandable<18> reasons, family were getting support from other<19> members of the family. There was the possibility of<20> confusion arising because I think there were probably<21> four or more people occasionally ringing in with<22> information about the availability of the family, or<23> the nonavailability, and I don't make any complaint<24> or criticism about that, but I wanted the officers to<25> concentrate as far as possible in dealing with the

. P-6154 WEEDON

< 1> family to make sure their needs were being addressed< 2> rather than dealing with intermediaries, if possible.< 3> Q. Thank you. Can I ask you please to look at< 4> (LAW00100010). This is a document you will not have< 5> seen before, I imagine. It is from discovery, given< 6> by Mr Khan on behalf of Mr Lawrence, and this is an< 7> attendance note which emanates from his office. Do< 8> you see that it is said that you are the person< 9> attended on the 28th April at 2.30. "Detective<10> Superintendent", looks like, "is writing or sending<11> letter to us", and then there is a reference to DC<12> Holden -- in a meeting -- yes, thank you. It appears<13> to be the conversation with Jane Statchbury?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. Then if you turn over the page ----<16> A. I am not sure if it is important I should know,<17> but I can't read the text on the line after "family<18> this morning". "To bring them up to date", is<19> that?<20> Q. It looks like it, yes.<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. Then if we go to (LAW00100011) there is another<23> attendance note of the same day at 3.20: "Person<24> attended, Detective Superintendent Weeden. We should<25> be receiving letter shortly. He is the officer

. P-6155 WEEDON

< 1> investigating the case. In all his years this is the< 2> first time got request in writing for writing to< 3> liaison officers in contact with family", and various< 4> things follow which I cannot read. There is a< 5> reference to: "Keeping them fully in contact", I am< 6> told. I cannot decipher it I am afraid. I do not< 7> want to take up time?< 8> A. "And his feedback", is it, "therefore happy"?< 9> Q. What I want to ask you, never mind the precise<10> content of the attendance note, although it is not<11> your document, of course, now that you see this, did<12> you speak personally to Mr Khan's office at any<13> stage?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. At the commencement of the enquiry?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. What was the purpose in so doing?<18> A. Well, I was trying to get communication and<19> contact with the family on a normal footing whereby I<20> would be able to deal with them on a direct basis. I<21> had no objection, of course, to Mr Khan being there;<22> I mean that wouldn't have been a problem; but I first<23> of all wanted to try and make direct contact with<24> them. I seem to recall at this meeting that I asked<25> that Mr Khan get in touch with me. I can't see that

. P-6156 WEEDON

< 1> reflected there.< 2> Q. Perhaps the easiest way to approach the whole< 3> question of family liaison so far as you are< 4> concerned is through an exercise which may take a< 5> little time, but there are documents I do not think< 6> we have looked at so far. Can I ask you please to< 7> look at (MET00410173). Do you recognise that without< 8> having to go to the end of a document?< 9> A. It appears to be a briefing note I prepared for<10> the information of the Commissioner of Police.<11> Q. Take it from me that it is dated the 13th July<12> and signed by you?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Let us just look at what seems to me at any rate<15> to be the relevant parts. You say that it is to<16> enable the Commissioner to prepare for the proposed<17> meeting with the All Parliamentary Group on Race<18> Community: "As the letter specifically refers to<19> concern that police dealings with the family have<20> allegedly lacked sensitivity, this briefing note<21> focuses on police contact and liaison with the<22> Lawrence family since the murder."<23> Then you set out the basics of the murder. Then<24> under "Police Investigation", you say: "A murder<25> squad was quickly set up at Eltham Police Station

. P-6157 WEEDON

< 1> where a home suite is situated. The murder attracted< 2> widespread publicity and interest and police clearly< 3> and publicly acknowledged right from the outset that< 4> the attack appeared to be racially motivated. That< 5> remains the police view."< 6> Pausing there, was that your view from the< 7> outset?< 8> A. Yes, it was my personal and public view.< 9> Q. "To date more than 2,600 people have been<10> interviewed on the Inquiry and two youths aged 16 and<11> 18 years currently await committal proceedings<12> charged with murdering Stephen Lawrence." Then the<13> word is hole punched through: "The papers are with<14> the CPS. Then: "Victim's Family Police Liaison":<15> "Two police officers, a Detective Sergeant and a<16> WDC, were immediately appointed to liaise with the<17> victim's family. This is quite normal in such cases,<18> but soon proved to be more difficult than usual as it<19> was seldom possible to communicate personally and<20> privately with Mr and Mrs Lawrence. There was<21> generally a large number of their friends, relatives<22> or apparently self-appointed representatives present,<23> sometimes 20 or more, most of whom had their own<24> points of view or requests to make. Whilst their<25> interest was understandable, it did sometimes tend to

. P-6158 WEEDON

< 1> complicate and confuse matters. However, all< 2> attempts to meet with Mr and Mrs Lawrence privately< 3> were viewed with great suspicion by them and those< 4> around them."< 5> Pausing there, was that your view or was that a< 6> resume of what you had been told by Bevan and Holden?< 7> A. I think that would be a combination of those< 8> matters, but I would obviously be relying to some< 9> extent upon what the liaison officers were saying to<10> me.<11> Q. "The Lawrence family were told by police that, if<12> they wanted information or help at any time, day or<13> night, they could contact either of the police<14> liaison officers on their mobile telephone numbers.<15> Both the extended family and their solicitor made<16> regular use of this facility during the day, late<17> evening and occasionally during the early hours of<18> the morning. The family were encouraged to telephone<19> 999 if they felt themselves to be in imminent danger<20> or otherwise needed an immediate physical response by<21> police. On the 25th April, police offered to contact<22> the Victim Support Service on behalf of the<23> Lawrences, but at that stage the family declined.<24> When police repeatedly offered two days later, the<25> suggestion was accepted but when on the 29th April

. P-6159 WEEDON

< 1> the appointed VSS representative, an Iranian< 2> gentleman, contacted them, the family complained to< 3> police they couldn't understand him. The police< 4> advised the VSS coordinator who contacted the< 5> Lawrences and offered the services of another< 6> volunteer. The family have never taken up the< 7> offer."< 8> Again is that a fair summary of your< 9> recollection of what took place with regard to Victim<10> Support?<11> A. I believe that was the position at the time.<12> Q. "Then a day or two of the murder a firm of<13> solicitors contacted the Incident Room and requested<14> that all contact between the police and victim's<15> family be conducted through them."<16> Pausing there, it was put to you by Mr Mansfield<17> earlier this morning that there was not that, as it<18> were, term of exclusivity imposed on communications,<19> but is what you say in the report accurate or what?<20> A. Yes, I think that accurately reflects my<21> understanding of the position. I don't know if you<22> think it's necessary to go to the second and third<23> letters, but I think it's implicit that direct<24> contact was being sought between police and Mr Khan's<25> office rather than direct with the family.

. P-6160 WEEDON

< 1> Q. "Whilst it is extremely rare for solicitors to< 2> act for a victim's family in such circumstances, it< 3> was hoped that their presence would help matters. It< 4> didn't. Mr Imran Khan of JR Jones soon began< 5> bombarding the incident room by letter, fax and< 6> telephone, seeking detailed written information and< 7> copy reports on many aspects of the investigation.< 8> Notwithstanding the daily liaison meetings which were< 9> taking place. The demands for information on the<10> SIO and his staff during the early stages of the<11> inquiry became such a distraction to the<12> investigation team that on the 30th April Commander<13> Adams wrote to Mr Khan and requested that future<14> enquiries should be addressed to him rather than SIO<15> and his officers."<16> Is there any element of exaggeration, do you<17> feel now, looking back on events, in that paragraph?<18> A. Yes, I don't think I probably would go along<19> with the term "bombarding". I think it was probably<20> more like light sniper fire from three different<21> positions, sort of, letter, fax and telephone.<22> Q. "This eased the difficulties to some degree and<23> towards the end of May, as a result of agreement<24> between the family and police, the two liaison<25> officers, Bevan and Holden, were withdrawn and

. P-6161 WEEDON

< 1> Detective Chief Superintendent Illsley assumed< 2> responsibility for dealing with the family. By that< 3> stage they had had ten liaison meetings and numerous< 4> telephone contacts over the 6 weeks that the Inquiry< 5> had been running. The SIO Detective Superintendent< 6> Weeden had earlier written to Mr and Mrs Lawrence< 7> expressing sympathy and offering to meet with them.< 8> This offer was never accepted nor was a later< 9> invitation to them to visit the Incident Room to see<10> for themselves how the Inquiry was going."<11> Why was it, as I think is common ground, that<12> that invitation did not include Mr Khan?<13> A. I really wanted to establish a direct and<14> personal relationship with Mr and Mrs Lawrence, as I<15> had previously done with the families of other murder<16> victims, and I thought that would be best done<17> without any intermediaries, and that included police<18> intermediaries, I did not propose to have the liaison<19> officers present at that meeting, I intend it to just<20> be Mr and Mrs Lawrence and myself.<21> Q. Then in the next paragraph you deal with<22> incidents which occurred involving the Lawrence's car<23> and other events and the actions taken by the police<24> to try and deal with it; is that right?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6162 WEEDON

< 1> Q. I do not propose to read that:< 2> "On 26th May, 1993 Detective Chief< 3> Superintendent Illsley and Chief Superintendent< 4> Philpot began a series of weekly liaison meetings at< 5> Plumstead Police Station which were attended by< 6> Mr and Mrs Lawrence Mr Khan and occasionally< 7> community leaders whom the family wished to be< 8> present. These meetings which took place on< 9> 26th May, 4th June and 11th June proved to be fairly<10> cordial and quite useful.<11> "A meeting scheduled for 17th June was postponed<12> at the families requested until the 18th June, then<13> to the 21st June but they were enable to attend on<14> that date."<15> Pausing there, did the postponement and<16> cancellation of meetings become a regular feature?<17> A. I believe so, but I think Mr Illsley may be in a<18> better position to deal with that aspect.<19> Q. All right. Then you refer to the family being<20> in the West Indies:<21> "Quite apart from meetings with the family<22> police have made every effort to keep the community<23> as a whole properly informed through informal<24> contacts, the media and several public meetings<25> arranged by the local counsel.

. P-6163 WEEDON

< 1> "The Lawrence family have made full use of the< 2> medial coverage to voice their criticism of the< 3> police and it does appear that their grief and< 4> anxieties are to some extent being exploited." What< 5> did you mean by that?< 6> A. Again it is difficult to put oneself back in the< 7> position of '93 but it did appear to me that rather< 8> than the police being supported in their efforts by< 9> some people within the community there did appear to<10> be a tendency to criticise rather than support.<11> Q. "On 17th June, 1993 Mr Illsley met with<12> Joan Ruddick MP and John Austin Walker MP and<13> discussed this case with them in the context of<14> alleged racism in the area. Mrs Ruddick had met the<15> Lawrence family earlier on and to them commented on<16> the high degree of victim liaison that was being<17> provided by police.<18> "She told the Lawrences that the attention which<19> they were being given was unprecedented in her<20> experience of dealing with crime victims and their<21> families."<22> Did that MP express that same view to you or?<23> A. Not to me personally. I believe the source of<24> my information for this may have been through<25> Chief Superintendent Illsley.

. P-6164 WEEDON

< 1> Q. "The Lawrence family and the wider community are< 2> understandably angry, indeed outraged at the< 3> senseless murder of Stephen Lawrence and some of them< 4> undoubtedly feel frustrated and dissatisfied that the< 5> fact that two weeks elapsed before any arrests were< 6> made.< 7> "Few seem able to come to terms with the fact< 8> that police action must be determined by information< 9> and evidence which is available rather than an<10> emotional and expedient response. Their frustration<11> is fuelled by mistrust of the police by some<12> individuals and occasional deliberate misinformation<13> by others." What are you referring to there?<14> A. I think it was being suggested that we weren't<15> attempting to follow up leads.<16> Q. The same suggestions as have been put in<17> cross-examination very recently?<18> A. Yes. I thought it was a particularly harsh<19> criticism because some information indeed which we<20> were trying to pursue, such as friends of Stephen and<21> the possibility of a suspect who may be known or they<22> may be able to give information about a suspect, was<23> being frustrated by their names and addresses or<24> their addresses certainly being withheld from us.<25> I think it took probably up to about a year

. P-6165 WEEDON

< 1> before we were able to see them. Mr Khan under took< 2> regularly to, he would do this and that and make them< 3> available but he would not give us the information to< 4> allow us to pursue it.< 5> Q. I am not going to go into the detail of that< 6> with you but your recollection is that there were< 7> certain leads you wanted to follow up which you were< 8> prevented from following; is that right?< 9> A. Yes for about a year.<10> Q. "The result is that a certain amount of<11> resentment and criticism has been misdirected at the<12> officers who are trying to support and inform the<13> victims family whilst investigating the murder and<14> bringing those responsible to justice."<15> "The case relies", and this is under the<16> heading, "Additional Confidential Background<17> Information", "almost entirely on uncorroborated<18> identification evidence and the suspects have<19> exercised the right of silence."<20> A. Well, of course, that wasn't true in respect of<21> all of the suspects, but most of them.<22> Q. "The CPS regard the case as weak and are at<23> present carefully considering the little evidence<24> which is available. Several other serious offences<25> have been uncovered during the murder investigation

. P-6166 WEEDON

< 1> and papers have been submitted to the CPS regarding< 2> offences of attempted murder, assault and conspiracy< 3> to pervert the course of justice. In most case its< 4> the victims are white.< 5> "The cases involved those charged or suspected< 6> of involvement in the murder of Stephen Lawrence or< 7> the attempted murder of Stacey Benefield. Care needs< 8> to be exercised", I do not think I need read that< 9> sentence.<10> On page 176:<11> "Apart from the two youths charged with the<12> murder three other youths who it is suspected were<13> involved have also been arrested and interviewed.<14> There is insufficient evidence at present to take<15> proceedings against them.<16> "Summary: the police recognised that this would<17> be a difficult, sensitive and well publicised case<18> from the outset. Investigation continues to be<19> vigorously and thoroughly conducted but in the final<20> analysis we have to work with whatever evidence is<21> available. In this case it is very little.<22> "Every effort has been made by police to keep<23> the family and their personal representatives<24> properly informed throughout. It has been a<25> difficult task for all concerned. There is no room

. P-6167 WEEDON

< 1> for complacency here and we have reflected long and< 2> hard but it is difficult to see what more could be< 3> done by police in the circumstances." You signed< 4> the report.< 5> That report was followed up by a second briefing< 6> note, dated 8th September 1993, again it is quite a< 7> lengthy document, I do not think I need read as much< 8> of it, it is (MET01010047). Do you recognise this as< 9> your document or do you want to see the end of it?<10> A. It looks familiar, Mr Gompertz.<11> Q. It is further to the briefing note of<12> 13th July:<13> "This briefing note has been prepared to enable<14> the Commissioner to respond to the points raised in<15> the letter dated the 1st September, 1993 to<16> Peter Bottomley."<17> You follow the same order of numeration as that<18> in the letter. I do not think it is necessary to go<19> into the detail under 1 as to what has been done.<20> Just noticing and passing: "Over 2,600 people<21> have been interviewed to date and the Inquiry<22> continues." Right?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. Then you set out in summary the police response<25> at 2, the initial response. The family liaison

. P-6168 WEEDON

< 1> arrangements are over the page at page 48, top of the< 2> page. There is a page missing I think. Then we at< 3> (MET001010048), I thought. Can we try (MET001010049)< 4> please. That I think should be the second page of< 5> the briefing note. You refer to the family liaison< 6> arrangements and say this in the second paragraph:< 7> "In truth the family and their representatives< 8> have been dealt with sensitively, courteously and< 9> patiently by police throughout the Inquiry and this<10> will continue. The family and their representatives<11> have had every opportunity to express their concerns<12> and the two Chief Superintendents in particular<13> remain receptive to anything the family have to<14> say."<15> You refer to Mr Barker and deal with various<16> other matters, which I do not think I need set out.<17> Can we go to (MET001010048), thank you. Under<18> the heading "Family Liaison":<19> "In the vast majority of murder investigations<20> it is usually possible to develop a close, informal<21> relationship between the victims family and the<22> investigation team.<23> "In an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect it<24> is frequently possible for the police to keep the<25> family informed on a confidential basis."

