|
Archived Transcript for 7 November 2001: Pages
1 to 50
1
1 Wednesday 7th November, 2001
2 (9.30 am)
3 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I gather there is a matter Mr Egan wants
4 to raise before we start.
5 MR EGAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Sir, yesterday -- the
6 reference to yesterday's transcript is page 133 --
7 Mr Garnham suggested to WPC Dewar that she did not have
8 an open mind but an empty one and you may recollect that
9 matter was withdrawn perfectly properly and correctly at
10 the end of the cross-examination. Sadly on the ITV news
11 last night at 6 o'clock -- I do not have a full
12 transcript of it, but I am informed that that was what
13 was reported, namely the allegation and not the
14 withdrawal, and I raise that on behalf of the police
15 officers that I represent, two yesterday and two
16 today -- others may agree or disagree, I only obviously
17 represent those four -- as an illustration of the
18 tremendous care that is required.
19 We live in a sound bite culture and if unwise and
20 unmerited comments like that are made they will be
21 picked up by the press and the reportage that the
22 officer gets of her evidence is then less than fair.
23 Counsel to the to the Inquiry with great respect has
24 an important and privileged role in this Inquiry. He is
25 the only person, as a result of your protocol, which
2
1 I make no complaint about, who is able to cross-examine,
2 and as I have two further officers to give evidence and
3 the press are here I do with the greatest of respect --
4 and of course I will defer to any ruling that you
5 make -- I do counsel caution in making such comments
6 lest a similar matter arises again and I am sorry to
7 have to start off the morning by raising that matter but
8 those who represent police officers do regard it or
9 these police officers regard it as significant.
10 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I am grateful for the way Mr Egan puts it,
11 it is a perfectly fair point he makes. Soon after
12 I made the comment, which was off the cuff and ill
13 thought out, I regretted it and withdrew it at
14 a convenient moment later. I too regret the fact that
15 it was reported in the way it was. I take on board his
16 comment about the need for caution. I will try and
17 exercise it from here on.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think I accept absolutely the point
19 that Mr Egan made and even more accept your observations
20 Mr Garnham. I guess in a perfect world we would all
21 behave perfectly but I guess even police officers and
22 even Mr Egan might from time to time say something that
23 he might regret, but I take the point. Thank you.
24 MR GARNHAM: Sir I will proceed to call our first witness,
25 Mr David Smith.
3
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
2 PS DAVID SMITH (sworn)
3 MR GARNHAM: Good morning.
4 PS SMITH: Good morning sir.
5 MR GARNHAM: Would you give the Inquiry your full name.
6 PS SMITH: David John Smith.
7 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address.
8 PS SMITH: Southgate Police Station, 25 Chase Side,
9 Southgate, London, North 14.
10 MR GARNHAM: Sir, Mr Smith has made one statement for the
11 Inquiry. It is in volume 4, page 213 and I hope that
12 a copy of that is in front of you.
13 PS SMITH: Yes, it is.
14 MR GARNHAM: Would you glance through it and confirm that
15 you have signed it at the end.
16 PS SMITH: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: And can you confirm that the contents of that
18 statement are true?
19 PS SMITH: Yes, they are.
20 MR GARNHAM: Have you had a chance to read it again since
21 you made that statement?
22 PS SMITH: Yes, I have.
23 MR GARNHAM: Is there any part of it that you need to alter?
24 PS SMITH: No, sir.
25 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that you joined the Metropolitan
4
1 Police in January 1980.
2 PS SMITH: That is correct.
3 MR GARNHAM: You have then spent a lengthy period as
4 a uniform constable, about 10 years I think.
5 PS SMITH: That is correct.
6 MR GARNHAM: You were then promoted to the rank of Sergeant,
7 working in Harrow.
8 PS SMITH: That is correct.
9 MR GARNHAM: You then set out in paragraph 2 the training
10 courses you have attended.
11 PS SMITH: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: When were you transferred to the Brent Child
13 Protection Team?
14 PS SMITH: In 1996, October 1996.
15 MR GARNHAM: You have been there ever since?
16 PS SMITH: I was there until earlier on this year when I was
17 promoted and transferred away from the team.
18 MR GARNHAM: To whom did you report?
19 PS SMITH: Detective Inspector Anderson.
20 MR GARNHAM: Who reported to you?
21 PS SMITH: There was three constables, DC Casburn,
22 DC Middleton and there was a variety of constables at
23 that time, one was Constable Demant. When she left
24 there was a Constable McIldowey. Subsequently there was
25 a Constable Malyon.
5
1 MR GARNHAM: Were you ever -- I am sorry.
2 PS SMITH: Those were amongst the people who reported to me.
3 MR GARNHAM: Were you ever responsible for WPC Dewar?
4 PS SMITH: I believe for the first year that she was on our
5 team until Sergeant Gorry came on to the team she
6 reported to me.
7 MR GARNHAM: When would that have ended?
8 PS SMITH: Without having the information when Gorry came on
9 to the team I cannot answer that question.
10 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether she still reported to you
11 at the time when Victoria's case was referred?
12 PS SMITH: No, she reported to Sergeant Gorry.
13 MR GARNHAM: I think she began with Brent CPT in August 1998
14 and she was there for a year which would suggest that
15 during that year if she was reporting to you she would
16 have been reporting to you at the time with which we are
17 concerned, but you do not think that is right?
18 PS SMITH: I do not think that is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: I ask particularly, Mr Smith, because of the
20 way in which you have prepared your statement and
21 I wonder if you can help me with that. Your statement
22 consists of 14 paragraphs and it appears that you have
23 sought in drafting that statement to answer questions
24 posed by the Inquiry, is that right?
