Mouncher & Ors v South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)

[2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)

Case No 2YM19995 & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Venue CARDIFF DISTRICT REGISTRY, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 14/06/2016

Before

MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS

Between

(1) Graham MouncherClaimants

(2) Richard Keith PowellClaimant

(3) Peter Edward GreenwoodClaimant

(4) Rachel Edith O’BrienClaimant

(5) Wayne Stephen PughClaimant

(6) Paul JenningsClaimant

(7) Paul Arthur StephenClaimant

(8) John Stuart SeafordClaimant

(9) Michael Raymond DanielsClaimant

(10) Brian GillardClaimant

(11) Thomas PageClaimant

(12) Stephen HicksClaimant

(13) John Howard MurrayClaimant

(14) Adrian MorganClaimant

(15) Erica ColiandrisClaimant

The Chief Constable of South Wales PoliceDefendant

Mr Anthony Metzer QC, Mr Nick James & Ms Leah Pollard (instructed by Slater & Gordon Solicitors) for Claimant 1

Mr Anthony Metzer QC, Mr Nick James, & Ms Leah Pollard (instructed by CJCHC Solicitors) for Claimants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8

Mr Stephen Simblet & Ms Una Morris (instructed by Goldstones Solicitors) for

Claimants 9 and 10

Mr Leslie Thomas QC & Mr Nick Scott (instructed by Martyn Prowel Solicitors) for

Claimants 11 and 12

Mr Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Slater & Gordon Solicitors) for

Claimant 13

Mr Nicholas Bowen QC (instructed by Confreys Solicitors) for Claimant 14

Mr Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Quality Solicitors) for Claimant 15

Mr Jeremy Johnson QC, Mr Alan Payne, Ms Beatrice Collier & Ms Cicely Hayward (instructed by Richard Leighton Hill, Head of special Legal Casework, South Wales Police) for Defendant

Hearing Hearing dates: 12 October 2015 – 17 December 2015

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS

Introduction

[1]Just before 9pm on Sunday 14 February 1988, a young woman called Leanne Vilday (LV) walked into the Butetown police station in Cardiff and told the officers present that she was concerned for the safety of her friend Lynette White. She asked the officers to go with her to a flat which she had been renting at 7 James Street which was situated a short distance away. Two police officers agreed to accompany her to the flat. Once inside, the two officers went into the bedroom where they discovered the mutilated body of Lynette (as I shall call her in the remainder of this judgment). It was obvious to the officers that Lynette had been subjected to a brutal and sustained attack with a knife or knives.

[2]That same night South Wales Police (SWP) launched an extensive investigation. All the Claimants in these proceedings were then serving police officers of SWP and they all participated to a greater or lesser extent in the investigation as it unfolded.

[3]On 7 December 1988 six men were arrested and detained; they were Stephen Miller (SM), Anthony Miller (AM), Ronald Actie (RA), Yusef Abdullahi (YA), Martin Tucker (MT) and Rashid Omar (RO). On 9 December two more men, Anthony (Tony) Paris (TP) and John Actie (JA) were arrested and detained. All these men were interviewed under caution at length.

[4]In due course, AM, MT and RO were released without charge. However, on 11 December 1988 the other five men were charged with Lynette’s murder. In the remainder of this judgment, when it is appropriate to do so, these five men are referred to collectively as “the original defendants”.

[5]In October 1989 their trial began at the Swansea Crown Court. Just before he was due to sum up, the trial judge, McNeill J, died suddenly. A second trial took place between April 1990 and November 1990; the trial judge was Leonard J. After a long period of deliberation the jury convicted SM, TP and YA of murder and acquitted JA and RA. The three convicted defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Their convictions were quashed in December 1992.

[6]In 1999 a decision was made by the then Chief Constable of SWP to commission an independent review of the investigation which had led to the prosecution of the original defendants. The review commenced in June 1999 and was carried out by two experienced retired senior police officers unconnected with SWP, namely William Hacking and John Thornley. They reported their findings in May 2000. Traditionally, this investigation has been referred to as LW1 but in this judgment I will refer to the investigation as the “Hacking and Thornley Review” and the report which followed it as the “Hacking and Thornley Report”. On 23 August 2000, SWP formed an inquiry team to reinvestigate the murder of Lynette. The reinvestigation was given the name “Operation Mistral”. Subsequently this investigation also became known as LW2 although I shall refer to it as Operation Mistral.

[7]As a consequence of Operation Mistral a man called Jeffery Gafoor (JG) was charged with Lynette’s murder. On 4 July 2003, before Royce J sitting in the Crown Court at Cardiff, JG pleaded guilty as charged.

[8]Very shortly after JG’s plea, Sir Anthony Burden, then Chief Constable of SWP, decided that there should be an investigation into the events which had led to the charging and prosecution of the original defendants. Initially, the terms of reference of the investigation were:

“To identify and investigate any criminal or disciplinary offences arising from the Original Investigation.”

This investigation became known as LW3. The investigation began, in earnest, within days of JG’s conviction.

[9]On various dates in 2005 all the Claimants, except Mr Hicks, were arrested on suspicion that they had committed the offences of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, misconduct in public office and false imprisonment during the course of carrying out their duties in the original investigation. The Claimant, Mr Hicks, was arrested on suspicion of having committed those offences on 26 June 2007. For ease of reference, hereinafter, I will refer to the original investigation as LW1. I hope this will not cause confusion to those who are used to describing the “Hacking and Thornley Review” as LW1.

[10]On 2 March 2009 a prosecution was launched against all the Claimants save for Mrs Coliandris and Mr Morgan. All the prosecuted Claimants were jointly charged with the offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. Mr Mouncher was also charged with offences of perjury. The following year a decision was taken not to continue with the prosecution against Mrs O’Brien on account of her ill-health.

[11]On 4 July 2011 a trial began before Sweeney J and a jury; the defendants in that trial were the Claimants Messrs Mouncher, Powell, Jennings, Stephen, Seaford, Greenwood, Daniels and Page together with 2 other persons, Violet Perriam and Ian Massey, who had been witnesses in the trials of the original defendants. On 1 December 2011 leading counsel for the prosecution informed the trial judge that no further evidence was to be offered against those persons and verdicts of not guilty were duly recorded. On 8 December 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the charges it had laid against Messrs Gillard, Pugh, Murray and Hicks.

[12]In these proceedings the Claimants allege the following:-(a) Claimants 1 to 8, inclusive, allege that officers under the control of the Defendant who participated in LW3 committed against them the torts of false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office;

(b) Claimants 9, 10, 11 and 12 also allege that they were the victims of those torts but allege, additionally, that they were victims of the tort of malicious prosecution;

(d) Claimants 14 and 15 allege they were victims of false imprisonment and, additionally, they pursue claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. All Claimants claim compensatory, exemplary and aggravated damages but my task is to adjudicate upon the issue of liability. To the extent that liability and causation overlap it will be necessary to consider both issues together.

[13]I stress at the outset of this judgment that my task is to reach conclusions about whether the Claimants have been the victims of the wrongs they allege as formulated and particularised in their pleadings. I accept, of course, that in order to make a judgment about whether the Claimants were the victims of the torts they allege it will be necessary to relate in some detail the evidence adduced before me relating to LW1 and Operation Mistral. I also accept that to a limited extent it will be necessary for me to reach conclusions about some of the events which are said to have occurred during the course of those investigations. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is not my task to adjudicate upon the guilt or innocence of the Claimants in respect of the offences for which they were all arrested or upon the guilt or innocence of Claimants 1 to 13 in relation to the offences with which they were charged and in respect of which they were prosecuted. It is the conduct of the police officers who were engaged in investigating the Claimants as part of LW3 which is, primarily, under the microscope in these proceedings. Stripped to its essentials, I have to make a number of judgments about the thought processes, decisions, acts and omissions of those officers as LW3 ran its course.

[14]I heard oral evidence over many weeks. Each of the Claimants gave evidence before me (apart from Mrs O’Brien) as did many of the principal decision makers involved in LW3. I also heard evidence from a number of police officers who had discrete roles within LW3. As I hope will be obvious I have taken full and proper account of the written and oral evidence given by these persons. However, in my judgment, by far the most important source of evidence available to me upon which to reach a judgment about the acts and/or omissions of the officers who participated in LW3 is the voluminous documentation generated in the successive investigations, LW1, Operation Mistral and LW3. During the course of this judgment I will, of necessity, refer to a significant amount of documentation. Even so, the documentation referred to by me will be a comparatively small percentage of the documents generated in those investigations.

[15]During the course of cross-examination of some of the police officers who gave evidence on behalf of the Defendant but who were not officers of SWP it emerged that their witness statements had been drafted by lawyers. I do not find that surprising but, of course, I have scrutinised the statements with care so as to ensure that they are not attempts to re-write history. As it happens, the important aspects of those officers’ evidence related to the arrests of the Claimants and the reasons for the arrests. Upon those issues, there is a large amount of contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documentation which provides a reasonably sure guide as to why particular Claimants were arrested and what happened when they were arrested.

[16]I propose to identify the original defendants and a number of other persons who feature, repeatedly, throughout this judgment by their initials. That is simply for ease of reference. Since none of the Claimants are now serving police officers I propose to refer to them as Mr or Mrs as the case may be even when describing their roles and activities in LW1. I will adopt the same practice in relation to the police officers involved in Operation Mistral and LW3; I do that simply to avoid any confusion which might arise about their rank at the time of the investigation compared with their rank at the present time. One of the important witnesses for the defence during the trial before me was His Honour Judge Dean QC. Throughout the trial (including when he was giving evidence) he was referred to as Mr Dean. He was content to be so addressed and I will refer to him as Mr Dean in this judgment.

[17]This judgment is in 10 sections. Section 1 contains details about the careers of the Claimants. Its relevance will become clear as this judgment unfolds. Section 2 describes the course of LW1, the prosecution of the original defendants and the appeals of SM, TP and YA. Section 3 is concerned with the salient features of Operation Mistral. Section 4 describes the main investigative steps undertaken in LW3 and the main decisions made during the course of the investigation. The time period covered in this section is July 2003 to 2 March 2009. Section 5 is a description of the main events leading to the trial before Sweeney J, the trial itself and other events which occurred before and after the commencement of these proceedings. In Section 6, I will set out the law which is applicable in this case. Section 7 contains my analysis of the claims for misfeasance in public office. In section 8, I consider each claim for false imprisonment. In section 9 I consider the remaining claims, namely the claims for malicious prosecution brought by Mr Daniels, Mr Gillard, Mr Page and Mr Hicks and the claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 brought or proposed to be brought by Mrs Coliandris and Mr Morgan. Section 10 contains my conclusions in summary form.

[18]I have received a huge amount of assistance from the teams of lawyers in this case. They have produced very detailed, helpful written submissions. Their conduct during the hearing was always designed to assist me to achieve a just result in this case, albeit, quite properly, they advanced their respective cases with vigour and skill. I have taken account, as I said I would, of all the written material which counsel produced. I say now, however, that given the extent of the material produced it will not be possible to refer to many of the points made during the course of this judgment. I have attempted to highlight what I regard as the strongest points made by each party in support of their respective cases but to go beyond that would lengthen this judgment beyond acceptable bounds.

Section 1

[19]In this section I describe, in summary form, the careers of all the Claimants. I will deal with each Claimant in the order that they appear in the heading to this judgment.

[20]Mr Mouncher joined SWP as a police constable on 6 November 1970. In 1974 he became a detective. He remained a detective for most of the remainder of his career. By July 1988, Mr Mouncher had become a detective inspector. He was then assigned to the Serious Crime Squad (East) and, more or less simultaneously, he joined LW1. He was given the role of an “action allocator”. As that description suggests Mr Mouncher’s main role was to ensure that decisions made by his superiors were allocated appropriately and carried into effect. Mr Mouncher performed that role in the months leading to the arrest and charge of the original defendants. After his involvement in LW1 had come to an end, Mr Mouncher engaged in a number of different roles. He retired from the police force in 2001 with the rank of detective chief inspector.

[21]Mr Powell became a police constable with SWP in 1972. In the decade that followed he undertook a number of different roles and by 1983 he had become an inspector in uniform. In 1984 Mr Powell joined the CID based at Cardiff Central police station. Following the discovery of Lynette’s body Mr Powell was the first senior officer to attend the murder scene. He was assigned to LW1 from the outset. His main role was to oversee the officers who were responsible for interviewing and obtaining witness statements. In the early months of the investigation Mr Powell was heavily engaged in this aspect of the investigation.

[22]It is common ground that there came a point in time in the summer of 1988 when Mr Powell was replaced by Mr Mouncher. It is also common ground that in early December Mr Powell returned to active involvement in LW1. Whether or not Mr Powell was also actively involved in LW1 during October and November 1988 is an issue to be considered in this case.

[23]In 1989 Mr Powell was promoted to the rank of detective chief inspector. In the years that followed he undertook a variety of important roles within SWP and on the date of his retirement (7 June 2002) Mr Powell held the rank of superintendent.

[24]Mr Greenwood joined Cardiff City Police in March 1969. He became an officer of SWP upon the amalgamation of the City Police with the Glamorgan Police. In 1974 Mr Greenwood became a detective constable. Over many years, thereafter, he undertook a variety of roles. On 19 February 1988 Mr Greenwood became a member of the Serious Crime Squad (East). On or about that date he was assigned to LW1.

