THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INDEPENDENT REVIEW THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INDEPENDENT REVIEW Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case Volume One Volume One Volume HC 1038-I March 2014 Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 6 March 2014 for THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INDEPENDENT REVIEW Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case Volume One Author: Mark Ellison QC Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 March 2014 HC 1038-I © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/2/ or email [email protected]. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474100502 Web ISBN 9781474100519 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2628309 37119 03/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Terms of reference 3 3. Conduct of the Review 5 4. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 7 4.1 The case advanced by Mr and Mrs Lawrence 10 4.2 The case advanced by Duwayne Brooks 16 4.3 The case advanced by the Metropolitan Police Service and by individual officers 18 4.4 The findings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry relevant to our terms of reference 22 5. Our review of the corruption issue 75 5.1 Metropolitan Police Service disclosure to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry regarding possible corruption 78 5.2 Media reports in March and April 2012 96 5.3 The Metropolitan Police Service Review published on 31 May 2012 99 5.4 Operation Othona 103 5.5 The 1998 CIB3 operations list 114 5.6 Operation Othona intelligence and the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, June 1998 115 5.7 Metropolitan Police Service letter to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, 11 September 1998 – “new lines of enquiry” 118 5.8 The 1999–2000 investigation of possible corruption in the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation 137 5.9 Mark Daly 149 5.10 The key officers revisited 150 5.11 Overall findings on the corruption issue 164 iii Contents 6. Our review of the role of undercover policing in the Lawrence case 177 6.1 The allegations published in the summer of 2013 180 6.2 The role of undercover policing 185 6.3 Peter Francis 186 6.4 N78 192 6.5 Detective Chief Inspector N86 195 6.6 The Special Demonstration Squad 197 6.7 The records of the Special Demonstration Squad 201 6.8 The Lawrence family and Metropolitan Police Service campaigns in 1993 204 6.9 Special Demonstration Squad undercover deployment touching the Lawrence family campaign, 1993–1996 208 6.10 Alleged tasking to ‘smear’ the Lawrence family campaign 211 6.11 The tasking of family liaison officers 216 6.12 The initial murder investigation office meeting note, 31 August 1993 220 6.13 Special Demonstration Squad undercover deployment touching the Lawrence family campaign at the time of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 221 6.14 The Metropolitan Police Service approach to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry from the Special Branch perspective 223 6.15 N81 224 6.16 Was information on the involvement of undercover police withheld from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? 257 6.17 What impact might disclosure of the undercover policing touching on the Lawrence family have had on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? 258 6.18 Our findings on undercover policing touching the Lawrence family 262 6.19 Postscript on undercover policing 274 iv Contents 7. Duwayne Brooks 277 7.1 Background 278 7.2 What was the extent of intelligence gathering (including undercover policing) or surveillance activity touching Duwayne Brooks? 280 7.3 Have we been made aware of any material that suggests any criminal investigation into Duwayne Brooks was instituted or continued as a result of an improper motive by the Metropolitan Police Service? 288 7.4 What was the extent, purpose and authorisation for any surveillance of Duwayne Brooks or his solicitor? 297 8. Police forces nationwide 301 8.1 Greater Manchester Police 302 8.2 West Yorkshire Police 303 v 1. Introduction On 4 January 2012, when sentencing Gary Dobson and David Norris for their part in the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Mr Justice Treacy said: “The murder of Stephen Lawrence on the night of 22nd April 1993 was a terrible and evil crime. Recently the Lord Chief Justice described it as ‘a murder which scarred the conscience of the nation’. A totally innocent 18-year-old youth on the threshold of a promising life was brutally cut down in the street in front of eyewitnesses by a racist thuggish gang. You were members of that gang... This crime was committed for no other reason than racial hatred. You did not know Stephen Lawrence or Duwayne Brooks. Neither of them had done anything to harm, threaten or offend you in any way, apart from being black and making their way peaceably to the bus stop on their way home.” Mr Lawrence and Baroness Lawrence had been seeking justice with a dignified persistence for over 18 years by the time of these convictions. They continue so to do. Only two of the group of five or six white youths who killed their son have been convicted of their crime. The convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris came only after the application of improved forensic science in the mid to late 2000s, which revealed hitherto undetected incriminating evidence on clothing connected to them at the time of the attack. The Stephen Lawrence Public Inquiry in 1998 officially recognised that the initial investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had been seriously flawed as a result of, at least, serious incompetence and institutional racism. The issue of whether corruption or dishonest collusion had also played a part in producing such a flawed investigation was considered in depth at the Inquiry. Having decided that the high criminal standard of proof had to be applied to allegations of corruption – unlike other issues that it considered – the Inquiry concluded that it could not be sure that corruption or collusion had also been a cause of the flawed investigation. Nevertheless, the suspicion that corruption or collusion must also have played a part in the failed investigation has lingered over the case during the ensuing years. Following the conclusion of the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris in early 2012, articles were published in the media that revisited the corruption issue. The articles questioned whether the MPS had fully informed the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Panel of all potentially relevant material available at the time on the issue of corruption. The main topics highlighted in the media in 2012 were: a) Scotland Yard files said to have been in existence at the time of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry which contained allegations of corruption against Detective Sergeant John Davidson, a lead detective investigating the murder; b) further files containing allegations made against Ray Adams, then a commander, who had played a part in the investigation; and c) a claim made by Neil Putnam (a former MPS detective who had admitted acting corruptly with DS Davidson and others in the South East Regional Crime Squad, and had been relied 1 Introduction on as a witness by the MPS in a series of prosecutions of corrupt officers) that DS Davidson had admitted he had been in a corrupt relationship with the father of David Norris (the suspect) at the time he had worked on the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation; and that he (Putnam) had told his police debriefers of this in July 1998, when the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was taking place, and expected disclosure to be made by the MPS to the Inquiry. Within a few weeks of these articles having been published, on 31 May 2012 the MPS published a review of the corruption issue, which concluded that: a) the MPS had disclosed all available material relating to the officers of concern to the Inquiry; b) there was no other material known to be held by the MPS that touched on corruption or collusion having played a part in the initial investigation; and c) none of the media allegations were new. Mr Lawrence and Baroness Lawrence asked the Home Secretary to consider setting up a new Public Inquiry to consider the corruption issue afresh. The Home Secretary decided instead to set up this Independent Review. Following some discussions of my previous involvement in the trial of Dobson and Norris, and in recent proceedings in which Mr Putnam had featured as a witness, I agreed to carry out the Review. I was very fortunate that Alison Morgan, another barrister in independent practice who was junior counsel in the Dobson and Norris prosecution, agreed to assist me. I take full and sole responsibility for the Review, and for the views expressed in this report, but her assistance has been of such value that it is appropriate to refer to what “we”, rather than “I”, have done and found following the Review we have together carried out. Mark Ellison QC 3 March 2014 2 2.