25 PS SMITH: That is correct.
6
1 MR GARNHAM: Those questions are set out in our bundles in
2 volume 4. I wonder if you can be shown that whole
3 volume, please, and at page 5 there are the 14 questions
4 which it appears from a reading of your statement that
5 you have answered in your statement, is that right?
6 PS SMITH: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Those questions were addressed to first line
8 manager sergeants of WPC Dewar so it appears as if you
9 have answered questions on the basis that you were the
10 first line manager of WPC Dewar.
11 PS SMITH: I have answered the questions on the basis that
12 I am one of the sergeants that was on the team at the
13 time and I had some responsibility for the supervision
14 of PC Dewar but I was not her direct line supervisor.
15 MR GARNHAM: Tell us the level of responsibility you had for
16 her supervision.
17 PS SMITH: It is a level of supervision that I had for all
18 the constables. I do not think you can quantify it save
19 to say that if anything came in to the office that I was
20 aware of that needed a supervisory decision-making on it
21 then I would make that decision if I was present.
22 I would not specifically move towards PC Dewar to
23 supervise her on a day-to-day basis but it would happen
24 because we were in such close proximity.
25 MR GARNHAM: It may be important for us to understand
7
1 precisely how supervision was arranged in your office.
2 There were two sergeants and one inspector?
3 PS SMITH: That is correct.
4 MR GARNHAM: And I think about six constables.
5 PS SMITH: It varied between four and six.
6 MR GARNHAM: You have told us how at the material time with
7 which we are primarily concerned you had primary
8 supervisory responsibility for three of those
9 constables.
10 PS SMITH: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: And I think it is right that the other sergeant
12 had similar primary supervisory responsibility for the
13 other three.
14 PS SMITH: Yes, he did.
15 MR GARNHAM: Inspector Anderson was in charge of that team
16 as well as I think in charge of another team.
17 PS SMITH: He was in charge of the Brent Child Protection
18 Team and the Harrow Child Protection Team.
19 MR GARNHAM: What was the arrangement for supervision? Did
20 he supervise you two sergeants and each of you two
21 sergeants supervised the three constables for whom you
22 were primarily responsible?
23 PS SMITH: The way the supervision was undertaken was on
24 a daily basis I would supervise my three constables and
25 as I have indicated to you, if there were any other
8
1 issues with the other three constables I would take
2 supervisory action in respect of that. If there was any
3 matter I felt needed to be brought to Mr Anderson's
4 attention it would be brought to his attention, of
5 a supervisory or management requirement. On a daily
6 basis he read every report that came into the office
7 with regard to coming on to the CRIS report.
8 If there was any other matter that either myself or
9 the other sergeant felt needed to be brought to his
10 attention, we would bring it to his attention and on
11 a daily basis he would discuss with us if there was
12 anything -- he would proactively approach us and ask the
13 direct question: is there anything I need to know about
14 today, any cases of interest or any other matters that
15 require his --
16 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, did he take a role of directly
17 supervising police constables?
18 PS SMITH: It would happen on occasions.
19 MR GARNHAM: The reason I am asking this question is it
20 might be thought by some important to maintain the
21 stepped level of supervision so that the PCs know to
22 which sergeant they look and the sergeants know they
23 look to the Inspector and the Inspector is not directly
24 supervising individuals. Do you agree that is an
25 important structure?
9
1 PS SMITH: I think that is an ideal structure but if you
2 were to take into account on the Brent Child Protection
3 Team the sheer volume of work, the times in the office
4 when I would not be present because I would be dealing
5 with investigations or training, I think that ideal
6 situation is not attainable and there would obviously be
7 occasions when if an officer requires a decision to be
8 made by a supervisor, they would have to go to the
9 Detective Inspector but I was in no doubt and I do not
10 think the officers were in any doubt if they needed
11 a supervisory decision they would go to the reporting
12 sergeant. In the absence of the reporting sergeant they
13 would go to the second sergeant because we were side by
14 side in adjacent offices and in the absence of one of
15 the two sergeants they would go to the Detective
16 Inspector.
17 The only -- the only exception I can think to that
18 is is if there was such a severe case or an important
19 case or perhaps one that was likely to from the outset
20 require an Inspector's authority for anything, they
21 might go direct to the Inspector.
22 MR GARNHAM: Do you say that there was maintained in this
23 team clear divisions of responsibility between the
24 sergeant and inspectors?
25 PS SMITH: I think so, yes, but it comes back to what I have
10
1 just said, there would be times because of the nature of
2 the work that they would -- I do not have any issue
3 whatsoever with one of my officers, if I am not present,
4 asking for advice of a supervisory nature from the other
5 sergeant or from the Inspector. I think that makes
6 sound sense.
7 MR GARNHAM: Was there any sense in which those
8 responsibilities were blurred because you were working
9 as a small, closely knit team?
10 PS SMITH: I do not like the use of the word blurred.
11 I come back to what I said. They were clear they were
12 to go to their sergeants initially and in the absence of
13 the sergeant they would go to the Inspector.
14 MR GARNHAM: Was there regular personal assessment or
15 appraisal of individual officers?
16 PS SMITH: There was day-to-day contact with the officers to
17 give them advice and guidance with regard to the
18 workloads. From a personal point of view, and again
19 this did not happen as regularly as I would have wished
20 due to the volume of work, I instigated monthly
21 supervision meetings with the three constables I had.
22 We would sit down behind closed doors in an informal
23 setting in the coffee room and discuss every single case
24 that they had and any ongoing welfare issues or matters
25 that they wanted to.
11
1 MR GARNHAM: With each of them individually?
2 PS SMITH: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Was that done by the other sergeant?
4 PS SMITH: From my knowledge I do not know.
5 MR GARNHAM: Was such a supervision exercise carried out by
6 the Inspector with you two sergeants?
