Metropolitan Police: Stephen Lawrence Murder Investigation

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Metropolitan Police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will start, as is fitting, by paying tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. Time after time, they have faced setback after setback, yet they continue to campaign with dignity for justice for their murdered son. It is a dignity that puts the shabby performance of the Met to shame. We can only imagine the anger and frustration that they feel, having to endure another revelation that yet again exposes the failings of the investigation into Stephen’s murder and raises the suspicion that corruption hampered it from the start.

Stephen Lawrence was murdered in Eltham on 22 April 1993. One of my first acts on becoming a Member of Parliament was to table a question in the House calling for a public inquiry into the investigation into Stephen’s murder. I pay tribute to my former colleague John Austin, who supported me in doing so. Despite the stench of corruption that surrounded the case from the start, the Macpherson inquiry did not conclude that corruption hampered the investigation. Despite many revelations and investigations along the way, corruption has always been denied.

We are here today thanks to the excellent detective work of two people: the BBC reporter Daniel De Simone, who uncovered evidence that was originally ignored and spoke to key witnesses exposing the failings of the original inquiry, and Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll, whose outstanding work along with his team secured the convictions of David Norris and Gary Dobson in 2012 and uncovered other vital information. The culmination of their combined efforts is that the Met has been forced to accept that Matthew White is a suspect in the attack and is likely to have been the blond-haired sixth attacker.

Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that four officers would not face prosecution for failures in public office for their part in the now discredited police investigation. In 2014, another officer, Detective Sergeant John Davidson, was also exonerated of charges. In a 2006 documentary about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Davidson was described by then Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates as one of the most corrupt officers in the Met. In 1998, Yates was head of Operation Russia, an investigation into a syndicate of corrupt officers in the south-east regional crime squad.

One of the officers under investigation, Neil Putnam, turned supergrass. He disclosed in his evidence a link between DS Davidson and Clifford Norris—the father of David Norris, who murdered Stephen Lawrence. Yates wrote of their association in a memo to the Met while the Macpherson inquiry was still taking evidence. Putnam claims that he understood that his testimony about the link between Norris and Davidson would be reported to the inquiry. The information from Yates and Putnam was not passed to the inquiry. The Met disputes Putnam’s claim that he told his handlers of that link, but Putnam repeated it under oath.

I contacted the Met and demanded to know why Yates had accused DS Davidson of corruption in a programme about the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I pointed out that the Macpherson inquiry had not concluded that corruption had hampered the investigation. I was invited to Scotland Yard to meet the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Cressida Dick; I was not permitted to meet John Yates. I was assured that the Met did indeed believe Davidson to be an extremely corrupt officer, but that that did not have anything to do with the Stephen Lawrence investigation. I asked why the Met chose to make that statement in a programme about Stephen Lawrence if it had nothing to do with the investigation. I never got a satisfactory answer. The Met suggested to me that it used the programme to call out Davidson, which I took to be further evidence of the contempt it had for this case.

In 1998, Martin Polaine, a Crown Prosecution Service barrister, was put in charge of reviewing police corruption evidence from Operation Russia. In a corruption proceeding, he told the Old Bailey of a

“recollection I was told by someone in CIB3 of a link between Clifford Norris and Davidson.”

CIB3 was the unit conducting Operation Russia. He also said that when this information was passed to him in late ’98, it was considered “of great significance”.

David Hamilton was the head of legal affairs at the Met at that time. In a witness statement to a recent corruption inquiry, he recalled

“a suspicion of an association or contact between Davidson and the Norris family”.

In 2000, he wrote:

“Disclosures relevant to Davidson’s contact with the Norris family could have an adverse effect on the Commissioner’s position in the ongoing High Court action by Mr and Mrs Lawrence.”

Stephen’s family immediately asked for an investigation into the 1998 revelations, which was carried out by the IPCC. It concluded that Putnam, Hamilton and Polaine—an experienced police officer and two senior barristers—were confusing Norris with another member of the Norris family who had been killed two years before Stephen’s murder. That is despite all three stating that that was not correct. Davidson is central to the failure of the original investigation. He handled a key witness, whose information could have identified Matthew White in the first couple of days of the investigation.