. P-6169 WEEDON

< 1> Has that been your experience with other murder< 2> investigations that you have had a part in?< 3> A. Yes, without exception.< 4> Q. Then you go on:< 5> "Regrettably that has not been possible in this< 6> case. As was mentioned in briefing note number 1,< 7> outside groups and individuals have seriously< 8> impaired normal communications and sometimes< 9> information which has been given by police in<10> confidence has been publicised in a wholly<11> counterproductive and damaging manner. An example of<12> this concerns the injuries which Stephen Lawrence<13> sustained.<14> "The family and their representatives demanded<15> and were given detailed information about the<16> injuries. Soon afterwards on national television the<17> family revealed the number, position, angle and<18> penetration levels of the stab wounds in graphic<19> detail. This is vital information and could well<20> have been used to corroborate or disprove the account<21> of a person who, for example, admitted being a member<22> of the group and having seen what happened, but<23> denied criminal liability himself."<24> Do you stand by those comments?<25> A. To the best of my recollection that is true.

. P-6170 WEEDON

< 1> Q. I do not think I need read the rest of that< 2> page. Perhaps I better read the top of the next page< 3> which, I think, will be 50.< 4> "On Tuesday, 7th September when the Lawrence< 5> family and their solicitor, Imran Khan, were due to< 6> be attending a liaison meeting at Plumstead Police< 7> Station they were, in fact, in west London giving an< 8> interview to LBC Radio. During the interview the< 9> usual untrue complaints were repeated about police<10> failures, disinterest and prejudice. This diatribe<11> was accompanied by threats to sue the police. Whilst<12> it is possible the main purpose of the interview was<13> to seek publicity for a vigil and march in Eltham on<14> 13th September, it is possible that some action is<15> being considered by the family and their advisers."<16> I do not think we need concern ourselves with<17> your civil action.<18> "Until recently the Senior Investigating Officer<19> and his team have shown considerable understanding<20> and forebearance in respect of the continuing<21> irresponsible and damaging comments which have been<22> made by the family and their representatives on<23> radio, television and in print. However, patience is<24> now being beginning to wear very thin in the face of<25> frequently repeated slanderous and libelous remarks

. P-6171 WEEDON

< 1> by the non-family group, especially Mr Imran Khan.< 2> "The SIO is currently considering taking civil< 3> action in connection with the recent spoken and< 4> printed remarks and in the near future will be< 5> submitting a report seeking advice with a view to< 6> instituting proceedings preferably with the full< 7> support from the Metropolitan Police Service."< 8> Can I ask you this: Have you brought any libel< 9> action?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Against?<12> A. Against a newspaper.<13> Q. With what result?<14> A. I won the action.<15> Q. Was it settled or was it heard?<16> A. The award was in my favour, but the publication<17> went into liquidation and they didn't pay the costs<18> and award.<19> Q. Can we go on to what I hope will be page 53,<20> please. It is right to say, is it not, that that<21> action was not directed at Mr Khan?<22> A. No, it wasn't. As I pointed out at the end of<23> that particular note, although they were quite<24> damaging, the comments by the family and their<25> representative, I took the view that it wouldn't be

. P-6172 WEEDON

< 1> right to seek to take any action against them.< 2> Q. I think the right page was on the screen just< 3> now. go to the top of the page. This is appendix 3< 4> to that briefing note. It is a schedule of meetings< 5> which should have taken place and which were either< 6> postponed or cancelled at short notice; is that< 7> right?< 8> A. It appears to be so. I am not sure if this was< 9> prepared on the instructions of Mr Illsley, and<10> certainly I would think the content has been derived<11> from his input.<12> Q. What you are saying is I should ask him about it<13> rather than you?<14> A. I think that is a good idea.<15> Q. You did not attend these meetings?<16> A. No.<17> Q. I am reminded, of course, that this is an<18> appendix which is attached to your report?<19> A. In which case I would be happy to deal with the<20> matters in there. I think the position will be that<21> probably the information derives from what I have<22> been told about those meetings by Mr Illsley, but I<23> will happily deal with any matters you want to put to<24> me.<25> Q. He would be the person with direct knowledge?

. P-6173 WEEDON

< 1> A. I would think so.< 2> Q. Very well, I will save it and ask him. The< 3> reason I have taken you through those documents,< 4> briefing notes which you prepared, is because they< 5> appear to provide a convenient summary of how you saw< 6> the whole aspect of the investigation known as family< 7> liaison. Do you consider those two briefing notes< 8> provide a fair summary?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. That is all I want to ask, thank you.<11> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR EGAN<12> MR EGAN: I want to ask you some questions on behalf<13> of a number of officers including the family liaison<14> officers, Sergeant Bevan, Miss Holden and Mr Bullock,<15> amongst others. I want to ask you about several<16> matters please. Firstly, I am going to have to go<17> back just a little bit to Mr Davidson again and the<18> information from Grant. I appreciate you have been<19> asked a number of questions about this but, as the<20> matter was put to you yesterday in some detail and in<21> my submission that detail was not quite correct, it<22> is important to identify what the evidence is.<23> It was suggested to you yesterday that Mr Grant<24> had said, you may have gathered from that and given<25> evidence, that he had given his source to

. P-6174 WEEDON

< 1> Mr Davidson. Do you know whether Mr Grant has given< 2> evidence, just yes or no?< 3> A. I think the answer is no.< 4> Q. Mr Davidson was asked about it, and I give the< 5> reference on Day 16 at page 2965, at the top of the< 6> page, line 1: "Did he say why would he not disclose< 7> his source?" "No, he just told me he wouldn't< 8> disclose it, sir. I formed an opinion in my own mind< 9> what his source was, but he would never disclose it<10> to me." That was Mr Davidson's evidence?<11> A. That is more in line with my recollection.<12> Q. Sir, with your leave, I am not going to trouble<13> you with Budgen's evidence, but very similar; and I<14> know it will be in your mind.<15> Lest is it be suggested on behalf of anybody<16> that these officers were not trying hard enough,<17> would you agree that, when dealing with an informant<18> who may have had valuable information, it would not<19> be very sensible for them to give a very hostile<20> impression, ie when trying to get information out of<21> him, otherwise he might not cooperate?<22> A. That is true. I think it's a balance between<23> pressing them hard enough to get the maximum, but<24> without alienating them.<25> Q. I don't want to make a cheap point. The words I

. P-6175 WEEDON

< 1> used were the exact words Mr Mansfield to put to< 2> Mr Budgen. Day 128, page 3253. So they would have< 3> to be a bit careful as to how far they pushed him in< 4> other words?< 5> A. Yes, they needed to handle it with some< 6> sensitivity.< 7> Q. B -- you have be dealt within relation to B, I< 8> think, very fully indeed, but there are just two< 9> other matters, I think, additionally I wish to ask<10> you about as I represent Mr Davidson.<11> Firstly, if there is criticism, implied or<12> explicit, as to his view that B was not telling the<13> truth, the first thing is, of course, B was not<14> telling the truth for whatever reason. That is<15> right, is it not?<16> A. That's correct.<17> Q. Secondly, and again I remind you of some<18> evidence Mr Davidson says, page 3094 on Day 17, line<19> 14: "Speaking of B, Davidson said this: `He was of<20> his age very young tender and his mother saying he<21> was a liar. He lies about the time of day it is.'<22> Then I was aware of all those things and I would have<23> asked him all the relevant questions, suffice to say<24> that at the end of it I put him down as undoubtedly a<25> Walter Mitty. I wouldn't do that lightly, sir", he

. P-6176 WEEDON

< 1> said in response to a question. That is what< 2> Davidson says. Just help me about this. Would you< 3> accept that from Davidson, that he is not the kind of< 4> man that would relinquish a possible source of< 5> evidence lightly?< 6> A. He is an experienced informant handler, he is< 7> experienced at dealing with witnesses and I would< 8> value his assessment and judgment on such matters.< 9> Q. We seem to have got the impression from a number<10> of witnesses that he was regarded as an officer who<11> could be relied upon to get things done?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Whether he was in charge of outside enquiries or<14> mainly involved in outside enquiries, Mr Bullock<15> regarded him as a valuable tool, would you echo that?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Finally this. The actions and the messages were<18> well dealt with by Mr Gompertz, but could we please<19> look at one last one at (MET00880123). We see this<20> is the message -- we have seen this although some<21> weeks ago now -- reinterview witness B. This is just<22> has to do with the date of his eventual statement,<23> because I want to examine with you please, sir, why<24> it was so late in the day.<25> If we scan down please, we see that the result

. P-6177 WEEDON

< 1> on these actions which were requested was that at< 2> that time in August 1993, Mr B is not a credible< 3> witness in any shape or form at that time and then,< 4> scanning right down, that is Mr Doel's assessment.< 5> Right down at the bottom: "In any event B is not< 6> prepared to attend court or make a statement to this< 7> end", so there were some intervening in fact before< 8> Mr B would even go into print, if I could use that< 9> crude expression. Do you remember that?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. That is all I want to ask you about that<12> particular topic.<13> Can I ask you now, please, the third topic<14> Mr Bullock and Mr Illsley; and it has to do with who<15> was in charge when you went away that time. You were<16> asked a number of questions about this by Kent; do<17> you remember?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Could we look please at (PCA00420287). There<20> are other references if people would like to look at<21> them at 285 and 286, because Kent asked you a number<22> of questions. They put to you effectively a number<23> of conflicting views, but I am looking selectively at<24> an answer you give towards the bottom of the page,<25> please. Mr Clapperton says: "Does that say anything

. P-6178 WEEDON

< 1> about the way in which you felt Benn Bullock was< 2> working?" You said as follows, your view was that< 3> Mr Illsley should be in charge: "No, I mean it was a< 4> very difficult and sensitive inquiry and that doesn't< 5> reflect in at all on my view of DI Bullock. We had< 6> already reached a position where press enquiries were< 7> being dealt with by Mr Illsley; we had reached a< 8> position where family liaison had responsibility< 9> which had passed to Mr Illsley and it seemed a<10> perfectly natural thing for him to do, for him to<11> assume the role during my temporarily absence."<12> So your view, at any rate, was that Mr Bullock<13> in that sphere remained as deputy, Mr Illsley taking<14> over as SIO. Yes?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. That is not, as you say there, a criticism of<17> Mr Bullock who I do not think anyone is going to<18> suggest is anything other than a hard-working, loyal<19> officer, is he?<20> A. That's correct.<21> Q. It is just that Mr Illsley assumed the important<22> policy function?<23> A. Yes, and any major decisions which needed to be<24> made.<25> Q. Fourth topic: Mr Ashwell and his information.

. P-6179 WEEDON

< 1> You were asked some questions about that, and there< 2> was a question which tended to indicate that it was< 3> implied there was a lack of follow up on that. Can< 4> we look at a document, please (MET00850094). Again,< 5> sir, you and your colleagues have seen this document< 6> before, I know, but if we could scan down the page to< 7> see how it finished. I am going to take this rather< 8> quickly, Mr Weeden, because I appreciate you cannot< 9> be expected to remember all of these matters, but you<10> see that Mr Ashwell was effectively chased up by<11> Mr Davidson?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. We see partial result and index, and then a<14> result in September 1993, "Liaised with Detective<15> Sergeant Davidson who stated he spoke to Ashwell and<16> was informed there was no new information, spoke to<17> DS Ashwell" -- I think we may need to go down a bit<18> more, just over the page: "On 10th September 1993 no<19> new information available there."<20> You would have, and I appreciate you would not<21> necessarily remember when you were informed of this,<22> but you would have been kept in touch with this<23> particular development, would you not?<24> A. Yes, normally through the office meetings, but I<25> may have been told individually as well.

. P-6180 WEEDON

< 1> Q. I mean, the officers involved, the detective< 2> officers involved, would not have kept potentially< 3> important information like this to themselves; it< 4> would have been relayed around the team, would it< 5> not?< 6> A. That's right. It is my belief that the office< 7> meetings provided a forum for a full and frank< 8> exchange of ideas and views as well as on progress< 9> updates.<10> Q. I want to ask you some questions about your<11> notes and it may take a second. Sir, I do not know<12> whether you think this is an appropriate time to<13> break?<14> THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will stop now until.<15> 2 o'clock.<16> (Luncheon Adjournment)<17> MR EGAN: My fifth matter concerns some matters that<18> appear in your notes, please. I am going to use the<19> typed copy as everyone else seems to be. Mr Weeden,<20> I want to look at (PCA00330136).<21> You were asked a number of questions, not that<22> many I suppose, about the racial aspect of this<23> murder. I want to ask you, please, you have already<24> said very fully about your views, but can there be<25> any doubt but that the whole Incident Room regarded

. P-6181 WEEDON

< 1> this as a cowardly and murderous racist attack?< 2> A. No doubt.< 3> Q. That was a view held by all of the officers in< 4> the investigation, was it not?< 5> A. At the time I believed that was the widely< 6> accepted view. There was discussion within the< 7> office, I can remember one or two occasions when< 8> officers pointed out that the group of prime suspects< 9> had previously attacked white people and they seemed<10> to attach, in my view, undue significance to this<11> particular fact. I was at pains to point out that<12> although some, indeed most of the previous offences<13> committed by this group, apparently were against<14> white victims, that did not mean that the group could<15> be incapable, either individually or collectively, of<16> being racist in their attitude and behaviour and, of<17> course, the clearest evidence of that was the attack<18> by apparently five youths on two innocent black<19> youths in a totally unprovoked manner and proceeded<20> by the racist comments.<21> I think there is a further bit of evidence which<22> came, of course, much later and that concerns some<23> material from a later operation, which should have<24> dispelled any doubt, in my view, about the propensity<25> of the suspects to commit racial attacks.

. P-6182 WEEDON

< 1> Q. So you were here dealing with a group that did a< 2> cowardly and murderous attack on two black youths,< 3> they also were prepared to attack white youths as< 4> well. That is what it amounts to, is it not?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. These notes I am going to ask you to look at< 7> now, please, in some of them we see, do you actually< 8> put your personal thoughts down as well, almost< 9> diarised?<10> A. Usually.<11> Q. Can we look at the bottom of the page: "How<12> Inquiry going. Quite well at present. Good response<13> from public, which is perhaps reflection of how the<14> local community feel about this cowardly and<15> murderous racial attack."<16> Those seem to be, correct me if I am wrong, your<17> thoughts?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. That was a view sincerely held by you at the<20> time, was it not?<21> A. Yes. Can I, before you move on, can I make one<22> comment in relation to the allegations that police<23> complained of a wall of silence. That was not a<24> comment that I ever coined and indeed, to the best of<25> my knowledge, never used.