7 PS SMITH: I probably met with Inspector Anderson twice
8 a month specifically to talk to me about my work and the
9 work of the offices but there was too many occasions to
10 speak -- we would speak most mornings with a cup of
11 coffee in his office about the workings of the office
12 and the case loads.
13 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in whether there is a regular
14 supervision programme. It sounds as if there is by you
15 of your three constables. Was there of you by Anderson?
16 PS SMITH: There was not a set programme to say to me
17 "right" -- probably the best way, it was not diaried so
18 I would see him every third Monday or whatever but
19 I would see him virtually every day to discuss --
20 MR GARNHAM: It is common practice I think in the Met like
21 other police forces for there to be annual appraisal
22 reports.
23 PS SMITH: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did that happen?
25 PS SMITH: Yes.
12
1 MR GARNHAM: Was that compiled by you in respect of the
2 three PCs and by Anderson in respect of you?
3 PS SMITH: Yes, it was.
4 MR GARNHAM: You tell us about the training courses you
5 attended and those included the two-week child
6 protection course in 1996. Was that the standard course
7 in 1996?
8 PS SMITH: It was a standard child protection course and
9 from my understanding it was the last time that course
10 was run.
11 MR GARNHAM: My next question was going to be did it change,
12 was there another course that took its place?
13 PS SMITH: To the best of my knowledge not until very
14 recently when we were formed as one department.
15 MR GARNHAM: PC Dewar talked about attending a three-day
16 child protection course. Do you know what that was?
17 PS SMITH: I think that was an attempt to restart the
18 training on child protection because I am aware that
19 officers throughout London were expressing concerns that
20 there was a complete lack of training for child
21 protection team officers. In response to that, and I do
22 not know who decided that it would be three days, I do
23 not know who instigated it, but I was aware that the
24 three-day course existed. I was asked to go along and
25 giver a presentation to that course, which I did, and
13
1 I realised Police Constable Dewar mentioned it yesterday
2 about on one of the lessons she had, it was my
3 particular lesson I presented, I was asked to give
4 a presentation on memorandum interviewing. I found out
5 22 of the 23 people in the class were memorandum
6 trained.
7 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether first of all the three PCs
8 for whom you were responsible received child protection
9 training?
10 PS SMITH: DC Middleton was the only detective constable.
11 I do not know whether she had had a specific child
12 protection course. There is a possibility she did not.
13 DC Casburn did. The subsequent officers who joined me
14 did not.
15 MR GARNHAM: You can only be sure that one of those for whom
16 you were responsible had a child protection course.
17 PS SMITH: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: How do you view that? Did you regard that as
19 satisfactory?
20 PS SMITH: I view it as a failure of the Metropolitan Police
21 to train its officers properly for the most important
22 task they could possibly do.
23 MR GARNHAM: You spent three and a half years attached to
24 District Crime Squad in Camden.
25 PS SMITH: Yes.
14
1 MR GARNHAM: That would have involved the investigation of
2 serious crime?
3 PS SMITH: It would have involved the investigation of
4 robberies, street robberies, motor vehicle theft,
5 burglary.
6 MR GARNHAM: Relatively serious crime?
7 PS SMITH: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Had you ever attended a CID foundation course?
9 PS SMITH: No.
10 MR GARNHAM: Did you at any stage, have you at any stage
11 received any specialised investigative training?
12 PS SMITH: As part of my time on the crime squad I was given
13 a one-week crime squad course specifically designed with
14 regard to evidence gathering and forensic. Prior to
15 that I had a very basic two-week beat crime
16 investigator's course, which you will see from my
17 statement was in about 1982, which was to equip you to
18 deal with the investigation of minor crimes. Within the
19 last two months since my promotion I have undergone
20 a senior investigating officers course designed to equip
21 me to investigate major crime.
22 MR GARNHAM: What is your view about the value of such
23 training in investigative techniques for officers
24 involved in child protection work?
25 PS SMITH: Specialist training for child protection work is
15
1 absolutely vital.
2 MR GARNHAM: And that should have as part of it, should it,
3 training in investigative techniques?
4 PS SMITH: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in paragraph 4 of your statement
6 that the arrangements for child protection in Brent were
7 set out in two documents, the Brent Interim Child
8 Protection Procedures and the Metropolitan Police Child
9 Protection Manual. I want to ask you first of all about
10 the Interim Child Protection Procedures. They did not
11 ever proceed in the time with which we are concerned
12 beyond the interim, did they?
13 PS SMITH: Not to my knowledge, no.
14 MR GARNHAM: Were they regularly used by you? Is this
15 a document you would have resort to daily?
16 PS SMITH: I would not have resorted to it daily.
17 I probably resorted to it on average once every two or
18 three months if there was a specific point I wanted to
19 clarify.
20 MR GARNHAM: The manual we have a copy of for your note sir
21 is volume 32, page 336. Will you need to see that or
22 was that a document you are familiar with?
23 PS SMITH: It is a document I am familiar with.
24 MR GARNHAM: Was it in force in the form we now have it?
25 Perhaps you ought to see it, volume 32 please, page 336.
16
1 That is a document you are familiar with?
2 PS SMITH: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Was it in force in that form in July 1999?
4 PS SMITH: It was the only document that we had to refer to
5 with regard to child protection work and child
6 protection practices.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did that remain the position in the months and
8 years thereafter?
9 PS SMITH: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard that as an up-to-date manual?
11 PS SMITH: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard it as an adequate manual?
13 PS SMITH: No, I do not think it is an adequate manual.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard it as a user friendly manual?
