Morning session of Day 22 (Tranche 3, Phase 2), hearing evidence from two witnesses connected to the family liaison arrangements set up for the Lawrence family after Stephen Lawrence's murder in April 1993. Linda Holden, one of the two original family liaison officers, is questioned in detail about how and why she recorded and reported the names of visitors to the Lawrence home, and whether that information could have fed into Peter Francis's account that the SDS was asked to check the political affiliations of the family's visitors. William Ilsley, the senior detective chief superintendent who oversaw the murder investigation and later took over family liaison himself, is then questioned about the investigation team's view of the anti-racist groups supporting the family, the formal controls on sharing information with Special Branch, and ultimately agrees that treating those groups as a problem was rooted in the Lawrences being a Black family.
00:43:59 Good morning everybody. Today's evidence will be um transmitted over the live link uh save for a private session towards the end of the day. Uh those
00:44:10 towards the end of the day. Uh those with they it will be transmitted after a 15-minute delay. Those with um mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room, but only after 15 minutes of elapse. Since the
00:44:22 after 15 minutes of elapse. Since the event that they're reporting, they may not be used for recording or photography. Yes.
00:44:29 I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth. the whole truth
00:44:40 the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And nothing but the truth. piece of that. Yes.
00:44:49 Yes. Can you please confirm your full name for the record? Linda Holden. Thank you. And thank you for coming to assist the inquiry with your evidence today. Um, you have pro provided one signed witness statement to the inquiry.
00:45:02 signed witness statement to the inquiry. And could we please have the first statement up on the screen? Thank you. This consists of 16 pages and it's signed on the last page and is dated the 12th of June 2025.
00:45:15 12th of June 2025. Is that your statement? It is.
00:45:17 It is. And are the contents of that witness statement true and [snorts] correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? Yes, it is. Thank you. That puts the whole of your witness evment into evidence.
00:45:28 witness evment into evidence. Now, I just want to begin with a bit of signposting. Uh, your statement addresses in the main an overview of your career within the Metropolitan Police Service before giving a more detailed account of your role as a
00:45:39 detailed account of your role as a family laying officer to the Lawrence family between the 23rd of April 1993 and the 6th of May 1993. And I'm going to ask you questions related to the following. First, how you
00:45:51 related to the following. First, how you came to be appointed as a family lay officer. Second, your role as a family lay officer and the process of recordkeeping. And third, any further insight that you can provide into HM43
00:46:04 insight that you can provide into HM43 Peter Francis's account that whilst he was in the SDS back office, he was given the task of going through the notes and reports of other officers and trying to find the names on a list provided to him
00:46:16 find the names on a list provided to him by HN86.
00:46:18 by HN86. It was a list of names he was told came from the family lays and officers at the home of Darin and Neville Lawrence who recorded all the visitors to the house. So starting with the first of those
00:46:30 So starting with the first of those topics, can I please give you a moment to reread paragraph two of your statement at UCPI 50 38585
00:46:41 [clears throat]
00:47:18 [clears throat]
00:47:20 And if you could let me know when you've read it.
00:47:22 read it. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you. Uh, what in broad terms did being a surveillance instructor entail? I was um attached to a unit called the
00:47:33 I was um attached to a unit called the C11 criminal investigation department at New Scotland Yard and my uh role was to teach newcomers um the role of being
00:47:44 teach newcomers um the role of being surveillance officers where you would um teach them how to um work covertly um in spe with specialist departments and that was either in vehicles or on foot.
00:47:56 was either in vehicles or on foot. Thank you. Uh, and what insight, if any, did that give you into the NPS's undercover policing capabilities as carried out by the SDS? I didn't have anything to do with the SD
00:48:07 I didn't have anything to do with the SD SIDS.
00:48:09 SIDS. And what relevance would your background in surveillance have had to your appointment to a murder investigation? I was just um secounded to a murder inquiry. It was not because I was a um
00:48:20 inquiry. It was not because I was a um surveillance officer. Uh, and would your experience in surveillance have had any impact on the type of information that you might have regarded as relevant to the Metropolitan
00:48:31 regarded as relevant to the Metropolitan Police Service? No, not at the time on the inquiry. No. And did you put your surveillance experience to any particular use in the murder investigation of Steven Lawrence?
00:48:42 murder investigation of Steven Lawrence? Um, yes, I did on on one occasion. Um, I was used on a covert operation. Um, but that was all. Was that during the murder investigation? Yes, it was.
00:48:54 Yes, it was. Uh, can you help us with what that cover operation was? Um, that was um to follow one of the suspects.
00:49:02 suspects. Thank you. Now you recount at pages 2 to three, paragraphs 2 and three of your statement that you joined the Steven Lawrence Murd investigation on the 23rd of April 1993
00:49:14 investigation on the 23rd of April 1993 and that you and HM1386 Detective Sergeant John Beavenon were appointed as found officers by the senior investigating officer HN513 Detective Superintendent Ian Crmpton.
00:49:27 Detective Superintendent Ian Crmpton. Yes.
00:49:29 Yes. Now you've already addressed this to some degree, but I want to be absolutely clear. Do you think your background in intelligence or in surveillance played any role in your appointment as a family las officer? No, it was completely different.
00:49:44 Uh there's a slight difference between uh what uh DS Beavenon says and what you say in relation to how you were appointed. Uh you say that you were both appointed and he says that he
00:49:55 appointed and he says that he volunteered. Um is there any significance of whether he volunteered or was appointed? I can't remember at the time, but we were both we were both together when we were appointed to be
00:50:06 together when we were appointed to be the family less and officers. [snorts]
00:50:10 [snorts] Do you recall a PC Fisher having played any role in family leism? I think he he um came to the house on a couple occasion but I can't really
00:50:22 couple occasion but I can't really remember. No. Uh now what now I want to move into your role as a family lesson officer uh and the process of recordkeeping. Um and I want to start by asking what did you
00:50:34 want to start by asking what did you consider your role as family lesson officer entailed? My role as a family leaison officer was to meet with the family um of the of the um deceased and to give a and to offer
00:50:47 um deceased and to give a and to offer them um any um thing that they needed from us to update them at all times with the inquiry. how the inquiry was progressing. Um, and we were their point
00:50:58 progressing. Um, and we were their point of call if they needed anything. Um, and really to assist them through the tragic circumstances.
00:51:07 Was it in your experience common or unusual for a family laying officer to record those present at the address of a murder victim? It was only just really to um inform the
00:51:19 It was only just really to um inform the inquiry team of what our engagement was and who was there at the time, but it was it was only it was not specifically to go in and record names or anything. Um and what would be the purpose of
00:51:31 Um and what would be the purpose of feeding that back to the murder investigation team? It was just to say who had been who was at the at the premises at the time, but um it was just to um whether they were relatives or not. That was all it was.
00:51:45 relatives or not. That was all it was. Uh and was that the approach you took uh to uh other families? Yes.
00:51:58 Uh I now want to move on to um what you did when you had that information. You mentioned this at 3C uh sub paragraph 4 of your statement that you believe [snorts] you were required to update the
00:52:10 [snorts] you were required to update the incident room andor senior officers on relevant information regarding the family and you consider that that included the names of those present at the family home. This was for information purposes only. Uh were those
00:52:24 information purposes only. Uh were those updates sometimes done orally? Um
00:52:28 Um no I would write I would do an I would put it onto an action sheet. um and and everything I did with the with the family, I would I would return I would put it back into the um incident room.
00:52:42 put it back into the um incident room. Would you expect there to be a written record of every single person that you recorded?
00:52:47 recorded? Um if I had taken those names at the time, yes. Uh would you accept that there would occasionally have been oral conversations which may have included transmission of these names?
00:52:58 transmission of these names? Yes.
00:53:01 Um, and was this your understanding not only when dealing with the Lawrence family, but also when engaging with Dwayne Brooks? I only met Dwayne Brooks on a couple of occasions. I wasn't the main family
00:53:13 occasions. I wasn't the main family leazison officer for Dwayne Brooks. But if there had been others around Dwayne Brooks, would you have felt it passed your responsibility to report back who they were? If it was necessary, but I didn't really
00:53:24 If it was necessary, but I didn't really deal with him, so no, I can't say.
00:53:36 And are you able to give any insight into what individuals within the murder investigation did with any information that you passed on to them about the uh groups [snorts] individuals around the
00:53:47 groups [snorts] individuals around the Lawrence family? all the all the information that I um took back to to the incident room would be um dealt with by the senior officers and they would decide um further steps with it.
00:54:00 decide um further steps with it. Yes. And are you able to give any insight into whether that information could have been transmitted further orally or in writing? I can't say. I don't know.
00:54:11 I can't say. I don't know. And are you able to give any insight on whether that information would have been likely transmitted to special branch? I've got no idea. I can't say.
00:54:21 Now, I just want to explore a little bit further uh your understanding of the role as a family laying officer. So, I want to start with the murder investigation, how you saw uh your role.
00:54:32 investigation, how you saw uh your role. Um you've previously agreed that the circumstances of the murder were such that there was never suspicion over the family. Do you still agree with that? I do indeed. And do you agree that Dwayne Brooks was
00:54:43 And do you agree that Dwayne Brooks was a random innocent victim, as John Beavenon put it? Yes. Yes.
00:54:50 Yes. Yes. Was there any reason for the murder investigation to delve into the background of Dwayne Brooks or the Lawrence family? I can't answer that one because um I was not part of the decisions made. No.
00:55:07 And did you consider that your role included gathering intelligence from the family? I didn't gather any intelligence from the family.
00:55:20 Uh, and was there in your view any murder investigation purpose in politically profiling people who came to console or support the Lawrence family? No.
00:55:36 And do you have any view of Mr. to be comment that he would have commented in regular meetings about different factions trying to make a political point when he came back from meetings
00:55:47 point when he came back from meetings with the family. I can't answer for uh Mr. Beaven, but um can you help me with why? Well, first of all, do you accept that at the murder investigation meetings there would have been discussion um of the
00:56:00 would have been discussion um of the atmosphere of Lawrence home whether there were any uh political factions trying to make a point? Yes. Yes. Uh, and why would that have been discussed? It would have only have been who who had
00:56:12 It would have only have been who who had been at the premises at the time of the house. That would have been all.
00:56:19 Now, I think you say you sometimes attended the Lawrence family home with Mr. Beavenon and sometimes alone. Uh, when you attended, you would make a record of those present at the address
00:56:30 record of those present at the address and then you would put it onto the the action sheets. Yes. Do you recall whether you made a note whilst you were at the home itself? Um
00:56:41 Um I think it if there on the on the first the first day the Saturday um I think I I took some names of the political parties were there but other than that no I didn't.
00:56:52 no I didn't. But but would you have written that down at the family home or when you got back from the family? Oh when I got back. So it would have been done from memory. Is that right? Yes. Yes.
00:57:08 Did anyone direct you or suggest that you should write that onto an action sheet?
00:57:13 sheet? No, I would just um let everybody know what I had done, what I had been tasked as family as officer to let everybody know um what my dealings were for that day or subsequently.
00:57:27 And would those names that you uh obtained on the 24th of April or otherwise always have made their way onto an action sheet? I didn't take any names on the on the
00:57:39 I didn't take any names on the on the Friday,
00:57:40 Friday, which was the 23rd. Oh, sorry. 20. It was that Sorry, I didn't take any names on the 23rd, which is the Friday, but the the names um were only of the political parties there. No
00:57:52 only of the political parties there. No other names. And do you recall uh DS Beavenon writing anything down? No.
00:58:00 No. Uh why do you think he did not write anything down? I think probably because he knew I would write it down. So cuz we were together [clears throat] so it didn't need for both of us.
00:58:12 both of us. And and that's why his practice was different to yours. Yes.
00:58:17 Yes. So when he visited alone, you would have expected him to keep a note. Yes.
00:58:25 Uh DS Beavenon [clears throat] notes that he thought it was important to relay information to the rest of the team if the family had been hijacked by different factions trying to make a political point.
00:58:36 political point. Did you agree with that outlook?
00:58:40 As say I can't answer for DS Bevin. No, I understand that. But did you agree with that outlook? Was was it an outlook you shared? No, because I can't I can't recall that. I can't even recall him saying that.
00:58:54 I can't even recall him saying that. Uh, do you agree now with the proposition that it would be important to relay information to the rest of the team if the family had been hijacked by different factions trying to make a
00:59:05 different factions trying to make a political point? If if it if that if that was the reason, then yes, I would have told the inquiry team. But at the time, why would you haven't told the inquiry
00:59:16 why would you haven't told the inquiry team?
00:59:16 team? Pardon?
00:59:17 Pardon? Why would you have told the inquiry team? If obviously if they were if the family were being inter interfered with by outside agencies then it would be important that the inquiry team knew what was happening with the family.
00:59:29 what was happening with the family. Um and why would that be important? Obviously for the inquiry and it would be for the senior officers to make decisions as such.
00:59:40 But I think you agreed with me that it wouldn't be relevant to to the murder investigation itself. Um was there other purposes or not as far as I know? No. No.
00:59:53 Um I just want to understand then the process for submitting actions. So I think as I understand it, you'd go to the family home, you come back and then you'd submit your triplicate action sheet into an intray and then the office
01:00:06 sheet into an intray and then the office manager would review it and decide on any actions and then the front sheet would be filed. Is that right? That's correct. Um, and can you help me just understand what happened to the three sheets? What
01:00:18 what happened to the three sheets? What what why there were three? They were um obviously they would be be put into the inquiry um office and it would be up to the um detective sergeant who was in the
01:00:30 the um detective sergeant who was in the office manager um who would disseminate the information and obviously you would have my sheet which would be the original um and then he would check the others and then one sheet would go for
01:00:41 others and then one sheet would go for the indexing. Uh so one sheet would go to index. So the top sheet would be the one that you filled in in writing. Yes. And then there'd be two copy sheets if you like. One of which would go to homes for
01:00:52 One of which would go to homes for indexing.
01:00:53 indexing. Yes.
01:00:53 Yes. And the other one which would go further if there were further actions. I understand. Thank you.