[25]Upon joining LW1 Mr Greenwood was partnered with Mr Seaford and they were both part of the “house to house” team. They answered to Detective Chief Inspector Ludlow to whom I will refer in due course. After a few months in the house to house team Mr Greenwood joined the “blood” team. This involved tracking down the clients of prostitutes who were known to work in the Butetown area. Once a client was tracked down a blood sample would be taken so that it could be compared with blood which had been found at the murder scene. By November 1988 Mr Greenwood had become involved in the “ground actions” team. The actions allocated to him varied in nature but they included tracing and interviewing witnesses and suspects. Mr Greenwood says in his witness statement that throughout LW1 he was partnered with Mr Seaford and there is no reason to doubt what he says.

[26]Following his involvement in LW1 Mr Greenwood remained a detective constable for a number of years. He retired as a police officer on 24 April 1998.

[27]Mrs O’Brien joined the Glamorgan Police in June 1966 and became an officer of SWP upon the amalgamation to which I have referred. After some years as a uniform officer she became a detective. As I understand it, by about the mid-1980’s she had become a detective assigned to the Serious Crime Squad (East). At the date when LW1 began Mrs O’Brien was part of the Major Crime Support Unit.

[28]I have not been provided with specific details about Mrs O’Brien’s role in LW1. That is because she now suffers from a very significant illness and she has made no witness statement in these proceedings. I do know, however, that she was assigned to LW1 for many months and that during her deployment she worked at least part of the time in the Major Incident Room (MIR) which had been set up following the discovery of Lynette’s body. Mrs O’Brien remained a police officer for approximately 9 years after her role in LW1 had ceased. Thereafter she worked as a civilian investigator until about 2004 both in the private sector and for SWP.

[29]Mr Pugh joined SWP on 1 September 1972. He became a detective in August 1981 and he remained a detective constable throughout his career. In 1987 Mr Pugh was assigned to the Serious Crime Squad (East) and he was working within that squad on the date of Lynette’s murder. On Monday 15 February Mr Pugh was assigned to LW1. He was given the role of an indexer in the MIR. His role involved collating and categorising all the information which was fed into the MIR. One of the persons with whom he worked for a time was Mrs O’Brien. As I understand Mr Pugh’s witness statement his primary role throughout LW1 was working within the MIR although he accepts that from time to time he carried out other duties. Mr Pugh retired from SWP in October 2002. The following month he was engaged by the Legal Services Department of SWP as a caseworker. He was undertaking that role in 2005 at the time of his arrest.

[30]Mr Jennings joined SWP on 8 November 1976. He remained an officer in uniform for about 10 years whereupon he transferred to the CID. Mr Jennings was assigned to LW1 within days of Lynette’s murder. He was first assigned to the house to house team but later he joined a team of officers who were conducting investigations into the prostitutes who worked in the Butetown area and their clients.

[31]On 6 February 1989, i.e. after the decision to charge the original defendants had been taken, Mr Jennings joined the Serious Crime Squad (East). He remained a detective within that squad for approximately 10 years and then took up a post, in uniform, at Cardiff Central police station. In 2001 he was appointed CID office manager at the Cardiff Basic Command Unit and he was undertaking that role at the time of his arrest. Throughout his career he received a number of commendations; he also received the Police Long Service and Good Conduct Medal in October 1999. He received two of his commendations after his arrest.

[32]Mr Stephen joined SWP in 1978. He became a detective in or about 1983 and he became a member of the Serious Crime Squad (East) in November 1987. He was assigned to LW1 virtually from the outset of the investigation. Initially he was an indexer/telephonist/message-taker in the MIR. Subsequently he became part of the team which undertook enquiries and obtained witness statements.

[33]I have not been provided with detailed information about Mr Stephen’s career following his involvement in LW1. However, at the time of his arrest in 2005 he was still a serving police officer with SWP holding the rank of detective sergeant.

[34]Mr Seaford became a police constable with Cardiff City Police in January 1966. Upon the formation of SWP Mr Seaford became a temporary detective and, shortly thereafter, his status as a detective became permanent. By 1982 Mr Seaford had become a member of the Serious Crime Squad (East).

[35]Mr Seaford joined LW1 in March 1988. He was by then a very experienced detective – he had worked on at least 50 murders and serious incidents. At the outset Mr Seaford’s role was “outside actions”; he had a particular remit to deal with individuals who were known to use prostitutes. Later in the investigation he became involved in taking witness statements from specific witnesses. Following his involvement in LW1 Mr Seaford became a member of the Fraud Squad. He was still assigned to that Squad when he retired from SWP in January 1996.

[36]Mr Daniels joined Glamorgan Police on 22 August 1966. He became a detective constable in July 1973 and for many years thereafter he worked for Special Branch in South Wales. In 1985 Mr Daniels became a member of the Serious Crime Squad (East). That assignment lasted until 1987 when he became a member of the Serious Crime Squad (West). On 15 February 1988 he was seconded to LW1. Initially he was deployed in the MIR. In or about October 1988 he was transferred to outside enquiry duties and from that time onwards, at least, he usually partnered Mr Gillard.

[37]Mr Daniels retired from SWP on 2 September 1996. Upon retirement he received an exemplary conduct certificate and during the course of his career he received a number of commendations for his work. In the years following his retirement Mr Daniels undertook investigative work. In August 1998 he began working for an investigation company known as RB Investigations although much of his work was involved with assisting SWP. He was working for RB Investigations but based at Cowbridge police station on the day that he was arrested.

[38]Mr Gillard became a police officer on 5 December 1969. Until his deployment to LW1 he worked in and around the Swansea area. He became a detective in 1973. In 1986 Mr Gillard joined the Serious Crime Squad (West). He was deployed to LW1 immediately after the murder was discovered. Initially Mr Gillard was deployed in the MIR. In October 1988 he and other officers (including Mr Daniels) were transferred to outside enquiry duties in which capacity he took a number of important witness statements. Mr Gillard retired in 1999. He, too, was given a certificate of exemplary service. Unlike some of his colleagues he did not involve himself in investigative work following his retirement.

[39]Mr Page began his career in the police on 25 March 1966. I have not been provided with the details of Mr Page’s career in the police save that during the course of his service he received 26 commendations and by his retirement on 12 June 1997 he had reached the rank of chief inspector and acting deputy divisional commander.

[40]Mr Page was an inspector in uniform during 1988. He was based at the Butetown police station – indeed, he was responsible for its day to day running. He was seconded to LW1 on three or four occasions between Lynette’s murder and 31 December 1988 when Mr Page left the Butetown police station to join the Regional Crime Squad. His secondment to LW1 sometimes lasted a few weeks; sometimes it was no more than a few days. His last secondment was at or about the time when the original defendants were arrested and charged.

[41]Mr Hicks was a police officer with SWP between 1971 and 31 March 2006. At the end of his career he had obtained the rank of detective sergeant and he was working within the Child Protection Unit at Cardiff Central police station. His conduct during his career had been described as exemplary.

[42]Mr Hicks became part of LW1 on the day Lynette’s murder was discovered. He remained part of the investigating team (apart from a week or so early on) until about May 1988. In that period Mr Hicks was engaged in house to house enquires. Mr Hicks maintains that he returned to LW1 in early December 1988. That is not now disputed. He says that between 6 December and 11 December his role was essentially focused upon one individual, MT, although, as I will relate, Mr Hicks was also present with Mrs Coliandris on 11 December 1988 when a witness statement was taken from LV.

[43]Mr Murray began his career in SWP in 1985. He had previously served in the army. By the time of Lynette’s murder Mr Murray was a detective working from a police station in Llanedeyrn, a suburb of Cardiff. Mr Murray was assigned to LW1 on 2 March 1988. His role was to carry out the actions which were assigned to him. He carried out those duties from 2 March 1988 to 27 August 1988. On that date Mr Murray returned to his base at Llanedeyrn police station.

[44]It is now accepted that Mr Murray returned to work with LW1 in December 1988. On or about 5 December, during the evening, he received a telephone call to report to LW1 the following morning. That morning a number of officers, including Mr Murray, received a briefing from Mr Morgan. Mr Murray remained part of LW1 until February 1989. He was still a serving officer, holding the rank of detective constable, upon the date that he was arrested.

[45]Mr Morgan became a police officer on 24 January 1963. By the time of his retirement in 1994 he had received some 15 commendations from judges and chief constables and upon his retirement he was awarded a certificate of exemplary conduct.

[46]By the time of his involvement in LW1 Mr Morgan was a detective chief inspector. He had been promoted to that rank early in 1988 and he was given overall responsibility for the Regional Criminal Intelligence Office and other police agencies within Wales. His work was “office based” and administrative in nature.

[47]On 17 October 1988 Mr Morgan was transferred to the Serious Crime Squad (East). He was immediately appointed as the Office Manager of the MIR. He succeeded DCI Young who, in turn, had succeeded DCI Ludlow. Mr Morgan was the Office Manager for LW1 over the ensuing months.

[48]Mrs Coliandris joined SWP in 1978. She was a police constable in uniform in 1988 and she was then based at Cardiff Central police station. She had no role in LW1 except for some hours on 11 December 1988. Mrs Coliandris retired as a police constable in 1995 “with a certificate from the Chief Constable of [her] very good service”.

[49]It seems clear that none of the Claimants knew each other very well by February 1988 although some of them were acquainted with each other through work. However, throughout 1988 Mr Page worked from the Butetown police station and all the other Claimants (except Mrs Coliandris) were deployed to LW1 for some months, at least. It seems clear to me that all the police officers responsible for taking crucial witness statements during November and December 1988 (apart from Mrs Coliandris) must, by then, have become well known to each other. Section 2 1988

Section 2

[50]Lynette was a prostitute who plied her trade in Butetown, the area of the city of Cardiff which adjoins the docks. She was 20 years of age when she was killed. Her death met with a great deal of consternation locally. It provoked a great deal of publicity both locally and nationally.

[51]In the hours that followed the discovery of her body a large scale investigation was set in motion. A MIR was set up at Cardiff Central Police Station. Detective Chief Superintendent John Williams, then the most senior detective within SWP, was appointed the Senior Investigating Officer (“the SIO”) and Detective Superintendent Ken Davies was appointed as his deputy (“the deputy SIO”).

[52]Certain lines of enquiry were obvious. There was a need to identify, locate and interview the large number of people who would likely know or have dealings with Lynette. Such persons would obviously include those who lived in Flats 2 and 3 at 7 James Street and those who regularly frequented clubs and pubs such as the North Star, the Casablanca, the Montmerence, the Dowlais, the Custom House and the Glendower (these being clubs and pubs frequented by Lynette, other prostitutes and men who associated with prostitutes). There was a need to identify any persons having any connection with 7 James Street, particularly in the days leading to Lynette’s death. There was a need to examine the murder scene and preserve any relevant evidence for forensic examination and there was a need to obtain pathological evidence. All these lines of enquiry began within hours of the discovery of Lynette’s body.

[53]In the early hours of Monday 15 February Doctor John Whiteside, an experienced forensic scientist, and Professor Bernard Knight, a distinguished Home Office pathologist, attended the flat in which Lynette’s body was discovered. Lynette’s body was still in the position in which it had been found. It was clear to both Dr. Whiteside and Professor Knight that Lynette had been murdered in the bedroom of the flat in which she was discovered although her body had been moved within that room. A very thorough forensic investigation of the room and the flat was recognised to be vital. That investigation began during 15 February and continued throughout the days that followed.

[54]Very early on Professor Knight was asked for an opinion about the likely time when death had occurred. He could not be precise. Nonetheless both the police and he soon formed the working hypothesis that death had occurred in the early hours of Sunday morning i.e. about 24 hours prior to the Professor’s examination. In all the years since that time, the view has remained that Lynette was murdered in the early hours of Sunday 14 February 1988. Nothing I heard or saw in the evidence adduced before me cast any doubt upon that view.

[55]Many police officers were deployed to the investigation. As I have explained, many of the Claimants were involved from the outset or shortly after the investigation had begun. Their roles were as I have described.

[56]Many lines of enquiry were pursued and many leads were followed up. I do not propose to set out details of all those leads and the persons who were considered suspects in the early days since such a narrative would be peripheral to the issues which I have to decide. Rather, in the paragraphs that follow, I will describe how the original defendants came to be suspects. I should, however, mention one strand of information which was provided to the police very early on; during the afternoon of Sunday 14 February a man with a cut hand was seen in the vicinity of 7 James Street. The identity of that person was never discovered during the course of LW1.

[57]Very quickly, i.e. on the night Lynette’s body was discovered, evidence came to light that she was in a relationship with SM and that he acted as her pimp. That same night LV volunteered that she was Lynette’s close friend. It was soon established that the other two flats at 7 James Street were occupied; the tenant of Flat 2 was a man called Mark Grommek (MG) and Flat 3 was occupied by a woman called Johanna or Joanne Smith (Ms Smith).

[58]Within hours of Lynette’s body being found, SM was traced and interviewed at length. His home and car were searched and his clothing was seized for forensic examination. Essentially, in those very early stages, SM was treated as a suspect. However, in the weeks that followed SM gave a number of witness statements to the police which were not incriminating in any way and for a number of months after that the police ceased to regard him as a suspect. Witness statements were taken from LV and MG on the night of 14 February; a statement was obtained from Ms Smith on 15 February. Each of them asserted they knew nothing of the murder.