. P-6183 WEEDON

< 1> I was at pains to point out, and I acknowledge< 2> there that there had been a good response from the< 3> public, and I was anxious to continue and encourage< 4> that because I felt that by emphasising the positive< 5> it may encourage other people to come forward.< 6> Sorry if that is a diversion, but it reminds me< 7> of the particular points.< 8> Q. Not at all. You are here to help the Inquiry< 9> and give your evidence, Mr Weeden.<10> It has been suggested, not so much to you, I<11> suppose the implication is there, but to a number of<12> officers, that really the racial side of this attack<13> was of little consequence. Those words, "cowardly"<14> and "murderous" seem to give the line to that, is<15> that clear?<16> A. That was my personal view and was repeated often<17> to the members of the team and stated publicly,<18> indeed.<19> Q. Could we look now please at (PCA00330117). This<20> is going very early on. I want to ask you one or two<21> questions about some points that arise in your notes<22> about the investigation. If we look down the page we<23> see here under the words "manage 12, Donald". Then<24> underneath there seems to be a cast list with<25> allocations being made holding onto some officers and

. P-6184 WEEDON

< 1> letting other officers go. That is clearly what it< 2> is?< 3> A. Yes, I was trying to negotiate for staff.< 4> Q. What you would have been looking for was to get< 5> the best team you could?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. For example, McKenzie, he was good officer, was< 8> he not?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. Look down that page, you may not remember this,<11> where it says "female anon rang Friday night, said<12> stabbing done by two boys, the Krays", you will<13> remember this is message 28/29, sir, the name Andy<14> Goodchild comes up. That was a name which was put up<15> on the Friday, Andy Goodchild, and was still being<16> researched and the actions are in the MET documents.<17> I have already given those references when I asked<18> another witness, so I am not going to repeat them.<19> On the Friday or Saturday the name Andy Goodchild was<20> potentially as significant a name as David Norris,<21> was it not?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. We all now know, of course, that it is not, but<24> on the Friday or the Saturday, certainly by the time<25> you took over on the Monday, that was not the case

. P-6185 WEEDON

< 1> necessarily, was it?< 2> A. That's right.< 3> Q. They all had to be accorded equal importance?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. I am not going to go into it in any detail, you< 6> have given very full answers about Norris, but have< 7> you ever looked in a London telephone directly and< 8> seen how many Norris' there are, do you know?< 9> A. No.<10> Q. Could we look, please, at page 119. Go down the<11> page to the words "BNP". Do you see that? "Vicious<12> people, not BNP"?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. If we go over to the next page, we will try and<15> deal with this rather quickly, "BNP suggestion,<16> sensitive". There are actions which have to do with<17> examining vicious racist groups like the British<18> National Party, but this was something that was<19> considered quite early on, was it not?<20> A. Yes, sir.<21> THE CHAIRMAN: What is the date of that?<22> THE WITNESS: 26th April.<23> MR EGAN: The next page, please, 121, up at the top<24> "FIB need evidence of association. Photos, is there<25> a guy with frizzy hair?" That clearly refers to

. P-6186 WEEDON

< 1> potential surveillance?< 2> A. Yes, sir.< 3> Q. I am sorry if you have been asked about that,< 4> but could you move down to one particular thing you< 5> have not been asked about under "March planned for< 6> Sunday full support, John Davidson needs to pin down< 7> the informant".< 8> That, I suggest to you, must be a reference to< 9> James Grant?<10> A. I agree.<11> Q. Because he was the only person who actually at<12> that time was either going to be registered or had<13> been registered as an informant?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. And "needs to pin down the informant", what does<16> that refer to?<17> A. That means, looking at it, that he is to get as<18> much information from him and do his best to obtain<19> full details and full information from him.<20> Q. Looking at that now, can there be any doubt in<21> your mind that James Grant was indeed an informant?<22> A. There was no doubt whatsoever in my mind.<23> Q. Thank you. Photographs of Norris, 126, again,<24> this is something that has been pretty well covered,<25> I think. I am not going to refer back to the

. P-6187 WEEDON

< 1> reference to Andy Goodchild because I think the< 2> Inquiry have that very fully now.< 3> 126, please. I can track through to a number of< 4> pages but it seems that the photograph of Norris, we< 5> see it at 126, "no photograph of Norris available",< 6> features a number of times in these notes. I will< 7> give the references: 138, that is (PCA00330138), "we< 8> need to get a photograph description".< 9> Then down that page: "Have we got no photos of<10> Norris?"<11> A. "I haven't got photos".<12> Q. "Address needs confirmation at 30th April".<13> At 143, there is no need to turn up this, what<14> really is repetitious because it echoes what is in Mr<15> Bullock's name, 159 and 160, "may have photograph in<16> the passport office", you will remember being asked<17> about that in relation to Mr Bullock?<18> A. Yes, that's right.<19> Q. Help me, please, on two final matters in<20> relation to those notes: firstly your concern about<21> arrests. Could you look please at 151, that is 33,<22> 151, under the heading "brief thought". That is down<23> the page, I think, at the bottom.<24> "Why haven't the people arrested anyone yet?<25> I quite understand that people, especially the

. P-6188 WEEDON

< 1> Lawrence family, want the case to be cleared up as< 2> quickly as possible". This is about the middle of< 3> the week, I think.< 4> DR STONE: Could I trouble you for the date of this.< 5> MR EGAN: 4th May.< 6> "I quite understand that people, especially the< 7> Lawrence family, want the case to be cleared up as< 8> quickly as possible. However, police are not going< 9> to be pressurised into any quick solution. With one<10> tragedy with Stephen's death senseless murder, we are<11> not going to compound it with matters with a second<12> disaster. Police actions will be determined by<13> evidence, not emotion and expediency".<14> I am not going to examine with you the<15> correctness of any judgment you may have made,<16> Mr Weeden, but were those worries and concerns which<17> were going through your mind in that week in May?<18> A. They were sir, yes.<19> Q. That is why you made those notes?<20> A. Yes, it is.<21> I wonder if I might just add something in terms<22> of the decisions to arrest: Yesterday in response to<23> some questions from Mr Mansfield I did deal with my<24> thought processes and indeed the answers I gave to<25> Kent about my knowledge of the powers of arrest at

. P-6189 WEEDON

< 1> the time.< 2> The point I really want to clear up is that the< 3> state of my knowledge about the criminal law and< 4> powers of arrest were considerably better in April< 5> and through 1993 than they were when I was< 6> interviewed by the Kent some 5 years later.< 7> My point is that at the time I knew what the< 8> powers of arrest were under the Police and Criminal< 9> Evidence Act and the Criminal Law Act and I chose not<10> to arrest. I was continuing the strategy developed<11> and agreed by Ian Crampton.<12> That decision about the delay in arrests has<13> been the subject of considerable concern and<14> criticism over the months that followed that and<15> indeed the years that followed that, and having been<16> called upon to defend that decision so often, I<17> believe that by the time of the PCA interview I<18> allowed it to become distorted in my view about<19> whether it was appropriate to arrest and whether<20> indeed it was possible to arrest.<21> I think if one looks at the facts at the time, I<22> think this will support the facts that I am now<23> putting to you. Had that been my belief, that I<24> could not arrest, I would have -- everyone on the<25> whole team would have been aware, it would have been

. P-6190 WEEDON

< 1> the subject of: "I would very much like to do this,< 2> but we can't", whereas what I was actually saying to< 3> the team individually and collectively was: "We need< 4> more evidence." Not: "We cannot do it", but, "we< 5> need more evidence." Moreover, that would have been< 6> the first thing virtually I would have said to< 7> Mr Barker when he conducted the review, and I have no< 8> recollection of having said that.< 9> I think it is important because I have seen some<10> of the media coverage and some of the considerable<11> criticism and surprise which has been expressed in<12> relation to my state of knowledge, but I really want<13> to return to the point that in 1993, sir, the<14> knowledge that I had of the criminal law was far<15> better than 5 years later when I allowed the extent<16> of my knowledge to be come distorted by events and<17> criticisms of a considerable character.<18> Q. Your note at the time we have just looked at<19> compounded with a second disaster, was that perhaps<20> the fear of perhaps an arrest that might lead to<21> people being in custody and then having to be<22> released because of a lack of evidence? Is that what<23> that is a reference to?<24> A. No, I was more concerned with a miscarriage of<25> justice in terms of, perhaps as a result of

. P-6191 WEEDON

< 1> considerable pressure for quick results that I did< 2> feel that there was so much pressure that police< 3> action may have been thought, you know, it could be< 4> determined by emotion and expediency and pressure< 5> rather than the evidence that was available.< 6> I know that this is said to have occurred in the< 7> past in some notable cases where police have been< 8> under pressure to do things quickly and,< 9> subsequently, miscarriages have a risen.<10> Q. Last of all of your notes please, 163. This has<11> to do with the interviews that Mr Milner, the<12> solicitor, represented people, amongst others the<13> Acourts and Mr Norris. Could you look at 2.55 pm<14> please. You see there it says: "2.5 pm Milner says<15> we can take as long as we like. Will make no<16> reply."<17> A. Yes, sir.<18> Q. Was that a reference to Henry Milner<19> saying: "You can ask questions all day and night if<20> you like, but are you not getting any replies out of<21> my clients"?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. That is all I want to ask you about those notes.<24> The 6th matter I want to ask you about is family<25> liaison. I think in fact I have nothing to ask you

. P-6192 WEEDON

< 1> about that because everything has been covered by< 2> Mr Gompertz.< 3> Finally, just two very short matters, please.< 4> You were you asked about your partaking in the CPS< 5> decision and a number of document have been put to< 6> you. I put it to Mr Bullock, I am not going ask for< 7> the document to be put up: do you recollect< 8> mentioning at a meeting I think on 4th June that in< 9> your view, even after Mr Crowley's evidence was taken<10> into account, Mr Duwayne Brooks was a credible<11> witness who ought to be relied upon, or could be<12> relied upon?<13> A. Yes, I thought he should be given the benefit of<14> the doubt, and I was anxious to sustain a prosecution<15> for as long and as properly as could be done.<16> Q. In relation to, of course, decisions to<17> prosecute the CPS decision is binding on the police,<18> is it not?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. And, of course, it will be familiar to the<21> Chairman, but as this is a public Inquiry, the power<22> of the police to prosecute had been subjugated to the<23> Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of section<24> 1 and section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act<25> 1985. That is right, is it not?

. P-6193 WEEDON

< 1> A. I believe so, sir, yes.< 2> Q. Thank you.< 3> Finally this please. You worked in complaints< 4> and discipline for a time, did you not?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Are you aware that in 1985, as a result of< 7> legislation enacted by virtue of the Police and< 8> Criminal Evidence Act and the Police Acts, new< 9> offences under the Police Discipline Regulations were<10> brought into force under Schedule 1 of the Police<11> Discipline Regulations?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. One of them was specifically highlighting<14> racially discriminating behaviour, was it not?<15> A. Yes.<16> MR EGAN: I have a copy of that. It may be of<17> assistance if the Tribunal had that now. It can be<18> filled. It is very much a matter of record.<19> THE CHAIRMAN: You can give it out later on.<20> MR EGAN: I will do that. Thank you Mr Weeden.<21> THE WITNESS: Thank you sir.<22> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MCDONALD.<23> Q. Mr Weeden, I am asking you those questions on<24> behalf of Duwayne Brooks?<25> A. Yes, sir.

. P-6194 WEEDON

< 1> Q. I thought I heard you say a few minutes ago in< 2> reply to Mr Egan, the last barrister that was asking< 3> you, that you never coined the phrase "a wall of< 4> silence" and, to the best of your recollection, you< 5> never used it?< 6> A. To of the best of my recollection that is the< 7> position, yes.< 8> Q. I wonder if we could call up (MET/00780195). On< 9> the right there is an extract from the Voice of the<10> 26th April 1994?<11> A. Is it column 1 or two, sir?<12> Q. On the right?<13> A. On the right.<14> Q. The article on the right is headed: "Police<15> Attack -- wall of silence over tragic Stephen<16> murder", and do you see the fourth paragraph down,<17> the last paragraph in the first column there?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. "Superintendent Brian Weeden, who is leading the<20> murder hunt, said that killers were being shielded by<21> a wall of silence which must be broken down"?<22> A. I see the comment, sir, but I return to my<23> remark that I don't have any recollection of either<24> coining the phrase or using it.<25> Q. That is not an inaccurate recording of what you

. P-6195 WEEDON

< 1> said?< 2> A. It is suggesting that I said that it is putting< 3> in speech marks. I do not have a recollection of< 4> using that phrase. It is not the thing, the sort of< 5> thing that I would normally say.< 6> Q. But it looks from that as if you said it on that< 7> occasion?< 8> A. It looks to me as though it is being attributed< 9> to me, yes, certainly, but I think it's a wrong<10> attribution to the best of my knowledge and belief.<11> Q. Who should it be attributed then?<12> A. I honestly don't know. I think you would need<13> to ask whoever wrote the article.<14> Q. Can I come back to Duwayne Brooks. So far as<15> Duwayne is concerned, Mr Brooks, your view, which I<16> think you have expressed on a number of occasions and<17> particularly when you were giving evidence to the<18> Kent Inquiry, was that Mr Brooks was helpful,<19> truthful, cooperative?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. And, expressly, never in any way a suspect?<22> A. Correct.<23> Q. You have been asked some questions about letters<24> that you wrote in your first week as SIO on this<25> Inquiry, and you mentioned letters that you wrote to

. P-6196 WEEDON

< 1> Mr Brook's mother and father?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Can we call up (PCA00460079). That is the< 4> letter to Mr Brooks?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. If we can go back to (PCA00460076), the< 7> identical letter to Mrs Brooks?< 8> A. Yes. Just take it up a bit, sir, because I will< 9> read the whole document.<10> Q. Yes.<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. This was letter which was in fact received by<13> Mr Brook's mother. This one did not get diverted or<14> lost. In there you say you want to make it perfectly<15> clear that the police do not suspect Duwayne of any<16> criminal involvement in this case whatsoever: "On the<17> contrary, he has proved to be a helpful and truthful<18> witness"?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. That was your view then and I think remains your<21> view of Duwayne Brooks?<22> A. Certainly that is what I wrote at the time, and<23> that was my belief.<24> Q. Can I just ask you this. You wrote those two<25> letters, one to his mother and one to his father. At

. P-6197 WEEDON

< 1> the time Mr Brooks was aged 18, was he not?< 2> A. I believe so, yes.< 3> Q. He was and adult. Is there any reason that you< 4> can give us as to why you could not make that< 5> communication to him himself?< 6> A. As I recall, I think Duwayne may have been< 7> living away from home at that time.< 8> Q. You had his address, did you not?< 9> A. I am sorry?<10> Q. You had his address?<11> A. I believe so, sir, I was just attempting reflect<12> back five years: it is a little difficult. I think<13> he was still in contact with his parents and we were<14> anxious to support him. He was getting direct<15> support through the victim liaison officers DS Bevan<16> and WDC Holden but, of course, it was equally<17> important that his immediate family should be able to<18> support him and be fully informed about the police<19> view of his status and recognition of the assistance<20> he was giving us.<21> Q. That is not in dispute in any way, Mr Weeden?<22> A. I am sorry, I do not understand the point, sir.<23> Q. I want to know why it is that you could not see<24> fit to write to Mr Brooks himself?<25> A. Mr Brooks was being continually dealt with on a

. P-6198 WEEDON

< 1> day-to-day basis, I believe, by the victim liaison< 2> officers and he was getting direct verbal, that sort< 3> of assistance through them directly.< 4> Q. This is a letter which was no doubt intended to< 5> put the recipients of that letter very much at their< 6> ease, and to tell them of the appreciation of the< 7> police for what they were doing to help in the< 8> inquiry, or what Mr Brooks was doing to help in the< 9> inquiry?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Did you not think that Mr Brooks would like to<12> know that directly from you?<13> A. I am perfectly confident that Mr Brooks was<14> aware of this letter, the content, and I am not sure<15> now whether I gave the officers a copy to show him,<16> but certainly my belief was that Mr Brooks of course<17> was entitled to know the contents and get the<18> reassurance which it contains.<19> Q. You see, Mr Brooks had been seen, I think, on<20> the 26th. The 26th, I think, was your first day, was<21> it not as SIO?<22> A. It was my first day, but I don't know if he was<23> seen then.<24> Q. There were problems of some kind contacting<25> Mr Brooks over the weekend, but was seen on the