01:01:01 Um and can you help me just a little bit with how the Holm system operated? Do you know if the notes were typed or scanned?
01:01:08 scanned? I I didn't have any dealings with the homes, but um from my recollection they would type it. I don't know whether they scanned or not. I think they typed it. Thank you. that it was a computer system.
01:01:18 system. Yes.
01:01:19 Yes. Yes.
01:01:24 Now, am I correct that actions could partially arise from those action sheets, but they could also arise from the oral murder investigation meetings? Yes.
01:01:34 Yes. [snorts]
01:01:34 [snorts] Uh and if it arised from one of those oral meetings, that would also be logged on the home system in typed form. Yes.
01:01:41 Yes. Thank you. Um presumably it's possible that there would have been some activity discussed at those oral meetings that didn't make its way onto the homem system because there was no need for a formal action.
01:01:54 there was no need for a formal action. Um yes, we would just have a meeting and then obviously um the uh there would be a note taker would just which would probably be which would have been the office manager and then they would make
01:02:05 office manager and then they would make decisions as to what further action should be taken. Thank you. Uh and I just want to understand what happened at those daily office meetings in a bit more uh detail.
01:02:16 office meetings in a bit more uh detail. Um so as I understand it, some information would be conveyed orally without being put into an action or update sheet. Yes.
01:02:24 Yes. And then the office manager or the senior investigating officer would make a decision as to any actions arising and then the most appropriate senior officer would Yes. raise the action.
01:02:35 would Yes. raise the action. Yeah.
01:02:40 I understand from your statement that the regular murder investigation team meetings were attended by about 10 to 20 people.
01:02:47 people. Is that right? Yes.
01:02:49 Yes. And as such, the information of those present at family home when shared would generally be shared with a wide pool of officers. Is that right? Yes.
01:03:00 And I understand that at the meetings you and Mr. Bevon would feedback any information provided by the family or others present at the family home. Uh and I know at least in relation to the 24th of April that may have included
01:03:11 24th of April that may have included notable groups or names attending that you became aware of. Yes.
01:03:17 And and I think uh earlier I took you to Mr. Beaven's comment that if groups were thought to be hijacking the family that would be important information.
01:03:28 would be important information. Um,
01:03:30 Um, in general, would these be relatively open meetings where you discuss the daily updates? They they were all open meetings unless the senior officers were having their own meetings.
01:03:43 Uh, and are you able to help me with this? Would it as a matter of course included updates on notable groups or names that had attended the Lawrence family home? I only took the um the names on the
01:03:55 I only took the um the names on the Saturday. I didn't take any other names. presumably uh or let me put it this way. Would you have become aware of other names throughout the course of your
01:04:07 names throughout the course of your involvement with the Lawrence family without asking? Not really, unless they unless they volunteered to give me any names, but no.
01:04:15 no. And if those names were volunteered, is it likely that you would have discussed them at the office meetings? I would have said if they'd mentioned any names, I would have said. Thank you.
01:04:31 Now I want to take you now to some documents
01:04:35 documents that uh go to the practice and try to piece together what happened um back in 1993.
01:04:43 1993. And I want to begin by understanding your interactions with PC Allen Fischer. Um I I asked about this briefly earlier but do you recall him in detail? No, I don't.
01:04:55 No, I don't. Um, do you recall what his role was within the murder investigation? Not really offh hand. No. Uh, then please can I take you to UCPI
01:05:08 Uh, then please can I take you to UCPI 0000
01:05:11 38 390.
01:05:20 Oh, thank you. Now I'm just going to take you through some parts of that statement of uh Alan Fischer uh just so I can understand and see if that that helps you. So page one
01:05:34 see if that that helps you. So page one um first of all interested in the bottom third lines sort of 9 to 11 uh and that says that in November 1990
01:05:45 uh and that says that in November 1990 chief superintendent John Philpot advertised for officers to apply for a position of divisional racial instance officer. I applied for this post and was successfully appointed. So he was
01:05:56 successfully appointed. So he was appointed as divisional racist instance officer some two years before Steven Lawrence was murdered on the 22nd of April 1993. Yes, I can see that. Yes.
01:06:07 Yes, I can see that. Yes. Thank you.
01:06:11 And I want to go to page two now.
01:06:18 Four to six lines up from the bottom.
01:06:29 Yes. And what he says there, the sort of second half of that paragraph, is that he was introduced to a number of independent agencies and that the main agency in his division was the Greenwich
01:06:42 agency in his division was the Greenwich Action Committee Against Racist Attacks. Yes.
01:06:46 Yes. Do you recall being aware of that committee? Not until he said no. Um, and when did he say it? Do you mean now that you're reading it?
01:06:57 now that you're reading it? Only from only from the incident room. Um, so you have no view about No.
01:07:03 No. No.
01:07:04 No. And if we can go over to page three, please.
01:07:08 please. 10 lines up from the bottom.
01:07:15 So [snorts] that records that in April 1993 he was still a police conible wait working out of the racial instance office at Plumstead police station.
01:07:26 station. Yes.
01:07:28 Yes. Do you recall being aware of that? Um only um briefly from when from when he came that was all.
01:07:41 Uh, and it goes on to say that on the 23rd of April 1993, the day after Steven Lawrence was murdered, PC Fisher was informed what had happened and attended the Lawrence family home together with DI James
01:07:55 only from what I'm reading now. Yes.
01:07:58 Yes. Um, but you'll see there two lines on the bottom. He can't remember the time we arrived, but what I do remember is meeting privacy of Gakara at the front door of the house.
01:08:09 door of the house. I see that. Yes. Thank you. And if we can go over the page, please.
01:08:18 He recalls being introduced to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence.
01:08:25 Yes. Uh and then he recalls being told that he would work with Mr. Beavenon as family liaison. That's about the middle of the page
01:08:38 That's about the middle of the page during the course of that day. Oh, yes. I see. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Um so I just want to ask um two questions. First, would you agree that the MPS had local awareness of some
01:08:49 the MPS had local awareness of some groups around the Lawrence family from at least the 23rd of April 1993? Only from what I'm I'm seeing now. Yeah. Thank you. Uh and do you recall any discussions uh
01:09:01 Uh and do you recall any discussions uh about that? No.
01:09:09 Seeing that now uh and the reference to family liaison um can you give any insight into PC Fischer's role as he understands it from that statement? Um as far as I'm aware um it it was
01:09:22 Um as far as I'm aware um it it was myself and DS Beavenon were the only family leazison officers. Thank you.
01:09:34 Now I want to go on to page five, lines four to five.
01:09:48 Uh, and the second sentence, I recall seeing the Lawrence family on a number of occasions with DS Beavenon at their home. Uh I think earlier you said you recalled him visiting the Lawrence
01:09:59 recalled him visiting the Lawrence family on one or two occasions. Um but does this trigger your memory? Do you recall him attending with Lawrence family on a number of occasions with DS Beavenon?
01:10:07 Beavenon? No, I can't. No.
01:10:14 [clears throat] Uh I now want to take you to a second statement of PC Fisher. This is from 2014. The one you were just looking at was from 1997. And that's MPS-0721953.
01:10:39 Uh, and I want to start at page three, the final paragraph.
01:10:59 Thank you.
01:11:07 Just bear with me a second.
01:11:11 That's page two. Uh uh that would explain the challenge. Page three, please. [snorts]
01:11:30 Now, he says there, uh, I later received, can we just go up just make sure that is page three, please? It's at the top. Page 305. Thank you. So, I'm just going to read there. I later
01:11:41 just going to read there. I later received a call via mobile telephone from a female officer at SP. This I believe was a short time after my
01:11:52 believe was a short time after my return
01:11:53 return return but more important after a large public disorder in Welling what I believe was in May of 1993.
01:12:07 Now we know that Mr. Fischer played a role in lazing with special branch to run some checks of suspects. But I just want to ask you two questions about this paragraph.
01:12:19 about this paragraph. Um, so first of all, does it surprise you that special branch made contact with Mr. Fischer by telephone or would you regard that as routine?
01:12:30 you regard that as routine? I' I've got no idea. I can't answer that. [clears throat]
01:12:36 Okay. And I want to go to page four now. Lines 2 to four.
01:12:45 You just zoom in at the top, please.
01:12:54 Yeah. He says, "I was unaware of any intelligence information from either the family to special branch or vice versa."
01:13:06 And he says, "I have been further asked if I'm aware of the family and officers providing similar information or intelligence to either the incident room or special branch. Again, I am not." Does that record with your recollection?
01:13:20 Does that record with your recollection? I I didn't um deal with special branch and I certainly didn't give any information or intelligence to um them at all.
01:13:29 at all. Thank you.
01:13:32 I now want to return to PC Fisher's 1997 statement which addressed activity in the murder investigation 24th of April. So that's UCPI 50 38390
01:13:51 and it's page four lines 17 to 19 that I'm interested in.
01:14:06 Thank you. So he now talks about Friday the 23rd of April and then goes on to say, "The following day, Saturday the 24th of April, 1993, I recall being on duty with DS Beaven and DC Holden at
01:14:19 duty with DS Beaven and DC Holden at Elam Police Station. Arrangements had been made to meet some members of the Lawrence family at Greenwich Mortuary for a viewing of Steven's body.
01:14:30 Steven's body. We went to the mortuary and I recall seeing Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and other members of the family. I remained outside the mortuary whilst DS Beavenon and DC Holden went in with
01:14:42 DS Beavenon and DC Holden went in with the Lawrenes.
01:14:47 Yes. Now Baroness Lawrence has given evidence that she was still in complete shock and deeply distraught that weekend.
01:14:56 weekend. Was that apparent to you? Absolutely.
01:15:02 [snorts] Now you give evidence in your statement that you recall the African National Congress and Anti-Racist Alliance attending Blorence family home on the 24th of April 1993.
01:15:18 And you only recall obtaining a limited number of names after Mrs. Lawrence objected.
01:15:26 objected. [clears throat] That's correct. Yeah. Specifically, I think you recall obtaining the names of the sister of Mrs. Lawrence, Imran Khan, one female member of either the African National Congress or Anti-Racist Alliance, and MP
01:15:37 Congress or Anti-Racist Alliance, and MP Miss Ho. Is that right? That's correct. Can you tell me why did you ask about the names?
01:15:48 the names? Well, I I felt as my role as family as officer um when when dealing with tragic circumstances um like anything sometimes families or relatives don't always want people other
01:16:01 relatives don't always want people other people to know what is going on. And it was only really to just establish whether they were relatives or outsiders, whether they wanted us to continue speaking in front of um these
01:16:14 continue speaking in front of um these people the in the house at the time. And that's all the that's all it was for.
01:16:26 Uh, and how did Baroness Lawrence respond to those questions on on the Saturday? Quite understandably, I mean, she was completely distraught. I mean, her son
01:16:39 completely distraught. I mean, her son um had been murdered and um obviously there were a lot of people in in the in the house. Um and um I think she would
01:16:50 the house. Um and um I think she would obviously was concerned um of of wanting you know whoever was cons whoever had done this to be brought to justice. Um and uh so really she didn't really say a
01:17:02 and uh so really she didn't really say a lot on the Saturday. Did you consider that the details of those individuals were useful for the murder investigation? Um it was only as I said it was um I was
01:17:16 Um it was only as I said it was um I was more in um interested in making sure that the family were not upset if we were giving information um what had what would be happening with
01:17:27 um what had what would be happening with the inquiry to some people that shouldn't you know shouldn't know that's all.
01:17:36 Do you recall passing the details of those individuals back to the merger investigation? Yes, I did. I put them on an action sheet.
01:17:45 sheet. Why did you do that? It was only because obviously recording everything that I had um done with the family, which is a matter of course that you would do um to let the um the
01:17:57 you would do um to let the um the information the incident room and all the officers and the senior officers know um what you had been doing or who you'd been met. Baroness Lawrence objected to being
01:18:09 Baroness Lawrence objected to being asked for details about the people at her home. Uh do you agree that that was insensitive and intrusive from the family's perspective at the time? No. On the Saturday she
01:18:21 at the time? No. On the Saturday she didn't object. It was later on that she didn't want um us to take any details of anybody, which we didn't. Am I right then that you continued to take details after the 24th of April?
01:18:32 take details after the 24th of April? No, I didn't. Not any names. Why? Why did you stop after the 24th? Basically because we had been asked not to take any names, so I didn't. Who told you not to take? That was from um Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence
01:18:43 That was from um Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence on the 24th of April. It was after the 24th of April. After Do you remember when it was? Um it was probably could well have been a couple of days later,
01:18:54 a couple of days later, but but until that point, you would have continued taking names. Is that my understanding? Not necessarily. If if there were um people in there that they had said were their relatives or whatever, you
01:19:05 their relatives or whatever, you wouldn't have done you wouldn't have taken any names. Uh what was the threshold for taking the name in your mind? It was as I as I've said, it was only
01:19:16 It was as I as I've said, it was only just to um advise the incident room of um people that were not relatives of the family. That was all. Baroness Lawrence uh in her statement um
01:19:30 Baroness Lawrence uh in her statement um says that the family agent officers became suspicious asked repeatedly about the people in our home as though they were trying to find the person responsible for my son's death amongst
01:19:41 responsible for my son's death amongst my own family and friends. That felt appalling at the time when I was experiencing the worst trauma in my life. Their priority seemed to be surveillance rather than support.
01:19:53 surveillance rather than support. Do you accept in view of that that there was a risk even in the first days that the MPS was treating the family's grief, supporters, and anti-racist campaign
01:20:05 supporters, and anti-racist campaign activity as matters to be monitored or managed?
01:20:08 managed? No, I didn't.
01:20:17 In your mind, were public order issues a matter that concerned the murder investigation? I had nothing to do with public order matters.
01:20:28 I now want to turn to exploring your view on a number of records relating to the merge investigation. If we could start with MPS 0749975
01:20:40 which is marked M116.
01:20:48 Now this is not dated but I will in a moment take you to message 128 and that message 128 is dated the 24th of April 1993.
01:20:59 1993. Did you understand messages of of this nature? You can see the message number at the top right of the page M16. Do you understand messages to be sequential with the earliest number being in the earliest in time?
