|
(back to preceding text)
Para.
No. |
Page
No. |
Details - First Duty |
| 33 |
111 - 112 |
"As regards the three officers referred to in paragraph 31 above,
the attitude shown towards the Plaintiff by the Thirteenth Defendant
was particularly unsupportive. Further he breached the Plaintiff's
trust in revealing to other officers for the purposes of an arrest
of the Plaintiff (referred to in greater detail below) an address
of the Plaintiff's then girlfriend that he had given him in confidence." |
| 44 |
115 |
"The Plaintiff learnt of the discontinuance of the prosecution brought
by the Crown Prosecution Service through reading about it in the media.
This was the starkest example of a general difficulty that he faced
that the police did not keep him informed of the state of their investigations/the
prosecution." |
| 45 |
115 |
"Whilst the attackers remained at large the Plaintiff was frightened
for his own safety, not least because he lived in the same locality.
He did express fears to the Twelfth Defendant on occasions. However,
the Plaintiff was never provided with police protection or other means
of practical or physical support to allay those fears, save that he
was provided with a police escort during the trial at the Central
Criminal Court." |
| 46 |
115 |
"To his horror the Plaintiff later learnt that
the officer who escorted him on the night of 22 April 1996 was one
DS Coles, a known associate of Clifford Norris who is a notorious
criminal and father of one of the suspects, David Norris." |
C. THIRD DUTY - PARA 5(3)
OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES
(1) Paragraph 5(3)
of the Statement of Facts and Issues states the 'Third Duty' as being
to:
"afford reasonable weight to the account that the Respondent gave and to act upon it accordingly."
(2) References to the particulars
of claim relating to the Third Duty in the "Annexe to Order of Court of
Appeal of 26th March 2002 - Re-Amended Particulars of Claim" are found
in Para 54(iii) - page 124:
"failing to accord reasonable weight to the account
given by the Plaintiff and to act on it accordingly. The Plaintiff repeats
and relies upon the matters set out in paragraph 51(ii)
above;…"
(3) Paragraph 51(ii) - page 119
relates back to paragraphs 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31
and 33. The details of these paragraphs are set out in
tabular form below:
Para.
No.
|
Page
No.
|
Details - Third Duty |
| 21 |
106-107 |
"The Second Defendant spoke to the Plaintiff at the scene of the
attack. He told her that it had been carried out by 5-6 white male
youths and indicated that they had run off in the direction of Dickinson
Road. He also told her that one of the youths had called out "what
what nigger" immediately before the assault on Stephen Lawrence. She
did not note down this information provided by the Plaintiff or act
on it or cause it to be acted on at the time. She questioned the Plaintiff
as to whether the assailants were known to him and as to whether he
was carrying a weapon. She asked these questions more than once and
seemed reluctant to accept his answers. She did not ask him for descriptions
of the assailants. She did not, or at least did not appear, to take
his account seriously. She did not try to establish if the Plaintiff
had been attacked himself. She did not offer him any support or check
to see whether he was all right. She did not appear to appreciate
that he was in a distraught and frightened condition as a result of
the attack and the condition of his friend lying on the pavement,
nor that he was frustrated by the apparent delay in the arrival of
the ambulance that had been called." |
| 22 |
107-108 |
"The other sued officers at the scene of the attack during this
period did not act to remedy any of the deficiencies in the Second
Defendant's handling of the Plaintiff described in the previous paragraph." |
| 24 |
108 |
"Whilst at the hospital, from around 23.30 hours to about midnight
the Plaintiff was spoken to by the Fourth Defendant who took a statement
from him about the attack which included a description of the principal
attacker, including his hair colour. The Fourth Defendant subsequently
failed to transmit this information to officers responsible for investigating
the murder." |
| 27 |
109-110 |
"At Plumstead Police Station the Plaintiff made a full statement
to the investigating officers, which took between approximately 1.30
- 5.30am. Apart from one inquiry made by DC Cooper (the officer taking
the statement) none of the officers present made inquiries about the
Plaintiff's welfare or as to whether he would prefer to give a statement
at home. The officers that spoke to him expressed scepticism about
various aspects of his account, in particular that the attack was
wholly unprovoked and that the phrase "what what nigger" had been
used. None of the officers asked if the white youths had attacked
or touched him." |
| 28 |
110 |
"During the course of this period at the Police Station the Plaintiff
was spoken to by the Fourteenth Defendant on more than one occasion.