15 PS SMITH: I did not personally find it difficult to use but
16 the problem with child protection work is it is such
17 a vast arena, many of the questions you get asked just
18 are not contained within the manual.
19 MR GARNHAM: Can you be shown volume 45, page 238. Do you
20 have that?
21 PS SMITH: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: That is the minutes of a 2 Area crime operation
23 command unit child protection team managers' meeting
24 held in October 1999 at Bushey Sports Club. You are not
25 amongst those who attended. Did you ever go to those
17
1 meetings?
2 PS SMITH: I would have gone to them very, very rarely in
3 the absence of DI Anderson if there was nobody else
4 available to go.
5 MR GARNHAM: Would you go over the page to 239,
6 paragraph 4.2, headed "CPT Manual". It has this note:
7 "DS Akers stated that this [that is the manual] was
8 discharged today. There was a meeting today and the CPT
9 manual was discussed and because the CPT manual is old,
10 inaccurate and not user friendly, a complete revamp will
11 be needed and due to current work commitments it has
12 been decided that there will not be a CPT manual. All
13 boroughs have their own protocols on dealing with
14 issues."
15 Were you aware of that?
16 PS SMITH: I was aware that the manual was subsequently
17 taken out of circulation, if that is the right
18 expression, and that it was to be revamped. I have to
19 say that in practice as it was the only document we had
20 to refer to on a regular basis it was still referred to
21 for advice and guidance.
22 MR GARNHAM: So despite the fact that it appears the Met had
23 withdrawn it, you continued to use it because there was
24 nothing else?
25 PS SMITH: In the absence of anything else, yes, we did.
18
1 MR GARNHAM: You go on to say in paragraph 4 that in
2 addition, within your unit there were what you call
3 systems in place to ensure that the occasions when
4 investigations were needed were properly identified. Do
5 you have that?
6 PS SMITH: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: What systems?
8 PS SMITH: The first system would be the daily check of the
9 CRIS reporting system, whereby as soon as either myself
10 or the Detective Inspector or the other sergeant came on
11 duty that morning, we would run a series of inquiries on
12 the CRIS system to see if there were any cases that
13 required referral by an officer to the social services.
14 In place with the borough teams was an agreement that
15 any cases involving a child or young person coming to
16 the notice of police, a copy of that report would be
17 sent by fax to our office.
18 The first task of the admin officer when they came
19 on duty in the morning was collate all the faxed reports
20 that had come in during the course of the previous
21 evening. They would be checked against our database and
22 those forms would be personally handed to the detective
23 sergeant whose team was on duty that day and every
24 single report would have been personally supervised by
25 one of the sergeants for a decision to be made as to
19
1 whether it was a Section 47 investigation or whether the
2 matter needed to be referred to social services for
3 other reasons and those two specific procedures were set
4 in place on that team throughout the whole time that
5 I was on the team.
6 MR GARNHAM: Is there a separate, a different system in
7 place to ensure that the investigations are carried out
8 properly or is that part of the same procedure?
9 PS SMITH: Could you rephrase the question? I am not sure
10 what you mean.
11 MR GARNHAM: No, because I am taking it from what you say in
12 paragraph 4 of your statement:
13 "... systems were set in place to ensure that the
14 needs for investigations under Section 47 Children Act
15 1989 were appropriately identified and that the
16 investigations were carried out appropriately ..."
17 I am interested in what the systems were to ensure
18 that the investigations were carried out properly.
19 PS SMITH: Okay. On a daily basis I would run inquiries to
20 see what investigations were being undertaken by my
21 officers and then I would endeavour to take, to run the
22 same inquiry for the same investigations at least once
23 a week so I could update myself with the progress of
24 each investigation.
25 MR GARNHAM: So it is by reference to the CRIS reports
20
1 primarily, is it?
2 PS SMITH: Yes. In addition to that, because we sat at
3 almost the same pods of desks if you will, I was aware
4 of what was happening with the investigations within my
5 side of the office with my particular officers concerned
6 and we spoke about the cases on a daily basis.
7 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you a little about Victoria's case
8 and for this you will need volume 30 please, page 116.
9 116 is the start of the record as we have it. Can I ask
10 you first to look at page 123 in that volume. We see
11 about two thirds of the way down the page an entry for
12 the 14th July 1999 with a time of 17.01 hours. Do you
13 have that?
14 PS SMITH: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: That is an entry by Police Constable Dewar and
16 is that the opening of the report as you understood it
17 to be?
18 PS SMITH: Yes, that shows the time that she recorded the
19 report on the CRIS system.
20 MR GARNHAM: That initial entry appears to be checked by
21 DI Anderson at 7.23 on 16th July.
22 PS SMITH: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us how it came about that
24 DI Anderson would have made that sort of check? Was
25 that simply part of the process of one of the three of
21
1 you checking CRIS reports?
2 PS SMITH: Yes, I think it was alluded to yesterday that
3 Mr Anderson was normally the first person in the office
4 and he would run the inquiry to see what cases had come
5 in the previous evening and, as is indicated by the
6 time, 23 minutes past 7, he would have done that first
7 thing upon arrival.
8 MR GARNHAM: He beat you in in the mornings, did he?
9 PS SMITH: Sometimes.
10 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that your only involvement with
11 Victoria's case was in checking the CRIS reports prior
12 to closure.
13 PS SMITH: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: What does checking it mean in the case of
15 Victoria? What did you do before you closed it?
16 PS SMITH: I wanted to make sure that the matter had been
17 investigated. I wanted to make sure that the statutory
18 checks had been carried out. I had read this particular
19 report. I could see that it had come in initially as
20 a quite serious allegation, that the following day there
21 had been discussions that had taken place between the
22 hospital, the social services, between the officer in
23 the case and the detective inspector and that a decision
24 had been made to -- I do not want to use the word
25 downgrade but to change the classification to "no
22
1 crime." When I saw that that had taken place and that
2 there was no further action required by police when
3 I saw that report then I closed it.
4 MR GARNHAM: You carried out no other check on the CRIS
5 reports in respect of Victoria's case?