01:21:12 being in the earliest in time? Uh yes. Yeah. So this message must then predate uh or beyond the 24th of April 1993 possibly.
01:21:25 Uh now if you look at the bottom you see the person receiving/sending as being PC Fisher. Do you see that bottom left? Yes.
01:21:35 Uh and if we could just go to the main text itself
01:21:41 says there will be a picket at Beexley Heath Council civic officers on wedding today 280493 no time known at present member of the anti-Nazi alliance states that Mr. The Neville Lawrence, father victim, will be
01:21:53 Neville Lawrence, father victim, will be asked to attend and hand in a letter calling for the BMP shop to be closed down. SA12 informed.
01:22:04 Does it seem to you that that came from Mr. Fischer in that he informed SO2? I can only go with what's on there. I had nothing to do with anything like that.
01:22:18 Are you able to say whether that information came from you? That did not come from me. Forgive me. There is a date on the top. Yes. Uh the dates uh sir uh don't
01:22:33 Yes. Uh the dates uh sir uh don't correspond with the date of the actual message itself. The date is 302 2003. Yes.
01:22:40 Yes. Uh but it of course is referring to a picket on Wednesday 280493.
01:22:50 Is is there an explanation for the fact that the date is my understanding is it's the way that the operation fishpool uh database is is is logged. Um as we heard earlier
01:23:01 is logged. Um as we heard earlier actions were taken on action sheets typed up resulted in actions were typed up by Holmes and then kept on the Holm system.
01:23:08 system. But in terms of what's been extractable from the system as it now stands, this is what we have received.
01:23:20 In in your view, is there any relevance relevant of this to the murder investigation? I can't answer. Not it was nothing to do with me, so I can't answer that. Uh, were you aware that PC Fisher was in
01:23:31 Uh, were you aware that PC Fisher was in correspondence with SO2? No. Thank you. Uh, I now want to take you to MPS 0749758.
01:23:50 second page. Thank you. So, we can see here this is a handwritten uh note.
01:23:58 uh note. At the top left there's your name.
01:24:03 At the bottom right it says offer sir and receiving a struck through. So, it says sending DS Holden.
01:24:12 Yes. [clears throat] Uh, and if we zoom in at what you say in that message, and this is dated the 24th of April, 93. Whilst at scene with victim's parents, Mr. Lawrence informed
01:24:23 victim's parents, Mr. Lawrence informed me that he intends to hold a root march from his home address to a scene and to a place where he fell. At this stage, he cannot say how many people will be at the march or when it is due to take
01:24:37 the march or when it is due to take place. I will endeavor to obtain this information when I next speak to him, which will be A.M. on the 25th of April 1993.
01:24:48 Now a corresponding action is available at page three of that document. So if we go to page three
01:25:05 sorry it's the corresponding action is NPS0749759. So could we go to that please?
01:25:18 page three.
01:25:26 Uh, and what it says is, "I spoke to Mr. Lawrence
01:25:30 Lawrence and he informed me that him and his family, relatives and friends would be holding a torch lit vigil at the scene of where Steven was murdered on Thursday the 29th of April, 1993.
01:25:41 the 29th of April, 1993. You say this took place at 7 p.m. on the 29th of April 93. The event was policed by uniform officers from Plumstead Police Station. I attended the vigil of DS Beavenon. There were approx 100 or so
01:25:52 DS Beavenon. There were approx 100 or so including the family. There were no untoward incidents. That's correct. [clears throat] Um what did you consider your role was in respect to families and when it came to this torch light vigil?
01:26:03 to this torch light vigil? We we just went along to support the family. Um they were holding the torch light vigil. Um and we were just going along to support the family. That's all we were doing.
01:26:14 we were doing. Um and why did you consider recording that fell within your duties? Because obviously Mr. Lawrence had told us that um this was going to happen and it was just to let the incident room
01:26:25 it was just to let the incident room know that we had gone along um and we um the event was placed by the uniformed officers um and how many people went that was all it was just for information
01:26:36 that was all it was just for information purposes only. Did you receive any feedback about that information? No.
01:26:43 No. Uh, and did you have any view as to what use you expected to be made of the information? Um, it was just put into the information room and um it was just really for
01:26:54 room and um it was just really for information purposes. Part of our um inquiry, part of our role is just let them know that what we had been doing. Do you think there would have been any
01:27:05 Do you think there would have been any interest in passing on as public order intelligence? I've got no idea. I mean, DS Bevon and I went along. Um, our our role that was not to go in looking for for unto
01:27:17 not to go in looking for for unto incidents at all or even discussing with anybody who they were or who they weren't. Uh, now there's no indication that this was passed on to special branch, but would you have expected them to be informed of
01:27:29 you have expected them to be informed of something like this? I've got no idea.
01:27:34 Um, and do you have any recollection of whether you felt that tensions were building or there were any public order issues at this time? Not at that not that evening. No.
01:27:47 Thank you.
01:27:52 Uh, I now want to move on to MPS 0749745.
01:28:10 [clears throat] Now, what this is is a meeting note of the murder investigation meetings on the 27th of April at 5:00 p.m.
01:28:28 And you can see there there's Linda referred to. Do you think that was referring to you? That is me. Yes.
01:28:38 Uh and you can see there that you give an update into relation to how Mrs. Lawrence is feeling. Yes, that's correct. He feels that Dwayne is being persecuted.
01:28:49 And Mr. Lawrence expressing a request that the police update him every day. Yes.
01:29:00 Towards the end you can see the senior investigation officer senior investigating officer rather next uh and if you see the last uh entry rumors arrived that marches are planned for
01:29:11 arrived that marches are planned for this week but nothing concrete you see that
01:29:14 that yes
01:29:18 from your perspective what was the relevance of marches being planned for the purposes of the murder investigation I had nothing to do do with that would have come from the senior officers. So I can't answer that.
01:29:31 can't answer that. Do you have any recollection whether it would have been helpful for the murder investigation team to know where the marches were being planned at the time? Well, that would have come from the senior officers. That wouldn't have come from us.
01:29:44 So you have no view on whether it would have been helpful or not? No.
01:29:50 Thank you. If I could take you then to MPS0749746.
01:30:04 Now this again is another uh office meeting. This one was on the 28th of April 1993.
01:30:15 And uh there's DC Holden referred to at the bottom of that page.
01:30:21 If we could just bring up DC Holden just the last three paragraphs
01:30:31 and it says there councelor Morse rose hells with family all outside agencies. Yes.
01:30:43 Family do not want to be contacted in the next couple of days unless there are any developments. cannot speak to fan unless there is someone there. If we could go over the page please.
01:31:00 [snorts] Uh so you'll see on the top right there there's the meeting continued
01:31:06 continued as then reference to Dwayne Brooks to be seen at 12:30 p.m. Ray Brooks brackets father close bracket sensible. See that?
01:31:15 See that? Yes. Yeah. Reference to Neville Lawrence Brackett's father. Sensible. You see that?
01:31:21 that? Yes.
01:31:24 Yes. And then you go on to mention a meeting at 2 p.m. at town hall. Youth against racism. Lawrence has refused to attend. Family told victim support they do not need their help. Tomorrow family
01:31:36 need their help. Tomorrow family gathering 6:30 p.m. Well road. Yes.
01:31:42 Now, first, do you agree that that's an example of how you may have continued to report back names of those around the Lawrence family after the 24th of April, 1993?
01:31:54 1993? The reference, the question, uh, is that an example of how you may have continued to report back names of those around the Lawrence family after the 24th of April, 1993? We would have
01:32:06 the 24th of April, 1993? We would have any information that came in um we would have just reported it and um it would have been written up. That that's actually not my writing. So I didn't I didn't do that. Uh well, it's typed.
01:32:18 Uh well, it's typed. Yeah. I didn't I didn't have any I didn't do that. Uh you didn't report that information back.
01:32:23 back. No.
01:32:24 No. Okay. Well, if we just go back to the previous page,
01:32:30 you see there's reference there to DC Holden and then Yeah. And then it goes over the page
01:32:39 continues from you and then it says DC doll.
01:32:44 doll. Yeah.
01:32:45 Yeah. So
01:32:48 So do do you say that on on your reading that's not referring to your commentary? No. No. I mean the the bit that I refers to me is um I did speak to um the family
01:33:01 to me is um I did speak to um the family about the victim support scheme. Um and they said that they didn't um they did not want their uh help. Um but that could have been myself and John Beavenon, but certainly I didn't put
01:33:13 Beavenon, but certainly I didn't put that in.
01:33:15 that in. Um so is is your view that this note is wrong or do you think the notes um saying something else than I'm putting to you? Um, I can't I can't answer that, but certainly I I haven't written that.
01:33:29 but certainly I I haven't written that. Well, I understand you didn't didn't by by written it. Do you mean you didn't say that?
01:33:33 say that? No, only the bit about the family told victim support. That's all. Um, so so so let me just break this down. By you didn't write it, you mean you didn't put on an action? No, I didn't. No. Okay. Um, we know from your earlier
01:33:46 Okay. Um, we know from your earlier evidence, as I understood it, that there were oral conversations at these office meetings. Um and and this is record of that meeting? Yes.
01:33:53 Yes. Are you saying you can't recall sharing this information? No. Already?
01:33:57 Already? No.
01:33:59 No. Uh and is it possible that this note is right and you just can't remember? That could be right. Yes. So are you able to say definitively that that is not something you said?
01:34:12 that is not something you said? I can say I didn't say that. I can tell you about the victim support but the the above no I can't remember that. Why do you feel confident that you can say you didn't say that? Because of the um as I say, I only met
01:34:26 Because of the um as I say, I only met uh Dwayne Brooks twice. Uh DS Bevin dealt with him, so it could have come from DS Beaven.
01:34:36 Uh do you have any view on whether that was relevant to the murder investigation? It would only be the information because uh Dwayne was a witness and he was with um Steven at the time.
01:34:56 Do you think there was any relevance to describing that Ray Brooks and Neville Lawrence were sensible? I wouldn't I wouldn't have written
01:35:07 I wouldn't I wouldn't have written something like that.
01:35:11 Do you recall conversations of that nature about who was sensible or not sensible taking place at murder investigation meeting? No, because that's not something I would do.
01:35:22 Do you think any of the other 10 to 20 officers at the murder investigation meetings might have discussed things of that nature? I've got no idea.
01:35:33 [clears throat] Thank [snorts] you. If we could then go to UCPI.
01:35:39 50 38245.
01:35:49 Now this is a uh decision officer uh making the decision was a senior investigating officer who at that point was detective superintendent Weeden.
01:36:01 was detective superintendent Weeden. It says date of decision 2804. Um but we can deduce from its location that that was in 1993
01:36:12 and what it says it's a policy decision to ensure that victim li is focused primarily ones and families are not diluted
01:36:24 and families are not diluted in effect by various intermediaries who have now claimed to represent the family.
01:36:31 Yes. And the reasons given are to ensure that proper information support is directed to the family or families to avoid confusion. Yes.
01:36:42 Now, do you recall whether you thought intermediaries were claiming to represent the Lawrenes at that point?
01:36:50 No, I don't. Do you recall having any view on whether that was diluting family leaison? No.
01:37:01 No. Did you have concerns that the Lawrence family was being improperly influenced by intermediaries? No, I didn't. Do you know if others in the murder investigation had such concerns?
01:37:12 investigation had such concerns? I don't know.
01:37:17 Do you think that if there had been those concerns, it might have prompted someone to find out who those intermediaries were? Absolutely. Yes.
01:37:32 Uh and do you recall what impact this policy decision had on your role as a family as an officer? Um obviously if we we were directed u by
01:37:44 Um obviously if we we were directed u by the senior officers um to find out if there were any interfering intermediaries we would um in inform the incident room immediately.
01:37:58 Can you just help me with with with why you would inform them? We we've spoke about spoken about it um at some length today. Um and I think you've said it's for information purposes.
01:38:09 for information purposes. Um but do you have any view as to what use it would have fulfilled? Can you give any examples? Only from the from the action that I'm reading. Um obviously as it says at the
01:38:20 reading. Um obviously as it says at the bottom to avoid confusion um and to ensure that proper information and support is is direct for the family um and immediate family. But obviously if
01:38:31 and immediate family. But obviously if there were anybody that was interfering, it would be important that the um senior officers knew that there were outside agencies interfering with the family.
01:38:45 Thank you. I want to take you to two more actions which are a little bit harder to timestamp uh but uh they are likely to have been significantly before August 1993.
01:38:57 significantly before August 1993. The first one is MPS 0749972.
01:39:08 It's marked M221 has an unclear original date, but PC Fisher is again at the bottom named as the person receiving or sending.
01:39:21 the person receiving or sending. And what the message states is that Royal Patel member anti-Nazi league states that we are arranging for march from Plumstead to Beexley Heath. The starting point route is not known, but the
01:39:32 point route is not known, but the victim's family will no doubt be contacted by the ANL and invited to attend. ESB informed and chief superintendent Philpot RA informed.
01:39:44 superintendent Philpot RA informed. Now, Baroness Lawrence confirms in her statement that the anti-Nazi league, who she understands to be part of the Socialist Workers Party, were involved in the Steven Lawrence campaign and
01:39:55 in the Steven Lawrence campaign and attended the Lawrence family home on Saturday following the murder to the 24th of April. Are you able to say whether this information came from you? No,
01:40:06 No, I never heard of the Anti-Nazi League.
01:40:16 Thank you.
01:40:22 Does the fact that Chief Superintendent Philpot was informed suggest that it didn't come from the murder investigation?
01:40:31 I can't answer that. Thank you.
01:40:37 If we could please go to MPS-0749971.
01:40:47 This is marked M253.
01:40:52 Offic's information has an unclear date. Again, it's uh as you can see at the top message formal to PC Alan Fischer and it records renews team and Mark
01:41:04 and it records renews team and Mark Wodsworth was employed in current affairs at Temp's TV now believed employed for Carlton or freelance. He is an active member of the anti-racist alliance.
01:41:15 alliance. Now Mark Wodsworth is noted by Baroness Lawrence as having attended the Lawrence family home on Sunday the 25th of April 1993.