Why is the recent identification of Matthew White so significant? Because, of all the attackers, he stood out among the witnesses’ descriptions. He was the one they could describe in detail. Duwayne Brooks, who was with Stephen and was closest to him when he was attacked, always stated that the first attacker was the one he could remember the most and could identify. He has since confirmed that he believes that Matthew White was that person. He described him as having frizzy light brown or blond hair that came down over his ears—completely different from the other attackers. When the evidence is re-read in the light of the BBC findings, it becomes apparent that identifying White would have been key to solving the case at the very start. To put it another way, anyone wanting to hamper the inquiry would want to ensure that Matthew White was never identified as the sixth attacker.

The day after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, James Grant—not his real name—walked into a police station to give information. Such was the detail of his information that it should have been clear to the officers that Grant either was a suspect or had been talking to someone who was present at Stephen’s murder. James Grant was not properly registered as an informant, despite having spoken several times to DS Davidson. In 1997, Grant was interviewed by Kent police, who were called in to carry out a review of the original investigation. He said that he had told his handler DS Davidson back in 1993 that his source was Matthew White. DS Davidson denied that, and the Macpherson inquiry accepted his denial. When that fact was later relayed to the detective in charge of the case, Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden, he expressed shock.

In the two weeks after Stephen’s murder, Matthew White was photographed coming out of a house that was under surveillance. Despite the fact that the descriptions of the sixth attacker matched White, he was not arrested or questioned as a suspect. He was mentioned in the Macpherson report as Witness K but, because he was not considered a suspect, his alibi was never questioned. The BBC has demonstrated that his alibi cannot be true. Even Macpherson himself said that White was a significant person. The final report of the Macpherson inquiry said that Grant’s information

“might have provided the key to the solution of the case in quick time. This was because James Grant’s source was close to the suspects, if he was not involved with them himself.”

In 1997, Kent police asked one of the original investigating officers whether they had ever investigated White. He said:

“I can’t really answer that. I didn’t think after those lines”—

whatever that means. One of Kent’s conclusions was that White should be investigated. That was never done. Both Macpherson and Kent police could see that Matthew White was a potential suspect, but the Met failed to act.

The BBC interviewed an informant called Witness Purple. In 1999, Witness Purple gave evidence to the police with details of the attack on Stephen that could only have come from someone who was there. In 2000, White was arrested and questioned about Purple’s information. The police read Purple’s statement to White, at the same time revealing Purple’s identity. Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll told the BBC that that was

“alerting the bad guys…and that cannot be good police work.”

White made no comment in answer and was let go. What could possibly be gained by letting a suspect know the identity of someone giving information against them, other than to silence that informant? Purple stopped co-operating.

Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll began investigating Stephen’s murder in 2006. It was his excellent work that resulted in the convictions of Dobson and Norris in 2012. The day after the convictions, his then superior officer Cressida Dick told him not to bother going after the other suspects. That was despite the judge urging him to do so. Driscoll and his team, to their credit, continued to investigate. He uncovered a vital statement that had been ignored in the original investigation. He discovered that Jack Severs, the stepfather of Matthew White, had given evidence via a friend who was a serving police officer, stating that Matthew White knew more than he had told the police and that he had been present at Stephen’s murder.

That only happened eventually, because the wrong name was recorded for the stepfather. Mr Severs’s information was passed to the investigation team, but was not followed up until 20 years later, when Chief Inspector Driscoll tracked down White’s stepfather, Mr Severs. He confirmed that White had told him that he had been at the murder scene. The BBC found that that information was given to Detective Inspector Brian Weeden, who was in charge of the investigation. That was confirmed in Brian Weeden’s notebook. A meeting with White was planned but never happened.

Consider this for a moment: the officer in charge of a major investigation is contacted by a fellow officer, with information coming from a relative of an individual who, he claims, was present at the murder scene—and it is forgotten. The conclusion of the Macpherson inquiry was that incompetence, not corruption, hampered the investigation. But what the police were expert at, so many times, was mishandling information relating to Matthew White. Can it be explained by incompetence?