. P-6199 WEEDON

< 1> Monday, was he not?< 2> A. Yes. I am saying yes, sir, if you say so.< 3> Q. Then I think that there was pretty regular< 4> contact over the next two or 3 weeks between him and< 5> Mr Bevan?< 6> A. I know there was contact. I cannot recall the< 7> regularity of it.< 8> Q. Yes. But is it just an oversight that you, as< 9> it were, decided to go over his head with this<10> important information?<11> A. No.<12> Q. Or was it done deliberately?<13> A. I think that is, quite frankly, an absurd<14> suggestion. Mr Brooks was being ----<15> Q. I am not making any suggestion. I am trying to<16> find out from you.<17> A. You have suggested it to me, sir, and my<18> response is that it is totally wrong. Mr Brooks, you<19> will see numerous references I make to him in various<20> documents, I always regarded as deserving of support,<21> consideration and reassurance, and I was not trying<22> to keep anything secret from him. Indeed, he is<23> inevitably going find out the contents of it, even<24> through his parents alone. I was also saying let mr<25> Brooks know about what we are doing, writing to his

. P-6200 WEEDON

< 1> parents in these terms, so that he can get that< 2> reassurance. To suggest that we are trying to keep< 3> something from him is just simply not the case.< 4> Q. So far as Mr Brooks was concerned, you took the< 5> view that he was not only a likely good witness, but< 6> that he was believable on the two main aspects of his< 7> original statement?< 8> A. I don't know which two aspects.< 9> Q. First of all, the description that he gave of<10> how this fatal attack started and took place; that it<11> was unprovoked?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. That it was done by complete strangers?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. That it was prefaced by the first attacker<16> saying: "What, what nigger" when he was saying<17> something to Mr Lawrence?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. So far as that was concerned, you accepted that<20> that account was correct, honest and believable?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. And that it gave you, no doubt, a profile of the<23> kind of people you were looking for?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. They would be people who walked the street

. P-6201 WEEDON

< 1> carrying weapons?< 2> A. They certainly had weapons on this occasion.< 3> Q. That they were likely to engage in unprovoked< 4> violence against people and that they were racist?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Of course, so far as the main suspects were< 7> concerned, all those attributes were roundly< 8> confirmed as far as they were concerned?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You have made it absolutely clear so far in your<11> evidence that you had no difficulty at all in<12> accepting, as a result really of Duwayne Brooks'<13> evidence, that this was a murder where there was a<14> racist motive?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Did your officers who were working under you<17> have the same view as you about that?<18> A. I think the vast majority did.<19> Q. But some had a bit of difficulty; is that what<20> you are saying?<21> A. As I explained to Mr Egan and for the reasons I<22> gave earlier.<23> Q. You say that you had to do quite a bit of work<24> for them and with them, persuading them that they had<25> to treat this as an unprovoked, racially motivated

. P-6202 WEEDON

< 1> attack on two quite innocent young black men walking< 2> out in the streets late at night?< 3> A. Well, you say quite a bit of work, I would not< 4> characterise it as an uphill struggle. I did mention< 5> on a number of occasions that the fact that people< 6> are capable of attacking white victims does not< 7> exclude the possibility that they can be racist in< 8> other situations.< 9> Q. It was quite important, was it not, for the<10> purposes of the investigation that you were focused<11> on finding the kind of people who were engaging in<12> this sort of unprovoked attack and did not waste your<13> time looking for whether there was some kind of gang<14> warfare going on or other things like that?<15> A. Yes. To be frank and to put it in perspective I<16> mean the issue of the attacks by the prime suspects<17> on other white victims was not something that<18> dominated the meetings. It cropped up a couple of<19> times and I made my view, both personally and as a<20> matter of policy, which was not challenged, quite<21> clear.<22> Q. Yes. That was the way you approached it from<23> day 1?<24> A. Yes.<25> Q. On the other main part of Duwayne Brooks'

. P-6203 WEEDON

< 1> statement you also took the view, did you not, I< 2> think have you expressed it at least to Kent and< 3> other places, that he would also probably make a good< 4> identification witness?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. Can I ask you this: In the witness statement< 7> that was taken from Duwayne Brooks, the long witness< 8> statement, the first one, that was taken from him in< 9> the police station in the early morning after the<10> murder, there is a description of the main attacker<11> in which the hairstyle is described, but no colour is<12> given to the hair. I think you are fully aware of<13> that, are you not?<14> A. I am.<15> Q. You were asked a little bit about that, as you<16> probably remember, when you were interviewed by the<17> Kent Inquiry?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. What I wanted to find out from you is at that<20> time and when you took over this Inquiry were you<21> told about the statement that Duwayne Brooks had made<22> to PC Gleason at the hospital, almost immediately<23> after Stephen Lawrence's body had been taken there?<24> A. I don't recall, no. I don't recall being told<25> about that.

. P-6204 WEEDON

< 1> Q. You were not told about it when you took over as< 2> the SIO on the Monday morning?< 3> A. I don't recall it separately and I don't think I< 4> have a note of it.< 5> Q. No. When did you first become aware of that< 6> statement?< 7> A. I certainly heard about it in past week or two< 8> and I cannot be absolutely certain when I did.< 9> Q. Yes. You learned about it, as it were, after<10> you had stopped being the SIO in this murder<11> investigation?<12> A. Yes, sir, I retired 4 years ago.<13> Q. I wonder if we could have a very quick look at<14> that statement. It is (PCA00450072). This is, I am<15> afraid, from the notebook of PC Gleason. If we can<16> go down on the side that has page 14 on it, go a bit<17> further down, you can see there he gives a<18> description of the attacker. Do you see that?<19> A. No, sir. Is it where the marker is, "who had<20> blue jeans"?<21> Q. "Who had blue jeans, his hair was bushy, light<22> brown".<23> A. "And stuck out".<24> Q. "He was about 19 to 20." The fact that Duwayne<25> Brooks at a very, very early stage had given a

. P-6205 WEEDON

< 1> description of the hair colour to a police officer< 2> was not brought to your attention as the SIO at any< 3> stage during your period of office?< 4> A. I don't recall it. That is not to say that it< 5> did not happen, but I don't recall it, and certainly< 6> it did not form part of the briefing I received on< 7> 26th April 1993.< 8> Q. Do you think it ought to have been brought to< 9> your attention?<10> A. Yes, because it contains fuller detail about the<11> hair colour which was not shown in the original<12> statement, comprehensive though that statement was.<13> Q. In many other ways?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. In practically every other way?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. You took the view that -- in fact, it is a<18> general view -- the sooner someone who is a possible<19> identification witness can have an opportunity of<20> going in front of an identity parade the better?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. I think that you were asked about this by the<23> Kent Police Inquiry. Can we have (PCA00420300) up.<24> You are asked in the middle of the page by<25> Mr Clapperton: "I think you would agree that Duwayne

. P-6206 WEEDON

< 1> Brooks was trying to be helpful in your Inquiry?"< 2> Then you were asked about whether they could tie< 3> this into the fact there had been a 6 week delay and< 4> therefore he was finding it more difficult to pick< 5> out a suspect for you and was trying to be helpful by< 6> picking out Luke Knight in this fashion. That is< 7> referring, is it not, to the identification parade of< 8> 3rd June?< 9> A. Yes, it is. I think in respect of the reference<10> to a 6 weeks delay that is slightly misleading<11> because Luke Knight did not become a suspect until, I<12> think, probably about the third week.<13> Q. I think it is referring to the time lapse<14> between the event and the seeing the suspect?<15> A. I understand that. The only point I was making<16> is that it was, in effect, a 3 week delay between the<17> time that Luke Knight became a suspect and when the<18> parade took place, or possibly even less.<19> Q. You took the view that, as you can see there, if<20> you had been given an opportunity of seeing Knight at<21> the early stages, then you would have perhaps got a<22> much more reliable identification?<23> A. Yes, with the proviso I have mentioned had<24> Knight also been a suspect earlier.<25> Q. Yes, I appreciate that. I think you would

. P-6207 WEEDON

< 1> accept, would you not, that in all the arguments that< 2> have been put to you about the early arrest of< 3> suspects, as opposed to your view that there may be< 4> advantages if you delayed the arrests?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. One advantage, of course, of arresting early is< 7> that your possible identification witnesses can get< 8> an opportunity of seeing the suspects while their< 9> memories are still very fresh?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Obviously that is an advantage, is it not?<12> A. That is an advantage, but it has to be set<13> against the other considerations such as, when you<14> arrest people there is tendency for other potential<15> witnesses not to come forward and of course we were<16> still seeking direct evidence from witnesses to the<17> attack, to link the offenders.<18> Q. I am not going to go back into that?<19> A. I am grateful for that, sir.<20> Q. Then, of course, Mr Brooks makes two<21> identifications?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. One of Neil Acourt, then the one on 3rd June.<24> And so far as I understand your evidence, the<25> intervention of DS Crowley after the 3rd June you

. P-6208 WEEDON

< 1> regarded as something which was very disappointing< 2> and had a very serious effect upon your< 3> investigation?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You were asked some questions by a couple of< 6> counsel about the way in which you learned about< 7> Detective Sergeant Crowley, and you said you were at< 8> a meeting at the CPS in the early part of the day?< 9> A. Yes.<10> Q. You yourself did not make any notes at the time,<11> and there are no notes in the police station; but let<12> me call up and allow you to have a look at some notes<13> that were made by people within the CPS about that.<14> Can we have up on the screen (PCA00460166).<15> Perhaps can I make this clear without having to<16> go back. This is in fact a handwritten memorandum<17> which was written by a Mr Grant White to a Mr Gordon<18> Etherington. Yes?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. That appears at an earlier page, page 162. Can<21> we go back to 165 please. If we go down to the<22> bottom of the page, this is describing a conference<23> which you were attending, a case conference, held on<24> the 3rd June. Do you accept that from me?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6209 WEEDON

< 1> Q. You can see there paragraph 4.1: "During the< 2> conference DS Weeden received a telephone call< 3> informing him that another named suspect, Luke< 4> Knight, who had been arrested that morning, was< 5> positively identified by the crucial witness Duwayne< 6> Brooks", and then it in fact has the police station,< 7> but it has somehow got cutoff the bottom of the page?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. Does that help your memory?<10> A. Yes, I recall that occurring.<11> Q. What that note suggests is that, while you were<12> at the conference, someone phones through to you and<13> informs you of the identification?<14> A. Yes.<15> Q. But nothing there to indicate that there was<16> anything wrong at all with that identification?<17> A. No, I do not believe that was communicated to me<18> at that time.<19> Q. Can you help us with this. Was that<20> communicated to you by someone were your incident<21> room, or was communicated to you by the inspector at<22> the identification suite?<23> A. Almost certainly by someone at my incident room.<24> Q. And someone at your incident room would have<25> been contacted by the officer at the identification

. P-6210 WEEDON

< 1> suite?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. If there had been anything wrong with that< 4> identification, or if it had been a suspect< 5> identification in any way, would you expect to have< 6> been told that?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. So it would appear that while you were at the< 9> CPS you were told about an identification by Duwayne<10> Brooks which seemed to be all above board, no<11> questions asked about it, quite straight forward?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Then if we go to page 166, we can see that there<14> is a discussion at 4.2 about what to do. Then at<15> paragraph 5, on the 4th June, Mr Medwinter of the CPS<16> was phoned by you, confirming that the suspect, Luke<17> Knight, was positively identified and that a further<18> ID parade was arranged for other witnesses to go and<19> see the same person?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. You also disclosed, we can see that in the next<22> paragraph down, the whole business about DS Crowley.<23> Then you describe that. Does that help your memory<24> at all?<25> A. Yes, it says, I believe, I outlined----

. P-6211 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Then over on page 167 at the top, you inform the< 2> CPS that, having put DS Crowley's statement to the< 3> witness, Duwayne Brooks, obtained a further statement< 4> from him detailing the nature of the alleged< 5> conversation between him and DS Crowley. Yes?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. And he claims that the officer had totally< 8> misunderstood what he had said (that is the gist of< 9> what are you telling them) and then you express a<10> view which the CPS have recorded. Do you see that?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. When the writing gets bigger again:<13> "Superintendent Weeden expressed the view that,<14> notwithstanding the alleged conversation between DS<15> Crowley and Duwayne Brooks, the latter remained a<16> credible witness. It was his opinion that DS Crowley<17> misinterpreted whatever was said by Brooks." Do you<18> remember saying that?<19> A. Well, I remember it created a particular problem<20> for me and that the benefit of any doubt should be<21> resolved in favour of Duwayne Brooks.<22> Q. Let me just see. Your opinion was that Crowley<23> had misinterpreted whatever was said by Brooks?<24> A. I thought it was possible.<25> Q. Well, the question is: is that a correct putting

. P-6212 WEEDON

< 1> down of your opinion?< 2> A. Yes, I would not argue with it. It was my< 3> opinion that Brooks remained a credible witness, and< 4> there possibly had been some misunderstanding or< 5> misinterpretation.< 6> Q. That was your view expressed after you had put< 7> in train the further enquiries by your officer:< 8> "Make sure Crowley makes a statement, and the two< 9> officers. Please go and see Duwayne Brooks and get<10> the necessary further witness statement from him"?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. That had all been done?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. Then you phone up the CPS and express this<15> opinion to them?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. Thank you.<18> You have given us your particular view that you<19> formed about Duwayne Brooks and his helpfulness, his<20> truthfulness and his cooperation with your enquiry.<21> It is right, is it not, that so far as he is was<22> concerned, not necessarily during your period as SIO,<23> he made something like nine statements?<24> A. I believe so.<25> Q. He went on three identification parades?

. P-6213 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. He gave evidence at the Magistrates Court?< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. At the Crown court?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. And at the Inquest?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. And met police at all times in between all that< 9> to answer queries and to deal with points that they<10> wanted to put to him?<11> A. Yes, I believe so.<12> Q. You must be aware, are you not, Mr Weeden, that<13> a number of the officers who were part of your<14> investigation team described Duwayne Brooks as blase,<15> arrogant, rude, aggressive, highly excitable,<16> uncooperative, surly and showing no signs of<17> emotional grief. Those are some of the descriptions<18> given of him by officers who were part of your<19> enquiry team. Were you aware of that?<20> A. Yes. If those comments are contained in a type<21> of proforma which was sent out by the CPS, I know<22> that officers were invited to record the details of<23> their dealings with Duwayne Brooks and, obviously,<24> those comments reflected their own personal views of<25> the occasions they dealt with him.