01:41:24 1993. Um, first of all, do you think that information came from you? It did not come from me. How can you be definitive? Because I didn't go to the family home on the Sunday.
01:41:35 on the Sunday. Thank you. Do you have any view or comment on why the information would be recorded? It would didn't come from me, so I can't answer that.
01:41:47 Thank you. Just want to ask you a few questions in in view of these records. Um, do you understand why Baroness Lawrence takes the view that you and DS Beavenon were using your visits to collect names,
01:41:59 using your visits to collect names, observe who was present, and gather information? That's totally incorrect.
01:42:07 And can you understand why she feels that the focus of the police was not on finding my son's killers, it was spying on us?
01:42:13 on us? No, it's totally incorrect.
01:42:19 Uh what do you consider your role to have been after the 6th of May 1993 when Mr. Ilsley took over family leaison? Um we were just uh we were still
01:42:31 Um we were just uh we were still employed as family lays and officers but only used very sparingly if um um Mr. Ilsley wanted us to deal with something. Thank you. So when DS Beavenon says that
01:42:43 Thank you. So when DS Beavenon says that he considers your role as family as officers ended at that point, um there's that there's no difference between your evidence, you you'd agree that that's accurate?
01:42:51 accurate? Yes. Yeah.
01:42:57 Um would it surprise you if messages and office meeting minutes continued to make references to marches, protest, or individual activist names after the 6th of May 1993?
01:43:08 of May 1993? If if they were put into the system, then whoever, but I certainly didn't put any in.
01:43:14 any in. Um would would you be surprised if they were did make their way into the system? I can't answer that. No.
01:43:26 Well, um I can take you to um a few examples of them. I think if we perhaps go to MPS 0749970
01:43:38 which is marked M574.
01:43:45 Now this is a phone in record.
01:43:52 What it says there is I have been given a leaflet
01:43:56 a leaflet from court officer London Bar of Greenwich. This leaflet is encouraging people to pick at Beexley Council today at 18:30.
01:44:04 at 18:30. Also to pick at Tame's court on 3rd of August 93 and 4th of August 93 recommittal proceedings in the Steven Lawrence case. This leaflet appears to be on behalf of the Steven Lawrence
01:44:15 be on behalf of the Steven Lawrence campaign appeal. I will be liazing with court staff resection
01:44:25 to inform two area ops re's court and also a special branch. So this is information coming from a court or court staff uh asking about
01:44:37 court or court staff uh asking about information of of of numbers.
01:44:42 It's in the operation fishpool messages. Are you able to give any insight into why that would have been would have made its way to the murder? No, because I had nothing to do with it.
01:44:57 Do you have any view on what the murder investigation would have done with that information? Um, obviously if the if it was information, um, then it would have gone into the system, but it would have been dealt with by the senior officers, not
01:45:09 dealt with by the senior officers, not not from myself.
01:45:17 Uh, and if we then go to MPS0749749.
01:45:32 Now you'll see there a meeting Monday 13 September 83. I think 83 is a typo. It should say 93.
01:45:42 Uh and if we could go on to page two please. So over the page
01:45:51 uh and if we go one two three four five six the sixth entry diash mentions vigil and evening procession. Yes.
01:46:02 Yes. Uh and if we look at the penultimate paragraph,
01:46:08 SIO outline meeting with Lawrence family two hours useful drawing up list of questions other groups trying to hijack the vigil today commissioner to meet bossly tomorrow taking advice what Khan
01:46:21 bossly tomorrow taking advice what Khan is saying further discussion progress on inquiring objects.
01:46:27 Yes. Now, do do you agree that that shows that the murder investigation, at least then was concerned about uh hijacking of the Lawrence family?
01:46:40 the Lawrence family? No, I can't because it's come from a senior officer and they they make their own decision. So, I can't. Yes, but but you can see how that appears to have been the focus of the murder investigation at this point.
01:46:52 murder investigation at this point. No, that's up to the senior officers. They they obviously make those decisions.
01:47:01 Um I want to now move on to uh the 30th of June 1993
01:47:11 which is the date on which Baron AIA from the all parliamentary group on race and community requested a meeting with Commissioner Condon to discuss concerns about the way in which the investigation in Steven Lawrence's murder was being
01:47:22 in Steven Lawrence's murder was being conducted. Commissioner Condon in turn requested a briefing note which was then produced by uh Detective Superintendent Weeden.
01:47:34 uh Detective Superintendent Weeden. And now I want to bring up that briefing note which is uh at UCPI 5038242.
01:47:51 Uh and I want to go to page two.
01:47:57 penultimate paragraph, please. If we could have that up.
01:48:03 And if we just take a moment to read that.
01:48:28 If you could let me know when you've read it.
01:48:30 read it. Yes, I've read it. Thank you. Uh would you agree that there were generally a large number of friends, relatives, or apparently self-appointed representatives present, sometimes 20 of more who had their own points of view or
01:48:41 more who had their own points of view or requests to make? No.
01:48:49 Would you agree that the Well, why do you disagree with it? Because there wouldn't have been I mean there was a lot of people there on the Saturday, but then when I went um other
01:49:02 Saturday, but then when I went um other times there certainly weren't that amount of people in the house at all. Sometimes it might have just been um Baroness Lawrence's sister or whatever or or Neville or whatever, but certainly not not all all those people. Would
01:49:16 not not all all those people. Would there have been occasions where there were uh numbers approaching that? No. No. Only only the only the main sat on the Saturday was the was when I saw
01:49:27 on the Saturday was the was when I saw the most people there. And would you say that was approaching 20?
01:49:31 20? Um to be honest, I can't recall, but I do know there was a lot of people in the in the house on the Saturday. That's why it was confusing as to who was relative who were relatives and who who were
01:49:42 who were relatives and who who were friends or who were outside agencies. Thank you. And I want to go on to page four now,
01:49:51 paragraph two.
01:50:06 Just let me know when you've had a chance to read that.
01:50:11 I've read it. Thank you. Uh
01:50:16 Uh now the assertion there that the Lawrence family have made full use of the media coverage to voice their criticism of police and it does appear that their grief and anxieties are to some extent being exploited.
01:50:27 some extent being exploited. Do you recall or do you consider that was an accurate portrayal of how the murder investigation team felt? Obviously this the se these are notes from the senior officers so they would have made the decisions on the content
01:50:39 have made the decisions on the content of of that report. Yes. But I'm asking you from your involvement with the murder investigation team meetings whether you think that's reflective of how the team felt.
01:50:49 felt. No, that's incorrect.
01:50:57 Uh but if that is accurate, would you agree that the murder investigation team might have felt pressure to understand who was driving that narrative? No, not at all. Why? Why do you say that? Because
01:51:08 Why? Why do you say that? Because obviously we were dealing with a murder inquiry and any information that came in was disseminated by the senior officers. So they made the decision as to how the murder inquiry would be led.
01:51:19 murder inquiry would be led. But might they have made the decision that they wanted to ask special branch who these intermediaries were? I can't answer that for the senior officers. No. But your view is that they wouldn't have
01:51:30 But your view is that they wouldn't have that incentive because that was I can't answer that. I've got no idea because I I obviously we would go to a meeting, the senior officers would then have their own meetings which I wouldn't
01:51:41 have their own meetings which I wouldn't be part and parcel of. Thank you.
01:51:47 Now I think your evidence is that you left the murder investigation in or around August or September 1993. I did.
01:51:58 And we know in June 1994, Detective Superintendent Weeden handed over to Detective Superintendent William Melish and he drafted a briefing note in which Mr. Khn was described as closely
01:52:09 which Mr. Khn was described as closely linked to the ARRA, having interposed himself between the Lawrence family and the police within hours of the murder and has turned the case into a political
01:52:20 and has turned the case into a political bandwagon. Now, Detective Superintendent Weeden in his statement to this inquiry considers it likely that you may be the source for some of the content of this briefing
01:52:32 some of the content of this briefing note.
01:52:35 So, first of all, do you agree with Mr. Weeden's characterization that the uh case have been turned into a
01:52:46 that the uh case have been turned into a political bandwagon? No, I don't because I can't speak for u Mr. Wait,
01:52:59 [clears throat] but you accept that the MPS's knowledge of some of who of those who attended Lawrence family home was likely derived from your written action or update sheets?
01:53:09 sheets? Only from the Saturday when I reported on those outside agencies.
01:53:15 [clears throat] Uh, in your interview with Mr. Ellison you said that you thought Mr. Lawrence might have been a little have have been taken over a little bit by Imran Khn. Um
01:53:28 taken over a little bit by Imran Khn. Um do you agree with that? Now Iran Khan was um appointed as their um solicitor and Mr. Lawrence was guided by uh what Mr. Khn had his he took he took
01:53:42 uh what Mr. Khn had his he took he took their um solicitor's advice. So um I can't speak for um his opinion.
01:53:51 Thank you. Uh I just want to conclude with a few um questions about practice before I turn to some of HM43's um evidence.
01:54:01 evidence. Uh so it's right, isn't it, that once you submitted an action update sheet, you did not recall what was done with that information? No.
01:54:09 No. And you were not aware of any systems or instruction which prevented information obtained through family and being disseminated to special branch? No. or to the SDS? No.
01:54:19 No. Or to other parts of the M? No.
01:54:23 No. Uh, and you say that information was recorded solely for the murder inquiry, but that was your understanding rather than something you could verify once the action update sheet had gone into the investigation system.
01:54:34 investigation system. Yes.
01:54:37 Uh now in relation to Peter Francis suggesting that he was given a list from the FLOS's at the Lawrence family home and tasked to check visitors political affiliations.
01:54:48 affiliations. You cannot positively say that information you recorded did not contribute to that list. No, I didn't h I didn't make a list of any names. No, but you you can't say whether your information could have informed that
01:54:59 information could have informed that list. It could have been written by someone else using your information. Exactly. Yeah.
01:55:06 But if information was obtained through family and used for that purpose, and by purpose I mean to check the political affiliations of those around for Lawrence family and to politically
01:55:17 Lawrence family and to politically profile them, that would have been a serious breach of the family's trust, wouldn't it? Oh, absolutely.
01:55:26 Uh I now want to turn to the last part of my questioning which just relates to Peter Francis's uh evidence is given orally to this inquiry.
01:55:39 Now we [clears throat] don't need to go to it. Um but I'll just read out what he uh says.
01:55:44 uh says. It's at UCPI50 40191
01:55:49 40191 page 15362 to60232.
01:55:55 And it says the family officer who was in Steven Lawrence's house was taking all the details of all the family members who were there, all the visitors who actually gave them details. This was
01:56:06 who actually gave them details. This was then passed to the area special branch. The area special branch then passed it through the special branch to the special demonstration squad and we were asked to comment on these individuals whether or not in their words they were
01:56:19 whether or not in their words they were politicos or what uh or who they were. Now assuming for a moment that uh he was right that some information filtered through the emer investigation through
01:56:31 through the emer investigation through to special branch and to the SDS. Are you able to comment at all on whether that would have been the likely route it would have have taken? No, because all the information I gave,
01:56:42 No, because all the information I gave, as I said earlier, was was just put into the information room. Um, what happened afterwards? Um, I don't know. So, Mr. Francis might be right, he might be wrong, you just can't say.
01:56:53 be wrong, you just can't say. I can't say. Thank you. Um, do you have any comment on his assertion that special branch officers would generally be able to look through the actions of an investigation
01:57:04 the actions of an investigation interested them without being questioned? Just for the record, that's what he says at page 159 1611 uh 20-612.09.
01:57:15 I can't answer for him. Thank you.
01:57:24 Uh do you have any view on comments from Mr. Francis that his view was that there must have been a direction for families and officers to decide to take the names of people visiting the Lawrence family
01:57:36 of people visiting the Lawrence family home?
01:57:37 home? There there was no direction. Um I just took the names of those that were there on the Saturday. Um but other than that, no.
01:57:47 no. [clears throat] Just so I understand it. Um, if he was right that there was direction that came from special branch, it would have likely gone to one of your senior managers and then relayed to you.
01:57:58 senior managers and then relayed to you. That would be the That would be that would be correct. Yeah.
01:58:01 Yeah. And you wouldn't necessarily know where it originated from. No. No.
01:58:08 Now, HM43 intimated the reasons that special branch would have wanted the names of Elizabeth Lawrence family home was because they did not have coverage of Panthe UK or the Nation of Islam and that there was a deepseated racist
01:58:20 that there was a deepseated racist feeling that the family would be totally led by the groups that they would not be able to run their own campaign. First, do you agree with the assumption that the family would be influenced by
01:58:31 that the family would be influenced by visitors?
01:58:33 visitors? Uh,
01:58:33 Uh, no, I can't answer that.
01:58:40 Thank you.
01:58:52 Thank you very much. Uh sir, that concludes my question at this stage. Um it's 10 minutes to 11. There may be some rule 10 and the break was due to be at
01:59:03 rule 10 and the break was due to be at 11. Would would it be sensible then to have a break of 15 minutes to permit that to happen? If you need a little longer, by all means take it. Thank you, sir.
02:20:58 Sir, there are uh a few rule tens arising uh but they are relatively limited. If I may. Thank you. Uh Miss Holden, I just want to cover uh
02:21:09 Uh Miss Holden, I just want to cover uh three uh areas. Uh first of all I just want to ask you a question about Sunday the uh 25th of April 1993.
02:21:22 of April 1993. You said in your evidence that you didn't attend on that day. Um and I just want to read out one of the rule 10s to see if that triggers your memory. It may not.
02:21:33 your memory. It may not. Um but it is that Holden attended the family home on the Sunday with DS Beavenon as she met Mr. Ker that day and asked questions of Mr. Lawrence about a hat and gloves being found at the scene which upset Mr. Lawrence. Um I don't
02:21:47 which upset Mr. Lawrence. Um I don't know if that triggers your memory in any way.
02:21:50 way. Yes, it does. I apologize. Yes, I I did um go there on the Sunday with the glove. Yes. Thank you very much.
02:21:59 Um second, I just want to go into some detail about the intermediaries or the groups around the Lawrence family. Um, did you have any views of their intent?