6 PS SMITH: There is nothing shown on the report and to the
7 best of my recollection no, I did not.
8 MR GARNHAM: We have mention of DI Anderson's checks on
9 a number of occasions.
10 PS SMITH: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: If there is no other entry by you or Anderson
12 or the other sergeant, can we take it that there was no
13 other check or are checks sometimes made without
14 a record being made?
15 PS SMITH: One of the problems that was highlighted to me
16 with regard not just to this report but other reports
17 was as a supervisor you occasionally look at a report
18 and if another supervisor has made an entry on it then
19 you do not make an entry on it and there is no proof
20 that you as a supervisor have actually seen that report.
21 At that time that was a practice that I had that if
22 I saw a report that another supervisor had made an entry
23 on, then I would not make an entry on that report.
24 It is a rather moot point but every time you make an
25 entry on an officer's report it generates a memo to the
23
1 officer for them to act upon. It is not shown on this
2 but there is a memo page on the computer and what you
3 will find is that instead of having one memo generated
4 you will have two, three or possibly more for every time
5 you enter that CRIS report and make an entry on it.
6 Subsequently I personally changed my practice that if
7 I look at a report then I will make an entry on it.
8 MR GARNHAM: So at the time with which we are concerned, in
9 Victoria's case we cannot be sure you are saying from
10 the absence of a mention by a supervising officer that
11 there was no reading of the file, of the CRIS file, by
12 him?
13 PS SMITH: It is possible that a supervisor has read this
14 report. It is my understanding. Although I do not have
15 the technology as to whether someone who was to
16 interrogate the computer system could tell you whether
17 it has been viewed, that is possible I suppose, but to
18 the best of my knowledge, other than what is shown on
19 this report nobody looked at it.
20 MR GARNHAM: As far as you are concerned the only time you
21 looked at this series of reports in respect of this case
22 was the one you have referred to?
23 PS SMITH: That is correct.
24 MR GARNHAM: The job descriptions for the child protection
25 teams includes a description for the detective sergeant
24
1 as making sure that each allegation is properly
2 investigated.
3 PS SMITH: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: You did not have a detective sergeant on your
5 team.
6 PS SMITH: No, that is correct.
7 MR GARNHAM: So who did that job?
8 PS SMITH: It fell to both of the police sergeants to do
9 that.
10 MR GARNHAM: The requirement was to ensure that each
11 allegation was promptly investigated. What does
12 "promptly" mean in those circumstances?
13 PS SMITH: I would say as soon as is reasonably practicable
14 in the circumstances.
15 MR GARNHAM: What would you normally expect to be the speed
16 of investigation in respect of a grievous bodily harm
17 allegation on a 7-year old child?
18 PS SMITH: That is too wide a question to answer. There are
19 circumstances in which a child could receive such an
20 injury, it differs vastly.
21 MR GARNHAM: Would the very fact that a child of that age
22 had received that sort of assault not prompt a rapid
23 investigation?
24 PS SMITH: It would prompt a rapid response and thereafter
25 a series of decisions would be made as to what would be
25
1 the correct way to proceed with that investigation.
2 MR GARNHAM: Are you able to tell us from your viewing of
3 this file who it was who was carrying out that function
4 in respect of Victoria's case?
5 PS SMITH: Looking at the CRIS report DC Dewar was the
6 investigating officer in respect of that. I have seen
7 sight of the police protection that was taken out and
8 I note that -- and obviously I heard yesterday that
9 DC Blackman assisted initially with that, but primarily
10 this fell to DC Dewar.
11 MR GARNHAM: But who ensured that she carried it out
12 properly?
13 PS SMITH: Under these circumstances it should have been
14 Sergeant Gorry.
15 MR GARNHAM: You closed the CRIS entry on 10th August.
16 PS SMITH: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Does closing the CRIS entry mean closing the
18 case as far as your team is concerned?
19 PS SMITH: There would also be -- yes it does, but there
20 would also be a general registry docket that would be
21 generated by the submission of the form 87X that was
22 mentioned yesterday. Upon receipt of that any
23 correspondence, including medical reports or strategy
24 meeting minutes would be placed in that file as well.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why did you close this file?
26
1 PS SMITH: At that time DI Anderson was on annual leave and
2 in his absence I was the Acting DI so it fell to me to
3 supervise all the reports on the team. I ran an inquiry
4 on that day, saw it, I was satisfied the matter had been
5 investigated, and closed it.
6 MR GARNHAM: When you say you were satisfied that the matter
7 had been investigated, what investigations did you
8 conclude had been carried out?
9 PS SMITH: There was an initial investigation at the outset
10 that involved discussion with the social services who
11 had received information from the hospital. It seemed
12 to me, examining it, that the officers had a discussion
13 with a social worker. They had decided to place the
14 child into police protection. Subsequently information
15 was received next day that indicated that these were as
16 a result of scabies, the injuries were as a result of
17 scabies, and on the basis of that information the
18 officer, having discussed the matter with DI Anderson,
19 closed the case. The officer went on to carry out
20 further statutory checks which she had done and on the
21 basis of that information that was in front of me,
22 I made the decision to close that report.
23 MR GARNHAM: What investigation were you satisfied had been
24 carried out? There does not appear to have been
25 anything beyond a discussion with social workers.