[59]In February 1988 LV was aged 19. She had a young child and she was a prostitute. In her first witness statement she said that she had been living at 19 St Clair Court, West Bute Street for a “couple of months” before February 1988. West Bute Street was and is very close to James Street.

[60]The tenant of the flat in St Clair Court was Angela Psaila (AP). She was also a young woman and a prostitute. A witness statement was taken from her on 16 February; she said that she knew nothing of the murder. Other persons from whom statements were taken in those very early days included a man called Jack Ellis (statement taken on 16 February) who was a taxi driver who often provided taxi services in Butetown and Paul Atkins (PA), a friend of MG who provided a statement on 26 February. None of the persons so far mentioned provided any information to the police which suggested that they had any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Lynette’s murder.

[61]There is no doubt that at a very early stage of the investigation it was suspected that LV knew more than she was prepared to disclose to the police. At the very least, officers suspected that she had discovered that Lynette’s body was lying in the flat before she reported her concerns to the police. I should also record that MG had apparently provided information to the press which was not necessarily consistent with his denial to the police that he had any relevant information about the murder. On 17 February an article appeared in a local newspaper which related that MG had “heard noises, doors slamming and men’s and women’s voices throughout the night” coming from the flat in which Lynette was found.

[62]Over the course of the next few months many statements were taken from LV, AP and MG and in those early months they said nothing to the police which incriminated anyone in Lynette’s murder. However, as the investigation progressed, information was being provided to the police which tended to suggest that LV knew more about the circumstances of the murder than she had divulged. For example, the police obtained witness statements from Claire and Julia Thomas, young women who were friends/acquaintances of both Lynette and LV. In those statements they suggested that on the morning after Lynette’s body had been discovered LV had told them that she had seen Lynette’s body lying in the flat at James Street before she had gone to the Butetown Police Station. Claire and Julia Thomas were former residents of the flat in which the murder took place. Perhaps more importantly, a woman by the name of Maxine Campbell made a witness statement on 31 May 1988 in which she recounted a conversation with LV in which she (LV) had informed her that she knew who had killed Lynette and she named SM and YA. Miss Campbell told the police that although LV was drunk at the time of this conversation she appeared serious about what she had said.

[63]At some stage towards the end of May or in early June Mr Powell suggested to LV that she should be asked questions about her knowledge of the murder under hypnosis. LV agreed to be questioned under hypnosis and the session took place; however she revealed no information which incriminated either SM or YA (or for that matter any one else). On 11 June LV made a witness statement (her 13th statement) in which she explained how it came to be that she was questioned under hypnosis. She also explained why she made accusations about SM and YA to Maxine Campbell. She said that she had been “really pissed” and that she had accused SM “just I suppose to get at Miller (Stephen) because he’s away and not getting any hassle and I hate him anyway”.

[64]By this point in time AP had made five statements. She did not suggest in any of them that she had any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Lynette.

[65]MG provided seven witness statements between 14 February 1988 and 25 May. The statements were to an extent contradictory insofar as they concerned his movements on Saturday 13 February and Sunday 14 February. That said, MG consistently denied having any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Lynette’s murder. He certainly did not repeat what was attributed to him in the newspaper article of 17 February. In his statement dated 25 May MG asserted that he had returned to his flat at 7 James Street and, after taking medication, he had slept soundly all night. Further, he claimed to be alone in his flat and said that he had heard nothing from the flat below.

[66]In the first statement which he made (26 February) PA denied seeing Lynette at any time over the weekend when she was murdered. In his fourth statement, dated 18 May, he gave a detailed account of his movements over that weekend. The account he then gave contradicted earlier accounts of his movements but nothing he said suggested that he had any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Lynette.

[67]That was in sharp contrast to information which PA had provided to Detective Chief Inspector Ludlow on 10 April. On that day Mr Ludlow interviewed PA at length at the Butetown police station. On 11 May Mr Ludlow made a comprehensive witness statement setting out what PA had said. Essentially, PA had given a number of different accounts of the events of Sunday 14 February but each of them suggested that he had very important information about the murder. PA first told Mr Ludlow that he had gone to MG’s flat at about 1.00am on Sunday 14 February. They had drunk some coffee and then gone to bed together (they were both homosexual men). PA said that after about ten minutes he heard loud screams coming from the flat below. He had got up to investigate. While he had been standing outside Flat 1 he had seen two persons whom he named as Barry (a homosexual man from Bristol) and a girl whom he described but did not name (although the description was consistent with it being LV). The girl told him that she had seen a body and that he should get the police. When Mr Ludlow challenged PA as to whether he was telling the truth he gave a different account. In this second account he suggested that MG had killed Lynette after having had sex with her and having robbed her of £45. When challenged about this account, PA provided further and, to an extent, contradictory details but still maintained that MG had killed Lynette. At this point in the interview Mr Ludlow involved Mr Powell. Both men spoke to PA and made it clear to him that they did not believe what he had told them. At that point PA broke down and gave a third account in which he admitted killing Lynette. He said that he had gone to her flat, that he had wrestled her to the ground, sat astride her and then “stabbed her repeatedly in the chest, abdomen and both arms”. PA said that Lynette had put her arms up across the front of her face to defend herself. He said, too, that when she was dead he had cut both her wrists and then her throat and when the blood started to spurt out he walked out of the flat and downstairs and out onto James Street.

[68]The officers did not believe any of PA’s three accounts. They put to him questions about what Lynette had been wearing at the time she was killed and what furniture had been in the flat. PA’s answers were clearly and obviously wrong and when this was pointed out to him he admitted that he had been telling lies all along. That said, he went on to assert that he had obtained knowledge of the stab wounds sustained by Lynette from speaking to LV which, no doubt, reinforced the view of the police officers in LW1 that LV had not disclosed all that she knew to the police.

[69]On 15 April a witness statement was taken from a woman named Jane Elizabeth Sandrone. Ms Sandrone was one of three partners who owned and/or operated the Dowlais Club which was situated near James Street. In her statement she recounted a conversation which she said had taken place about three weeks after the murder between Noreen Amiel (one of her business partners) and a man whom she described as a “half caste” and who was known to her by the name “Dulla”. According to Ms Sandrone this person had told Noreen Amiel that he had killed Lynette and that he had cut his own hands in the process. On the face of it, this evidence implicated YA in the murder. However before Ms Sandrone’s account could be checked with Ms Amiel, information emerged which tended to suggest that over the weekend when Lynette was murdered YA had been working on board a ship known as “The Coral Sea” which was berthed at Barry Dock.

[70]YA made a witness statement on 19 May. He acknowledged knowing Lynette but said that during the course of the weekend when she was killed he was working aboard the Coral Sea. Indeed he said that he worked on board the ship between Tuesday 9 February and Monday 15 February and that during that period he had left the ship on one night only which was either the Wednesday or Thursday night.

[71]On 27 May a witness statement was taken from Mrs Amiel. In it she recounted a conversation she had with YA approximately two weeks after the murder. She did not suggest that he had admitted killing Lynette. Her account was that YA had told her that the police were looking for him in connection with the murder and that as a consequence he was going to leave the Cardiff area by taking a job on a ship. The statement taken from Mrs Amiel also described a conversation she had with YA on 19 May – the day he had given his witness statement to the police. In this conversation YA described how he had been “pulled in” by the police and how this had frightened him. Although Mrs Amiel provided the information which I have summarised above on 27 May and a statement was written out on that date Mrs Amiel would not sign it. The statement was not signed until 1 February 1989 following a conversation she had with Mr Mouncher.

[72]It can be seen, therefore, that as at late May/June 1988 information had been provided to the police which had the potential for implicating SM and YA in the murder of Lynette. PA had made suggestions about the murder which the police had rejected as untrue and information had been provided to the police which suggested that LV knew more about the circumstances surrounding the murder than she had been prepared to divulge in her witness statements. LV, AP, MG and PA had given a number of witness statements to the police. In due course these four persons became known as the “core four” for reasons which will become obvious. I will use that phrase when it is necessary to refer to them collectively.

[73]The attitude of the investigating officers at this time is encapsulated in a document to which it is now convenient to refer. Very soon after the investigation began the SIO began a log known as “the SIO policy log”. The idea was that all important policy decisions made by the SIO would be reduced to writing in a log which would then be a readily available record of those decisions. To distinguish this log from the SIO policy log which came into existence in LW3 I will refer to it as the “LW1 policy log”. The log for late May records :- “24.5.88………talk amongst prostitutes still tends to implicate Miller and associates and those in the North Star will be closely monitored. 27/5/88. A full conference of all personnel engaged on the enquiry was held at 5.00pm at the incident room. Yusef Abdullahi was discussed and is being researched and enquiries into as he may now fall into a strong suspect category for this enquiry.”

[74]By this stage there was very little if anything to connect RA, JA and TP to the murder. RA had made a witness statement on 11 March. He admitted that he had known Lynette and LV; indeed he admitted having a relationship with LV. He gave a full account of his movements over 13/14 February. JA had been seen early on by police officers conducting house-to-house inquiries but had not been interviewed after that time. TP had been interviewed on or about 23 February following the discovery of a knife and an axe at his home after his arrest for stealing. He made a statement in which he readily admitted knowing Lynette and SM and he accounted for his movements on 13/14 February.

[75]On or about 21 June 1988 the SIO, Mr Williams, had a conference with Professor Canter of Surrey University. The Professor’s speciality was the psychological profiling of suspects in criminal cases. Over the course of the following few months the Professor made an assessment of the profile of the person most likely to be Lynette’s assailant. A convenient summary of Professor Canter’s views found its way into a report which Mr Mouncher prepared for the Deputy SIO on 25 October 1988. I need not set out the detail; the Professor’s view was that the killer was likely to have been a lone assailant who was a client or former client of Lynette.

[76]As I indicated earlier, there was an extensive investigation of the murder scene which began in the hours after Lynette’s body was discovered and which continued for some time thereafter. Following this investigation there was a detailed forensic assessment of what had been discovered.

[77]The examination of the scene was particularly concerned with the search for fingerprints. No less than 1747 finger marks were lifted for comparison purposes during the course of the scene examinations. Finger marks were found in the flat which matched the fingerprints of LV and PA. In itself, this was not significant since LV was the tenant of the flat at the material time and PA had disclosed at an early stage that he had been a visitor to the flat when Julia and Claire Thomas had been the tenants in 1987. No finger marks were discovered which matched the finger prints of AP, MG, the original defendants or the other men who were subsequently arrested but not charged.

[78]Lynette’s clothing had been heavily bloodstained as was to be expected. Forensic examination of the blood was undertaken. Much of the blood found on Lynette’s clothing was her own. However, there was smeared blood staining on the legs of her jeans and on the ankle of her right sock which was not her blood. Further, there was blood found behind a curtain and on a skirting board in the bedroom of the flat. This blood was not Lynette’s but it was the same group as the blood deposited on Lynette’s jeans.

[79]In the early months of the investigation the belief was that this “foreign” blood had been deposited by a male and, very likely, by a man who had been involved in the attack upon Lynette. The opinion that this blood was that of a man was founded upon the discovery by the forensic scientists that there was a “Y” chromosome within the blood (indicating the blood belonged to a male). The working assumption was that this blood had been deposited by a male attacker who had, himself, been injured during the course of the attack on Lynette. In due course the “foreign blood” was compared with samples of the blood of the original defendants. The comparison showed that it was not their blood.

[80]I need not dwell on the pathological evidence which was obtained from Professor Knight at this stage. More than 50 stab/slash wounds were discovered on Lynette’s body. Her throat had been cut and it was very likely that it was the cut(s) to the throat which had caused her death.

[81]I turn, next, to the most crucial time period within LW1 namely, late October to 11 December. On 20 October, Violet Perriam (also known as Wendy Perriam) provided information to DC Mitchell which he recorded as follows:- “Wendy Perriam, 4 The Drive, Fairwater, 569721 secretary of local boat club drove past 7 James Street at 0130 hours 14/2/88 and saw four coloured males arguing heatedly outside the premises. She believes one to be an associate of Actie another to be an associate of Peggy Farrugia.”

[82]Some days later – on 10 November 1988 – Mr Seaford took a witness statement from Mrs Perriam. In it she described how she worked at the Butetown Health Centre and at the Cardiff Yacht Club which was also situated in Butetown. She went on to say that during the evening of Saturday 13 February she had worked behind the bar at the Yacht Club and left to go home at about 1.30am on the Sunday morning. Her route home took her along James Street and as she drove along that street she saw four men whom she described as “four coloured males” standing in the middle of the road. They were in close proximity to the location of number 7. She estimated that the time when she saw these men was between 1.30am and 1.40am on Sunday 14 February.

[83]Mrs Perriam’s statement contained a description of the four men as follows:- “Because I work in the Health Centre I am familiar with a lot of people from the Docks area. The faces of two of the persons were familiar to me. One was a Somali and another had long scruffy hair. I may recognise them again. The four men were between 20 and 30 years of age. One of them who had his back to me was tall and well built. The two I have mentioned and the other one were all shorter and about the same height. I cannot describe what they were wearing.”

[84]After he had taken this statement Mr Seaford made a written record of his dealings with Mrs Perriam. He wrote:- “Statement obtained from Violet Elizabeth Perriam. Her daughters Katherine and Michelle cannot assist enquiry. Mrs Perriam is petrified of John Actie and it may be that he is one of the persons she saw. It may also be that she knows the identity of the other person but is afraid to say. She was very reluctant to make a statement. Suggest we leave her for a few days and I’ll see her again re identification.”