02:22:13 did you have any views of their intent? No.
02:22:16 Um, and would race or ethnicity at that point have had any impact upon your suspicions? None at all. No. Um, do you recall explaining to the Lawrence family why you wanted to know
02:22:28 Lawrence family why you wanted to know who was around them? Um, yes, I did. Yes. As I explained earlier, um when you're a family liaison officer and you're dealing with tragic
02:22:39 officer and you're dealing with tragic circumstances, um and even in any other matters when you're dealing with families, sometimes families don't always want outside people or agent or relatives or whatever
02:22:52 people or agent or relatives or whatever to know what is immediately going on. So you just want to make sure that before you give any information out from police purposes um that the family are happy
02:23:03 purposes um that the family are happy with that. Do do you feel that the family were happy with the questions you and Mr. Beavenon were asking? I felt at the time yes.
02:23:15 I felt at the time yes. Um do you accept now having looked at their evidence that they they weren't? No, they were not happy. No. And do you think communication could have improved that had they had the family as role
02:23:26 that had they had the family as role communicated more clearly to them? We we did explain to them from the um first time that I met um the family. I didn't see Mrs. Lawrence, Baroness Lawrence on the first day. Um but I
02:23:37 Lawrence on the first day. Um but I explained to u Mr. Lawrence exactly what our role was as family leaison officers. Uh
02:23:45 Uh on reflection, do you think it would have been important or helpful to repeat that to Baroness Lawrence? Um yes, when I met her, um which was the first time at the morttery, I explained what my
02:23:56 at the morttery, I explained what my role was. Um and um as far as I was aware that she understood.
02:24:06 Um I I've just been asked whether you or one of the rule tens has requested whether you have any information about a series of names or would have known those names whe whether they would have meant anything to you at the time. So,
02:24:17 meant anything to you at the time. So, I'm just going to read them out and if you can just tell me whether um they they trigger your memory, you would have known them at the time. Peter [snorts] Francis,
02:24:26 Francis, no.
02:24:27 no. Trevor Morris, no.
02:24:29 no. Robert Lambert, no.
02:24:31 no. David Hagen, no.
02:24:33 no. Neil Richardson, no.
02:24:35 no. Andy Davyy, no.
02:24:37 no. Andy Coohl's? No.
02:24:40 No. Thank you. Uh and then I just want to ask uh your view again. um focusing on Mr. Fischer, the racial instance unit officer and
02:24:51 the racial instance unit officer and spotter uh at the 8th of May Welling demonstration.
02:24:58 You do you have any view on the appropriateness of an officer tasked to support the victims of a racist crime to go undercover to spot protesters about racist crime on a demonstration?
02:25:12 about racist crime on a demonstration? that was would not have been something that I would have had any involvement in. So I can't can't answer that one. Thank you very much. Uh those were the only rule 10 questions uh that I wanted
02:25:23 only rule 10 questions uh that I wanted to ask. Uh so sir, that does conclude the questions for those witness. Is there any re-examination? No, thank you sir. Yeah.
02:25:30 Yeah. Um
02:25:32 Um can you help me with two things please? Sir,
02:25:37 Sir, first the role of the family liaison officer is if you could explain it to me precisely what
02:25:45 what the role of a family liaison officer is to assist any family not necessarily with murders um to ensure if there's a big inquiry or whatever to ensure that their needs are
02:25:57 whatever to ensure that their needs are looked after and that any police procedures that they are explained to them and as a port of call that if they needed anything, you know, if they needed um direction for um assistance or
02:26:10 needed um direction for um assistance or help or they needed any advice, we were there um to support their needs.
02:26:20 I wonder if you could be asked to look please at UCPI 6 3258.
02:26:29 Uh this is um a record of an interview with you on the 18th of October 2013. And if you could turn please to page 13.
02:26:45 Would you look towards the bottom of that page beginning um
02:26:54 from line 17 onwards?
02:27:01 Just read to the bottom if you would.
02:27:14 Yes. And then over the page the next three lines.
02:27:39 Yes. It it looks as though on reading that that you were telling um Miss Morgan that you
02:27:50 that you learned and reported the names of those that you encountered at the Lawrence's house um not only on the Saturday but on subsequent days. Yes. If there were if there were people
02:28:02 Yes. If there were if there were people there that I hadn't already taken the names of. Yes. But yeah. Sir, so uh throughout your time as family leaison officer with the Lawrenes, you noted and reported back the names of
02:28:15 noted and reported back the names of those who visited them. Yes. If if um if it was necessary, yes, but I didn't write them down at the time with the Lawrenes. That would be from memory. Yes. Got back. Okay.
02:28:27 back. Okay. And what was the purpose of reporting back the names to the instant room? It was just for the information purposes for the um inquiry team and for the
02:28:39 for the um inquiry team and for the senior officers to let them know who we had accounted encountered at the address for no other no other reasons. Do you know why they wanted that information? I wasn't directed to take the names. It
02:28:51 I wasn't directed to take the names. It was just part of the inquiry that we could say that we'd been there and this person was there um or that so that if they weren't relatives that's all. Was this normal practice as family liaison
02:29:02 this normal practice as family liaison officer or was it unusual? Um, no. Perhaps I don't know what other family liaison officers do. In your experience, I in my experience, yes, I would have done it on any any other inquiry. As far as you're concerned, this was
02:29:13 As far as you're concerned, this was simply normal practice. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions arising out of that?
02:29:22 Yeah. Thank you very much for coming and telling me uh about your experiences all those years ago. I'm very grateful to you.
02:29:30 you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um should I rise now while the next witness is uh invited to come in? Yes, please, sir.
03:04:18 Please repeat after me. I swear by Almighty God I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
03:04:29 and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you.
03:04:35 Yes. Thank you, sir. You've provided one signed witness statement to the inquiry. If we could have that up on screen, please. UCPI5039371,
03:04:46 tab A1 of the bundle. It should have it in front of you. Consists of 23 pages and it's signed on the last page dated the 16th of October, 2025. Is that your statement?
03:05:01 2025. Is that your statement? Yes, it is. Can you confirm that the contents of your witness statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? I can.
03:05:08 I can. Thank you. That puts [snorts] the whole of your witness statement into evidence. I'd like to briefly take you through your career history. You joined the Metropolitan Police Service as a
03:05:19 Metropolitan Police Service as a uniformed officer based in Willard in 1963. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. From 1965, you worked as a detective constable in CD in Southeast London.
03:05:30 Southeast London. That's correct. In 1970, you were promoted to sergeant dealing with serious organized crime and then onto SO9 investigating serious crime, dealing with various police
03:05:41 crime, dealing with various police forces until you were promoted to inspector in 1977. That's correct. [snorts] As inspector, you ran the Chelsea burglary squad and worked in the S08 flying squad until you
03:05:53 worked in the S08 flying squad until you were promoted to detective chief inspector in 1982 and put in charge of C at Greenwich Elum Police Station where you investigated several murders.
03:06:04 you investigated several murders. That's correct. [snorts] In the 80s, you also acted as the police adviser to the home office prison department and worked at SO1 dealing with criminal intelligence where you were promoted to
03:06:15 intelligence where you were promoted to superintendent in 1987. That's correct. And in SO1 you undertook major intellig intelligence operations including kidnap, blackmail and product
03:06:26 kidnap, blackmail and product contamination management. That's correct. I don't need any specifics but whilst in SO1 did you leaz much with special branch?
03:06:34 branch? No.
03:06:35 No. Uh you were then transferred to SO10 uh covert operation unit in 1990 dealing with sensitive operations and managing undercover policing.
03:06:46 undercover policing. Yes.
03:06:47 Yes. And again same no specifics but in so 10 did you have much leazison with special branch?
03:06:53 branch? No.
03:06:55 No. In 1991
03:06:57 In 1991 you were promoted to chief superintendent. Yes. And you say at paragraph two of your witness statement that you were the senior detective in Southeast London with the responsibility of managing
03:07:09 with the responsibility of managing approximately 200 to 250 officers supervising all major crime in the area. And you go on to say it was difficult to convey the extraordinary ownorous demands that were made of me and my team
03:07:21 demands that were made of me and my team who had to cope with inadequate resources. Is that right? That's correct. Is it right you then remained in this role until you retired from the MPS in April 1995?
03:07:33 April 1995? That's correct. So it's right to say, isn't it, that you spent a considerable part of your 30-year career as a detective in charge of investigations into serious crime, including murder? Yes. Correct.
03:07:44 Yes. Correct. At the time of Steven Lawrence's murder on the 22nd of April, 1993, you were a detective, chief superintendent, and the senior c officer on three area. I was.
03:07:55 senior c officer on three area. I was. And what areas of London did three area cover?
03:07:58 cover? Southeast London. You state in paragraph two of your witness statement that at the time, among other duties, you were supervising approximately 10 other murder investigations.
03:08:09 investigations. That's correct. As well as the area crime squad, child protection team, surveillance, the force intelligence bureau, and historic case reviews. Is that right? That's correct.
03:08:21 That's correct. What did your role supervising the various murder investigations entail? Well, very much that I relied very much on the uh detective superintendent, the
03:08:32 on the uh detective superintendent, the SIOS who would be dealing with the day-to-day uh issues on murder investigations uh and I would have an overview. So, I didn't actually get involved in the
03:08:44 didn't actually get involved in the investigation at all. So, you weren't involved in the nitty-gritty of the decision making? No, I certainly wasn't. And did the investigation teams only come to you with, for example, issues or
03:08:57 come to you with, for example, issues or resourcing problems? Exactly that. Did you attend the incident rooms of the murder investigations you were supervising? I used to try uh if possible once a
03:09:08 I used to try uh if possible once a week. Yes. Once a week. So, in terms of the Steven Lawrence investigation, would you say you tried to attend about once a week? I would have thought so. Yes. And whilst you were in the incident room there, what what what was your main function?
03:09:19 what what what was your main function? What were you doing? Well, I was basically listening to uh the off because I used to go to the office meetings like so I'd know when the office meetings were and I would be listening uh to what was being said and
03:09:31 listening uh to what was being said and what was being discussed um and really just having a general overview of what was going on. I want to ask you just about the Steven
03:09:42 I want to ask you just about the Steven Lawrence investigation team. Yeah. So the detective superintendent in Krampton was initially appointed as the SIO on the 22nd of April to lead the
03:09:53 SIO on the 22nd of April to lead the investigation, wasn't he? He was. Yes. He was then replaced by the detective superintendent Brian Weeden four days later on the 26th of April. That's correct. And detective superintendent Bill Melish
03:10:05 And detective superintendent Bill Melish became the SIO in June 1994. Is that right?
03:10:08 right? That's correct. Yes. Detective uh Inspector Benjamin Bullock was the deputy investigating officer from the start of the investigation. Do you remember?
03:10:17 remember? Yes, he was. Yeah. And was his role to support the SIO and take their place running the investigation when the SIO was not available? He was the deputy SIO. Yes.
03:10:28 He was the deputy SIO. Yes. From your recollection, did Mr. Crampton, Mr. Weeden, Mr. Bulock keep you regularly updated on the case and when issues arose? Yes, certainly. And we used to have um
03:10:40 Yes, certainly. And we used to have um meetings every Monday of all the superintendent who would go through individually uh what the state of the murder investigation was uh and resourcing and that type of thing and
03:10:52 resourcing and that type of thing and what was required. I'll come back to that in a moment. Do you also recall there was an office manager DS Fluke? Yes, he he was the he was the office
03:11:03 Yes, he he was the he was the office manager of the incident room. And what was his role? What did he do? He he was basically we were using holes which is which the computer system it was fairly new in those days. Uh and he
03:11:15 was fairly new in those days. Uh and he would be being in inputting uh actions on on the computer. He would be looking after to make sure the actions were then being actioned on. Uh then you had
03:11:29 being actioned on. Uh then you had Detective Conible Holden and Detective Sergeant Beavenon and they were appointed as the family liaison officers by Mr. Crampton on the 23rd of April 93. Uh do you recall that?
03:11:41 Uh do you recall that? Yes.
03:11:42 Yes. Uh Miss Holden says in her witness statement uh we don't need to get it out but if if you do would like to see it please say. Yes. her witness statement at paragraph 2 that in the early 80s she had
03:11:53 2 that in the early 80s she had experience working in SO11 surveillance and intelligence branch and [snorts] also became a surveillance instructor. She also says at paragraph 3A that she had previously worked with Mr.
03:12:04 had previously worked with Mr. Crarampton in SO1. Yes.
03:12:07 Yes. Do you know if this previous experience played any part in the decision to appoint her as an inven? I would have thought so but I honestly
03:12:18 I would have thought so but I honestly don't know. um saying you would have thought so. Why would that be relevant for the FLO role? Because you needed someone with experience to be a family liaison officer,
03:12:29 officer, but specifically in in the intelligence branch. Why would that be necessary for an role?
03:12:36 an role? Well, no, not not in the intelligence branch,
03:12:38 branch, right?
03:12:39 right? It was just obviously he probably knew well obviously did know her and he thought she would be a ideal person to be a family officer.
03:12:50 be a family officer. Uh do you recall any particular reason why DS Beavenon became the FLO? No idea at all. Um Mr. Beavenon says um at paragraph 4A of his statement that he volunteered but
03:13:03 of his statement that he volunteered but Mr. Crarampton at paragraph four of his statement says he was aware that Mr. Beavenon had some human awareness training and wanted someone in the role who had previous he had previously worked with. Does that assist your
03:13:14 worked with. Does that assist your recollection of why Mr. Beavenon was appointed? I have no idea. I want to look at the family liaison uh officer role in general terms. Right.
03:13:25 Right. Uh so in general terms in [clears throat] murder investigations you oversaw at the time. What did the role of family liaison officer involve? Well, to be exactly that, to uh go and
03:13:39 Well, to be exactly that, to uh go and befriend the family, find out what their needs were, to help them out uh and point them in the right direction if any questions that they wanted to know. Um
03:13:50 questions that they wanted to know. Um and also to establish the background of the uh of the victim as best as possible and become a friend of the family which normally happened.