He was one of the officers who behaved in the manner referred to in
the previous paragraph." |
| 29 |
110 |
"In the meantime [whilst at Plumstead Police Station] the Sixth
Defendant had initiated various lines of inquiry at the scene such
as asking persons in a local public house (located in the opposite
direction from which the attackers had fled the scene) whether they
had seen anything of significance. He did not first ascertain from
the Plaintiff directly or indirectly an account/details of the attack.
He assumed that Stephen Lawrence had been injured as a result of a
fight and that the Plaintiff was a potential suspect. Further, he
failed to treat the attack as a racial assault." |
| 31 |
111 |
"At no stage was the Plaintiff treated by the three officers referred
to in the previous paragraph [Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Defendants],
or by any other police officer as a victim of the attack. He was not
offered counselling or other forms of support, he was not given any
information about the Victim Support Scheme, nor was any effective
arrangement made for representatives of that Scheme to make contact
with him. He was not given any leaflets or other information about
victim's rights and was not advised of the possibility of a Criminal
Injuries Compensation Authority claim." |
| 33 |
111 - 112 |
"As regards the three officers referred to in paragraph 31 above,
the attitude shown towards the Plaintiff by the Thirteenth Defendant
was particularly unsupportive. Further he breached the Plaintiff's
trust in revealing to other officers for the purposes of an arrest
of the Plaintiff (referred to in greater detail below) an address
of the Plaintiff's then girlfriend that he had given him in confidence." |
N.B.
References to the particulars of claim relating
potentially to both the First and Second Duties in the "Annexe to Order
of Court of Appeal of 26th March 2002 - Re-Amended Particulars of Claim"
are also found in Para 54(iv) - page 124:
"failing to treat the Plaintiff with reasonable
courtesy and respect in his capacities as either a witness or a victim.
The Plaintiff repeats and relies upon the matters set out in paragraph
51 (iv) and (v) above; …"
Paragraph 51(iv) on page 120
does not refer back to any other paragraphs but states:
"inaccurately and unfairly portraying the Plaintiff as an aggressive and unco-operative young black man and/or one who was out of control at the scene of the attack and/or at the hospital afterwards. The Plaintiff alleges this breach against the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh and Eight Defendants. A white person in his position would not have been so treated;"
Paragraph 51(v) on pages 120-121
refers back to paragraph 29, which states:
Para.
No.
|
Page
No.
|
Details |
| 29 |
110 |
"In the meantime the Sixth Defendant had initiated various
lines of inquiry at the scene such as asking persons in a local public
house (located in the opposite direction from which the attackers
had fled the scene) whether they had seen anything of significance.
He did not first ascertain from the Plaintiff directly or indirectly
an account/details of the attack. He assumed that Stephen Lawrence
had been injured as a result of a fight and that the Plaintiff was
a potential suspect. Further, he failed to treat the attack as a racial
assault." |
LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY
My Lords,
37. I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Steyn, in draft. I agree with it and, accordingly, I too would allow the appeal. I add only one short observation.
38. The decisions in Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police [1995] QB 335 and Kumar v Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis 31 January 1995, unreported, show, correctly in my view, that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police owe no duty of care to a defendant against whom they institute and maintain proceedings. The reasons are general, but none the less persuasive. The fact that no such legal duty of care exists does not mean, however, that a prosecutor or police officer should be anything other than scrupulous in considering the strengths and weaknesses of the case against the defendant. On the contrary, at every stage they will be conscious that, if their decision is wrong, the defendant will be exposed to the risk of suffering substantial harm. In that very real sense, the defendant's interests are always before them. Prosecutors and police officers are therefore under an ethical and professional duty to act with due care. Nevertheless, this duty does not translate into a legal duty of care to the defendant. A fortiori, for the reasons given by Lord Steyn, police officers investigating crime do not owe witnesses the supposed legal duties of care alleged by the respondent. But, as a matter of professional ethics, officers can be expected to treat witnesses with appropriate courtesy and consideration, and may be open to disciplinary proceedings if they do not.
LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD
My Lords,
39. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Steyn. I agree with it and for the reasons he gives I too would allow the Commissioner's appeal.
|