[85]Not surprisingly, the statement made by Mrs Perriam was considered to be of some importance to the investigation. The LW1 policy log for 10 November recorded the need to re-interview Mrs Perriam in relation to the identity of the men she had seen. It also recorded the need to re-appraise the evidence of MG and PA.

[86]On 16 November Mr Seaford took a second witness statement from Mrs Perriam. It was a short statement and the relevant part is as follows:- “I made a previous statement on 10 November 1988. In this statement I mentioned seeing four coloured persons in James Street about 1.30am on Sunday 14 February 1988. Because I work in the docks area I have been concerned about my own safety. For this reason I have not wanted to name persons I did recognise on this date. One of the persons was Rashid Omar who I know from the Butetown Health Centre. I am almost certain one of the others was John Actie. On this night I didn’t see his face but he is a very big person and he stands out because of his description. He was wearing a black leather jacket which he always wears. I know that these two persons were friendly until some weeks ago when I saw them arguing outside the Health Centre. I didn’t see them together for a few weeks until the day before yesterday when I saw them outside the Health Centre. I did not recognise the other two persons. Because it was dark and the fact that I only saw these men for a matter of seconds, identification was difficult. I can definitely say that Stephen Miller was not one of them. I know Miller’s nickname is ‘Pineapple’ and I have seen him at the Health Centre.”

[87]In summary, therefore, by 16 November Mrs Perriam had told the police that she had seen four men together in the vicinity of 7 James Street shortly after 1.30am on 14 February. One of those present was RO; almost certainly another was JA. She could not positively identify the other two men but they did not include SM. On her account none of the men were white.

[88]In February 1988 a woman called Pamela Mathews had been living in the same block of flats (St Clair Court) as AP. Ms Mathews made a statement to the police on 12 April 1988 in which she described how she had gone out with a friend, Gwyneth Williams, on Friday 12 February and how the two women had spent the night together at the Bosun Public House. On returning to her flat at approximately 2.00am on Saturday 13 February Ms Mathews had seen AP “looking scared and nervous” on the landing outside the door to her flat. On 1 November 1988 Mrs Mathews made a second statement to the police in which she said that her visit to the Bosun had been on Saturday night so that she had seen AP in the early hours of Sunday morning. In a third statement, made on 15 November and written by Mr Daniels, Mrs Mathews confirmed that her sighting of AP had occurred at about 2.15am on Sunday 14 February.

[89]In 1988, the names of persons attending a police station either because they were potential suspects or because they were significant witnesses were normally recorded in a book known as “the B59”. The B59 kept at the Butetown police station in 1988 still exists. It shows that on 17 November AP attended the police station at 10.20am and remained there until 6.55pm and it is common ground that while she was at the police station she was interviewed on two occasions by Messrs Daniels and Gillard. AP was not interviewed under caution but Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard were instructed to make a contemporaneous record of the questions that they asked and the answers that she gave. Both Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard told me that they acted in accordance with their instructions when the written record was made and that, so far as possible, the precise words spoken were recorded. The Defendant does not necessarily accept that this is what occurred. There is no dispute that at some stage after the written records had been made typed versions were produced which accurately re-produced the written versions. In the remainder of this judgment all my references to statements or contemporaneous records are references to the typed versions contained within the Trial Bundles.

[90]The record shows that the first interview commenced at 11.20 am and ended at 2.18pm; it also shows that there were no formal breaks although cups of tea and a meal were provided to AP during various stages of the session.

[91]In this interview AP explained that during the night of 13/14 February she had been in her flat at St Clair Court babysitting for LV. She agreed that she had gone outside the flat for a short period of time at about 2.15am and that she had seen her neighbour Ms Matthews and her friend, Ms Williams. AP also agreed that she was then nervous and she explained this by saying that at about 2.00am SM had called at her flat with “other docks boys” whom she could not identify. He had come to her flat to look for Lynette. He had threatened her because he believed that Lynette was staying with her in her flat. She went on to describe how at about 3.00am she had been looking out of the window of her flat towards 7 James Street. She had seen a flickering light on the first floor above the betting shop. She had also seen a car in the street below. The driver was a white man and he had no passengers. When asked what kind of car she had seen AP replied “a taxi black and white like a city centre taxi like a Cortina like they’ve got” although she also said the car did not have a taxi sign on the roof. When AP was asked why she had not mentioned the taxi in her previous statements she said that it was because she was afraid of SM. When Mr Daniels asked AP the specific question whether JA was one of the men she had seen she replied “no” – the men had been younger.

[92]The second interview began at 4.05pm and ended at 5.50pm. Between the two interviews Mr Mouncher spoke to AP. There was no attempt at the time to hide the fact that the conversation had taken place. The record of the second interview begins by setting out that AP and Mr Mouncher had spoken together in the break.

[93]I do not propose to set out in detail the questions and answers recorded. It suffices that I say that AP alleged that(a) she had always known the persons who had come to her flat were SM, JA, RA, YA and a man called Tony Brace

(b) these men and, in particular, SM, JA and RA were in James Street in the vicinity of No 7 for quite some time during the early hours of the Sunday morning

(c) sometime after the men had visited her flat she had heard screams apparently coming from 7 James Street and at the time when she heard screaming SM, JA and RA were in the vicinity

(d) approximately 30 minutes after the screaming had ended a taxi had arrived in James Street driven by Jack Ellis

(e) at some point RA had entered 7 James Street after being let into the building by a man whom she thought had come from Flat 2 and

(f) TP was also present from time to time in James Street in the sense that he was “coming back and forth” as if he was selling drugs to the others. Just before the interview concluded Mr Gillard asked AP whether LV had been with her when SM arrived at about 2.00am. AP replied that LV had not been in the flat; according to AP, LV had not been in the flat that night although she had come to the flat at about 9.00am on the Sunday morning.

[94]As I have said, there is no dispute that AP spoke to Mr Mouncher before that interview started. Mr Mouncher wrote a summary of what was said in his pocket notebook. The relevant part reads as follows:- “Confer DC Daniels Gillard re Psaila re protection ..…threats to her well-being from those responsible for murder of Lynette White. Assured her she would be protected by every possible means.”

[95]The effect of what AP is recorded as saying on 17 November could not be clearer. She had been alone in her flat during the night of 13/14 February. SM and four other men had visited her flat at about 2 am on 14 February; three of the four men were JA, RA and YA. All the original defendants were in and around James Street in the early hours of 14 February. At some stage there had been screaming coming from number 7. RA had entered the building apparently having been let into the building by someone from Flat 2 and Jack Ellis’ taxi had also been in James Street that night.

[96]On 22 November AP returned to the Butetown police station. On this occasion she was present between 3.40pm and 5.25pm. She made a short statement in which she changed the account which she had given on 17 November about whether LV had been with her during the night of 13/14 February. She said:- “Firstly in my last interview I said that Leanne Vilday wasn’t in my flat when I heard screams, this wasn’t true. In fact Leanne went to the Red Onion to fetch food as I’ve said but she didn’t go back out straightaway. We were eating the food that Leanne had fetched when we heard the screaming. Both of us heard the screams as Leanne left the flat to see what had happened. I watched her from the window of the flat and saw her going towards Babs Bistro. I didn’t see her again until about ten minutes later when she came back to my flat. She said “Lynette’s dead”. I said “what do you mean?” and she said “you know she’s dead she’s been stabbed several times.”

[97]PA and MG were also at the Butetown police station on 22 November but for much longer periods of time. The B59 shows that PA arrived at the station at 8.12am. At 9.15am Messrs Jennings and Stephen began a question and answer session. The interview ended at 5pm although substantial breaks were taken when refreshments were provided to PA. Mr Jennings told me he recorded the words spoken contemporaneously. Thereafter, a typed version of the written record was produced.

[98]In summary, the interview began with questions about PA’s whereabouts on 13/14 February. PA’s answers were not wholly consistent with accounts he had given in previous statements but they were consistent to the extent that PA denied being in or in the vicinity of 7 James Street at any material time. There followed a break of almost an hour. In the next session PA changed his account quite dramatically. PA said that he had gone to MG’s flat at around midnight on 13/14 February. There came a point in time when someone rang the doorbell at the front entrance to 7 James Street. MG left his flat to open the front door and then returned. Shortly after, PA heard a scream. He left MG’s flat almost immediately and saw a “girl” coming through the front door from the street. PA described how “the girl” forced open the door of Flat 1, went inside and then came out to say that someone had been murdered in the flat. PA returned to MG’s flat and at about the time that dawn was breaking he went to the flat of Julie and Claire Thomas.

[99]Following these revelations there was another break of approximately one hour. In the session which followed Messers Jennings and Stephen challenged PA about why his account before the break had been so different to any previous account he had given. He claimed that he had been frightened to tell the truth previously. PA was then pressed as to whether his account before the break was truthful and he was invited to tell the officers yet again what had happened. Much of what he then said was consistent with his account before the break. Additionally, however, he said that approximately 1½ hours after arriving at MG’s flat he heard male voices in the street. It was shortly after this that MG had gone to open the front door. Upon his return, PA asked MG who had been at the door. MG refused to say. Next, PA heard a scream. PA repeated that he left MG’s flat to see what had happened and then he had seen a girl coming up the stairs. He maintained that he did not know her name but he described her and where she lived; he was obviously describing LV. According to PA the girl forced open the door of Flat 1 and both she and PA when into the flat. They discovered the body. PA was asked about the lighting in the flat. He said that the only source of light was from the street lights outside. However, he added a detail to the effect that “the girl” had asked him to put the light on and he had found a switch. However, when he had turned it on no light was produced. After leaving the flat PA returned to the flat of MG. He was so distressed by what he had seen that he was physically sick in the toilet of MG’s flat.

[100]This session ended at 5.00pm. The written record was then read to PA who signed it at 5.30pm. Shortly before 9.00pm that day PA signed a witness statement which had been written by Mr Stephen. The statement was countersigned by an Inspector, Colin Raybould, under the following caption:- “This statement was read over to Paul Atkins page by page and he signed the bottom of each page as being a true record. At the conclusion of this statement I asked Mr Atkins if he was satisfied as to the authenticity of his statement and he agreed he was so satisfied.”

[101]The B59 does not record the time when PA left the police station on 22 November. On any view, however, he could not have left until sometime after 9pm which means that he was at the police station for a period in excess of 13 hours.

[102]MG arrived at the police station at 10am. The B59 does not record when he left. An interview with him began at 11.45am and ended at 1.15pm. The officers conducting this interview were Messrs Greenwood and Seaford and it was a question and answer session. Mr Greenwood told me that he wrote down the questions asked and the answers given and that later an accurate typed version was produced.

[103]In this interview MG said that he had returned to his flat at about midnight on 13/14 February and had then gone to bed. He was alone throughout the night and heard no noise in the street and no screaming from the flat below. He explained that he had been taking medication for depression in February and that he slept very heavily when under the influence of that medication.

[104]A second interview began at 5.05pm that afternoon. On this occasion the interviewing officers were Messrs Seaford and Pugh and it was Mr Pugh who made a written record of what was said (which was later typed up). In his oral evidence Mr Pugh told me that between the first and second interview he had a conversation with MG in which MG told him the substance of what he was later to disclose in the second interview. This conversation was not recorded in interview format. It had been an “informal conversation” and, according to Mr Pugh, MG had decided to confide in Mr Pugh because the two men had built up some kind of rapport because they both came from the South Wales Valleys. Mr Pugh’s pocket book for 22 November has long since been destroyed. Accordingly, if Mr Pugh made a record of the conversation it no longer exists and there is now no written record which confirms that the conversation took place. That said, it is possible and, indeed, plausible that such a conversation did take place, not least because Mr Pugh was involved in the interview which then followed.

[105]In the second interview, MG acknowledged for the first time that PA had been at his flat from about 12.30am on the Sunday morning. He is recorded as saying- “I invited him in for a chat and the next thing I knew was my doorbell rang again about half one a quarter to two. I then went down to answer the door again and there was three or four people outside. One person I now know to be Abdullah asked me if anyone was in Flat No 1 and I said “Not that I know of”. With Dullah was a tall black guy, a fellow who I now know as Ronnie Actie, someone who I think looked like a boy called “Tucker”. I am almost certain it was him.”

[106]MG was next questioned about the sequence of events after he had opened the door. He replied:- “The person Dullah asked me if anyone was in Flat No 1 and I said “Not as far as I know”. I turned, walked away from the door and walked up the stairs but left the door open. Looking back I seen Abdullah entering the premises. I went into my flat and I was in there about two maybe three minutes explained to Paul that I had opened the door to some boys and the next thing I knew there was raised voices and there was horrible screams. After about five minutes after everything went quiet Paul ran down to the flat below, almost immediately he came back up to my flat, he was as white as a ghost and he said “someone had been murdered downstairs” I said “who?” and he said a girl. He then went into my toilet and was very sick. I then became petrified myself because I had let the boys into the building. Paul stayed with me until about 5.30, 6.00am. I let him out through the front door and went back to my flat. ……….”