03:14:03 was part of their role um to be a conduit then between the investigation team and the family to provide information to them about the investigation and to transmit questions from them.
03:14:14 from them. Absolutely. Yes.
03:14:16 Yes. Um
03:14:18 Um you say um that uh part of the role was to obtain background of the victim uh and their family. What was the purpose of that?
03:14:28 of that? Well, to know what type of person he was or she was. Um, so you've got you can do without a picture.
03:14:38 So was that in uh always done in family liaison officer roles or only in particular circumstances? Well, as far as I know, it was done always that you try and find out, you
03:14:50 always that you try and find out, you know, the type of person they were and friends, you know, as hopefully to obtain some evidence of who might have done it.
03:15:04 Um, did the family liaison officers play therefore in your mind any role in intelligence gathering? Is this what this was relevant to? No, it's to become friends of the family
03:15:15 No, it's to become friends of the family and get and obviously try and obtain whatever information. I mean, you wouldn't go out and uh upset the family in any way. Uh, you
03:15:26 uh upset the family in any way. Uh, you you would try and befriend them. Was there any guidance or training given to the family liaison's officers before they started their role? Well, there was, but I wasn't involved
03:15:38 Well, there was, but I wasn't involved in any of it, so I I honestly don't know.
03:15:41 know. And would you have expected a family liaison officer in a murder investigation to explain to the family that they were there both as a liaison, but also to gain information about uh
03:15:53 but also to gain information about uh the background of the victim? Well, they would be given instructions. I obviously don't know can't remember what what they were, but they would be given instructions of what to say to the family when they first meet them. I
03:16:05 family when they first meet them. I don't I don't know to be quite honest exactly what what was said in there. And again, looking in general terms, would it be typical of a family liaison officer in a murder investigation to
03:16:16 officer in a murder investigation to obtain details of interactions uh with visitors to the bereaveved family's home?
03:16:23 home? Could you repeat that? Sorry. So, in general terms, in murder investigations you oversaw, would it been would it have been typical of an FLO to obtain the details of visitors to the berieved
03:16:36 details of visitors to the berieved family's home? Well, it would if it didn't upset the family.
03:16:44 Um, I mean, you you would do anything to support the family, but the starting point would be to to take down the names of people visiting the home.
03:16:55 the home. Well, well, yes. And for what purpose? Well, just for information,
03:17:05 would So, it would be considered perfectly appropriate for for an FO to do so.
03:17:10 do so. Yes. If someone if someone came to the home uh you know it would be natural just to say you know who who is that would it also [snorts] be typical to record those name to report back to the murder investigation team.
03:17:22 murder investigation team. I would have thought so just to understand in what circumstances I understand you're saying in in all circumstances. So for example, if there was no suspicion of a bereaveved
03:17:34 was no suspicion of a bereaveved family's involvement in or knowledge of the murder, would a eth still be expected to record names of those present in the home? No, it wouldn't. I mean, I I I think it
03:17:46 No, it wouldn't. I mean, I I I think it depends. I mean, if someone comes in who's a family member, then that's fine. But if there's loads of people that start coming in, then that would maybe uh you know, you would sort of
03:17:58 maybe uh you know, you would sort of think to yourself, well, you know, who are these people? So, why would it have been interest to a murder investigation to obtain that information?
03:18:09 Well, it would be just
03:18:14 I I don't know that it would be of any particular interest, but people might think it might help the inquiry, the the uh family of the Asian officers.
03:18:25 the the uh family of the Asian officers. I mean, you'd have to ask the family of the Asian officers. I I don't know. I was never put in that position. I was never a family liaison officer, so I don't know.
03:18:36 don't know. And again, looking look in general terms for a murder investigation investigation, could any risks arise for the investigation if those names weren't
03:18:47 investigation if those names weren't taken down or recorded by the FO? And if there were any risks, what would they be?
03:18:52 be? It would it would be it would be down to the individual officer to decide whether they took names or whether they didn't take names. I I I don't know that it would be a massive issue.
03:19:06 So moving then to the specifics of the Steven Steven Lawrence investigation. Um was your understanding that their role was intended to be the same as you have just described in general terms?
03:19:18 just described in general terms? I would have thought so. Yes. And specifically to um Miss Holden and uh Mr. Beavenon, do you recall if they were given any guidance
03:19:30 recall if they were given any guidance or instructions on how to conduct their role? I have the faintest idea. I mean, as I said, I was in overall charge of of the murder. I didn't get involved in the day-to-day issues. You'd have to ask the
03:19:42 day-to-day issues. You'd have to ask the SIOS or or who whoever uh whoever the senior officer was what the situation was.
03:19:49 was. So, you wouldn't know, for example, if they were given any instruction about uh gathering intelligence within the home? No. or um whether or not they were instructed to write down the names of
03:20:00 instructed to write down the names of people visiting the Lawrence family home.
03:20:02 home. No, I wouldn't know.
03:20:07 Do you recall uh knowing if they did do that at the time? At the time, no. Do you recall if Mr. Beaven ever asked
03:20:18 Do you recall if Mr. Beaven ever asked Dwayne Brooks for a photo of himself? No.
03:20:23 No. Do you agree that Mr. Brooks was an innocent surviving victim of the murder at the time. Absolutely. Yeah. Would it be usual in a murder investigation to ask an innocent witness of a murder for a photo of themselves?
03:20:38 of a murder for a photo of themselves? Well, I unless I was in that situation, I wouldn't know. No, I don't think so.
03:20:50 Could we please have up uh UCPI 5038585
03:20:58 paragraph 3C3 which is on page six. This is um Linda Holden's witness statement. Right.
03:21:09 Right. And if you can see um paragraph three says I never received an instruction either written or verbal to take a record of those who were present at the Lawrence family home. Mr. Beavenon says the same thing.
03:21:21 Mr. Beavenon says the same thing. Right.
03:21:21 Right. If we could then have up sub paragraph four just below.
03:21:29 She says here, I believe I was required to update the incident room and/or senior officers on relevant information regarding the family and I considered this included the names of those present
03:21:40 this included the names of those present in the family home. This was for information purposes only. So do you agree that was what was expected of the in this investigation?
03:21:51 Yes, I agree with what she says. Yes.
03:21:55 If we could take that down, please. You've mentioned that you would attend the uh daily meetings of the investigation team approximately once a week.
03:22:06 week. Yes.
03:22:07 Yes. Um were those attended by the whole team?
03:22:11 team? The whole [clears throat] investigation team.
03:22:14 team. Well, unless they were out doing actions. Yes. I mean, there would be people actually working, but if if they weren't working, then they would be at the meeting. Yes. [snorts]
03:22:23 [snorts] And um presumably these meetings were to update the team on the progress of the investigation and any issues that arose or actions that needed to be taken. Is that a fair summary? That's fair. Um the paragraph 6.1 of your statement
03:22:36 Um the paragraph 6.1 of your statement you Oh, sorry. We've dealt with that. Do you recall if the names of visitors to the Lawrence family home were mentioned in any of the meetings you attended? No.
03:22:48 No. Do you recall if these meetings ever included officers from outside the investigation team, for example, special branch?
03:22:56 branch? No.
03:22:59 Could we please have MPS 0749746?
03:23:10 This is a meeting note for one of the investigation team's meetings on the 28th of April, 1993. Now, I appreciate this may be very difficult for you to answer, but do you
03:23:22 difficult for you to answer, but do you recall if you were present at this meeting?
03:23:26 meeting? No, I can't recall at all. If we could just go to the bottom of page one where it says DC Holden, please.
03:23:35 So you can see here next to DC Hodn it says councelor Morse rose house with family all outside agencies. Do you know what this relates to or why
03:23:47 Do you know what this relates to or why it was reported? I haven't yet. You say at paragraph 9.1 of your statement that the only names you can recall being told about at the Lawrence family home were Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence,
03:23:59 family home were Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, Mrs. Lawrence's sister, Mr. Khn who is the Lawrence's lawyer. Yes. and Baroness Rosalyn Hows. Yes. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. Uh what was the relevance to the murder
03:24:11 Uh what was the relevance to the murder investigation of reporting the names of Ms. Laur Mrs. Lawrence's sister or Baroness Rosalyn Hows, which which I presume is what the reference here is on this meeting note, Rose Hows. What would
03:24:23 this meeting note, Rose Hows. What would be the relevance to the murder investigation team of reporting that? I didn't report that to to anyone. I that that was I had meetings with the
03:24:35 that that was I had meetings with the Lawrenes uh when the family leaison broke down. So I wasn't family leazison officer. I was just having meetings each week uh with them and and that they were present.
03:24:47 present. I was just asked uh you know who who was present. Um my question is as the officer overseeing the investigation um what would be the purpose from your
03:24:58 um what would be the purpose from your point of view of reporting those names in a meeting minute? I didn't report their names in a minute. But from your your perspective as a person overseeing the murder
03:25:09 person overseeing the murder investigation and taking in relevant information to assist in that investigation, is this the kind of thing you would expect to see in a meeting note? And if so, what would be the purpose of
03:25:21 And if so, what would be the purpose of it?
03:25:22 it? I honestly don't understand your question. I I was I I was asked to to uh write from my statement. I was asked to write a statement and these were the people that I remember seeing there. It
03:25:35 people that I remember seeing there. It was just I was just saying who who was there.
03:25:38 there. When you say people you remember seeing there, as I understood it, you never went to the Lawrence family home. Is that right? Never. So when we've listed the names that you recall, is those names of
03:25:49 that you recall, is those names of people you saw or people who were reported to you as being at the family home?
03:25:54 home? I I think we're getting mixed up here. I had a meeting when the Lawrence F uh I Mr. Khn I think had phoned me up and said uh you know asked me if I could
03:26:07 said uh you know asked me if I could meet the family, which obviously I would meet the family. uh he didn't want us me to go to their homes but to go to Plumstead Police Station and I said fine and when I went to Plumstead Police
03:26:19 and when I went to Plumstead Police Station with uh Chief Superintendent Philpot who was the uh uh man in charge of Plumstead or the autoimm in charge of planted. These were the people who were at the meeting.
03:26:32 at the meeting. Thank you. If we could take that down. As you are now aware, yes,
03:26:38 yes, an SDS undercover officer, Peter Francis, has stated that he was provided with a list of names he was told came from the family liaison officers at the
03:26:49 from the family liaison officers at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, who recorded who was at the home. And Peter Francis says he was then tasked with going through the notes of reports of
03:27:00 going through the notes of reports of other UCOs trying to find the names on the list provided to him by his DCI. Peter Francis also says he was tasked with this to find out if any of the visitors had political particular
03:27:12 visitors had political particular political affiliations. Now you say at paragraph 10 of your witness statement that you first became a aware of Mr. Francis on television in
03:27:23 a aware of Mr. Francis on television in 2013. Is that right? That's correct. Yes. And is it rather that at the time you were aware that special branch used undercover officers but were not aware
03:27:34 undercover officers but were not aware of the SDS? I was it was just Yes, I assumed that that uh special I had nothing to do with special branch. I had no dealings with special branch whatsoever. But that would be something that they would be
03:27:46 would be something that they would be looking at because they were dealing with public order. So I assumed that there would be undercover officers dealing with public order. But you didn't know uh the name of the SCS at the time. Is that right?
03:27:57 the time. Is that right? I've never heard of the SDS uh in special branch and I've never heard of Peter Francis before. Um just in relation to other SDS officers, have you ever at the time were
03:28:08 officers, have you ever at the time were you aware of an officer called Trevor Morris?
03:28:11 Morris? No.
03:28:11 No. Robert Lambert? No.
03:28:13 No. David Hagen? No.
03:28:14 No. Neil Richardson? No.
03:28:16 No. Andy Davyy? No.
03:28:18 No. Or Andy Coohl's? No.
03:28:23 Mrs. Holden states in her statement that following her attempt at the family home, she would make a record of who was present at the address and complete an action or update sheet.
03:28:34 action or update sheet. Right.
03:28:36 Right. And she accepts that if there was a list provided to Mr. Francis, it could have derived from her notes. Does do you accept that? That's possible.
03:28:47 accept that? That's possible. Well, I obviously it's possible. I know nothing about it.
03:28:55 And is it right that all intelligence gathered by the team would ultimately be recorded on the home's computer system? Is that right? Yes.
03:29:03 Yes. And was that always by way of action sheet or meeting minutes? I think it could be both. Uh verbal updates. No, you'd have to you'd have to uh make
03:29:16 No, you'd have to you'd have to uh make a message of it. And is it right that Mr. Fluke, the office manager, would then type up those action sheets onto the home system? Is that right? Or do you not know?
03:29:27 that right? Or do you not know? Yes, I think that's his role. Yes, because he he was the only person, one of the only people at that particular time who actually could uh dealt with the computer, the home system.
03:29:39 home system. He was there. And is it right that then uh Mr. Bulock would then review those actions? Well, I assume so. You're asking me things I I honestly can't answer. I you know I just assume that that's what they
03:29:51 know I just assume that that's what they would be doing. Yes. And again, have you got any knowledge of whether Mr. Crarampton and Mr. Weeden would also review the actions or or is that again an assumption? Well, it's just something that I assume they would do. Yes. I don't know.
03:30:04 they would do. Yes. I don't know. Uh and if uh it was thought that an action needed to be taken because of intelligence put on the home system, who would make that decision? That would be the office manager. That
03:30:15 That would be the office manager. That that would be uh Bulock the deputy CIO the deputy CIO who will go to Weeden or Crarampton and ask and tell them.
03:30:27 Crarampton and ask and tell them. Did you ever review any action sheets on the home system? No.
03:30:33 No. Do you recall if any action sheets from the FLOS's were ever brought to your attention at the time? No.
03:30:50 Could we have up your statement please? It's UCPI 39371 page 21. Start at paragraph 13.
03:31:08 [snorts]
03:31:15 So starting with paragraph 13, you say, "I was not aware of any formal limitations on those within the MPS who would be given access to information as
03:31:26 would be given access to information as part of the murder investigation." Could you just elaborate, please, on what you mean by that?