27
1 PS SMITH: Sir, she had had a discussion with a social
2 worker which forms part of the investigation, it forms
3 part of the joint investigation which this matter was
4 initially dealt with as and then subsequently the
5 following day she had discussions with the social worker
6 again to ascertain what further information was
7 available, which again forms part of the investigation,
8 and upon receipt of that information that the matter was
9 not an injury but was in fact scabies, the police
10 investigation then stopped.
11 MR GARNHAM: What investigation of the alleged crime was
12 carried out as you saw it when you closed this file?
13 PS SMITH: The alleged crime, the investigation that took
14 place took place on the night that she received the
15 information. She obtained information from the social
16 worker as had been passed to her from the hospital and
17 as part of the investigation according to the CRIS
18 report had arranged for a photographer to take pictures
19 of the victim.
20 MR GARNHAM: But it did not take place.
21 PS SMITH: No, it did not.
22 MR GARNHAM: Is the truth, officer, not that there was no
23 investigation of this alleged crime?
24 PS SMITH: Not at all.
25 MR GARNHAM: Because all you have told us about is
28
1 a discussion with social workers.
2 PS SMITH: I think the use of discussion is a slight
3 misnomer in that the guidelines that we are given to
4 carry out an investigation of this type is to have
5 a strategy discussion or a strategy meeting with
6 a social worker, once the case has been identified by
7 social services as being a joint investigation. You can
8 use the word "discussion" or you can use the word
9 "investigation" but that forms part of the joint
10 investigation that was undertaken.
11 MR GARNHAM: Would you have been willing to question the
12 diagnosis of Dr Schwartz?
13 PS SMITH: I think it all depends on the circumstances, sir.
14 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean that sometimes you would be
15 willing to question a diagnosis of a consultant
16 paediatrician?
17 PS SMITH: Yes, I would.
18 MR GARNHAM: What sort of circumstances would they be?
19 PS SMITH: If it was evident to me that the information
20 I had in front of me did not correlate with the
21 conclusions that were being reached by the doctor.
22 MR GARNHAM: If for example the doctor's diagnosis covered
23 some but not all of the injuries?
24 PS SMITH: Then I would want to know what had caused the
25 other injuries.
29
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you when you decided to close this case
2 compare what it was said the doctor's opinion covered
3 with what the records revealed were the injuries of
4 Victoria?
5 PS SMITH: The information that was available on the CRIS
6 report indicated to me that all the injuries were
7 consistent with scabies and that was the opinion of the
8 consultant paediatrician.
9 MR GARNHAM: The letter that we have seen says that all the
10 scratching marks were consistent with scabies. It also
11 says, it is right to say, that there are no child
12 protection issues in the case but it is only in regard
13 to the scratching injuries that it is said the scabies
14 accounts for the injuries. There is nothing to suggest
15 that the bruising is accounted for by the scabies. Now,
16 was that suggestion looked at?
17 PS SMITH: No.
18 MR GARNHAM: You relied solely, did you, on what you saw on
19 the CRIS reports?
20 PS SMITH: Yes, I did.
21 MR GARNHAM: Do you regard that as adequate?
22 PS SMITH: Bearing in mind I have worked with DI Anderson
23 for a period of four years and that I considered I could
24 see he had had a discussion with the officer, I had also
25 worked with the officer herself for a year, the
30
1 information available to me at that time, yes, I do
2 consider that to be adequate.
3 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. The last subject I want to ask you
4 about, officer, concerns your observation that you felt
5 that Brent CPT required more resources.
6 PS SMITH: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: What additional resources did you think were
8 required?
9 PS SMITH: It was mentioned yesterday an additional four
10 officers. Also mentioned yesterday was the fact that
11 our workload escalated and I do not have the exact
12 figures in front of me.
13 MR GARNHAM: There may be others who can help with that but
14 tell us your view on resources.
15 PS SMITH: My view was that we were completely
16 under-resourced in terms of personnel.
17 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree with the missing four?
18 PS SMITH: Absolutely.
19 MR GARNHAM: What else?
20 PS SMITH: I felt very much that we were the poor relations
21 in regard to information technology. A system called
22 Otis has been mentioned. The Otis system enables
23 communication throughout London by computers such as
24 e-mail, it allows police notice and orders to be
25 accessible to every police officer in London at the
31
1 touch of a button. Otis was introduced in the
2 Metropolitan Police. I know that DI Anderson continued
3 to try and get us access to this and the information
4 that was fed back to us was that there was a rolling
5 programme and we were at the back end of this rolling
6 programme and when we eventually got Otis it was
7 actually version four and at no time did I ever see
8 versions one, two or three.
9 MR GARNHAM: Presumably four is more advanced than three,
10 two and one, is it?
11 PS SMITH: Never having seen the first three I do not know
12 but I would imagine so.
13 MR GARNHAM: You commented about training. Are there any
14 other aspects of the management of personnel which you
15 were concerned with?
16 PS SMITH: One of the biggest issues for the child
17 protection teams when I joined in 1996 was the fact that
18 we were actually an add-on to the murder inquiry team,
19 the major incident teams. Certainly the feeling within
20 my team, and having spoken to other sergeants, was that
21 we were an additional burden to those teams. The
22 resources that were put into the murder investigation
23 teams and to the drug squads compared to child
24 protection teams quite frankly was a disgrace. We never
25 had access to any vehicles. I understand that overall
32
1 something like 12 and a half to 13 per cent of the
2 staffing levels of child protection teams during the
3 period I have been on them has been taken away. Today
4 we have the situation at Brent, it needs at least
5 another four officers. That is not an isolated case.
6 In London today we need an extra 100 child protection
7 officers at least.