[107]MG was then asked to elaborate on this account. During the course of providing further details he described how he thought that there had been a black taxi parked outside the betting shop which he had seen either when he answered the door to PA or when he answered the door to “Abdullah”. At the time he had seen this vehicle it was not occupied. Later that day, MG made a witness statement which was written by Mr Seaford. I will return to this witness statement later in this judgement.

[108]The fourth person of potential significance to be interviewed at the Butetown police station on 22 November was Ms Smith, the tenant of Flat 3. She was interviewed by Messrs Daniels and Gillard. She told them that she was in her flat throughout the Saturday/Sunday night. She maintained that she heard no screams from Flat 1 or anywhere else and that she had not been aware that anyone had rung the front doorbell.

[109]I pause at this point to summarise the key strands of the information provided to the police on 22 November and the sequence in which it was provided. PA’s interview spanned a very long period but came to an end at 5pm. He accepted being at MG’s flat over a number of hours during the night of 13/14 February. He was in the flat when there were male voices in the street, when MG had apparently let a person or persons into the building and when he had heard a scream from the flat below. He had left the flat to investigate the screams and he had then seen a girl in the building whom he did not identify by name but whom he described and said that she lived nearby. Both the girl and he had entered Flat 1 and seen Lynette’s dead body. In an interview during the morning, MG had denied having any knowledge of any of the circumstances described by PA; MG had been alone and asleep in his flat. However, in the interview which began just minutes after the interview with PA had ended, MG confirmed that he had opened the front door as described by PA and that there were three or four men at the door two of whom he knew to be YA and RA and a third, almost certainly, was MT. Meanwhile between 3.40 and 5.25 AP was at the police station making a statement in which she said that LV was with her in her flat during the night of 13/14 February but that after hearing screams from the vicinity of 7 James Street LV had gone out to investigate and upon her return had said that Lynette had been murdered.

[110]It is clear that the information provided to the police by AP on 17 November (to some extent) and by MG on 22 November (to a greater extent) had the potential to implicate YA in Lynette’s murder. Yet YA had made a statement to the police in May to the effect that he was working on the Coral Sea in the early hours of Sunday morning. Further, quite early on in the course of LW1 police officers had made contact with at least two persons, Mr Peter McCarthy and Mr Lawrence Mann, who had worked on the Coral Sea in February. Mr McCarthy had told the police that he had worked on the ship over the night 13/14 February and had also suggested that YA had been on board during that time. In a witness statement dated 8 June Mr Mann had suggested that he had worked on the ship from midday on Sunday and that “Dullah” had been present from that time. The police had also taken statements from Ms Jacqueline Harris who was YA’s partner and the daughter of Peter McCarthy. She had said nothing to contradict YA’s assertion that he was on the Coral Sea during the night 13/14 February. Indeed in her statement of 6 June she had said that her father had picked him up to work on a ship on the morning of Friday 12 February and that he had returned to their home on the Monday or Tuesday.

[111]Not surprisingly, however, as information about YA’s possible involvement in the murder began to emerge steps were taken to obtain further evidence as to his whereabouts at the material time. On 29 November Mr Daniels took a witness statement from a man called Sidney Harrop. Mr Harrop was a welder who resided in Oxton, near Birkenhead. He had travelled to South Wales in the early hours of Saturday February 13, in the company of his brother-in- law, Ian Moore and a man called John Hulse in order to work on the Coral Sea. Mr Harrop estimated that the men arrived in Barry Docks at about 11.00am and boarded the ship at that time. He told Mr Daniels that he worked until about 10.00pm when he went ashore to have a meal and then continued working from about 11.00pm to 3.00am on the Sunday morning when he went ashore again. After a period of about 5 hours ashore Mr Harrop returned to the ship and then remained on the ship until Friday 19 February during which period the ship sailed to and from La Rochelle in France. In this witness statement Mr Harrop described a number of people who were present on the Coral Sea. He also mentioned some men by name. The statement did not specify whether Mr Harrop knew YA and, if so, whether YA had been aboard the ship at the same time as Mr. Harrop.

[112]Sometime after Mr Harrop completed making his statement he was shown a photograph of YA. He did not recognise him at all. Thereafter Mr Harrop made a very short second witness statement, taken by Mr Gillard, in which he confirmed that he had never seen YA previously and that he had not been working on the Coral Sea at the same time as Mr Harrop.

[113]On 30 November Mr Daniels took two witness statements from Mr Moore. It suffices that I say in his second short witness statement Mr Moore confirmed that he had never seen YA previously and that he had not been working on the Coral Sea at the same time as Mr Moore. According to his first, main statement Mr Moore worked on the Coral Sea from about midday on Saturday 13 February to about 10.00pm on Sunday 14 February.

[114]The same day Mr Gillard took witness statements from Mr Hulse. Mr Hulse, too, confirmed that he had never seen YA and that he had not been working on the Coral Sea over the weekend 13/14 February.

[115]On 2 December AP made a complaint of rape. A blood sample was taken from her. Dr Whiteside, the forensic scientist, arranged for her blood to be analysed and it was discovered that her blood was the same, comparatively rare, group as the blood which had been found on parts of Lynette’s clothing (the foreign blood).

[116]On 6 December PA, MG and AP attended the Butetown police station yet again. On this date LV was also present at the police station. PA arrived at 10.37am and departed at 11.15pm. AP arrived at 10.45am and departed at 11.00pm. LV arrived at 12.45pm and departed at 11.30pm and MG arrived at 1.08pm and left at 11.15pm.

[117]PA provided a witness statement which he signed as being accurate in the presence of Inspector Pengilley at 8.45pm that night. The witness statement was taken by Mr Stephen although it is common ground that Mr Jennings was also present when the statement was made. PA repeated some of the information about the night of 13/14 February which he had provided on 22 November but with additional details. First, he disclosed that he had looked out of the window of MG’s flat when he heard the doorbell ring. When he did so he saw four male persons standing outside 7 James Street although he did not recognise any of them and could not describe them. Second, he revealed that the girl whom he had seen in 7 James Street was LV. Third, PA described how, when he was leaving the bedroom of Flat 1, he was confronted by a man. He could give no detailed description of the man but, according to PA, the man threatened that he (PA) would be killed if he divulged to the police what he had seen.

[118]AP made a witness statement in the presence of Messrs Daniels and Gillard and written by Mr Gillard. The statement was consistent in many respects with the record of interview of 22 November but there were differences of detail. First, AP described looking out of her flat window after SM’s visit to her flat. She saw SM, JA, YA, TP and Tony Brace. They were all in the vicinity of James Street and near No 7. Second, a short time later, she saw her neighbour Ms Mathews and at about that time she also saw a car pull up outside 7 James Street which was a dark coloured Ford Cortina and “similar to those used by taxi firms”. Third, at some stage in this sequence of events LV returned to her flat. While the two women were together in the flat they heard screaming coming from the direction of 7 James Street. LV went to investigate and AP watched from the window. She saw RA and YA coming out of the front door of 7 James Street.

[119]LV made a witness statement which was written by Mrs O’Brien. In it she asserted that her previous statements were true but that important facts had been omitted from her previous accounts. She then went on to describe how, at about 1.00am on the Sunday morning, while she was in AP’s flat, she heard three screams which she described as terrifying. They came from the direction of her flat in James Street and she decided to go the flat to investigate. The first thing that she noticed was a car which she recognised as belonging to RA parked in the street near No 7. She entered the front door of No 7 and ran up the stairs to her flat. She saw MT and then PA. She entered her flat and saw RA, SM, YA and another black male whom she did not recognise. She saw Lynette lying on the floor on her back with one foot resting on the bed which was in the room. She realised that Lynette was dead. She ran out of the building and returned to AP’s flat. She did not tell AP what she had seen. She bathed and then left the flat and walked to the North Star Club. When she arrived at the Club, RA was there but none of the other men whom she had seen in the flat.

[120]Towards the end of her statement LV described an incident involving MT which had occurred a week or so prior to 6 December. The details of the incident are unimportant; what is of some significance is that when describing the incident LV disclosed that she “hated” MT.

[121]MG made a statement which was taken by Mr Pugh. In it he described how the front doorbell had been rung on a number of occasions at or about 1.30am before he decided to open it. When he did, eventually, open the door he saw that there were four persons outside. He recognised YA and RA and a person whom he knew as “Tucker” (MT) and he went on to give a description of the fourth male. MG saw YA enter the building before returning to his own flat. Some short time later he heard the raised voices of more than one male followed by hysterical screams from a female. The noise came from Flat 1. PA went to investigate and MG stood on the landing outside his flat from which point he saw LV standing on the landing outside Flat 1. When PA returned he told MG that there had been a murder. Shortly afterwards MG saw YA walking in James Street.

[122]Two days later MG made another statement. There is no mention in the B59 of MG attending the Butetown police station on 8 December but there is no dispute that a statement was taken from MG on that day by Mr Hughes. It is unnecessary to summarise much of the detail contained in that statement. It suffices that I record that MG again named three of the four males who had been outside 7 James Street when he opened the door to them as RA, YA and MT.

[123]There was another person of interest to the police at the Butetown police station on 6 December. That was Jack Ellis, the taxi driver. According to the B59 he was present at the station between 10.45am and 9.15pm. In a witness statement made to LW3 officers dated 19 May 2004 Mr Ellis gave a vivid description of the events which he said occurred during the course of his “third contact” with the police which, I am invited to conclude, was on 6 December. Be that as it may, what seems clear is that Mr Ellis was at the police station for the purpose of being interviewed. The B59 records the name of the interviewing officer as “B Tooby”. Mr Ellis was at the police station for a period in excess of 10 hours and yet no witness statement was taken from him and, as far as I am aware, no written record of any kind was made about what he said. What seems clear, however, is that Mr Ellis denied being in James Street in his taxi in the early hours of 14 February.

[124]SM, YA and RA were arrested on 7 December. Three other men, Anthony Miller (AM), SM’s brother, MT and RO were also arrested on that date. Tony Brace, named by AP as being at her flat and in James Street during the night of 13/14 February, had died as a consequence of a road traffic accident some short time before the date of the arrests.

[125]Let me pause, again, to summarise the new information which the core four provided on 6 December. I deal first with PA. He acknowledged looking out of the window of MG’s flat immediately after hearing the doorbell. He saw four males standing outside 7 James Street; according to him he did not know them and he could not describe them. PA also acknowledged that the girl he had seen inside 7 James Street was LV. AP was also looking out onto James Street that night. She said that after SM, JA, RA, TP and Tony Brace had visited her at about 2.00am she saw them in the street in the vicinity of 7 James Street. A short time later a car pulled up outside 7 James Street; it was similar to the type of car used by taxi firms. That, of course, was a different account to the one she had given in her second interview on 22 November when she claimed to have seen a taxi pulling up in James Street which was driven by Jack Ellis and which had arrived after she had heard screams from LV’s flat. Until 6 December LV had never acknowledged being in James Street on the night of 13/14 February. Her account of what she saw and heard that night is set out at paragraph 119 above and no purpose would be served by repeating it. MG’s account was very similar to that which he provided in his second interview on 22 November. However, in his statement of 6 December MG acknowledged that after hearing the screaming he had gone to stand on the landing outside flat and while he was there he had seen LV on the landing below, near the front door of Flat 1.

[126]In summary, by the evening of 6 December the evidence provided by LV had the potential to implicate SM, YA, RA and MT – she had described a fifth man whom she did not recognise but who was present in her flat at the time of the attack upon Lynette. The evidence of AP had the potential to implicate SM, JA, YA, TP and Tony Brace; the evidence of MG implicated YA, RA and MT and a fourth male whom he could not identify and PA had named none of the persons whom he had seen except that he had acknowledged seeing LV.

[127]In the light of the evidence of the core four and Mrs Perriam it is easy to understand why SM, YA, RA, MT and RO were arrested on 7 December. It is more difficult to understand why AM was arrested. He had not been named as a person involved in Lynette’s death by any of the core four and he had not been implicated, directly, in Lynette’s murder by any other person. I can only presume that notwithstanding the fact that Mrs Perriam and AP had said that JA had been in James Street at the relevant time a decision was taken that it was more likely that AM was the unidentified male whom LV had described as being present in the flat upon her arrival.

[128]Following their arrests, the six men were interviewed under caution. Each interview was tape recorded (save for the first interviews of SM and MT) and transcripts of what had been said were produced.

[129]SM was interviewed on nineteen separate occasions between 7 and 11 December. In total the interviews lasted approximately 13 hours over that period. Although SM engaged a solicitor as soon as he had been arrested the solicitor was not permitted to be present during the first two interviews on 7 December. From the third interview onwards (which took place on 8 December) a solicitor was present. In interviews 1, 2, 6 and 7 the interviewing officers were Messrs Greenwood and Seaford. In all other interviews except interviews 16 and 17 the interviewing officers were Mr Evans and Mr Murray. In interviews 16 and 17 Mr Toogood replaced Mr Murray.

[130]In summary, SM denied presence at the murder scene during interviews 1 to 7. In interviews 8 and 9 he began to accept that he was present at the murder scene. In interview 18 SM made what the prosecution was to allege at his trial were admissions to stabbing Lynette. During the course of some of the interviews SM implicated TP and YA.

[131]YA was interviewed under caution on 20 separate occasions between 7 and 11 December. The total time over which he was interviewed was in excess of 12 hours. Throughout each interview he maintained that he had no involvement in the murder of Lynette and that he had been working on the Coral Sea in the early hours of 14 February.