. P-6214 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Those were not views you have ever expressed< 2> about him, are they?< 3> A. No.< 4> Q. They are very contrary to the kind of views you< 5> have expressed about him?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Do you think, from your experience of dealing< 8> with Duwayne Brooks and the kind of view you told us< 9> that you formed about him, that those officers under<10> your command have got it wrong?<11> A. No, I think that they are genuinely and honestly<12> reporting what their personal experience of him was.<13> Q. Do you think any of those characterisations of<14> Duwayne Brooks are either unfair or exaggerated?<15> A. It is impossible for me to say.<16> Q. Have you ever considered whether in making<17> comments of that kind about Duwayne Brooks that,<18> effectively, officers under your command were<19> racially stereotyping him?<20> A. I don't believe that is the case.<21> Q. You see, you must be aware of racial<22> stereotyping?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. You have been asked questions before about<25> whether officers under your command said racially

. P-6215 WEEDON

< 1> offensive things?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. And you said, "Certainly not" and, if they had,< 4> you would have taken task with them?< 5> A. Correct.< 6> Q. But, of course, that is dealing, is it not, with< 7> kind of blatant, open racially prejudiced remarks, is< 8> it not?< 9> A. Yes, but if they had been invited to comment on<10> their personal knowledge and experience of dealing<11> with a white victim or witness in similar<12> circumstances, I am sure that they would have been at<13> pains to be equally truthful. There would be no<14> benefit whatsoever in them giving an untrue or<15> distorted picture of their dealings with Mr Brooks.<16> They had those dealings with him at traumatic and<17> trying times. I do not think it is possible for me<18> to comment further, other than say I have confidence<19> in the integrity of the officers were making the<20> comments.<21> Q. All times that any of you were dealing with<22> Mr Brooks were difficult and traumatic, were they<23> not?<24> A. Yes, but of course the early stages were<25> particularly difficult for Mr Brooks, and

. P-6216 WEEDON

< 1> understandably so.< 2> Q. Do you appreciate that racial stereotyping is a< 3> much more subtle thing than making blatant, racial< 4> abuse or cracking racial jokes?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. It may be something that people do without< 7> actually being aware they are doing it?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. And that people, without being aware are doing<10> it, ascribe characteristics to somebody of a<11> particular race which may not be true, but which fit<12> a stereotype? Do you follow?<13> A. I do follow. I think that is possible, but I<14> have no evidence that that happened in this<15> particular case.<16> Q. You have no evidence that it did not. That is<17> just a view, is it not?<18> A. I can say that I have confidence that the<19> officers would truthfully and honestly report their<20> dealings. You have given me and account there of<21> some of the critical comments, but I'm sure that they<22> weren't wholly so. I am sure there must be others<23> which were of perhaps a more balanced nature.<24> Q. Let us see. "Surly" and "uncooperative" is<25> quite the contrary of what you found Mr Brooks to be?

. P-6217 WEEDON

< 1> A. These officers are reflecting there their< 2> personal dealings, as I say, at very, very difficult< 3> times, many of them on the night of the murder. It< 4> is not possible for me to comment on the validity of< 5> those remarks other than say I can see no motive or< 6> benefit, and whether there is any racist background< 7> to it subliminal or otherwise. I just don't< 8> acknowledge that.< 9> Q. During your police service have you observed<10> fellow police officers behaving in a way in which you<11> believe to involve racial stereotyping of a black<12> person?<13> A. No, but of course unless -- if I can just add to<14> that, having been a supervising officer for 27 years<15> I think it is very unlikely that anyone would make<16> any racist remarks or act in a racist way in my<17> presence, and difficult though that may be for some<18> to accept, it is the truth.<19> Q. So, in addition to not seeing people behaving in<20> a way which involves stereotyping, you have never<21> witnessed racist remarks from any police officers you<22> have served with?<23> A. I have experienced an occasion when there was<24> racist conduct and, in fact, I took disciplinary<25> action and a discipline board followed.

. P-6218 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Racist jokes?< 2> A. There was an element of racist remarks. I< 3> certainly do not recall any racist jokes having been< 4> made. I am not surprised they would not have been< 5> made in my presence because people knew my attitude< 6> to such conduct and behaviour and they knew -- they< 7> just would not do it.< 8> I am just trying to emphasise that although< 9> there is a perception that there is widespread racism<10> in thoughts and actions in the police, it is not the<11> case.<12> Q. It has passed you by if it is there?<13> A. I can only speak from my personal experience. I<14> am not naive enough to say it does not exist. I can<15> speak from my personal experience and those of many<16> officers with whom I come into contact.<17> Q. No doubt you have had black colleagues working<18> with you in the police force?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Have any of them had cause to complain to you<21> about the way they have been treated by their fellow<22> officers at any stage?<23> A. No, they have not. I have always enjoyed<24> excellent relationships with my colleagues, whether<25> they are black officers or members of the civilian

. P-6219 WEEDON

< 1> staff.< 2> Q. So if there is any racism within the< 3> Metropolitan Police, it is not something that, except< 4> on this one occasion that you had to discipline< 5> someone, you have ever come across?< 6> A. Correct.< 7> Q. Mr Brooks was asked at a very early stage if he< 8> could provide a photograph of himself. Do you recall< 9> that?<10> A. Well, I understand that I think that is<11> something I have learned of fairly recently.<12> Q. I do not want to put you in any difficulties.<13> Let us have up (PCA00350161). Perhaps if you read<14> the body of that to yourself.<15> A. Yes. I do not know how it came to be ----<16> Q. Just read it and then I will ask you some<17> questions.<18> A. Okay.<19> Q. Do you know why Duwayne Brooks was asked to give<20> a photograph?<21> A. No.<22> Q. No idea at all?<23> A. I cannot think of any reason why we would want a<24> photograph of him.<25> Q. You see, when your deputy, Mr Bullock, gave

. P-6220 WEEDON

< 1> evidence, he said that the reason would be that it< 2> would be something that you could show to witnesses?< 3> A. Well, I do not have any recollection of that< 4> being done. It may be Mr Bullock's recollection, but< 5> it shows there that as soon as I was aware that< 6> action had been raised I instructed it should be< 7> aborted.< 8> Q. Let us follow up: showing it to witnesses would< 9> not make the slightest bit of difference because out<10> of all of the evidence there was one black person at<11> the scene of the murder who survived?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. I know you, as it were, brought the action to an<14> end because that is what it says there?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. Did you not try and find out what on earth it<17> was that officers under your command had wanted in<18> seeking a photograph of Mr Brooks?<19> A. I don't have any recollection, but I could not<20> think of any reason why we would want a photograph,<21> so I stopped it.<22> Q. So far as you are aware no photographs were<23> asked, were they, of the other witnesses, like<24> Mr Westbrook or Mr Shepherd, they were not asked for<25> photographs, were they?

. P-6221 WEEDON

< 1> A. Not to my knowledge.< 2> Q. The only person to whom that request was made< 3> was Duwayne Brooks as far as you know?< 4> A. That appears to be so. As I say, as soon as I< 5> became aware of it I instructed it should not be< 6> continued.< 7> THE CHAIRMAN: It is 3.05, Mr McDonald. Do you want< 8> to break now or carry on?< 9> MR MCDONALD: I am very nearly finished.<10> THE CHAIRMAN: You carry on. It is entirely up to<11> you.<12> MR MCDONALD: I think you said in the joint statement<13> that you made with the other senior officers that you<14> never lost sight of the fact that Duwayne Brooks was<15> also a victim?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. You obviously appreciated that he was a young<18> man who was under very considerable stress?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. Had probably been quite traumatised by what he<21> had been through?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. You also say that at no time did the police<24> officer him any counselling?<25> A. I am not sure if that is as it appears in the

. P-6222 WEEDON

< 1> joint statement.< 2> Q. I am taking it from the joint statement?< 3> A. I think I now have some recollection of there< 4> being some liaison between the liaison officers and< 5> Mr Penston. I am not sure if that is something which< 6> arises from documents I have seen more recently or< 7> whether I knew that at the time.< 8> Q. Can I ask you this: where in a case of this kind< 9> that you have someone who has been through an<10> extremely traumatic event and who may be quite badly<11> affected, as we know that Duwayne Brooks has been, do<12> you have any way of either highlighting that or<13> recognising it?<14> A. Well, it is fairly routine for the direct<15> victims of crime to be offered Victim Support Service<16> and support and often counselling would flow from<17> that. I could certainly emphasise to the victim<18> liaison officers from the outset that they were to<19> continue to provide Duwayne Brooks with all support<20> which was needed and, as I recall, that included<21> Victim Support Services.<22> I also recall that at a fairly early stage, I<23> think probably as early as the 27th, Mr Brooks was<24> represented by a solicitor and, of course, it may be<25> that some arrangement was made through his solicitor

. P-6223 WEEDON

< 1> in that capacity.< 2> Q. I do not want to call it up, we have had before< 3> an action suggesting that the Victim Support Scheme< 4> were contacted by Mr Bevan, but were you aware that< 5> that was not actually brought to Mr Brooks'< 6> attention?< 7> A. I do not quite follow -- the Victim Support< 8> Services were contacted by Bevan.< 9> Q. Were contacted by one of your officers?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. They certainly, on my instructions, never<12> contacted Duwayne Brooks and he was not told that<13> that had been done?<14> A. It still leaves me in the position, I don't know<15> whether it was because the officers did not tell<16> Duwayne Brooks or the VSS did not tell Duwayne<17> Brooks.<18> Q. It is not the same position as writing letters<19> to his parents but not to him, it is not that<20> situation, is it?<21> A. I don't know what happened in that particular<22> instance. I don't know that I can help you much<23> further.<24> Q. Coming back to the position, you have told us<25> about liaison officers, you know, looking at the

. P-6224 WEEDON

< 1> needs of someone, but what about the situation where< 2> someone is so severely traumatised that they are< 3> going to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder,< 4> do you have any procedures for either recognising< 5> that possibility or dealing with it?< 6> A. I would say in the normal course of events I< 7> would expect the first port of call to be to the< 8> victim liaison officers, then Victim Support Services< 9> as a referral agency, rather than going straight from<10> the police station to a post traumatic stress<11> disorder counsellor.<12> Q. Mr Bevan may be a very nice man and all the rest<13> of it, but he is not psychiatrically trained, is he?<14> A. No, but I believe, if I can just complete the<15> answer, Mr McDonald, I think there probably are<16> people better qualified within Victim Support Service<17> organisation.<18> Q. Yes. You never made any check at any time, did<19> you, that that particular service had, in fact, made<20> contact with Duwayne Brooks and was giving him any<21> kind of help or advice or whatever?<22> A. I think that is probably true.<23> Q. You see, Duwayne Brooks, we say, was not in fact<24> offered any victim support or counselling by the<25> police. Do you accept that that is some kind of

. P-6225 WEEDON

< 1> fault on the police's part, if that is the case?< 2> A. Well, I think, whether as a matter of fact or< 3> perception, if Mr Brooks' feels that, then obviously< 4> we need to see what we can do about that situation.< 5> I would just like to return briefly to the point< 6> that I was being reassured by the victim liaison< 7> officers that every assistance was being offered to< 8> Mr Brooks and when I believe the solicitor became< 9> involved on the 27th and a little later Mr Penston<10> became involved, I was fairly satisfied that all<11> necessary support was being provided for him.<12> There may perhaps be a danger there that where<13> there are a number of agencies or individuals trying<14> to fulfil essentially a similar role there is scope<15> for confusion.<16> MR MCDONALD: Would that be convenient point? I have<17> about three more questions on a separate topic and I<18> have just been given another document.<19> THE CHAIRMAN: We will start again at 3.30.<20> (Short Adjournment)<21> MR MCDONALD: Mr Weeden, I think I have, hopefully,<22> one more question for you. It is going to the series<23> of questions were you asked about the red Astra. My<24> question is this. Did you know or do you know<25> whether CRO checks were carried out on Copley,

. P-6226 WEEDON

< 1> Goatley and Hyland?< 2> A. I don't know after this period of time.< 3> MR MCDONALD: Thank you.< 4> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR PANTON< 5> MR PANTON: Mr Weeden, I ask question on behalf of the< 6> London Borough of Greenwich. Can I first of all< 7> mention a point, an answer you gave to Mr McDonald.< 8> You said you had confidence in the truthfulness and< 9> honesty of the officers in the team?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Was that based on your personal knowledge of<12> each of the officers, or was it a mere hope that they<13> would be honest and truthful?<14> A. Well, it was based on personal experience of<15> having worked with some of the officers previously,<16> but of course some of the officers, the first time I<17> ever met them was when I arrived at the Incident Room<18> on 26th April; so it also reflects, in respect of<19> those officers I had not met prior to the 26th of<20> April, my perception and opinion of them during the<21> time from the 26th of April onwards.<22> Q. It may also reflect an unwillingness to accept<23> that officers are sometimes not truthful and not<24> honest.<25> A. I always give every one, whether they are police

. P-6227 WEEDON

< 1> officers or members of the public, the benefit of the< 2> doubt, and I prefer to be neutral about things from< 3> the outset and perhaps if there is any tendency, I< 4> tend to believe the best of people rather than< 5> otherwise, but as soon as anything happens that< 6> indicates they are not worthy of that trust or< 7> confidence, I change my opinion as appropriate.< 8> Q. Can I move on to a different topic. Did you< 9> have a profile of the people you described as<10> unwilling or reluctant witnesses? For example, were<11> they mainly young people?<12> A. Predominantly young people, yes, I would say so,<13> but not exclusively.<14> Q. Predominantly young people. Were you surprised?<15> A. Not surprised. I was disappointed.<16> Q. Also some of those young people may be close<17> friends and associates of the five suspects?<18> A. It is certainly possible they may have known<19> them.<20> Q. Also some of those young people may have shared<21> the racist views expressed by the suspects?<22> A. I can't say one way or the other.<23> Q. Was that not something that you considered?<24> A. Yes, but I had to act in a positive way and try<25> and elicit from the potential witnesses what evidence

. P-6228 WEEDON

< 1> they could give. The matter of reluctance could have< 2> arisen from a variety of factors.< 3> Q. It should not have surprised you that certain< 4> young people, or many young people try to avoid the< 5> police at the best of times. That is something that< 6> one would expect to you take into account. Is that< 7> fair?< 8> A. Unfortunately that is so.< 9> Q. Secondly, there was the possibility that these<10> young people, some of these young people may share<11> the racist views of some of the suspects?<12> A. That is a possibility.<13> Q. Well, can you point to something in the strategy<14> that were you following of converting information<15> into evidence which addressed those two issues?<16> A. What do you suggest, sir?<17> Q. I am asking you?<18> A. I am looking to you for a lead so that you can<19> give me an indication to save time.<20> Q. You accept that the majority of the people that<21> were reluctant were young people?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. You accept that reluctantly many of them tend to<24> keep away from police at the best of times. Yes?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6229 WEEDON

< 1> Q. And you accept that there is a possibilities< 2> that some of them may share the racist views of the< 3> five suspects?< 4> A. That is a possibility, yes.< 5> Q. How did you address those matters, with what< 6> strategy?< 7> A. Okay. Sir, in general I will tell what you the< 8> strategy was for dealing with witnesses and in< 9> particular those. I instructed the officers that<10> they should spend time with the witness; indeed you<11> will see that is mentioned specifically in the notes;<12> occasionally I will emphasise that point; that they<13> should seek to reassure not only the young people but<14> also their parents, because parents can often be a<15> valuable network and support in encouraging people to<16> come forward and share what they know. I also<17> mentioned that, where appropriate, they should be<18> told of the possibility of being able to have<19> confidence that their identities could be concealed<20> at any court proceedings; that attempts would be made<21> through the liaison with the Crown Prosecution<22> Service and the courts themselves to bring forward<23> the date to avoid any unnecessary delay in<24> proceedings and generally matters of that nature.<25> Q. Would it be right that your team had a pretty

. P-6230 WEEDON

< 1> good working relationship with the officers at the< 2> London Borough of Greenwich?< 3> A. Yes, I think some of them more than others< 4> because they had more contact.< 5> Q. Of course. Could you please look at< 6> (MET00890026). Could you scroll up a bit please.< 7> Was that message ever brought to your attention?< 8> A. I cannot remember specifically, but I would< 9> expect to have seen that at some stage.<10> Q. It is dated the 24th June?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. The receiving officer is DC Hughes, and it is<13> from Mr Penston from the London Borough of<14> Greenwich.<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. He says: "I am a member of Greenwich Council<17> and have had experience in dealing with reluctant<18> witness out of my group. If you have any witness who<19> are unwilling to assist you in your enquiry, we would<20> be willing to assist in encouraging them to talk to<21> you." And the officer responds by saying: "We are<22> experiencing such difficulties, but I am not in a<23> position to give you any details. I will pass on<24> your offer and concerns to the Senior Investigating<25> Officer and you will be contacted in due course."