03:31:43 Well, it's what I'm saying. Uh I'm I wasn't aware of any limitations uh on those in in the police who would give be given access to information on part of the murder investigation. I I
03:31:55 part of the murder investigation. I I don't understand what you want me to say.
03:31:58 say. Let's look a bit in a bit more detail. If we could go to paragraph 13.2, please.
03:32:10 So if you go to the third line down, it says, "My understanding is that an officer uh working on the SCOD would be aware of the paramount importance of keeping information they became privy to during the murder investigation
03:32:22 during the murder investigation confidential. This was to avoid misinformation being disseminated outside the inquiry, including to the family, and to ensure the investigation was not prejudiced. I believed it was paramount to minimize
03:32:33 believed it was paramount to minimize the threat of any leaks to eg the media. Yes.
03:32:37 Yes. Do you know if a direction was given to officers working on the murder investigation in those terms or would they have just known that from training? They would have known that from training.
03:32:49 And when um with that understanding does that mean that they were not to inform anyone about the investigation outside the investigation team i.e.
03:33:01 investigation team i.e. other officers in the Met. Absolutely.
03:33:14 Uh you then go on to say the home system was also confidential to the office manager and it goes over the page. I do not believe he could access any other murder inquiries on homes. So when you
03:33:25 murder inquiries on homes. So when you say it was confidential to the office manager, do you mean that he was the only one with access to it or could other people access the home system? Other people could access it who was in who were in the incident room?
03:33:36 who were in the incident room? Who were in the incident room? Yeah. Um was there a password on it? Do you know? I
03:33:40 know? I honestly don't know.
03:33:47 So in order to get access to it, would you have to be in the incident room? Yes.
03:33:54 Yes. And um
03:33:58 was the incident room then locked? Oh yes.
03:34:02 Oh yes. So in order for anyone outside the investigation team to get into the room, they'd need to be uh have permission to go in. Is that right? Yes.
03:34:11 [clears throat] And would they need permission for anybody in particular to go into the incident room and access the homes uh system? Are are you an officer from outside the investigation team? Yes, I would do. Who would they need
03:34:23 Yes, I would do. Who would they need permission from? Uh they would need a permission from uh the office manager.
03:34:33 Um you can take that there. In fact, could we go to paragraph 8.1 of his witness statement?
03:34:47 Page 11.
03:34:55 So you can see here fourth line down had Mr. Weeden considered it appropriate to lies with special branch regarding any aspect of his investigation I believe he would have have drafted a restricted intelligence report for special branch
03:35:07 intelligence report for special branch and discuss this with myself in the first instance. Thank you. Now, I'll come back in a moment to what would have been done if the murder investigation team considered it necessary to provide
03:35:20 team considered it necessary to provide special branch with information. But if the investigation team were approached by special branch asking for information from the Lawrence investigation, what would be the procedure for that?
03:35:32 would be the procedure for that? Well, you wouldn't you wouldn't give it. Um,
03:35:35 Um, special branch were as as it says a special branch. They weren't part of of the Metropolitan Police as although they they were part of the Metropolitan but they weren't part of the day-to-day
03:35:47 they weren't part of the day-to-day running of the Metropolitan Police and uh we would need authority from uh the DAC Osland who would have been the area
03:35:58 DAC Osland who would have been the area uh man in charge or uh the commander ops.
03:36:03 ops. So this is not a decision that the SA could make on their own. No. No.
03:36:08 No. No. And would it have been a formal written request for information? It would have been. Yes.
03:36:17 And if that had happened on the um investigation team, you would have expected to have been aware of of it. Absolutely. Do you recall that ever happening? No. [snorts] Could we please have a UCPI
03:36:32 uh 504191?
03:36:36 This is um Peter Francis's transcript of evidence from the 1st of December 2025. If we go to page 158, starting at line 21
03:36:48 21 into page 159, line 18. If uh Mr. You have a just a read of that. Sorry, could you repeat that? I think um it'll be highlighted in a
03:37:00 I think um it'll be highlighted in a moment. So Oh, yes, I've got it. Yeah, there you go. Yeah.
03:37:11 [clears throat]
03:37:25 Yes. Okay. The next page. Thank you.
03:37:39 [snorts]
03:38:16 Have you got this? Yes.
03:38:17 Yes. Thank you. So this is um Peter Francis describing his his experience of being the three area liaison officer in special branch before he joined uh the
03:38:28 special branch before he joined uh the SDS. Does that accord with your understanding of how special branch officers were able to operate with regards to murder investigations? Do you know if this ever happened in the
03:38:39 Do you know if this ever happened in the Steven Lawrence investigation? No, it never happened.
03:38:48 Thank you. Can we take that down? Uh you mentioned earlier that you would hold a weekly meeting at your office um in the Catford Police Station. Is that right? where you had all the detective
03:39:00 right? where you had all the detective superintendent in three areas. That's correct.
03:39:02 correct. And they were there to update you on their murder investigations. About how many detective superintendents would attend that meeting? Well, I think there was five uh detective superintendent uh there. Yeah.
03:39:16 detective superintendent uh there. Yeah. The first of those meetings during the Steven Lawrence investigation was on the 26th of April, 1993 to which Mr. Crampton and Mr. Weeden attended. And I appreciate this again.
03:39:28 attended. And I appreciate this again. Might be a very difficult question, but do you recall that meeting? Yeah. [snorts] Um, you say at paragraph three of your statement that you cannot recall what was specifically discussed about the
03:39:40 was specifically discussed about the Lawrence family during the weekly meetings, but you believe you discussed both the investigation and the issues around family liaison. Yes. Is that right? Do you recall if any of those issues
03:39:53 Do you recall if any of those issues were raised at that initial meeting or can you not remember? I can't remember. Um, so presumably at some point in those weekly meetings those issues were raised.
03:40:02 raised. Yes.
03:40:03 Yes. Do you recall what was discussed about the family liaison issues in those meetings?
03:40:13 Not really. Um, [laughter] I mean it was obviously a very difficult uh inquiry. Um,
03:40:25 and I think the the family liaison officers were giving as much information as they could, but I I think they were finding it difficult.
03:40:39 Do you recall if the names of visitors to the family home were discussed uh during those meetings? No.
03:40:46 No. As in you don't recall or they weren't? I I don't recall and I I don't think they were because uh all all we knew at that particular time was that there were
03:40:58 that particular time was that there were a lot of um anti-racist groups who were getting involved. I think that's about it.
03:41:06 it. It wasn't affecting the murder investigation at all. I mean, all we were worried about was the actual murder investigation.
03:41:16 I will [snorts] come back to it in more detail later, but it's right, isn't it, that the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and the family liaison officers deteriorated quite quickly into
03:41:28 officers deteriorated quite quickly into the investigation. Is that fair? It was difficult. Yes. Um,
03:41:33 Um, and it led to you taking over as the um liaison on the 6th of May 1993. Is that right? [clears throat] So, it's about two weeks into the investigation. about two weeks into the investigation. Yes, I
03:41:45 two weeks into the investigation. Yes, I I I took over. Yes. Thank you. And um you also say in your statement that by that stage it was apparent that the relationship with Steven Lawrence's family was already in crisis. Is that
03:41:57 family was already in crisis. Is that right?
03:41:57 right? Yes. Yes. [snorts]
03:42:03 Could we have Mr. statement back up, please? Page 10, paragraph 7.1.
03:42:19 So, you say here, "I believe I was aware from fairly early on in the murder investigation that anti-racist groups were providing support to the Lawrence family. However, I had no detailed understanding of those groups, nor was I
03:42:30 understanding of those groups, nor was I aware of the names of the specific organizations that were attending the Lawrence family home." Yes. Do you recall when exactly you first became aware that the family were
03:42:42 first became aware that the family were being supported by the anti-racist groups?
03:42:45 groups? Fairly early on, but I don't I can't recall exactly when. Would you agree before you took over the role as FLO on the 6th of May? Yes, it would have been because I think that was one of the great problems that
03:42:56 that was one of the great problems that they were having the uh the family as officers. And um could you say whether these problems were raised with you in the first meeting you had um on the 26th
03:43:10 the first meeting you had um on the 26th of April with your detective superintendent? Can you recall if it was raised that early on? Not I honestly can't remember. I just don't know. Do you recall if any of the groups were mentioned in any of the daily
03:43:22 mentioned in any of the daily investigation team meetings you attended?
03:43:25 attended? No, cuz it wasn't I mean basically all we were concerned about was doing the the murder. I mean what we were worried about obviously the most important thing was to solve the murder.
03:43:38 was to solve the murder. Um and do you remember who told you about uh the groups attending the family home?
03:43:45 home? Well, it would have been Brian Weeden, I assume.
03:43:48 assume. And do you recall the context in which that information was provided to you? Why was he telling you about the groups? Well, explaining why the the difficulty of uh the family viation officers were
03:44:00 of uh the family viation officers were having
03:44:00 having and what was that difficulty? Well, that the that the uh the Lawren's didn't think the the uh
03:44:12 uh the Lawren's didn't think the the uh family as officers was were senior enough um to provide the information they wanted. What did that have to do? Sorry, I'm asking about the the groups who were attending the home and you said that
03:44:23 attending the home and you said that they were as as I understood it that they were part of the difficulty. So what was told to you about the difficulty relating to the groups? Do you recall?
03:44:34 you recall? No, I don't.
03:44:37 And from your perspective, did the groups have any relevance to the murder investigation? No.
03:44:44 No. Do you recall if the family liaison's officers were ever instructed to gather intelligence on the groups attending the Lawrence's home? I think you're asking the wrong person. It's it's the SIO who who was dealing
03:44:56 It's it's the SIO who who was dealing with it. I I was just over I was there to support them, of course, but the SIO would been doing the daily day things. I mean, you're asking me things that basically I wasn't aware of.
03:45:09 things that basically I wasn't aware of. Um, or I might have been aware of, but I I wasn't sure where it came from.
03:45:18 Were you the investigation team, as far as you were aware, interested in the political affiliations of those attending the Lawrence home? No.
03:45:26 No. As in, you don't recall or they weren't interested? All we were concerned about was the murder investigation. the these I mean I assume these people
03:45:39 the these I mean I assume these people uh are the same type of people who who would go to any anything that they could uh you know try and uh assist.
03:45:50 Could we go to paragraph three please page four?
03:45:59 So it's the end of the paragraph
03:46:04 um about eight lines up to the from the bottom where it says the family were incredibly important.
03:46:11 Yes. So you say here the family were incredibly important and given we were experiencing difficulties. I imagine this was a topic of conversation especially as we learned that the family was sur surrounded by anti-racist groups
03:46:23 was sur surrounded by anti-racist groups who generally speaking were anti- police.
03:46:27 police. Yes. So, uh, why do you say that the family were a topic of of conversation, especially because of the anti-racist groups?
03:46:38 groups? Well, because we felt that that they were hindering the family liaison officers.
03:46:43 officers. In what way?
03:46:48 Because you didn't have a normal relationship with the family liaison uh with with with the family as you would do normally. As I said, you would go in and you become friends with a family and, you know, you'd help them out and
03:46:59 and, you know, you'd help them out and try and look after their needs, but because there was a lot of people surrounding them, this wasn't allowed to happen.
03:47:13 Um, you also uh mention here that generally speaking these groups [clears throat] were anti- police. Um,
03:47:24 [clears throat] were anti- police. Um, but where did you uh obtain that information from? How did you know that?
03:47:31 What just general knowledge? Was this of concern to the murder investigation team? No, I we we were just our concern was
03:47:44 No, I we we were just our concern was investigating the murder. Nothing else. Was there um any relevance as well to the murder investigation team that the fact that these groups were anti-racist?
03:47:58 Well, not really. No.
03:48:03 Was there any sense in the investigation team that they were concerned about the groups being anti- police because they may that may affect the investigation and the Met's reputation?
03:48:17 It didn't cross my mind. Even in the context of the media attention that the that the case brought.
03:48:25 brought. Yes.
03:48:27 Yes. Were the investigation team from your recollection concerned about the risk of public disorder relating to these groups?
03:48:37 They could well be, but this would be public order wasn't under our remit. Our remit was to investigate the murder. This will be dealt with by by uh the
03:48:49 This will be dealt with by by uh the uniform branch.
03:48:56 Could we go please to paragraph nine of your statement page 13 about nine lines down.
03:49:16 So here you are referring to uh DS Beavenon's um Operation Hearn interview that you have been reading and you say here that he confirmed he made no records whatsoever of anyone anyone's
03:49:28 records whatsoever of anyone anyone's names present at the address. He recalls the ANC and the ARA were present. And then he says, "Miss M Daven asserts that he almost definitely would have passed on intelligence in relation to additional people at one of our meetings
03:49:41 additional people at one of our meetings which we held on a regular basis where everyone could update people and what they were doing and that would have been very very much I would have felt that important to relay that information to the rest of the team if the family had
03:49:52 the rest of the team if the family had been in inverted commas hijacked by different factions trying to make a political point or intending to make a political point as of course they have because 20 and a half years late down
03:50:03 because 20 and a half years late down the line, we're still um going. Do you recall at the time any sense in the investigation team that the Lawrence family had been hijacked by the
03:50:14 family had been hijacked by the anti-racist groups attending the home trying to make a political point? Well, I can't answer that. I don't know. Do you recall that ever been ra um
03:50:25 Do you recall that ever been ra um brought to your attention as an issue uh as your role in supervising the investigation?
03:50:33 Well, the the groups were interfering with the family leaison situation and that's why I I assume uh
03:50:47 situation and that's why I I assume uh that that the uh the family didn't didn't want uh the family leaison officers didn't want them coming to their home and that's why we had meetings and we had meetings at Plum Police Station. Was there any
03:51:00 Plum Police Station. Was there any concern amongst the investigation team the Lawrenes needed protection from these leftwing groups? Do you recall that?
03:51:07 that? No.
03:51:11 Bearing in mind that the the Lawrence Mr. Kahn was with the with Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence all the way through. Uh and I would assume that he he would be you know looking after their interests.
03:51:23 know looking after their interests. Could we please have up MPS 0749964?