[132]RA was interviewed under caution on 12 separate occasions over a period of about 8 hours 30 minutes. He maintained throughout that he had no involvement in Lynette’s murder.

[133]The B59 records that TP attended at Butetown police station voluntarily at 7.45am on 9 December and that he was arrested at 11.45am the same day while he was still at that police station. He was then conveyed to Caerphilly police station to be interviewed under caution – there being no facilities for tape recorded interviews under caution at Butetown police station at that time. The parties do not agree about whether this is an accurate record of what occurred. The case for the Defendant, based upon various accounts given by TP, is that TP believed himself to be under arrest from about 7.30 am when he was collected from his home by Mr Greenwood, Mr Seaford, Mr Jennings and Mr Stephen and forced to go with them to the Butetown police station. Those Claimants deny that allegation; they maintain that the B59 accurately records what occurred. The LW1 policy log is silent on the subject. However, Mr Morgan’s diary entry for that day reads thus:- “6.45 a.m. On duty – Docks Incident Room. Confer Inspt. PAGE & teams to arrest John ACTIE and Anthony PARIS. 9.30 a.m. Confer D/C/SUPT WILLIAMS. ACTIE & PARIS after initially being brought to station as potential witnesses & interviewed, they were arrested & conveyed to a designated station for further interviews ” The obvious reading of this diary entry is that, so far as Mr Morgan was concerned, at least, TP (and for that matter JA) were to be arrested at their home as soon as they could be located.

[134]It would not be appropriate for me to seek to determine this factual issue in the absence of oral evidence from TP. In any event, the issue which arises in these proceedings is not whether TP was arrested at 7.30am or 11.30am as a matter of fact but rather whether it was reasonable to suspect that TP had been compelled to accompany the officers to Butetown police station without having been arrested in the formal sense – referred to hereinafter as “the sham arrest”.

[135]Between 9 and 11 December TP was interviewed under caution on 10 separate occasions and in each interview he maintained that he had no involvement in Lynette’s murder.

[136]According to the B59, JA also attended Butetown police station voluntarily on 9 December at 7.45am. Although I was not shown it specifically during the course of the trial there are a number of strands of evidence which suggest that JA made a witness statement at the police station that morning in which he described his whereabouts during the night of 13/14 February. The B59 records that he was arrested at 11.45 while he was at the police station. Thereafter he was interviewed under caution on 9 separate occasions between 9 and 11 December. In each interview he denied any involvement in Lynette’s murder.

[137]On 11 December the original defendants were charged with murder. RO, MT and AM were released on bail on what is called a “deferred charge”.

[138]While the original defendants were in police custody further important witness statements were obtained. On 8 December Mrs O’Brien took a statement from Jacqueline Harris. In it, Ms Harris maintained that as far as she was aware YA had been working on the Coral Sea over the whole of the Saturday and Sunday and that he had returned home on the Monday. However, she also went on to describe a conversation she had with YA in September (shortly before she left him) in which YA had admitted killing Lynette. In her statement Ms Harris described how she had been concerned by this revelation; she believed that YA had been on the Coral Sea yet YA was telling her that he had killed Lynette. Ms Harris sought to resolve this dilemma by asking her father Mr McCarthy about YA’s whereabouts at the time of the murder. He told her that YA had been on board ship.

[139]On 10 December a witness statement was taken from a woman then called Helen Prance. She had made a number of witness statements previously in which she had described her relationship with TP. Essentially, he had been her boyfriend and then her pimp. In this statement Ms Prance described a conversation she had with TP in October in which he claimed to know who had murdered Lynette and suggested that this person would be known to Ms Prance as well.

[140]It was also on 10 December that Mr Mann made a further witness statement. The statement was taken by Mrs O’Brien and in it Mr Mann claimed that he had begun working on the Coral Sea on Sunday 14 February at about 12 noon. He also said that YA had first come to the ship on the Monday night so far as he was aware.

[141]One of the issues fiercely debated in this case is whether or not a witness statement was taken from Mrs Perriam by Mr Page on 10 December. The Defendant does not admit that any such statement came into existence on that date. I will need to return to this issue in detail later in this judgment when dealing with the specifics of the claim brought by Mr Page. What is clear is that there exists a document which purports to be a witness statement taken from Mrs Perriam and which is dated 10 February 1988. That date must be wrong; the murder had not then occurred. The case for Mr Page is that the statement was taken from Mrs Perriam on 10 December and that the date recorded on the statement is an innocent error.

[142]On 11 December further witness statements were taken from AP and LV. The B59 records that AP arrived at the Butetown police station at 10.15pm on 10 December and remained at the station until 11.00am the following day. The B59 purports to show that LV arrived at the station at 2.15am on 10 December and remained at the station until 7.30pm on 11 December; however it is clear that this a mistake and that LV’s arrival at the police station was in the early hours of the morning of 11 December.

[143]The statement made by AP was her ninth. In it she claimed (for the first time) that when LV had left her flat to go to 7 James Street after hearing screams she, AP, accompanied her. She did not, as she had previously stated, remain in her flat. In the remainder of her statement AP gave a vivid description of what she saw and did after LV and she had gone into 7 James St. A summary will suffice. First, she saw six men in or in the vicinity of LV’s flat. They were the original defendants and AM. Second, all the men except JA were actually in the bedroom at the flat at one time or another while she was present and all the men except JA stabbed Lynette on a number of occasions. On AP’s account JA was standing outside the flat, or, at least, outside the bedroom within the flat when the stabbing was taking place. Third, Lynette was still alive when LV and AP arrived. She was then being attacked by TP. LV and AP tried to help her but to no avail. At this point, according to AP, she was punched in the mouth, causing her to bleed. Fourth, for most of the time when she was being attacked Lynette was still alive. According to AP Lynette was struggling and trying to escape. Fifth, LV and she were told that they had to join in the attack upon Lynette. AP did not describe what, if anything LV did. However, she described her own involvement in the following terms:- “One of the Miller brothers, I don’t know which one then put a knife in my hand and he held on to my hand and guided my hand which he held quite tightly and forced me to cut Lynette’s wrist. While I was doing this I had a knife in my back. Whilst I was being made to do this I was feeling faint and sick and very frightened for my life.”

[144]This witness statement was written by Mr Daniels. Mr Gillard was present when it was made. The statement must have been completed by 11.00am on 11 December (if what is recorded in the B59 is correct and no one suggests that it is not).

[145]In their evidence before me both Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard said that when AP disclosed that she had been forced to cut Lynette they suspended their interview with her. They wanted advice/direction from a senior officer about whether AP should be treated as a suspect or a witness. Neither Mr Daniels nor Mr Gillard made a written record to this effect. However, having heard oral evidence from a number of sources about this issue, I accept that Mr Gillard sought advice from Mr Morgan who (having taken advice himself) told Mr Gillard that AP should not be treated as a suspect and that Mr Daniels and he should continue to take a witness statement from her.

[146]As I have said LV attended at the police station at 2.15am on the morning of 11 December. In due course she made two witness statements that day; one a reasonably lengthy statement; the second was a statement of no more than a few lines. Each of the statements was written by Mrs Coliandris and it is now agreed that Mr Hicks was also present when the statements were taken although there is nothing on the face of the statements or within the B59 which shows his involvement. These statements were, respectively, the 18th and 19th statements made by LV. It is also common ground that LV’s statements were taken during the course of the afternoon of 11 December i.e. after AP had left the police station. However, it is not possible to know that or deduce it from the statements themselves.

[147]I need only summarise the contents of the detailed statement. For the first time, LV asserted that she had gone to 7 James Street with AP and that the two women had gone into LV’s flat together. When they first arrived JA was outside the flat (although he was within the building) but after they had entered the bedroom he followed them in. At that point the persons in the bedroom were Lynette, the original defendants, AP and LV. She did not know whether Lynette was alive or dead. She saw TP stabbing Lynette; however, it was clear to her from what was said that all the men present had participated in an attack upon Lynette. She said that RA, JA and TP forced her to cut Lynette’s wrist with a knife. She was also told by SM to cut Lynette’s throat but she refused to do it. She described how AP was “chopsing” at the men. In consequence, either JA or TP punched AP to her mouth and caused her to bleed. LV said, in terms, that MT was not present in the bedroom during these events and she made no mention of AM. She did not remember seeing either PA or MG outside or inside the flat.

[148]The Defendant alleges that some time during the course of 9 December officers engaged in LW1 became aware that the “foreign blood” found at the scene matched the blood group of AP. That appears to be correct given a further entry in Mr Morgan’s diary for 9 December. In any event, the Claimants do not seriously contest the Defendant’s suggestion and I am satisfied on balance on probabilities that LW1 officers had become aware on 9 or, at the latest on 10 December that the blood group of the “foreign blood” matched that of AP.

[149]On any view, the accounts provided by AP and LV were markedly different to anything which they had said before. They were claiming to be eyewitnesses to the murder of Lynette or its immediate aftermath and they were acknowledging that they had engaged in cutting her wrists. Both of them named the original defendants as being within 7 James Street at or about the time of the murder. LV had previously mentioned MT being present but he was not mentioned in her statement of 11 December. AP maintained that JA remained outside the flat although within the building. She had AM as one of the persons attacking Lynette. AP’s description of events was consistent with Lynette being alive when LV and AP got to the flat and being subjected to a ferocious attack in their presence. LV’s account was much more consistent with Lynette having been killed before the two women arrived. On her account, only one person, TP, engaged in stabbing Lynette while the two persons were present. Both women said that they had been forced to cut Lynette. They had each cut a wrist. Both women said that AP had been struck to the mouth by one of the original defendants causing her to bleed although they described the circumstances in which the assault occurred in very different terms.

[150]At this stage it is convenient to introduce Mr Hywel Hughes into the chronology of events. In December 1988 he was employed by the CPS as a Branch Crown Prosecutor at its Cardiff office. His name appears for the first time in the LW1 policy log on 7 December. The log for that day records that Mr Morgan discussed the case with him and that Mr Hughes agreed that “the arrest of the suspects without access to a solicitor was in order”.

[151]I am satisfied from the evidence given to me by Mr Hughes himself and also by Mr Morgan that there were many discussions between Mr Hughes and police officers spanning the period 7 December to the committal hearing which took place early in the next year. In particular, the evidence from Mr Hughes satisfies me that when AP told Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard that she had participated in the attack upon Lynette, Mr Hughes’ advice was sought by Mr Morgan about whether AP should be treated as a witness or a suspect. I am satisfied, too, that it was upon Mr Hughes’ advice to Mr Morgan (passed on to Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard) that Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard continued to treat her as a witness notwithstanding what she had said. The precise time when the various conversations took place cannot be identified; nonetheless I am satisfied that they occurred. 1989

[152]Notwithstanding that the original Defendants had been charged evidence gathering continued over many months. On 5 January 1989 Mr Seaford took another witness statement from Ms Prance. On the same date Mrs Perriam made another witness statement. It began by reciting that she had made two previous statements to the police relating to her sighting of four men in James Street at about 1.30am on 14 February – which would not be consistent with her having made a statement on 10 December 1988. She went on to explain that she was not certain that RO was one of the persons she had seen but expressed herself to be “quite satisfied” that she had seen JA. On 5 January, too, yet another statement (written by Mr Murray) was taken from MG. It added nothing of substance to MG’s account of the night of the murder although it confirmed the accuracy of what he had said in interview and in statement form on 22 November 1988 and it confirmed that PA had gone to the murder scene after hearing screams. Additionally, the statement described discussions which had occurred between MG and YA, RA and others in the period after 22 November. In particular, he recounted a conversation with YA in which YA had asserted that he knew MG. That led MG to believe, so he said, that YA was saying that he knew MG because he had let him into 7 James Street on the night of the murder. On 9 January a witness statement was taken from Teresa Sidoric. In this statement Ms Sidoric described going to visit SM at Cardiff prison on 17 December 1988. She was accompanied by Deborah Taylor and SM’s sister, a young girl called Nicole Gordon. The pertinent passage in Ms Sidoric’s witness statement reads as follows:- “We went into the prison and we saw Stephen Miller ….. I asked Stephen outright “I want the truth out of you, did you do that girl in?” He said using a lot of oaths that he didn’t do it, he didn’t touch her. He said, “I was the last one to find out where she was”. He then said they were all there, he described them as crazy animals. I can’t remember his exact words and he had also started to whisper. The only name he mentioned was Paris. Miller then said to me that Paris had said “if you can’t control your women I’ll show you how” Stephen Miller told me that he then ran off because he was frightened and that he also had younger brothers and sisters at home in London. I told him that he should have told the police the truth at the beginning but said he was frightened.” Mr Greenwood took a witness statement from Deborah Taylor on 17 January. In it she asserted that she was the girlfriend of SM and after dealing with a number of matters she described the prison visit on 17 December. It suffices that I say that her description of the conversation with SM was broadly similar to that of Ms Sidoric. The next day a witness statement was taken from Nicole Gordon. She was just 12 years old but she, too, gave an account of the conversation with SM which was broadly similar to that given by Miss Sidoric.