. P-6231 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. Did you know if he was contacted?< 3> A. Well, I see underneath that there is an action< 4> to speak to Alan Fisher, the Racial Incidents Officer< 5> to liaise with Knowle Penston. Then it goes on: "On< 6> the instructions of DI Bullock". It looks as though< 7> he is being consulted on this particular matter, and< 8> DS Bevan is to be spoken to before proceeding on< 9> forward.<10> Q. Let us move on to (MET00890038), the 6th July, a<11> message from Mr Penston to DC Holbrook. Again it<12> says: "Mr Penston rang the office in his capacity as<13> one of the Racial Equality Officers from Greenwich<14> Council. He offered the services of his office<15> should we have problems getting info from certain<16> sections of the community who may be reluctant to<17> speak direct to police. He stated police had used<18> this facility on previous murder enquiries. I<19> thanked him for his offer and told him I would liaise<20> with the SIO."<21> According to that, by the 7th July, two weeks<22> later, he was still offering his service?<23> A. Yes, and it appears from that that DS Bevan was<24> continuing some liaison with him.<25> Q. Well, just to make the position clear,

. P-6232 WEEDON

< 1> Mr Penston was used on five occasions to facilitate< 2> meetings with Duwayne Brooks. I am not certain if< 3> you are aware of that?< 4> A. I know there were some meetings.< 5> Q. Do you know if Mr Penston was used in relation< 6> to any other witness?< 7> A. I have a recollection that perhaps he may have< 8> been liaising with one or more of Stephen's friends.< 9> I am not absolutely certain, but I think that would<10> be towards the end of 1993/1994.<11> Q. What about the witnesses from the Brook Estate?<12> They were the reluctant witnesses in the main at that<13> stage. Duwayne Brooks was never a reluctant witness?<14> A. If I am following the point, why did we not use<15> Mr Penston in respect of those other witnesses?<16> Q. The bulk of the reluctant witnesses from the<17> Brook Estate and surroundings?<18> A. To be frank, I am not sure what discussion or<19> consideration we gave this matter. Clearly it is<20> important. Any offer of assistance you can get is<21> something that should be followed up. I cannot<22> recall specifically what discussion took place and<23> what part I played in it, but certainly any offers<24> would be welcome and should be pursued.<25> Q. What I am putting to you, Mr Weeden, is that the

. P-6233 WEEDON

< 1> offer was not really pursued?< 2> A. Well, if there were reasons for it not being< 3> pursued, I do not recall them and, certainly on the< 4> face of it, it looks as though we should really take< 5> advantage of all offers coming from the community of< 6> this nature.< 7> Q. Because Duwayne Brooks was one of your main< 8> witnesses?< 9> A. I believe -- but was not Mr Penston already<10> liaising with Duwayne Brooks at this stage?<11> Q. That is my point, you see. Duwayne Brooks is<12> certainly a key witness. You were happy for<13> Mr Penston to be involved with taking statements from<14> Duwayne Brooks and being seen by officers generally?<15> A. Yes.<16> Q. But it appeared that nobody thought it fit to<17> get him involved with witnesses from the Brook<18> Estate, reluctant witnesses?<19> A. I mean, my recollection of this particular<20> matter is that the witnesses in the category of -- I<21> don't think the name is -- people such as Emma Cook,<22> EE, FF, K, B were witnesses who were not only<23> reluctant but I don't think would have been prepared<24> to speak with any third parties; indeed, we were<25> being threatened that, if we tried to see them again,

. P-6234 WEEDON

< 1> they would be getting in touch with solicitors.< 2> I am trying to rationalise the process now. I< 3> am just trying to point out to you the nature of the< 4> difficulties in respect of some of the witness. That< 5> is not to say that the attempt should not be made,< 6> but what I am saying is that may have been part of< 7> the consideration which was given at that particular< 8> time. I can't put myself back in the position of< 9> April 1993.<10> Q. What I am suggesting is that instead of the<11> police officers going round time and time again,<12> somebody like Mr Penston and the group he referred to<13> might have been able to make some inroads in terms of<14> talking to those people and persuading them to come<15> forward, but that was never tried?<16> A. I have already pointed out what potential<17> difficulties are, but I would like to acknowledge<18> that I think all offers of assistance should be<19> considered, and that is something that would benefit<20> from looking at in the future.<21> Q. Can I move on to a different topic. The five<22> suspects we now know were involved in serious<23> criminal activities or implicated in serious criminal<24> activities in Eltham, Chislehurst and other<25> surrounding areas. You would agree?

. P-6235 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. We are talking about attempted murder, GBH and< 3> the like?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. Over a period of two years, 1991, February, to< 6> possibly 1993, April?< 7> A. Yes, I am not sure of the earlier dates, but I< 8> take it from you on that.< 9> Q. Would have you expected, or were you surprised<10> when the local officers said they had no intelligence<11> on these people?<12> A. As I recall most of the initial research had<13> been carried out during the days prior to my taking<14> over.<15> In respect of the officers at the local station,<16> of course, some of those incidents were not on that<17> division, they were in different boroughs on<18> different police divisions and concerned juveniles.<19> Q. Yes, but these are juveniles implicated in<20> attempted murder, GBH, et cetera, and some of them<21> lived within half a mile of two police stations?<22> A. I think it is an important point that most of<23> those offences had not even been reported to the<24> police.<25> Q. No, but you talk about rumours on estates like

. P-6236 WEEDON

< 1> the Brook Estate and the mere fact that information< 2> travelled pretty quickly. Would you expect< 3> intelligence officers from time to time to pick up< 4> information like that?< 5> A. Well, that presupposes that people are willing< 6> to give police that information and certainly indeed< 7> in respect of some of those attacks they had not been< 8> reported.< 9> Q. Mr Weeden, following the murder of<10> Stephen Lawrence these people were pouring their<11> hearts out. Are you saying that previously they were<12> not willing to talk about things that concerned them?<13> A. What I am saying is that some of the offences<14> had not been reported. What information was known,<15> was known, but I do not know the extent of that.<16> Q. What is the point of gathering intelligence --<17> you say you gather intelligence on simple things that<18> have been reported or criminal activity?<19> A. No, that is not so.<20> Q. You gather intelligence on criminal activities?<21> A. Yes, but you were specifically talking to me<22> about attempted murders and other serious stabbings<23> and some of those matters had not been reported.<24> Q. Bangal, for example?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6237 WEEDON

< 1> Q. No one was convicted. That happened just round< 2> the corner from Eltham Police Station, the Wimpy Bar?< 3> A. That is correct. As soon as I learned about< 4> that particular attack I took the initiative there< 5> and brought the witnesses, the victim and a witness,< 6> and had them attend an identification parade in an< 7> attempt to prosecute the offenders.< 8> Q. These young men, or some of them, were< 9> implicated in the Bangal assault?<10> A. What is the evidence of that?<11> Q. Please look at (PCA00330190).<12> THE CHAIRMAN: Is this Kent?<13> MR PANTON: Sir, yes. The third block: "Factors<14> linking any combination of the following in any way:<15> offenders to victim to Stephen Lawrence and to the<16> famous 5."<17> "There was nothing obvious to connect Bangal<18> with Stephen Lawrence or to the famous 5. However, I<19> am bound to say that the general description of the<20> offenders, together with the two artists impressions<21> do show a striking similarity to any one of the<22> famous 5."<23> A. Well, if that is the evidence you are referring<24> to, when it was tested at the identification parade I<25> have to accept as a police officer the outcome of the

. P-6238 WEEDON

< 1> identification parade.< 2> Q. I use the word "implicated". I did not say ----< 3> A. Sorry, I thought you used the word evidence.< 4> Q. Have you come across the phrase "the famous 5"?< 5> A. Only since reading the Kent executive summaries.< 6> Q. Do you know who dubbed these people the famous< 7> 5?< 8> A. No.< 9> Q. Do you think it is a bit insensitive, to say the<10> least?<11> A. It is not an expression I would have used.<12> Q. Perhaps it is something that the suspects would<13> look on as adding kudos to their status?<14> A. I certainly would not do anything knowingly to<15> glamorize or make seemingly infamous the people of<16> this character.<17> Q. It does not help at all, does it? I think this<18> is the final thing I would like to raise with you.<19> In August of 1993, I am not certain if you were<20> involved in a meeting with the London Borough of<21> Greenwich where there was an agreement to pursue a<22> fresh appeal by way of posters, leaflets, et cetera?<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. The leaflet included the statement that people<25> -- well the words "you don't need to give your name"

. P-6239 WEEDON

< 1> in terms of people coming forward with information?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. Do you recall that?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. There were a number of people who approached the< 6> Borough passing on information, which was passed on< 7> to the police?< 8> A. I believe so.< 9> Q. You have mentioned difficulties with witnesses<10> coming forward. There were some difficulties in<11> relation to the police wanting the names of people<12> who would pass information to the Borough?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. And those people would pass the information in<15> the spirit of the leaflet which says that you need<16> not reveal your details?<17> A. Yes. In fact, I have some reservations about<18> that type of appeal.<19> Q. It went out in any event?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. It is right that having asked the Borough in a<22> number of cases to let the investigation team have<23> information about certain people who passed on the<24> information, there was a slight delay in the Borough<25> checking with those people that it would be all right

. P-6240 WEEDON

< 1> to pass on their details to the police?< 2> A. Yes, I think so. I think you are referring to< 3> the end of December/January, yes.< 4> Q. Yes. Eventually those people agreed that< 5> information could be passed on to the police and< 6> details were duly passed on?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. You mentioned finally yesterday about the< 9> dramatic new evidence?<10> A. Yes.<11> Q. Causing the inquest to be adjourned. That was<12> not anything said by Greenwich in terms of<13> information that was being passed on?<14> A. No. I wonder if I could add one point to<15> clarify an answer I gave about appeals, where you<16> asked people to give out information anonymously,<17> sir. I do have reservations and it a because of<18> this: whereas information is always welcomed, I<19> think, where possible, the public should be<20> encouraged to give information using their names and<21> addresses so that any potential evidence can be<22> followed up more thoroughly.<23> I think it is very much a second best where you<24> get information anonymously and although we may have<25> to live with that on occasions, I think that we

. P-6241 WEEDON

< 1> should always endeavour to appeal to the public duty< 2> that citizens have to provide their names and< 3> addresses.< 4> THE CHAIRMAN: At the inquest there was a mention of< 5> witnesses coming through the London Borough of< 6> Greenwich.< 7> MR PANTON: Yes.< 8> THE CHAIRMAN: That is the reference, is it?< 9> MR PANTON: That is the reference. The point I was<10> putting to the officer is that it was not described<11> by Greenwich as dramatic new evidence.<12> THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that. That was the<13> prosecution in the shape of Mr Kamlish at the time.<14> It may have been Mr Mansfield.<15> MR MANSFIELD: I think it was me.<16> THE CHAIRMAN: I remember it now. Thank you.<17> MR GOMPERTZ: Just before Mr Yearwood asks his<18> questions, in view of the fact that a document has<19> been put on the screen with a reference to the term<20> "famous 5", although you observed that this was a<21> Kent document, it may not be fully understood by<22> those attending the Inquiry that this is a document<23> which is produced by the Kent Police, nothing to do<24> with the Metropolitan Police at all.<25> THE CHAIRMAN: No. It is part of the Kent Inquiry for

. P-6242 WEEDON

< 1> the Police Complaints Authority.< 2> <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR YEARWOOD< 3> Q. Mr Weeden, I put questions to you on behalf of< 4> the Commissioner for Racial Equality. Can we start,< 5> please, by addressing the question of training, not< 6> only yours, but that of your team. Come April 1993< 7> you had been in the Metropolitan Police approaching< 8> 30 years; that is right?< 9> A. Yes, that is right.<10> Q. Had you any race awareness training during that<11> period of time?<12> A. I believe only in the context of Equal<13> Opportunity Law and Equal Opportunity Employment, but<14> no specific courses designed for racial awareness.<15> Q. I see. Had you any training whatsoever in the<16> investigation of racial incidents?<17> A. I don't think I had.<18> Q. I think you told us that this was indeed your<19> first racial incident murder investigation?<20> A. Yes.<21> Q. By this time you had investigated a number of<22> murders, had you not?<23> A. Yes, since I had been on the 3 Area<24> Investigation Pool, I think this was either the<25> twelfth or thirteenth murder. In fact, there had

. P-6243 WEEDON

< 1> been one murder where there was a white victim and a< 2> black assailant. Most of the others were white on< 3> white, black on black.< 4> Q. This is what I was about to ask you about, as to< 5> whether indeed any of your victims had in fact been< 6> black in any of your previous murders?< 7> A. Yes, in fact, in the previous murders I had< 8> dealt with six murders where the victim was white and< 9> the attacker was white; there where the victim was<10> black and the attacker was black; one where the<11> victim was white and the attacker was black; this<12> case where Stephen was black and the attackers were<13> white and a further one where the victim was white,<14> but the colour of the assailant is unknown.<15> Q. I see. Back to the point that you made earlier:<16> this was the very first in which the victim was black<17> and the attacker was white?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Can I move on to your team for a moment. Did<20> you know whether or not any members of your team had<21> any race awareness training?<22> A. I am not aware of what training and which<23> officers may have had it.<24> Q. Did you know whether indeed any of them had been<25> trained in the investigation of racial incidents?