03:51:28 As we've touched on previously, you you've explained that there was a point where the relationship with the FLOS's um and the Lawrence family was in crisis.
03:51:38 crisis. Yeah.
03:51:47 So if we could just um go to par p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p page 24 first, please.
03:51:55 So you can see um at the bottom here, this is a letter dated the third or a print out of a letter dated the 30th of June 1993 from Baroness Sierra, the all
03:52:06 June 1993 from Baroness Sierra, the all parliamentary group on race and community. Yes. sending a letter requesting a meeting with the commissioner condant to discuss Karn's concerns about the way in which the investigation into Steven Lawrence murder was being conducted. Do
03:52:17 Lawrence murder was being conducted. Do you recall that? No.
03:52:20 No. Uh could we go to page one please?
03:52:27 And you can see here this is a briefing note that Mr. Weeden produced for the commissioner. It's dated the 13th of July 1993. Yes. If we could go to page
03:52:39 July 1993. Yes. If we could go to page two, paragraph three um under victim family police leaison. If you want to just read that first um paragraph.
03:53:07 Yes, I agree. And then if we could also go to page three and the final paragraph, um if you just see the third line down, the Lawrence family have made full use
03:53:18 the Lawrence family have made full use of the media coverage to voice their criticism of police and it does appear that their grief and anxieties are to some extent being exploited. Yes.
03:53:29 some extent being exploited. Yes. Did you have sight of this briefing note at the time? Do you remember? Um I obviously did because it's addressed to me. Yes. And um
03:53:39 And um does the paragraphs you read, does that accord with your rec recollection at the time of the investigations team view of the family and their supporters? Yes.
03:53:50 Yes. in terms of the family were being exploited by the anti-racist groups attending their home. I think that was the Yes. And why why would did the investigation
03:54:01 And why why would did the investigation team think they were being exploited by them?
03:54:11 I mean it's it's very in in in in the fact that uh there was a lot of publicity about it uh
03:54:22 there was a lot of publicity about it uh and the fact that we were having such difficulty with the family leaisoning.
03:54:30 So from the investigation team's point of view, these these anti-racist groups were effectively [snorts] a problem for the murder investigation team. Is was that the perception? They weren't a problem for the
03:54:41 They weren't a problem for the investigation team because the investigation team were were were concentrating on investigating the murder that [snorts] they were a a problem as far as the family asen with
03:54:52 problem as far as the family asen with the uh with the Lawrenes. Looking back now, yes.
03:55:01 Would you agree that assessing those supporting the Lawrenes who are considered to be anti-racist and anti- police as a problem
03:55:12 anti- police as a problem or potential source of criticism of the police
03:55:16 police risked overlooking the fact that this was a family of a black victim murdered in a racist attack being helped by these groups?
03:55:27 groups? Well, I I accept. I mean, it was a very tragic murder. Obviously, anyone who loses a child, it's awful and particularly a racist crime. But
03:55:40 with with the investigation, a a major part of the investigation is to have a good family liaison people. And when you've got people when you've
03:55:51 And when you've got people when you've got a plenty of people around there, it's very difficult to have a proper family liaison and they were they were obviously these
03:56:02 and they were they were obviously these groups were obviously uh who would jump on any bandwagon from what I could see. Do you recall if this um this perception
03:56:14 Do you recall if this um this perception of the groups would ever transmitted to any department outside of the investigation team for example special branch?
03:56:21 branch? No,
03:56:23 No, you don't recall or it wasn't. Well, I I it it as far as I was concerned it wasn't. If it was suggested to you that the
03:56:34 If it was suggested to you that the assumption that the Lawrence family were being hijacked or exploited by these anti-racist groups and that this was a problem was because the Lawrenes were a black family, would you agree?
03:56:50 Could you repeat that? Sorry. If it was suggested to to you that the assumption that the Lawrence family were being exploited by these groups who were anti-racist and anti- police
03:57:02 who were anti-racist and anti- police and were a problem was because the Lawrenes were a black family and for example needed protecting from them. Would you accept that? Yes.
03:57:17 Do you recall being informed about any marches or protest or demonstration seen as related to the murder of Steven Lawrence at the time? Well, the only one was uh the wedding
03:57:30 Well, the only one was uh the wedding rights. Yes, that was only that was the only one that I can recall. Yes. And do you recall any concern being raised with you about any public disorder relating to the groups
03:57:41 disorder relating to the groups attending the Lawrence family home? No, I don't. And as I said, this wouldn't be anything to do with the murder investigation. This would be dealt with by the uniform branch. This
03:57:53 dealt with by the uniform branch. This would be dealt with by commander ops or the uh the DAC Osland. Would you have expected if there was any concern that arose about public disorders for that to
03:58:04 arose about public disorders for that to be recorded uh on homes as part of the murder investigation file or not? Well, could yes, it probably would be.
03:58:15 Well, could yes, it probably would be. Could we have up MPS 0749745, please?
03:58:32 If we could go just below visited victim support scheme.
03:58:39 And it says here, "Rumors arrive that marches are planned for this week, but nothing concrete." And this appears to be a meeting note from the 27th of April, 1993.
03:58:51 April, 1993. Now, I appreciate that you did not write this.
03:58:54 this. No.
03:58:55 No. Um, but from your understanding of the way in which a murder investigation works, why would something like that be reported in a murder investigation
03:59:08 and in particular this one? I can't answer it. I don't know. Because you can see there's no suggestion of any public disorder recorded there, is there?
03:59:19 recorded there, is there? No. Could
03:59:24 it have been recorded on the basis of concern of public disorder or is that something you couldn't comment on? I can't comment on it. If we could take that down please and have up MPS 0749746.
03:59:39 [clears throat]
03:59:41 So this [snorts] is a a meeting note from the next day the 28th of April 93. If we could go to page two please.
03:59:50 to the top uh line we can see here it being reported that Dwayne Brooks to be seen at 12:30 Ray Book's father sensible Neville Lawrence
04:00:03 Book's father sensible Neville Lawrence father sensible again in all these questions I appreciate that you did not write this but from your understanding of a murder investigation what would be the relevance uh for this to be reported
04:00:17 relevance uh for this to be reported about the fathers of victims of a racist murder being sensible. Why would that need to be reported? I haven't played an idea. I don't know. Would that be considered usual um for
04:00:28 Would that be considered usual um for officers to be commenting on the characters of victim's fathers in a meeting?
04:00:33 meeting? Is that normal? Well, it's not normal. No.
04:00:39 And then if we could just zoom out, please.
04:00:44 please. Uh
04:00:46 Uh third line down there, meeting 2 p.m. at town hall, youth against racism, Lawrence's refused to attend again. What relevance would that have to
04:00:58 again. What relevance would that have to the murder investigation? I don't know. You'd have to ask the officers.
04:01:04 officers. So, you don't recall this? No.
04:01:09 Thank you. That can come down. Uh, do you recall a PC Alan Fischer being appointed to the investigation team at the very beginning? I've never heard of him.
04:01:22 I've never heard of him. Could we please have MPS 0721953, please? This is Alan Fischer's witness statement
04:01:32 uh that he gave um to Operation Hearn on the 6th of February, 2014. If we could go to page two, please. Uh, if we could zoom in at line eight,
04:01:44 Uh, if we could zoom in at line eight, I'll read it out. It's quite difficult to read the handwriting. Um,
04:01:56 line it. He says, um, it was around 1990 when I was aware of potential posting as a racial incident office officer for the Greenwich division. and I applied and was successful and took up the post in
04:02:07 was successful and took up the post in 1990.
04:02:09 1990. If you then go to the bottom of page two into page three, uh it says in the April of 1993 following the
04:02:21 in the April of 1993 following the murder of Steven Lawrence, I was secounded to the original three area AMIP team which assumes this um murder investigation. He says very quickly he and um another
04:02:33 He says very quickly he and um another officer attended the home address of the Lawrence family. Does this ring any bells in terms of PCL and Fisher's role in the investigation
04:02:44 and Fisher's role in the investigation team with you? I've never heard of him before and I hope this means nothing to me. Um
04:02:52 I will quickly explain to you what he says in his witness statement so you're aware. So in Petri he also says he commenced the role of family liaison officer. He says he retained the role
04:03:04 officer. He says he retained the role for one or two days until two officers from the AMIP team took over and that's Holden and Beavenon. He also says at the bottom 12 lines up from the bottom of Patri. However, I was
04:03:15 from the bottom of Patri. However, I was subsequently tasked by the management team to conduct link linked inquiries with special branch. He says, "I was asked this took the form of an action request to Limited."
04:03:25 Limited." Apologies. Limited.
04:03:26 Limited. Limited. Thank you. Limited. It took the form of an action request to contact special branch with the names of identified suspects we had obtained. Does that ring any bells with yours?
04:03:37 Does that ring any bells with yours? Not at all. No. That can come down. Thank you. I'm going to bring up a series of uh messages um that um PC Fischer was
04:03:49 messages um that um PC Fischer was involved in just to ask uh your understanding of the relevance of the information that was provided. Okay,
04:03:54 Okay, we start with NPS0749971 please.
04:04:05 [snorts] Uh so the date at the top there as we understand it in the inquiry from 2003 is not correct for the ter for the content of the message.
04:04:16 content of the message. If we could zoom in on the content please. And the inquiry understands from the context of this report and the message number that this was during the investigation in 1993 during PC Fish's
04:04:30 investigation in 1993 during PC Fish's time and you can see here he's reported renews team and Mr. Mark Wodsworth was employed in current affairs at Temp's TV now believed employed for Carlton or
04:04:41 now believed employed for Carlton or freelance. He's an active member of the anti-racist alliance for info. Did you ever see this message at the time? No.
04:04:50 No. Baroness Lawrence recalls Mr. Wods Wodsworth of the IRA attending her home on the 24th of April 1993 and [clears throat] being involved in the Stevens Lawrence family campaign in
04:05:02 the Stevens Lawrence family campaign in the early days. Do you recall being told at the time that the Anti-Racist Alliance had attended the Lawrence's family home? No. Again,
04:05:13 No. Again, [clears throat]
04:05:16 from your experience of murder investigations and this investigation, why would this information have been reported [clears throat] as in terms its relevance to the investigation?
04:05:27 investigation? I can't answer it. I don't know. Do you know what is meant by renews teams?
04:05:33 teams? By what? Sorry. At the beginning, right at the beginning, renews teams. No.
04:05:41 And do you know if there's any reason why Mr. Wodsworth being involved with Temp's TV would be of any interest to the investigation team? No. Uh Baroness Lawrence also recalls a Palmer Black from the ARRA also visiting
04:05:54 Palmer Black from the ARRA also visiting her home and being involved in the family campaign in the early days. Does that name ring any bells with you as being brought to your attention at the time?
04:06:01 time? No.
04:06:05 Do you recall ever being told that the ARRA had any uh there was any concern about them in terms of being a public order concern? No.
04:06:16 No. That can come down. Thank we can have up MPS 0749972.
04:06:25 Another message um from Mr. Fischer. same reason the same reasons as the previous message. We believe it's in Mr. Fish's time in the investigation team in
04:06:37 Fish's time in the investigation team in 1993. If you'd just like to read uh the content of that.
04:06:56 Yes, you've got that. Thank you again. Do you recall seeing this message at the time? No.
04:07:01 No. Now, Baroness Lawrence recalls the Anti-Nazi League attending her home on the Saturday following Steven Lawrence's murder and being part of the family campaign. Do you recall being told about the Anti-Nazi League or any members
04:07:14 the Anti-Nazi League or any members attending the family home at the time? No.
04:07:18 No. The SI the S sorry, the SIO was dealing with the dayto-day dealings with it. I just had an overview. I I wouldn't know anything about this.
04:07:29 anything about this. Thank you. If you could just look at the final sentence. Yes.
04:07:35 Yes. SB informed and chief superintendent filbert RA informed. Yes.
04:07:40 Yes. Now would you agree that that is special branch informed? I assume so. Yeah. Yeah.
04:07:47 Yeah. Do you know why special branch would have been informed of this information? No.
04:07:55 No. Could
04:07:59 that [clears throat] come down please and have up MPS 0749975
04:08:05 and just briefly as I understand it from your witness statement your recollection was that there was no liaison with special branch from the murder investigation team is that your recollection that's my recollection yes definitely
04:08:18 that's my recollection yes definitely again if we could zoom in the contents of this report
04:08:26 And we can see from the date within this message of a picket on the 28th of April that [clears throat] this message must have been um around that time. And you can see at the bottom again SO12
04:08:39 And you can see at the bottom again SO12 informed
04:08:39 informed that this would all be dealt with by the uniform branch. It would be nothing to do with the with uh the murder investigation. If special branch had been informed, as it appears it has been from these
04:08:50 it appears it has been from these messages we've been looking at, would you have expected to have been informed about that liaison at the time? Not particularly. No, we we were we all we were interested in
04:09:02 we we were we all we were interested in was the murder investigation. What was going on in the public order, as I said, that was dealt with by the uniform branch. So, it was completely separate. But in terms of Mr. Fisher's role in the murder investigation team liazing with
04:09:15 murder investigation team liazing with special branch. That's not something you you would have been informed of. No.
04:09:28 And uh the final uh report to look at it is MPS 0749970.
04:09:42 If we could zoom in the contents of that please.
04:09:46 please. And this in terms of a date appears to be prior to the 3rd of August 1993.
04:09:53 And again you can see at the bottom [clears throat] raise action also special branch.
04:10:02 I I honestly can't answer. I I know nothing about it. Have you from your experience in in overseeing murder investigations? Why would special branch be informed of the actions of the Steven
04:10:14 be informed of the actions of the Steven Lawrence campaign appeal to pick's court regarding commissal proceedings be relevant to special branch? I don't know. Do you recall any issue being raised with you about uh public order in terms
04:10:28 with you about uh public order in terms of the Steven Lawrence campaign at the time?
04:10:30 time? No,
04:10:31 No, the public order was dealt with by by uniform. wasn't. We had nothing to do with public order. So, would that be a convenient time to take a lunch break?
04:10:42 take a lunch break? Certainly. Um, [clears throat] we'll resume at 2.