Why was James Grant not properly recorded as an informant? Why did the detail of Grant’s evidence not lead officers to ask where it came from? Why was the evidence from Matthew White’s stepfather overlooked for 20 years? How did the wrong name for the stepfather come to be recorded? Why was finding the blond-haired sixth attacker not given priority from the outset? Why was the similarity between White and the witnesses’ descriptions not noted?

Why was White not picked up for questioning after he was photographed coming out of a house that was under surveillance soon after the murder? Why was the link between Grant and White never made by the investigation? Why was the Kent police’s recommendation to investigate White never acted on? Why was Witness Purple’s identity given to Matthew White when Matthew White was being interviewed as a possible suspect? Why did Cressida Dick order Driscoll not to bother investigating the other suspects? Why did she state, when she shut down the ongoing investigation into Stephen’s murder,

“There were no viable lines of inquiry”?

Will the Met now apologise and accept that that was not true? Why was Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll forced to retire when he had uncovered more discarded evidence that warranted further investigation and has resulted in Matthew White being named as the sixth suspect?

All of this means that there should be a further inquiry, which must be completely independent of the Met. What has been exposed goes beyond incompetence. We cannot leave it here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to see the Public Gallery so full. I am particularly pleased to see Baroness Lawrence here. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing the debate. As was abundantly clear throughout his remarks, this is a subject of particular significance for him and his constituents. I appreciate the insight, work and knowledge he has brought to bear on this subject and discussion. My thanks also go to other Members who have contributed.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence remains one of the most disgraceful and devastating crimes our country has ever seen. We all remember the collective sense of grief and shock we felt at the time, and the impact that that heinous act has had on all of us 30 years on. The case left an indelible mark on policing, and that theme has been explored today and in previous debates. Above all, it is important to remember that this started with the loss of a young man with the whole of his life ahead of him. Although it is understandable that our discussions often focus on the wider questions for policing and our society more generally, we must always keep that terrible tragedy at the forefront of our minds.

We speak of Stephen and the future that was denied to him. We think of his family, who have endured a long and difficult fight for justice, and who have been indefatigable in keeping his memory alive. I fully understand the continued interest in this case and will endeavour to be as helpful as I can and as full in my comments as possible, in the short time that remains. That said, I hope colleagues will understand if I restrict my remarks to some degree, due to the sensitivities and, of course, the fact that the Metropolitan police is operationally independent.

I turn to 26 June, when the Met issued an updated statement on Stephen’s murder. The Met recognised that although two men were convicted of Stephen’s murder in 2012, other suspects have not yet been brought to justice. The Met statement explained that Matthew White, who passed away in 2021, first came to its attention as a witness in 1993. He was arrested and interviewed in March 2000 and in December 2013, and a file was received by the Crown Prosecution Service in May 2005 and October 2014.

The Met stated that on both occasions the CPS advised that there was no realistic prospect of conviction of White for any offence. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Ward said, as part of that statement, that unfortunately too many mistakes were made in the initial investigation and they continue to have an impact. On the 30th anniversary of Stephen’s murder, Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley apologised for the Met’s failings, and the deputy assistant commissioner repeated that apology.

I know that that update from the Met will have come as a blow to Stephen’s family. Their resilience and courage in seeking justice has shone through for the last three decades. Their frustration is understandable, and it is right that the police have apologised. In May, the Met commissioned a routine forensic review of key exhibits to consider whether new scientific processes could advance the case. That investigation remains in an active phase. As I have said, I fully understand the interest in the investigation and the desire for answers, but I hope colleagues will understand if I refrain from further speculation or comment in that regard.

The IOPC investigation collated evidence related to the actions and omissions of the four officers in the early stages of the investigation into Stephen’s murder. A file was then provided to the CPS to answer whether anyone should face charges. This was a vast investigation that had been undertaken by the National Crime Agency under the IOPC’s direction. It involved the gathering and analysis of several million pages of information and intelligence, spanning many years. I understand that NCA investigators also interviewed more than 150 people, including serving and former police officers and staff involved in the original murder inquiry, relevant witnesses and others, including journalists with in-depth knowledge of the original investigation.