. P-6244 WEEDON

< 1> A. The only one I can call to mind is PC Fisher,< 2> who of course was a specialist officer.< 3> Q. But PC Fisher was attached temporarily to your< 4> team for a period of some 11 days, was he not?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. I think by the 4th May he was sent back to the< 7> Racial Incident Unit?< 8> A. Yes, sir, he was withdrawn.< 9> Q. At any event the role of PC Fisher was somewhat<10> unspecified, was it not?<11> A. I do not know that it was unspecified.<12> Q. You tell me, what was the role of PC Fisher?<13> A. As I recall, he was to liaise between the Racial<14> Incident Unit, which was based at Plumstead, and to<15> provide advice, support and assistance to the victim<16> liaison officers; he was also to provide guidance on<17> what contacts within the community could be developed<18> and maintained and generally to act in that capacity.<19> Q. Well, PC Fisher had been the family liaison<20> officer in the earlier murder of Roland Adams, had he<21> not?<22> A. Yes.<23> Q. Chief Superintendent Philpot in fact had thought<24> rather highly of PC Fisher and the way in which he<25> carried out his role in that particular case, had he

. P-6245 WEEDON

< 1> not?< 2> A. I believe so.< 3> Q. Did Chief Superintendent Philpot speak to you< 4> when you became Senior Investigating Officer and< 5> problems began to arise in respect of the family< 6> liaison? Did he speak to you about the use of< 7> PC Fisher as family liaison officer?< 8> A. Not to my knowledge.< 9> Q. Was it ever drawn to your attention by Detective<10> Superintendent Philpot was offering two specialist<11> officers to fulfil the role of family liaison?<12> A. No, I was unaware of that.<13> Q. You were totally unaware of that?<14> A. I was unaware of the offer.<15> Q. I see.<16> A. I would have taken it up had I been aware.<17> Q. You said to us earlier, I think it was to<18> Mr Egan, that the issue of race was discussed, I<19> think on one occasion you said a number of occasions<20> and then you said it cropped up on a couple of<21> times. Is that right?<22> A. Yes, I believe that is right.<23> Q. What was the context of this discussion on the<24> question of race?<25> A. I think, thinking back, I think it was when it

. P-6246 WEEDON

< 1> became known of the number of attacks which the group< 2> of prime suspects had engaged on and where the< 3> victims were white; and I think it was probably< 4> against that background that, you know, it was< 5> floated: "Well, you know, they had attack mostly< 6> white people. Can we be sure this was a racist< 7> attack?" Then I made my position as outlined earlier< 8> perfectly clear.< 9> Q. Fine. You made your position clear on the very<10> first occasion this cropped up?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. But, as you said, it cropped up on a number of<13> occasions?<14> A. I cannot remember how many times. I am sure you<15> understand that.<16> Q. I well understand it, but the point is really<17> this. It was clear, was it not, to you that numbers<18> of your team did not indeed fact accept your<19> position?<20> A. No, I don't think it was as hard as that. I<21> think they were perhaps prepared to entertain the<22> possibility that, you know,"Well,, they have attacked<23> so many white people, it could have been white people<24> there at the time." But, as I was at pains to point<25> out, the fact is it wasn't; it was two unarmed,

. P-6247 WEEDON

< 1> innocent, black youths who were there and who had not< 2> done anything at all to invite attack, and they were< 3> dealt within this cowardly and racist way.< 4> Q. Did they accept your view? Did they appear to< 5> accept your view?< 6> A. No, that is something that only the officers< 7> themselves can answer. I made my position perfectly< 8> clear. There was no open dissent at all. As I say,< 9> it was not something, you know, where I was being, it<10> was being put to me: "This can't be a racist attack<11> because they were just pointing out the fact that<12> they seemed be indiscriminate."<13> Q. Let us deal with that, Mr Weeden, because what<14> you said is: "This cropped up on a number of<15> occasions." You point out what your position was from<16> day one?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. If it came up for further discussion, it is<19> clear, is it not, that your position was not being<20> accepted by members of your team. That is right, is<21> it not?<22> A. Well, it was as more attacks with white victims<23> started coming to our attention.<24> Q. I see, so with the knowledge of each attack this<25> discussion would be renewed and officers would

. P-6248 WEEDON

< 1> say: "Look, this is not racially motivated"?< 2> A. No, in fact the way are you portraying it, I can< 3> understand where are you coming from, but the fact is< 4> it was mentioned a matter of fact that most of the< 5> victims were white. I said: "Well, forget that, you< 6> have got to look at what actually happened here", but< 7> I will not go through the factors which I relied upon< 8> and which I had absolutely no difficulty, and I am< 9> sure that the vast majority accepted it.<10> Q. Well, are you surprised then, Mr Weeden, that in<11> fact that same attitude has followed at least 6 of<12> your investigating team into these chambers?<13> A. Well, that was not something which was<14> communicated to me at the time, and I certainly<15> invited discussion to be as open and frank as<16> possible. I know it was raised in the manner which I<17> have described by a couple of the officers. Whether<18> or not their attitude has changed since 1993, I do<19> not know.<20> Q. You say since 1993. I think have you accepted<21> that certainly anyone holding strong views about race<22> is unlikely to air those views in your presence?<23> A. If is being done in a perjorative way, yes.<24> Q. And anyone, for example, not holding the same<25> view as you did about the characterisations of this

. P-6249 WEEDON

< 1> particular offence, is not, similarly, likewise,< 2> likely to be kept to themselves or kept to small< 3> groups?< 4> A. That is certainly possible. I did not see or< 5> hear any evidence of that.< 6> Q. Did you know, for example, that one of your< 7> senior officers, DS Davidson, was one of the main< 8> officers who held the view that the Stephen Lawrence< 9> murder was not racially motivated?<10> A. I cannot remember which individuals, you know,<11> held this view and which others did not, I am afraid.<12> Q. DS Davidson was someone that you have told us<13> you held in high regard; you valued his opinion.<14> That is right, is it not?<15> A. Yes, but I don't know whether that was his<16> opinion at the time or whether it is an opinion he<17> has developed during the past five years.<18> Q. Well, let us examine that?<19> A. I think, with respect, I think Sergeant Davidson<20> is the only one who can answer his opinion at the<21> time.<22> Q. I know that. I am simply asking you whether you<23> or not you were aware of it. I agree, he has told us<24> already. I am asking you whether or not you were<25> aware that this view as held within your team?

. P-6250 WEEDON

< 1> A. I was aware that it existed and I dealt with it< 2> in the way I described.< 3> Q. You mention in the last five years, even on your< 4> evidence you accept that the racist views of the main< 5> suspects have become even better known and more< 6> pronounced as a result of the covert evidence< 7> gathered by DS Mellish?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. This is something that is pretty commonly<10> known. You would accept that?<11> A. Yes, and in it reinforces my view.<12> Q. Exactly, but despite that, on -- well, I cannot<13> give you the day but earlier in this same room six of<14> your officers, despite that covert evidence,<15> nevertheless hold that view. Does that surprise you?<16> A. I am surprised that -- yes, it is six, yes. I<17> thought it might be less than that.<18> Q. You see it goes slightly further than that,<19> because I think it----. Was there a DC Crane who was<20> a member of your team?<21> A. What was the name again, sir?<22> Q. Crane?<23> A. Crane, yes.<24> Q. You see because was to tell us that in fact it<25> extended as far as may be 50% of the investigation

. P-6251 WEEDON

< 1> team. Were you aware of that?< 2> A. I would think that is extremely unlikely.< 3> Q. Extremely unlikely?< 4> A. Yes.< 5> Q. You went on to say that in fact that may be this< 6> was not discussed, as it were, within the briefings,< 7> but it was a view which was expressed, say, over a< 8> pint, you know, when the officers were probably out< 9> may be having launch in a more relaxed atmosphere;<10> the type of thing probably not discussed with you,<11> but discussed among the team itself?<12> A. Well, if that happened and I was not present,<13> obviously I would have no knowledge of it.<14> Q. Were you also aware that DS Bevan and WDC Holden<15> were also of that view?<16> A. No, as I said earlier, I cannot recall the<17> individuals.<18> Q. Well, if you knew, do you believe that officers<19> holding such a view should have been selected as<20> family liaison officers?<21> A. Well, of course the reality was that they had<22> already been selected and were in position when I<23> took over the job on the 26th April. Had I known,<24> that would have certainly featured in my<25> considerations at that time, yes.

. P-6252 WEEDON

< 1> Q. You say it would have featured in your< 2> considerations: what would you have done about it?< 3> A. It is impossible for me to put myself in that< 4> position. I am not looking for an easy answer here< 5> but it would have depended on who else was< 6> available. I would not have withdrawn them solely< 7> for that unless I had a suitable replacement. So I< 8> would have had to have taken those faxes into< 9> account. Indeed, if they held that view at that<10> time, I may have spoken to them personally and<11> individually about it. It very much depends on what<12> other options were open to me.<13> Q. Well, clearly there were other officers who<14> could have fulfilled that role. That is right, is it<15> not?<16> A. I cannot think of anyone at the moment.<17> Q. You had PC Fisher for a start; you have already<18> mentioned him. It was PC Fisher who was considered<19> to have done a good job on Roland Adams. He was<20> available to deal directly as opposed to being a<21> satellite, as it were, to the family liaison team?<22> A. I know that PC Fisher joined us. Of course<23> victim liaison is a very extensive and, in the normal<24> course of events, lengthy duty and it is as well I<25> did not appoint PC Fisher because, in the event, he

. P-6253 WEEDON

< 1> was withdrawn after 10 or 11 days.< 2> Q. Yes, but that was because he was simply attached< 3> as opposed to really being a full member of the team,< 4> was he not?< 5> A. Yes.< 6> Q. He was dispensable?< 7> A. But the fact of his attachment is something< 8> which I have limited control over because, of course,< 9> I was not his line manager, so I could not dictate<10> how long his him for. He was a resource on loan to<11> me and, in the event, was withdrawn back to his<12> division.<13> Q. Chief Superintendent Philpot was the officer in<14> charge of that community liaison and, indeed, the<15> racial incident unit, was he not?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. He was the Divisional Commander for Plumstead?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. It would have been open to you, would it not, if<20> you needed specialist staff, either to speak to him<21> or, indeed, a Detective Superintendent Illsley, your<22> immediate boss?<23> A. Yes, I think in fact the vast majority of the<24> liaison was conducted between Mr Illsley and<25> Mr Philpot.

. P-6254 WEEDON

< 1> Q. So, certainly, if it was that there was a need,< 2> and I suggest to you that there was, to replace< 3> WDC Holden and Detective Sergeant Bevan, certainly< 4> that replacement could be met through the services of< 5> Mr Philpot?< 6> A. I was unaware that there was that possibility.< 7> Q. Certainly if were, you would have removed them,< 8> would you?< 9> A. No, I would have welcomed having that as and<10> additional option and I cannot say now that whether I<11> would have moved one, both or neither.<12> Q. Do you consider that may have been a factor as<13> to why it is that family liaison failed?<14> A. Well, I think we have been, as a police service,<15> perfectly prepared to acknowledge where there are<16> weaknesses and where things can be done better in the<17> future; and if we have any lessons to learn there, I<18> would be happy to say that we should benefit from<19> them.<20> Q. Do you think that may well ----. I repeat the<21> question: do you think that may well be a factor as<22> to why it was that family liaison failed?<23> A. I don't know. I don't think it was the main<24> factor for reasons I have outlined this morning. I<25> think there are also a number of other factors, the

. P-6255 WEEDON

< 1> main one being that communication is necessarily a< 2> two way process, and there needs to be trust and< 3> cooperation on both sides.< 4> Q. You have told us, if I can just change subject< 5> for a moment, that from day one you considered the< 6> Stephen Lawrence murder to be racially motivated?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. Can I take you please to (PCA00330127). Those< 9> are your notes. Firstly can I ask you this. Were<10> these your personal notes or did these notes arise<11> from your briefings?<12> A. Well, I have written them; I cannot say, you<13> know, in what context. I see that "circumstances"<14> appears to be in speech marks at the beginning of the<15> sentence.<16> Q. Yes. Are these notes which are of your own<17> personal thoughts as opposed to anything that you<18> might have shared with anyone else it?<19> A. It may be something that someone has told me; it<20> may be observations I am making; it may be something<21> that was said at a meeting.<22> Q. I see. Can we look please at the top of the<23> page. We see the reference BNP. To get it into<24> context, over the page it will show that this is on<25> Tuesday the 27th, the day after the second day you

. P-6256 WEEDON

< 1> were on the investigation. It says: "BNP open issue< 2> no judgment." Was that your personal view at the< 3> time?< 4> A. I don't think----. Not necessarily. Looking at< 5> the lines above that, there is a reference there to< 6> "Vish", which is a reference to Vishaka Patel, who< 7> is the area press officer, and it looks as though< 8> what follows is a number of comments about< 9> conversation we have had or how media issues are<10> going to be handled.<11> Q. I see. So in respect of the reference to BNP<12> "no issues, no judgment at this stage info/evidence"<13> are you saying that is not your personal view; is<14> that what you are saying?<15> A. I think there was no evidence at that stage of<16> BNP involvement, but we were keeping an open mind on<17> that as a possibility.<18> Q. "Gathering stage of inquiry, racist motive",<19> what would that be?<20> A. Racist motive appears there, yes.<21> Q. "Circumstances suggest it may well be racially<22> motivated, but will decide." Was that your view?<23> A. No, I mean, I was accepting it as a racist<24> motive. I think sometimes it is impossible to be<25> 100% certain until the offenders have been identified

. P-6257 WEEDON

< 1> and if on the rare occasions you get a truthful< 2> account about what led to the attack, sometimes there< 3> is perhaps a girlfriend in the background, or< 4> something of that sort, then that enables you to say< 5> 100%. Certainly my position, publicly and privately,< 6> from the very beginning was that it was racially< 7> motivated.< 8> Q. That is why I am asking you this: "But will< 9> decide", whether, in fact, that was your view on the<10> second day of the inquiry, taking over the<11> investigation?<12> A. No, I think my position is transparently clear<13> right from the very beginning and in everything I<14> said, did thereafter.<15> What I said there reflects the reality of the<16> situation, that it is impossible to be absolutely<17> categorical about the reason for an attack until you<18> have actually got hold of the offender and you have<19> had an account of any other possible factors which<20> may have led to it.<21> Q. Just to take you to the passage which Mr Egan<22> has taken to you, (PCA00330136), where you make<23> reference to the good response from the public, the<24> very bottom of the page. "Good response from public,<25> which is perhaps a reflection of how the local

. P-6258 WEEDON

< 1> community feels about the murders and attack". This< 2> is your view about the local community, is it not, as< 3> opposed to your own feelings?< 4> A. Yes, I am trying to put those notes in a< 5> context, it probably reflects my view. I am just< 6> wondering if the following page helps to see whether< 7> or not ----< 8> Q. No, it goes onto ----< 9> A. I was just wondering if this was -- I am just<10> trying to remember the exact circumstances when I<11> wrote this. Certainly that is my view, that we had<12> had some information in from the public; we had to<13> keep trying to get the continued response and<14> hopefully in the form of evidence and in that<15> certainly reflects my attitude to the cowardly and<16> murderous racist attack.<17> Q. Can we agree this: certainly there was a<18> community view that this was cowardly racist attack?<19> A. One I shared.<20> Q. I suggest, in fact, your note is simply a<21> description of that view, that view held within the<22> community?<23> A. Yes, I can see what you are saying, but in fact<24> the view is one that I held and stated and stated and<25> restated.

. P-6259 WEEDON

< 1> Q. I see. Having labelled this crime racially< 2> motivated, can you tell us how did it impact upon< 3> your investigation?< 4> A. Well, the immediate affect was there was< 5> considerable publicity. There was a greater level of< 6> staffing than I was accustomed to for the majority of< 7> murder investigations. Officers were instructed< 8> about the sensitivity of the case and how they needed< 9> to be particularly sensitive in their handling of<10> witnesses, and -- is this the type of thing?<11> Q. What I am more concerned about is what have you<12> done to establish, what had you done to establish the<13> racist motive of the five suspects?<14> A. I do not understand, how could I ----<15> Q. I will put again: As the Senior Investigating<16> Officer what procedures did you put in place to find<17> out about the racist motives of your suspects?<18> A. I am still not sure I follow the question.<19> Q. Would the answer be nothing?<20> A. I can only give an answer.<21> BISHOP SENTAMU: Excuse me, please. This is a Public<22> Inquiry which is trying to find truth and we are not<23> going to be assisted by either people clapping or by<24> making all kinds of sighs. It just detracts from<25> what we are trying to do. Please may I request you

. P-6260 WEEDON

< 1> to refrain from whatever you are feeling in here and< 2> control it within yourself. We want to get to the< 3> bottom of the truth and we will not, I am sure, be< 4> assisted. Certainly the witness is likely to be< 5> distracted and, therefore, not give what we are< 6> looking for. Do not be agitated. We are hearing it,< 7> you saw it on record, and that is in the end what is< 8> going to count, not with people clapping or not< 9> clapping.<10> The Chairman has powers to ask any part of the<11> group to be removed, so please, please. Thank you.<12> MR YEARWOOD: I am asking you what did you<13> specifically do having characterised this offence as<14> racially motivated, what did you do; what procedures<15> did you put in place to establish that it was indeed<16> racially motivated?<17> A. Well, I think the answer to that is that in<18> relation to the prime suspects, suspect dockets were<19> raised and part of that process involved officers<20> enquiring into the background, the previous criminal<21> activity of the suspects and collating that<22> information.<23> Q. Let me accept this from the beginning: yes, I<24> think it was PC Fisher himself who was actioned to<25> access, I think it was SO12 at New Scotland Yard. Is

. P-6261 WEEDON

< 1> that special branch?< 2> A. Yes.< 3> Q. I will accept likewise that local collators and< 4> the Racial Incident Unit files were also accessed, do< 5> you recall?< 6> A. Yes.< 7> Q. Did it occur to you, because your four suspects< 8> -- I am speaking about the period before 7th May --< 9> were aged 16 and 17, I think two were 16 and two were<10> 17; that is right, is it not?<11> A. I think that may be right, yes.<12> Q. Did it occur to you that someone involved in an<13> offence such as this may:<14> 1. Have exhibited previous racist attitudes;<15> and<16> 2. May well have some antecedents, even if not<17> criminally recorded?<18> A. Yes, that was the reason why the research was<19> necessary.<20> Q. Did it also occur to you that that record might<21> be reflected either at the school or, indeed, in the<22> housing records?<23> A. As I recall, I believe I wrote a letter to the<24> Chief Executive of the Education Department at the<25> London Borough of Greenwich.