[153]On or about 10 January Mr Mouncher and other police officers travelled to the Birkenhead area to take further witness statements from Messrs Harrop, Moore and Hulse. It should be noted that Mr Daniels and Mr Gillard did not travel to Birkenhead despite their earlier involvement in taking statements from those witnesses. Mr Mouncher took the statements from Mr Harrop and Mr Hulse; Mr Moore’s statement was taken by Mr Fish. Mr Harrop’s statement was taken on 11 January. This witness statement provided much greater detail than the witness statement which he had provided on 29 November 1988. Further, in this witness statement Mr Harrop accepted that YA had been working on the Coral Sea; however, he said that he had not seen him working on the Coral Sea on Saturday 13 February or Sunday 14 February. Mr Harrop’s recollection was that he first saw YA working on the Coral Sea on Tuesday 16 February. Mr Moore’s statement was also made on 11 January. This statement was in similar terms (albeit in more detail) to the statement he had provided on 30 November 1988. Mr Mouncher took a further statement from Mr Hulse on 12 January. This statement contained substantially more detail than Mr Hulse’s statement of 30 November. He acknowledged that he had seen YA at some point over the weekend when he had been working on the Coral Sea. His recollection was that he had seen him early on the Saturday evening (i.e. 13 February) when a group of men from the Coral Sea had left the ship to go for something to eat in a nearby restaurant. The relevant passage in Mr Hulse’s statement reads:- “I can remember that Mr Abdullahi did work on board the ship the Coral Sea sometime during the period it was berthed at Barry Docks. Although I can recall seeing him I can’t be certain but I have a feeling I just saw him in the restaurant Saturday evening and I also believe Peter McCarthy was there as well. I don’t know if Mr Abdullahi returned to the ship from the restaurant but I am positive he didn’t work continually with me during Saturday night through to the early hours of Sunday morning. I cannot recall seeing him at all whilst we worked though the night on Saturday.”

[154]On 1 February 1989 a witness statement was made by Dr Peter David Gill, a forensic scientist then based at the Home Office Central Research and Support Establishment at Aldermaston. His statement described how he was seeking to ascertain whether blood present on Lynette’s jeans had been blood from a male or, alternatively, constituted a mixture of blood from a male and female. The statement expressed no conclusion on this issue.

[155]On 3 March 1989 Mr Lawrence Mann made a further statement. This statement was taken by Mr Robert Tooby and it contradicted the statement which Mr Mann had made on 10 December 1988 in that it asserted that he had gone to work on the Coral Sea on Saturday 13 September not Sunday 14 September. Mr Mann also explained that he believed that he had first seen YA on board the Coral Sea at about 11.30pm on 13 February when, so Mr Mann believed, YA first went on board. He was not able to say when he had last seen YA on board before he himself left the ship at around 2.00am on Sunday 14 February.

[156]On 20 March 1989 Mr Greenwood, Mr Seaford, Mr Jennings and Mr Stephen made witness statements. Parts of those statements concerned their involvement with TP on the morning of 9 December 1988. Each part of their statements which deals with this issue is to similar effect. The most detailed account was that given by Mr Greenwood:- “At 7.30 a.m. (07.30) on Friday, 9 December 1988 (09/12/1988), together with Detective Constables John Seaford, Paul Jennings and Paul Stephen, we went to 109, Nelson House, Loudoun Square, Cardiff, to the home of Anthony Paris. At the house we had a conversation with Mr Paris who voluntarily agreed to accompany us to the Butetown Police Station, to assist our enquiries into the murder of Lynette White. Following his arrival at Butetown police station, together with Detective Constable Jennings, I interviewed him in his capacity as a witness regarding his movements on Saturday night and Sunday morning the 13/14 February, 1988 (13/14/02/1988). During the course of the interview Mr Paris maintained he had no knowledge of the events that occurred at 7 St James Street, where Lynette White was murdered and at the time of the murder he was working as a doorman at the Casablanca Club. His explanation of his movements that night contradicted statements made by another witness and at 11.45 a.m. (11.45) the same day, I said to him, “I am arresting you for being involved in the murder of Lynette White”. When cautioned Mr Paris did not reply.” All four officers were clear in their statements that Mr Paris had attended Butetown police station voluntarily and that his arrest had occurred in the circumstances described by Mr Greenwood.

[157]On 22 April 1989 Mr William Neil made a statement to Stuart Hutton, a solicitor. Mr Neil was an acquaintance of AP; although his statement was referred to during the course of the trial before me I do not believe that the circumstances in which it came to be made were either explored or explained. Be that as it may, in his statement Mr Neil described how on an occasion in October 1988, when he was in company with AP at his flat, she had said that she had cut Lynette’s wrist because she had been made to do so. The statement then described a further conversation a couple of days later:- “At my flat she again mentioned Lynette White. This was after she had first been questioned by the police she said she went over to the flat after Lynette White that “they” put a knife in her hands and made her cut Lynette’s wrist. That there was another girl whose name she mentioned, who cut Lynette’s throat. She mentioned several male names of people I had not heard of before. I have known John Actie since he was a youngster and she did not mention John Actie’s name but she named other people.” Mr Neil’s statement ended with this paragraph:- “She told me when I saw her again that she had been interviewed by the police who had wanted her to name John Actie and Tony Paris it was as if the police wanted those two names to be mentioned. When she first told me about this incident and had named the five names John Actie and Tony Paris were not mentioned by her then.”

[158]I should also record that in the period January to October a number of police officers made witness statements either to supplement earlier statements or for the first time. At this stage it is necessary to refer only to statements made by Mr Page, Mr Hicks and Mrs Coliandris. Mr Page made a statement on 10 October; it was a short statement in which he said that he had taken a witness statement from Mrs Perriam on 11 December 1988 but wrongly dated it 11 February 1988. On 25 October Mr Hicks and Mrs Coliandris made statements describing their involvement in taking a statement from LV on 11 December 1988. The statements are short but important to some of the issues I have to decide. Mrs Coliandris statements reads:- “At 1.45 (13.45) on Sunday, 11 December 1988 (1/12/1988) I was on duty at the Central Police Station, when I was requested to attend at the Butetown police station. Upon arrival at the station I saw Leanne Vilday sitting in an interview room. I introduced myself and we had a short conversation. A short time later Detective Sergeant Stephen Hicks entered the room and he and Miss Vilday had a conversation. She then asked if she could make a statement regarding the murder of Lynette White. I wrote the statement at her dictation and she read it through and signed it. A short while after this, Miss Vilday, asked if she could make another statement. Detective Sergeant Hicks returned to the room and I wrote another statement which she again read and signed. At approximately 6.00 p.m. (18.00) the same day, together with Detective Sergeant Adrian Kendall, I conveyed Miss Vilday to her home address.” Mr Hicks’ statement was equally succinct and to the point. It reads:- “I am a police sergeant presently stationed at Rumney police station Cardiff. On Sunday 11 December, 1988 (11/12/1988) I was one of a number of officers attached to the Incident Room at the Docks police station, Cardiff. My tour of duty was from 9.00 a.m. (09.00) until 5.00 p.m. (17.00) but in fact I did not complete my tour of duty until 8.00 p.m. (20.00). On that day, toward mid afternoon after having been to the Central police station, Cardiff, on my return I entered the main incident room where I was requested by one of the Incident Room Officers to go to another room at the police station and take an unprompted statement from a lady named Leanne Vilday. I went to the room where I saw Miss Vilday accompanied by a policewoman, Erica Coliandris. In the event, Miss Coliandris wrote a statement at the dictation of Miss Vilday. On its completion Miss Vilday signed it after which I read it. As an after-thought by me regarding a specific point a short further statement was taken by Miss Coliandris from Miss Vilday. In total I think I spent approximately one hour with Miss Vilday, always in the presence of Miss Coliandris.”

[159]I now turn to the involvement of Mr Mouncher with a man called Ian Massey. On 25 September Mr Mouncher took a witness statement from Mr Massey while he, Mr Massey, was serving a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of robbery. Reduced to its essentials, Mr Massey’s witness statement described conversations he had with TP while they were both in prison which had the effect of implicating TP in Lynette’s murder. The witness statement was made after Mr Mouncher had made a number of visits to Mr Massey.

[160]The contact between Mr Mouncher and Mr Massey was documented. On 11 August 1989, Mr Mouncher wrote a detailed report to the Deputy SIO in which he set out relevant information about Mr Massey, the fact that Mr Mouncher had made contact with him and the possibility that Mr Massey would be prepared to make a witness statement. The report ended with Mr Mouncher requesting that guidance be obtained from prosecuting counsel as to how the matter should be progressed.

[161]The original defendants were committed for trial in February. AP, LV, MG and PA gave oral evidence at the committal proceedings. At that early stage it was recognised that their evidence was crucial; no doubt that is why, as I have said, they became known as the core four.

[162]On 5 April the Deputy SIO, Mr Davies, made a written report to Mr John Williams, the SIO, which provided an overview of the investigation and the proceedings to that time. In his report Mr Davies summarised the effect of the witness statements obtained from the core four and, further, he made a detailed assessment of their likely impact as witnesses referring to their personal circumstances, their previous convictions and personality. He described AP as “volatile and unstable in temperament”. She was said to have an “in-built animal cunning which has held her in good stead in the profession she carries out”. He noted that AP’s evidence at the committal hearing had been, to an extent, inconsistent with the contents of her witness statement. LV was said to be in fear of all the accused; she would require careful handling by the officers looking after her to ensure that she came ‘up to scratch’ at the Crown Court. However, the Deputy SIO concluded that if LV was handled properly and she was in the right frame of mind she would make a good witness. MG was assessed as being, potentially, a very good witness who would give his evidence “in a strong forceful manner”. PA, however, was assessed to be a very poor witness who would say whatever was required of him and under cross-examination would capitulate.

[163]Mr Davies’ report is instructive, too, because it contains a section dealing with the forensic evidence which had been obtained by this time particularly as it related to the “foreign” blood found at the scene. Mr Davies described how at first the forensic scientists involved considered that the blood was that of a male because it contained the Y chromosome. Later the possibility that the blood may have come from a mixture of male and female blood was considered. That, of course, was consistent with the investigation which was being undertaken in February by Mr Gill – see paragraph 154 above. By the time he wrote his report Mr Davies felt able to assert that “there is no doubt that the blood on the jeans and sock is Angela Psaila’s”. Mr Davies did not explain how he had come to this conclusion. Immediately after expressing it Mr Davies quoted from a statement of Mr Gill which did no more than suggest the possibility that the blood staining on the legs of Lynette’s jeans could have contained a mixture of male and female blood.

[164]After the committal proceedings were concluded SWP provided AP and LV with accommodation in safe surroundings since they both claimed to be in fear of the original defendants, their families and associates. AP remained in this accommodation for about a week; LV, however, was in “safe” accommodation until the second trial of the original defendants had come to an end. The process of protecting AP and LV was known as “Operation Safehouse”; a number of officers were involved and a diary was kept at the accommodation which recorded movements in and out of the accommodation and also the names of the officers who visited as well as those who were charged with the responsibility of keeping LV safe. It is common ground some of the Claimants and, in particular, Messrs Morgan and Mouncher visited LV from time to time.

[165]On 5 October 1989 the first trial of the original defendants began before McNeill J and a jury at the Crown Court at Swansea. Many witnesses were called by the prosecution; they included LV, AP and MG, the pathologist, Professor Knight, the forensic scientist, Dr Whiteside, other experts and some of the Claimants. All the witness statements to which I have referred in this section of my judgment (apart from the statement of Mr Neil) were either served by the prosecution or formed part of the unused material. The trial ended on 26 February 1990 with the discharge of the jury due to the untimely death of the trial judge. PA did not give evidence; he was considered to be too unreliable to be called on behalf of the prosecution. 1990 and the following years

[166]Prior to the start of the re-trial Mr Massey’s probation officer wrote to Mr Williams, the SIO, asking him whether he would be prepared to make a favourable report upon Mr Massey for a hearing which was soon to take place before the Parole Board at which a decision would be made about Mr Massey’s release from custody. I need not describe in any detail what followed. Many years later, however, as we shall see, LW3 officers suspected and then became convinced that Mr Mouncher had told Mr Massey in some of their meetings that he/SWP would help Mr Massey with his parole application and that this “inducement” was at least one of the reasons why Mr Massey had made his witness statement incriminating TP and thereafter given evidence to the same effect at the trials of the original defendants.

[167]On 14 May 1990 the re-trial started before Leonard J; it concluded on 22 November 1990. Most, if not all, of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence for a second time. As in the first trial the evidence of LV, AP and MG was a very important part of the prosecution case. In general terms, at least, the three gave evidence in accordance with the statements they had made to the police in November/December 1988. Mrs Perriam and Mr Massey gave evidence in accordance with their witness statements – as did a number of other persons. Expert evidence was called from Professor Knight, Dr Whiteside and Dr Gill.

[168]Professor Knight gave evidence about the injuries sustained by Lynette. He expressed the opinion that Lynette had been the victim of more than 50 stab/slash wounds. Some, perhaps a good many, of the stabs/slashes had been inflicted after death. In Professor Knight’s view, the cause of Lynette’s death was a large wound to her throat and multiple stab wounds. The knife which had been used to cut Lynette’s throat had severed the carotid artery. There were other important features of his evidence. First, the Professor expressed the clear view that a knife which had been in the possession of TP and which had been seized by the police was not the knife which had caused Lynette’s wounds. Second, it was at least likely that Lynette’s throat had been cut quite early on in the attack upon her and that unconsciousness and death had followed quite quickly – an opinion which was not consistent with the evidence given by LV and AP about what they had seen of Lynette’s state when they had gone into the flat as they said they had. Third, however, in an important detail the Professor’s evidence supported that given by LV and AP. He told the jury that both of Lynette’s wrists had been cut.