The CPS applied tests, as set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, regarding the evidence provided. I recognise that the announcement made by the CPS that no criminal charges will be brought against the four suspects will be very disappointing for the Lawrences and Duwayne Brooks. The CPS has offered the victims the right to review its decision, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about the Met needing to change and the Casey review. The publication of Baroness Casey’s report on the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Met made for very sobering reading, and it is paramount that public trust in the Met is restored. Although primary accountability lies with the Mayor of London, I know the Home Secretary will continue to hold the commissioner and the Mayor accountable for delivering the necessary improvements, as will the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who apologises for not being here today.

Although we have seen progress in several areas since the awful murder of Stephen, there is much to do. It is imperative that by working with key partners, including His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, the Met continues the process of restoring public confidence that it is getting the high-quality service that people desire and that we all have a right to expect. The Government have confidence in the commissioner’s leadership, and in his plans to turn around the Met and ensure that the force is delivering for all communities.

I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in relation to institutional racism. Without question, discriminatory attitudes and behaviours have no place in policing, and any allegations of racism are deeply disturbing. We expect police officers to take urgent action to root out discrimination. Allegations of police wrongdoing are dealt with under a comprehensive framework, either by police forces or the IOPC. I understand that there is much debate around the definition of the term “institutional racism” in the Met. The commissioner is committed to tackling issues of racism and building back trust in the police in the form of the force’s “Turnaround Plan 2023-2025”—the two years that have been mentioned—which has core themes of more trust, less crime and high standards. The most important thing is to judge the Met on its actions rather than words.

I turn to other recommendations made by the hon. Member for Edmonton. I listened carefully to what she said about her four recommendations, and her second recommendation was to have greater sanctions. The Casey review has looked at the effectiveness of the disciplinary system, so that the public can be confident that it is fair but effective at removing officers who fall far short of the standards expected of them. I have met the commissioner, and I have heard that he is extremely interested in this area. At this stage, I have confidence in him.

The Casey review also examined whether the current three-tier performance system is effective in being able to dismiss officers who fail to perform the duties expected of their rank and role. To restore public confidence in policing, the Home Office and the police forces have undertaken a series of actions to ensure that police vetting is fit for purpose, including the need for police forces to check their officers and staff against the national police database, and to root out those unfit for service. Officers who fall short of the standard expected of them must be identified and dealt with appropriately, and I look forward to work being done in this area.

[Clive Efford]

In relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, I have gone back over all the evidence, and there were clear failings in the investigation—so many in certain aspects of it that it is difficult to say it was incompetence. If we do not have an independent investigation, away from the Met, how will the public have confidence in the outcome?

[Miss Dines]

I look forward to the work that Baroness Casey outlined in terms of having more confidence in the Met police. It is right that such work is done, that there is a little time given to do that work, and that we must expect progress.

I will try to respond to all the recommendations put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton. In relation to scrutiny, I am aware that members of the Lawrence family have been granted core participant status in the undercover policing inquiry. The inquiry was established in 2015 to examine undercover policing operations by English and Welsh forces since 1968. On 29 June 2023, the undercover policing inquiry published an interim report for tranche 1 of its investigations. The full report is publicly available, and I am sure Members have had a look at it. Tranche 1 of the inquiry’s investigations examined special demonstration squad officers and managers, and those affected by deployments between 1968 and 1982.

The Home Office is grateful to Sir John Mitting for the report, and the Department will carefully consider its contents. It is an interim report and is restricted to the time period covered by tranche 1. As the inquiry’s investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment at this stage, but the recommendation suggested by the hon. Member for Edmonton is very much in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

It is a tragedy that the case still casts a shadow over the Metropolitan police. The mistakes that have been made, particularly those in relation to evidence relating to Matthew White, are too numerous to be coincidental. They are worthy of an investigation independent of the Metropolitan police. Even a review by Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll might suffice, because he is the one who stands out among the Met officers as somebody committed to seeing justice in this case. We often hear people talk about victims; if there any victims we should listen to, it is the Lawrence family. We should talk to them about how we can resolve the issue and take it forward.

When Cressida Dick closed down the investigation into Stephen’s murder, she said that no further viable lines of inquiry were open. That was not true. The Met have to accept that. We cannot leave it there.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Metropolitan Police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.