. P-6262 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Indeed you did.< 2> A. Asking about school records.< 3> Q. Indeed you did. That was in July?< 4> A. I cannot recall the dates.< 5> Q. Let me bring it up for you, (PCA00360103),< 6> 27th July. Before dealing with that, let us see how< 7> it is that it came about, you see, because what I< 8> suggest to you, and maybe we can establish this much,< 9> that it would have been important to you, even before<10> arrests, to establish a proper profile of your<11> suspects; that is right, is it not?<12> A. Yes.<13> Q. Part of that profile would be the racist<14> attitudes of these persons?<15> A. Yes, any background is useful.<16> Q. That is right. It assists in a number of ways:<17> it would confirm in an offence which has been<18> identified as racially motivated that you are on the<19> right track if you found some antecedent behaviour of<20> a racist nature; that is right, is it not?<21> A. Yes.<22> Q. It may also be one of those items that may also<23> assist in determining whether or not there is<24> reasonable grounds to suspect that particular<25> person. It all falls into place?

. P-6263 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. So it important that you get this information< 3> before arrest. It is something that should be given< 4> some urgency?< 5> A. There were a very large number of things< 6> competing for that prioritisation at the time.< 7> Q. Let us see your approach to it. You asked< 8> earlier about Mr Penston. If we can go back to< 9> Mr Penston for a moment, please. Can I ask you this:<10> Was he at any stage regarded as a bit of a nuisance?<11> A. I personally do not recall him being regarded as<12> a bit of a nuisance. There were some difficulties<13> with his reluctance to identify people who allegedly<14> had valuable information round about Christmas, 1993,<15> but notwithstanding, no. We welcomed the support<16> and, as I indicated earlier, he was enjoying a good<17> relation liaison with DS Bevan.<18> Q. Let us have a look at it. Can you put up<19> (PCA00320008), bottom of the page, please. This is<20> your meeting of 28th April, if you want to see it you<21> can go back to the top of it, 28th April. At the<22> bottom of the page we see a reference to Mr Penston<23> from the Education Department in contact with<24> PC Fisher and supplying all rumours?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6264 WEEDON

< 1> Q. This was a discussion that went on at one of< 2> your meetings. Can you explain what is meant by that< 3> note?< 4> A. Well, looking at it, it looks as though there is< 5> still a continuing liaison between Noel Penston and< 6> PC Fisher and Mr Penston appears to be keeping his< 7> ears to the ground.< 8> Q. I see. Let us go to (PCA00360098). That is a< 9> message which is phoned in by Mr Penston to<10> PC Gillard and that is on 14th May; is that right?<11> A. Yes, sir, that appears to be so.<12> Q. It indicates that, is it: "PC Gillard has spoken<13> to Mr Penston, Essential Race Unit, London Borough of<14> Greenwich", and he has given certain information in<15> respect, in fact, of both of the Acourts. That is<16> right, is it not?<17> A. Yes.<18> Q. Jamie complained of carrying a gun, racist<19> insults to school girls, associates with somebody<20> called Peter Murphy, Jason Farmer and David Norris,<21> the second of your suspects, in fact there are three<22> suspects in this statement itself?<23> A. Yes three of the five prime suspects.<24> Q. Yes. "Believed but not substantiated in respect<25> of Neil Acourt barred from Samuel Montague Club for

. P-6265 WEEDON

< 1> attacking a black boy with a knife about 18 months< 2> previously."< 3> A. Yes.< 4> Q. As a result of that, it is right, is it not,< 5> that and action was raised and that (PCA00360099),< 6> that was actioned out on 18th, allocated on 18th May< 7> to DC Jackerman?< 8> A. Yes.< 9> Q. We see that is resulted, my date is obscured, it<10> looks like the 21st of the fifth, in which the result<11> being:<12> "I visited Noel Penston at his office. Jamie<13> Acourt has history of disruptive behaviour, he<14> started his school career at Cromwood and left there,<15> reasons unknown, to go to Kidbrook School at<16> Kidbrook. He has a history of violent behaviour,<17> especially towards black children." That is right,<18> is it not?<19> A. Yes.<20> Q. "Instances are on record of him bringing knives<21> to school and he once threatened a black lad called<22> Dale Holgate at the school."<23> A. Yes.<24> Q. That appears right. It goes on to mention a<25> Smith & Wesson gun in which the police were called;

. P-6266 WEEDON

< 1> were you aware of that?< 2> A. Was I aware of the incident, I possibly was at< 3> the time, yes.< 4> Q. Yes. Because this was the type of antecedent< 5> detail which went directly, did it not, to the racist< 6> motive?< 7> A. Yes that gives an insight into the type of< 8> people if the information there is substantiated then< 9> it is confirm.<10> Q. Can you help tell us if it is that the police<11> were in contact with Mr Penston back on 28th April.<12> Mr Penston clearly had access to this information as<13> to why it was that it was not accessed as early as<14> the 28th.<15> A. I thought it was raised in May, actually, this.<16> What I would say is that normally the liaison would<17> be done informally, it would not necessarily involve<18> me, you know, at an early stage. The reason for<19> delays, I can only think perhaps there was competing<20> priorities at that time.<21> Q. You say competing priorities but it is clear<22> this is developed as a result of Mr Penston taking<23> the initiative, telephoning, speaking to Gillard and<24> passing this information on?<25> A. Yes that appears to be so.

. P-6267 WEEDON

< 1> Q. Why? Clearly information which he could only< 2> have acted upon once, in fact, arrests were made and< 3> no doubt the public were then aware of the suspects?< 4> A. Action -- could you say that again?< 5> Q. An action, he could have only taken once he knew< 6> who the suspects were?< 7> A. Yes.< 8> Q. That would have followed the arrests and the< 9> publication of the suspects names.<10> Q. That is right?<11> A. Yes.<12> Q. But, of course, the suspects were known to you,<13> had you stopped to access the school records you<14> could have had this information as from late April?<15> A. Yes, that's right, if those records existed<16> then, yes.<17> Q. They certainly did. One other document if I can<18> direct you to before coming to your letter is<19> (PCA00360100), this deals with a lad called Kolitis,<20> a black lad who has been kicked or knocked down some<21> stairs by Jamie Acourt.<22> What I want to deal with, much of this we have<23> touched upon already, is the very bottom of that page<24> in which we see that someone by the name of<25> Brian Harris, who runs the Montague Club, he is

. P-6268 WEEDON

< 1> spoken to but for some reason or another Harris is< 2> protective of the Acourts but it does mention:< 3> "About a year ago Neil was banned from that club< 4> when he threatened a black boy with a knife." That is< 5> right, is it not?< 6> A. Yes, that is what it says.< 7> Q. Over the page 101, we have a possible< 8> connection, do we not, with Neil when he was at< 9> Cromwood School a connection between him and somebody<10> called Springet?<11> A. Yes, that is certainly suggested there, yes.<12> Q. A known BNP activist?<13> A. Yes.<14> Q. That is right, is it not?<15> A. That is what it says, yes.<16> Q. Information that would have been available to<17> you in establishing a profile, the character and<18> conduct of these boys and would also, I suggest,<19> assisted in establishing reasonable grounds to<20> suspect, certainly as early as the 28th April, maybe<21> even earlier, because I suspect Mr Penston may have<22> been in touch with your department before then?<23> A. Yes. I mean there was obviously a very wide<24> variety of useful information of this character and<25> had we perhaps been able to get it earlier that would

. P-6269 WEEDON

< 1> have been beneficial. I think it is a fact that we< 2> just had to work with the resources that we had and< 3> obviously some things do not get as quickly as one< 4> would hope.< 5> Q. You said if you could have got it earlier, you< 6> did not seek it: you made some telephone calls to< 7> Scotland Yard, you had the Racial Incidents Unit< 8> looked into, this was right under your nose, the< 9> school records?<10> A. The point I was trying to make actually was,<11> there was a very great number of inquiries that have<12> to made with a limited number of people making them<13> and it simply is not possible to say you can do<14> everything, you know, immediately. Now, you know,<15> you can sort of cherry pick an action here that could<16> have been done, an enquiry there. Obviously we<17> wanted to get them all done as quickly as possible<18> but you cannot do everything at once really.<19> Q. It is really on 27th July, because I did promise<20> to come back to your letter, (PCA00360103) you then<21> write, this is after, in fact, all of this has been<22> done, you then write to Mr Roberts at Greenwich<23> Council asking that he release the information which<24> I have just, in fact, put to you as part of your<25> Inquiry?

. P-6270 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes. It looks as though there had been quite a< 2> bit done in terms of liaison prior to this letter< 3> being sent but clearly the chief executive required< 4> some formal cover for releasing these documents, so I< 5> would not say that necessarily indicates that there< 6> had been nothing happened between May and when this< 7> letter was sent in July.< 8> Q. Clearly that was your first formal request for< 9> any school documents?<10> A. No, I do not think that is the position. I<11> think that for me to send that letter indicates to me<12> that Sergeant Bevan has had a meeting with Mr Penston<13> at some stage in July there but there may have been<14> other meetings which explored the possibilities about<15> the extent to which the council could supply and were<16> prepared to supply these documents.<17> Q. Would you agree that there were other sources of<18> information that might have provided evidence<19> relating to racial motivation?<20> A. Beyond those?<21> Q. We just looked at?<22> A. Possibly, if you----<23> Q. You had dealings, did you not, in the early days<24> of the investigation with informants or certainly<25> one, James Grant?

. P-6271 WEEDON

< 1> A. Yes.< 2> Q. He clearly knew the Acourts, in fact he knew< 3> your four suspects?< 4> A. I think he knew of them.< 5> Q. He knew of them. It was clear from the< 6> information coming from him that he must have been< 7> reasonably close to him?< 8> A. He was close to a source which was close to< 9> them, yes.<10> Q. Was he ever asked whether or not he had any<11> knowledge of the racist attitudes, the behaviour of<12> the suspects?<13> A. I am sure that he would have been asked about<14> every aspect of his knowledge of the suspects.<15> Q. You say that, on what do you base that answer,<16> is there any document which you can call upon?<17> A. I am not aware of any document I can rely upon<18> but it is so basic as to be obvious.<19> Q. You say so basic, was any officers or any of<20> your team tasked, were they specifically directed<21> that they should, in fact, ask questions as to racial<22> motive?<23> A. No, that would be wholly unusual and officers<24> who were making inquiries would be expected to report<25> back on every aspect of the information, including

. P-6272 WEEDON

< 1> motive, whether it is racist or whatever.< 2> Q. Mr Weeden I think you have already accepted you< 3> knew not -- there is only one officer we heard from< 4> DS Bevan who had some training in human awareness,< 5> part of which I think did cover race, but neither you< 6> or none of your officers, outside of Bevan, that we< 7> have heard from, had any training whatsoever in race< 8> awareness or indeed in the investigation of racial< 9> incidents.<10> Now, did you think in those circumstances that<11> they should have been specifically instructed, that<12> they should ask questions as to racial motive?<13> A. I do not necessarily think it was particularly<14> appropriate. They were supposed to be getting all<15> information about whatever possible motive. We<16> already had the motive before us but when it is a<17> case of whether we should task people to go out and<18> specifically ask witnesses about that as a separate<19> issue I would have expected that to be covered within<20> the general enquiries.<21> Q. Are you surprised then that come arrest the only<22> evidence which you have of a racial motive is the<23> statement of Duwayne Brooks, does that surprise you<24> that come 7th May when you carry out your arrest, by<25> that time you have spoken to a number of people, and

. P-6273 WEEDON

< 1> the only evidence that you have as to the racist< 2> attitudes of your suspects is from Duwayne Brooks?< 3> A. I would not entirely agree with that because< 4> although Mr Brooks provided the account of the< 5> remarks made which preceded the attack I think the< 6> circumstances themselves of five youths attacking two< 7> black boys provided powerful evidence.< 8> Q. I can agree with you on that, clearly the< 9> circumstances give rise to that inference as well. I<10> think are you missing the point, no other witness,<11> either eye-witnesses to the event itself or indeed<12> any of the associates, be it witness K, EE, Emma<13> Cook, Michelle Casserly or James Grant, none of them,<14> all of whom knew the suspects very closely, I believe<15> Cook and Casserly being ex-girlfriends, none of them<16> had been asked, had they, or provided any evidence as<17> to the racist attitudes or previous behaviour of the<18> suspects; that is right, is it not?<19> A. I am not aware of whether that was done or if it<20> was to what extent, I think it is certainly something<21> that can be borne in mind.<22> Q. Does that surprise now when you think about it,<23> particularly bearing in mind that DS Davidson had<24> been given the task to deal with some of these more<25> difficult witnesses, knowing that he held the view

. P-6274 WEEDON

< 1> that this was not racially motivated that this kind< 2> of evidence was not forthcoming?< 3> A. If I can stop you there, I do not accept that I< 4> knew that was Sergeant Bevan's view.< 5> Q. You know now, does it really surprise you< 6> looking back on it now?< 7> A. That those questions were not asked?< 8> Q. Indeed?< 9> A. Well, I think ideally it would have been better<10> to have asked that and possibly other questions. I<11> take the point you are making.<12> Q. One other example, you see, because the<13> Stacey Benefield investigation really came about<14> through the Stephen Lawrence murder, investigation,<15> was it not?<16> A. Yes.<17> Q. It was part of that?<18> A. Yes.<19> Q. Stacey Benefield was someone who suffered, he<20> was stabbed down the chest and in fact that lead to<21> an attempted murder charge on I think Acourt and<22> Norris or is it just Norris?<23> A. Both.<24> Q. That is right, is it not?<25> A. Yes.

. P-6275 WEEDON

< 1> Q. He was someone who knew, I think he went to< 2> school with Neil for some 6 years?< 3> A. I cannot recall.< 4> Q. For a period of time?< 5> A. I cannot recall now.< 6> Q. Do you really believe that someone in his< 7> position if he was asked as to the racist behaviour< 8> or views of Neil Acourt would conceal it?< 9> A. I honestly cannot answer that.<10> Q. It is unlikely, is it not, we can agree on that<11> much?<12> A. I think, I say I just do not know the answer.<13> Q. He was someone, again I suggest, who knew of the<14> Acourts, known them for some period of time and may<15> well have been able to shed some light on that part<16> of your investigation if that was an avenue which you<17> were pursuing, as you told us you were?<18> A. I do not know.<19> THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Yearwood, it is 4.45 and the<20> stenographer has been going for a long time now.<21> MR YEARWOOD: There is couple of other areas, maybe it<22> is better if I continue tomorrow morning.<23> THE CHAIRMAN: There are more people to question the<24> witness, are there not.<25> I am afraid have you to come back again tomorrow

. P-6276 WEEDON

< 1> at 10 o'clock, will you please?< 2> THE WITNESS: Yes.< 3> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.< 4> (The Inquiry adjourned at 4.45 pm)< 5>< 6>< 7>< 8>< 9><10><11><12><13><14><15><16><17><18><19><20><21><22><23><24><25>

. P-6277 WEEDON