8 MR GARNHAM: You were described yesterday by your fellow
9 sergeant --
10 PS SMITH: Can I?
11 MR GARNHAM: I wondered if I could put this.
12 PS SMITH: I am trying not to get on my soap box with regard
13 to this issue. I feel quite passionate about it.
14 MR GARNHAM: You were described as poor cousins.
15 PS SMITH: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Does that pick up what you are saying about the
17 way in which you were resourced?
18 PS SMITH: Yes, it does, and I think it was highlighted in
19 the statement that was served on me by one of the
20 managers of the child protection teams who says he was
21 directed by the chief superintendent not to manage child
22 protection teams.
23 MR GARNHAM: Who is that?
24 PS SMITH: DCI Wheeler's statement states that.
25 MR GARNHAM: I interrupted you. Go back if there is more
33
1 you need to add.
2 PS SMITH: It is with regard to the staffing levels of child
3 protection teams. Since we were formed into SO5
4 department, a specialist child probing team, there has
5 been a sea change in the attitude of the managers of the
6 child protection teams. The detective chief
7 superintendent, the superintendent, the detective chief
8 inspector are committed to child protection. I have
9 personal experience of that because of the officers
10 I have been given, the extra officers I have been given
11 on my team. However, I am aware that their efforts to
12 get officers brought into the department is being
13 stymied by people above their rank and to my -- I cannot
14 think of a more important task other than the terrorist
15 branch and murder investigation that is more important
16 than child protection.
17 MR GARNHAM: Given these evidently strong feelings that you
18 have, and I take it have had for some time --
19 PS SMITH: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: -- is that right?
21 PS SMITH: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: What did you do about it?
23 PS SMITH: On a regular basis these were brought to the
24 attention of DI Anderson. To my knowledge he has
25 submitted at least four reports on that very subject
34
1 about staffing levels.
2 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever take it beyond Anderson?
3 PS SMITH: No, as he was my line manager and having seen
4 sight of some of his reports, and again they were
5 written quite passionately with regard to not just
6 welfare of our staff but also the need to be able to
7 perform the role properly, I was satisfied my views were
8 being passed along to our immediate supervisor.
9 MR GARNHAM: Anderson was receptive to what you were saying?
10 PS SMITH: He was very, yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did he agree as far as you are aware in what he
12 relayed to those senior to him?
13 PS SMITH: Yes, he did, and with the sort of inquiries that
14 he used to run on the CRIS machine with regard to
15 officers' workloads, he was fully aware of the workloads
16 of the officers.
17 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much.
18 PS SMITH: There is a number of matters I want to pick up on
19 that were mentioned yesterday by one or two of the
20 witnesses. I wonder if I may.
21 MR GARNHAM: Indicate what they are first.
22 PS SMITH: One of them is with regard to memorandum training
23 that DC Dewar mentioned that she had received where she
24 mentioned my name specifically.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes, deal with that then.
35
1 PS SMITH: When I joined the Brent Child Protection Team
2 I went on a memorandum training course that was run
3 jointly with the London Borough of Brent. As part of
4 that training course it was emphasised about the dangers
5 of interviewing the children or speaking to the children
6 prior to the memorandum interview taking place.
7 Mr Egan in his cross-examination mentioned many of
8 the things that were mentioned on the course about
9 tainting of the child's evidence. That particular point
10 was emphasised to me when I as part of my role in
11 training did a presentation to Crown Court judges at
12 High Holborn about 18 months ago, where it was
13 highlighted to me that judges have doubts about the
14 veracity of the child's evidence when they have had to
15 relate it a number of times before the memorandum
16 interview, and the issue picked up on yesterday was as
17 to whether Rachel should have spoken to Victoria prior
18 to the memorandum interview.
19 Since I have been promoted and moved away from Brent
20 there is a different practice elsewhere in London
21 whereby visits to the child do take place before the
22 memorandum interview. However, that is not the case
23 throughout London, there is an inconsistency and it was
24 mentioned yesterday by DC Blackman that that is what she
25 was taught at Southall. It was what I was taught at
36
1 Brent and it is what is taught at Harrow.
2 MR GARNHAM: So there does seem to be a difference of
3 approach.
4 PS SMITH: There is a difference of approach through the
5 Met. I subsequently took over the training for
6 memorandum training on the team and I examined the
7 memorandum of practice which relates to that specific
8 point and it does talk about the child being seen by
9 police but that was matched against the dangers that
10 were highlighted about tainting the child's evidence and
11 quite rightly, as Rachel alluded to yesterday, as part
12 of that training course we discouraged officers from
13 speaking to the child prior to the memorandum interview.
14 MR GARNHAM: Is the primary concern not simple transparency,
15 in other words ensuring that if you speak to a child
16 before the memorandum interview, that the circumstances
17 of that conversation and its contents are recorded
18 openly and made available to both sides in any
19 subsequent prosecution?
20 PS SMITH: I would agree with you but what is good practice
21 and what is the experience of the police officer who
22 taught me and the police officers I have spoken to does
23 not always follow the same path and when they relate
24 experience of losing cases at court because the child's
25 evidence is excluded, that is very powerful for police
37
1 officers to deal with.
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Thank you for that. Were there other
3 matters you wanted to raise?
4 PS SMITH: I wondered if the chart that Sergeant Gorry
5 showed showing the workloads could be shown please. You
6 may not have to show it.
7 MR GARNHAM: I think Mr Egan can deal with that. He may
8 have that document rather faster to hand. Can I ask you
9 to leave that. Any other matters?