[169]Dr Whiteside and Dr Gill gave evidence relating to the blood discovered at the scene and upon Lynette’s clothing. Dr Whiteside gave opinion evidence to the effect that the “foreign blood” may have been that of AP coupled with some blood or fluid from an unknown male. That would explain the Y chromosome. The alternative possibility was that the blood was that of a male person but who had the same blood group as AP. The suggestion was put forcibly on behalf of the defence that the “foreign” blood was that of a male (and, therefore, not that of AP) and that it did not match the blood of any of the original defendants (which was correct) but Dr Whiteside would not be deflected from his view that it was possible that the blood was that of AP but that somehow it had become mixed with the blood or fluid of an unknown male. Dr Gill also supported the possibility that the blood was that of AP but it had become mixed with blood or fluid of an unknown male.

[170]An application was made to exclude the interviews under caution of SM – an application which the trial judge rejected. The original defendants all gave evidence and denied presence at the murder scene and participation in the murder. YA called evidence to support his contention that he had been working on the Coral Sea at the time of the murder.

[171]Leonard J began his summing up on Thursday 8 November and finished it on Thursday 15 November. The summing up included a very detailed appraisal of all the evidence which was given at the trial. It would be impossible to précis the effect of the summing up in this judgment. As is obvious, however, the transcript of the summing up is a very fruitful source of information as to the evidence adduced at the trial of the original defendants and the Judge’s assessment of the credibility of the important witnesses who had given evidence.

[172]There can be no doubt that the credibility of the core four and the integrity of the investigation were central issues in the trial. Very early on in his summing-up Leonard J gave an overview as to the quality of the evidence given by AP, LV and MG. He said this:- “The prosecution case has been criticised in general and in particular for the poor quality of the witnesses upon whom it relies. You may agree in particular cases or indeed in general. Nevertheless bear in mind (as I am sure you will) that the killing of a prostitute in an unlighted room which she used for her profession in the middle of the night is unlikely to have been witnessed by the local clergy or any other respected local figure. You may think that the police had to do the best they could. The result is that two of their witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, admit to having taken part – they say they did so under threat – that they took part in the events which occurred in the room. Grommek makes no such admission and indeed denies that he even entered the room. But you may conclude from the material before you that he is lying about that, and that he did go in. The case against each defendant depends on the evidence of Vilday and Psaila. They have told lies and contradicted themselves and each other, both in interviews with the police and at the various stages of these proceedings. Grommek’s evidence only affects Ronald Actie and Abdullahi, connecting them (if you believe it) with the premises at 7 James Street on the night of the murder. Grommek too has lied, and you may think is lying still in denying that he entered the murder flat. It is for you to decide in the light of your understanding of the circumstances of this case, and your commonsense, whether you can rely on what these witnesses say implicating a particular defendant whose case you are considering.” Almost in the next breath the Judge alerted the jury to the possibility that the police had behaved improperly in obtaining evidence from AP, LV and MG:- “In this case, members of the jury, the methods and motives of the investigating police officers have been placed under the microscope and analysed to a degree which is certainly unusual if not unique. It is largely for that reason that the case has taken as long as it has – not exclusively, but largely. You may well come to the conclusion that the police exerted pressure on Vilday and Psaila and on Grommek to give their accounts, and that they continued to do so as those accounts began to emerge and develop. You may think that the police believed that those witnesses had something to tell and were determined to elicit their versions of what they saw. And you will ask yourselves whether that was simply the proper zeal of professional investigators trying to do their duty by solving a brutal and (for other people) frightening crime. On the other hand, some defence counsel have suggested that the police went beyond what was proper, that they shut their eyes to the witnesses’ involvement and treated them as witnesses when they should have been treated as suspects. On the other hand you may think that realistically the police needed witnesses, and had to make a decision whom to use as witnesses and whom to charge amongst those people they believed to have been present at the time of the murder. It has even been suggested that the police were deliberately putting words and names into the mouths of the witnesses and giving them versions of the events to retail. We will look at all those allegations and in some detail later on.”

[173]As I have said already, in the first trial before McNeill J PA had not been called as a witness. In the re-trial the learned judge, himself, called PA at the request of defence counsel so that they could cross-examine him on behalf of each of the original defendants. In his summing-up the Judge’s assessment of PA was in trenchant terms:- “Now what about Mr Atkins? You may come to the conclusion that you are unable to rely on any positive assertion made by him with regard to the facts of this case. His account has varied throughout his interviews with the police, throughout his evidence when he was called by Mrs Gibbs at the magistrates’ court, and in the witness box in this trial. He has admitted playing games with counsel at the magistrates’ court when he changed his story about essential matters from time to time; and he said (as I have reminded you) that he had played the fool since the day of the murder. You will have formed an impression of him which may not be much in dispute with that description of himself. Bear in mind that you could only act on his evidence before you, not on what he has said elsewhere, and ultimately his evidence before you is that he was not there; and his evidence in any event has contradicted itself fundamentally. Bear in mind that the Crown did not call Mr Atkins, and they do not of course put him forward as a witness whom you can believe. It would therefore be impossible to regard his evidence in answer to Mr Evans as being capable of confirming Grommek’s evidence that Ronald Actie and Abdullahi came to 7, James Street on the night of the murder. You may think that the proper approach to Atkins evidence is to consider whether it undermines the prosecution case in any way. First there is the suggestion that he was himself involved in the murder: does that (even if it may be true) affect the case against these defendants? Secondly, does his evidence – taken as a whole – undermine Grommek’s? He goes in two different directions. And, members of the jury, you may find it impossible to say which is the right way.”

[174]As the transcript of the Judge’s summing up reveals, Leonard J was faithful to his promise to the jury that he would deal with the various lies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence given by the core four. The important aspects of their evidence were analysed and each part of it which was unsatisfactory was highlighted to the jury.

[175]As I have said, the jury convicted SM, TP and YA. JA and RA were acquitted. Those convicted launched an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

[176]In September 1991 Mr Hywel Hughes, the CPS prosecutor, and Mr Gordon Jones, a colleague of his from the CPS in Cardiff gave lectures at training days held at Keele and Loughborough Universities. They lectured about the investigation of Lynette’s murder and the subsequent prosecution. The two retained their lecture notes, or, at least, the notes were retained by someone. Many years later the notes were still in existence and they came to light during LW3.

[177]Following the verdicts, as was to be expected, there was a good deal of media interest. MG was interviewed by journalists working on a Panorama programme (somewhat antagonistically) but he maintained that the evidence which he had given in court was truthful and accurate.

[178]As I have said, SM, TP and YA appealed against their convictions. The appeal was heard on 10 December 1992. At the conclusion of the oral argument the Court allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions. On 16 December the Court provided detailed written reasons for allowing the appeal.

[179]At the forefront of the appeal on behalf of SM was the contention that his interviews under caution had been conducted oppressively and, accordingly should not have been admitted in evidence before the jury by virtue of Section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “PACE”). There was a particular focus upon an interviewed conducted by Messes Greenwood and Seaford which came to be known as “Tape 7”.

[180]The judgment of the Court was delivered by Lord Taylor LCJ. His views were expressed in forthright terms. “We have read the transcripts of the tapes and have heard a number of them played in open court. It became clear that the two pairs of officers employed different methods. Greenwood and Seaford were tough and confrontational. Evans and Murray were milder in manner, aiming to gain the appellant’s confidence and persuade him to accept their version of the facts. We are bound to say that on hearing Tape 7, each member of this court was horrified. Miller was bullied and heckled. The officers, particularly Detective Constable Greenwood, were not questioning him so much as shouting at him what they wanted him to say. Short of physical violence, it is hard to conceive of a more hostile and intimidating approach by officers to a suspect. It is impossible to convey on the printed page the pace, force and menace of the officer’s delivery, but a short passage may give something of the flavour…….”

[181]Later in the judgment the court concluded:- “Having considered the tenor and length of these interviews taken as a whole, we are of opinion that they would have been oppressive and confessions obtained in consequence of them would have been unreliable even with a suspect of normal mental capacity. In fact, there was evidence on the voire dire from Dr Gudjonsson, called on behalf of Miller, that he was on the borderline of mental handicap with an IQ of 75, a mental age of eleven and a reading age of eight…….. In the upshot, it is sufficient to say that in our judgment, the Crown did not and could not discharge the burden upon them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were not obtained by oppression or by interviews which were likely to render them unreliable. Accordingly, in our view these interviews ought not to have been admitted in evidence.”

[182]Having so decided the court concluded that SM’s conviction was unsafe and quashed his conviction.

[183]As I set out earlier in this judgment aspects of what SM said in interview incriminated TP and YA. In the light of its view about the oppressive nature of the interviews of SM and its decision that the interviews should not have been admitted in evidence the Court of Appeal went on to conclude that the convictions of TP and YA were also unsafe. The court was not satisfied that the interviews with SM played no part in the reasoning process which led the jury to convict TP and YA.

[184]Shortly before the hearing in the Court of Appeal a number of affidavits were submitted to the court in support of the appeal. They were affidavits from Ms Harris, Ms Amiel, Mr McCarthy, Mr Mann, Mr Harrop, Mr Moore and Mr Hulse. I do not propose to set out in any detail what those affidavits contained. It suffices that I say that each of those persons complained about the behaviour of the police towards them in relation to the making of witness statements. The affidavits were not subject to scrutiny during the hearing before the Court of Appeal; the focus of the appeal was as I have described above. Nonetheless each of the affidavits contained allegations which, if true, constituted improper conduct on the part of police officers involved with those witnesses.

[185]Following the quashing of the convictions of SM, TP and YA the then Chief Constable issued a public statement in which he appeared to rule out any re-investigation of the murder. I do not propose to set out the Chief Constable’s views on what occurred in the Court of Appeal although he commented in some detail. It suffices that I say the impression given was that the police remained of the view that the convictions of SM, TP and YA were justified.

[186]On any view, certainly by the standards of the day, LW1 was a massive investigation. In total, 3561 persons completed house to house questionnaires, 2884 witness statements were taken (which number did not include supplementary statements), 1747 sets of fingerprints were taken for comparison purposes and 6426 actions were raised during the course of the investigation. There was an understandable focus upon persons involved with prostitution and the locations in which prostitutes plied their trade; of the persons from whom statements were taken well in excess of a thousand constituted prostitutes, taxi drivers, curb crawlers and persons having an association with the pubs and clubs known to be frequented by Lynette. Approximately 20,000 nominal cards were generated during the course of the inquiry.

[187]Despite the views expressed by the Chief Constable following the successful appeals of SM, TP and YA there remained grumblings of discontent about LW1. No doubt these rumblings were given a degree of focus by a book written by Mr Satish Sekar entitled “Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry 1998”. This book was published in 1998. As its title suggests its theme was that the convictions of SM, TP and YA were miscarriages of justice which had been brought about by the conduct of a number of officers who had been serving with SWP during the course of LW1. In summary, Mr Sekar’s thesis was that a number of officers within LW1 had begun to believe in the guilt of the original defendants. Driven by that belief, they had moulded and manipulated the evidence gathered during the investigation so as to make it “fit in” with the assumed guilt of the original defendants. I will have more to say about this book as my judgment unfolds.

Section 3

[188]In June 1999 SWP began a full review of the investigation into Lynette’s murder. Two experienced investigators independent of SWP were appointed namely Messrs Hacking and Thornley. From the outset they were assisted by Chief Inspector Verma, a member of the Black Police Association who was involved so as to advise on any racial aspects of the investigation and Mr Andrew Barclay and Dr Angela Gallop who were asked to consider all aspects of the forensic evidence. The agreed objectives and terms of reference of the review were:- “To evaluate the conduct of the investigation to ensure:-• No investigative opportunities have been overlooked.

• The investigation is thorough

• To identify good practices in order to assist future investigations.

• It has been conducted with integrity and objectivity, whilst acknowledging the developments in technology and operationally since 1988. The reviewing officer should examine any aspect of the enquiry which he considers relevant to achieving these objectives and should formulate his recommendations/observations accordingly. He should, however, pay particular attention to determining:-

• The effectiveness of the initial police response and examination of the scene.

• That all relevant lines of enquiry have been identified, pursued and completed.

• That policy decisions made to pursue or curtail identified lines of enquiry are justified.

• Whether additional lines of enquiry can be identified and the extent to which they could be usefully pursued.

• To examine the initial use of the Forensic Science Service in the murder enquiry and how now forensic issues can be best progressed acknowledging that science technologies have advanced.

• To examine the evidence surrounding the suspects originally charged, any other suspects or unidentified persons of interest to the enquiry.

• To examine the involvement of the main witnesses in the case.

• To examine the media strategy employed at the time of the original investigation and up to this date.

• To examine the detail of the previous review in to the Panorama programme and the subsequent impact of that review.

• Examine the possibility of corporate failure around the investigation.

• To establish whether or not there was any aspect of Racism involved in the previous investigation into the murder of Lynette WHITE.”

• No investigative opportunities have been overlooked.

• The investigation is thorough

• To identify good practices in order to assist future investigations.

• It has been conducted with integrity and objectivity, whilst acknowledging the developments in technology and operationally since 1988.