10 PS SMITH: I think that is about it.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Egan please, thank you.
12 MR EGAN: Can I deal with that please. I wonder, is it
13 readily to hand and can it be put on the screen, that
14 particular document? We have seen a chart prepared by
15 Sergeant Gorry yesterday about workloads between
16 1st January and 31st March 1999 and you appear on it as
17 Dave right at the end.
18 PS SMITH: That is correct.
19 MR EGAN: I think it is right, is it not, and I will put
20 this to you, that during that period -- lest anyone get
21 an unreal, an inaccurate view of your workload -- you
22 were actually off sick for a deal of that period, were
23 you not?
24 PS SMITH: Actually this morning I have checked my personnel
25 file and on 20th January I went sick and I was off sick
38
1 for a period of 61 days with a serious injury and
2 I subsequently came back for about a month and a half
3 and recouped alternative duties when I was working
4 four hours a day at that time.
5 MR EGAN: If any one is looking at that chart and -- forgive
6 me, they have to bear in mind that you may have been
7 absent for some considerable period of that time.
8 PS SMITH: That is correct.
9 MR EGAN: Now, just one or two matters. On this particular
10 matter of the Brent Child Protection Team we have heard
11 a deal of evidence about the resources and various
12 criticisms. I do not particularly want to ask you about
13 that. The Inquiry have that information. What was the
14 spirit like within the team? It was obvious you were
15 working in comparatively confined and perhaps not ideal
16 spaces but what was the work ethic or the spirit like,
17 in your description?
18 PS SMITH: It varied from time to time because with the best
19 will in the world the morale of the team when they were
20 faced with the sheer volume of work that they were
21 dealing with, it would be very difficult to keep the
22 morale up. With regard to the spirit of the team
23 dealing with the particular cases and the nature of the
24 cases which is child protection work, then my experience
25 of the team is that they were, like myself, quite
39
1 passionate about child protection and endeavoured to do
2 their best with regard to the cases that they dealt
3 with.
4 I know that people alluded to the accommodation
5 yesterday. The accommodation is not very good at all
6 and it is an indication of the way that the Metropolitan
7 Police views child protection teams that we find
8 ourselves in that sort of accommodation. It is a point
9 in question that Brent Child Protection Team is not in
10 Brent. The Brent Child Protection Team is in Harrow
11 because when they closed the original headquarters
12 buildings, whoever was responsible for buildings did not
13 find the Child Protection Team a building to go to.
14 MR EGAN: I want to ask you just two more matters please.
15 Firstly, you were asked by Mr Garnham about a prompt and
16 rapid response to an offence of grievous bodily harm
17 against a child and you suggested to him, and the
18 Inquiry heard it, that the original inquiry made by him,
19 that is what was the prompt and rapid response, was
20 simply too wide a question and I am sure that we
21 understand what you mean by that; every case has to be
22 judged on its own particular facts.
23 Judging this particular case on its facts and
24 bearing in mind that a child on the face of it was in
25 hospital suffering from or possibly suffering from
40
1 injuries which a medical diagnosis, not a social
2 worker's diagnosis, a medical diagnosis on 14th July had
3 put down as possibly non-accidental injury, can I just
4 ask you for your help on investigating such a matter?
5 Absent any direct allegation from the child or
6 a memorandum interview, would there be in your judgment
7 sufficient evidence to merit an arrest of either the
8 carer or the mother?
9 PS SMITH: No, sir.
10 MR EGAN: If you had sought to interview the mother that
11 night, you would have had to do it at a police station,
12 would you not?
13 PS SMITH: That is correct and it would have to have been
14 tape recorded and prior to the interview we would have
15 to disclose all the evidence available to the person's
16 solicitor.
17 MR EGAN: That deals with all the other questions I was
18 going to ask, so perhaps if you can wait for the
19 question we might get through a bit quicker, but I am
20 sure you are only trying to help, but in fact it
21 probably speeds things up. If you took it upon yourself
22 to arrest somebody in those circumstances, first of all
23 if you tried to interview them in the absence of
24 a police station or away from a police station, you
25 would be in desperate danger of losing that evidence
41
1 subsequently to legal submissions?
2 PS SMITH: In my personal experiences when I have
3 interviewed people away from the police station even
4 when I have cautioned them that evidence has been
5 excluded at the Crown Court.
6 MR EGAN: If you take the suspect to the police station of
7 course you have to deliver them up to the custody
8 officer for their custody to be -- responsibility for
9 their custody to be assumed by the custody officer in
10 accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
11 1984?
12 PS SMITH: That is correct.
13 MR EGAN: The custody officer has a particular power to
14 either stop you interviewing or give you consent. It is
15 at his behest?
16 PS SMITH: That is correct.
17 MR EGAN: The person has a right to be legally represented?
18 PS SMITH: Yes.
19 MR EGAN: And then those are the matters that you raise, the
20 legal representative would demand disclosure of your
21 evidence?
22 PS SMITH: That is correct.
23 MR EGAN: And would have a right themselves to make
24 representations to the custody officer that there was
25 not sufficient evidence to justify a formal interview?
42
1 PS SMITH: That is one possible outcome and my experience of
2 this sort of case is that the solicitor would indicate
3 to us that there is insufficient information for the
4 interview to go ahead.
5 MR EGAN: That is all very theoretical. Can I ask you about
6 one particular matter though that was put yesterday, the
7 question of searching. Absent an arrest of somebody,
8 a lawful arrest of someone, and of course I lay stress
9 on the word "lawful," if you had had to search or if you
10 wished to search a premises, would you have needed to
11 get a warrant?
12 PS SMITH: We would have had to have applied to the
13 magistrate for a warrant to enter any premises to search
14 under these circumstances.
15 MR EGAN: And a warrant can only be lawfully obtained by
16 police officers acting on proper grounds, yes?
17 PS SMITH: Yes, on reliable information.
18 MR EGAN: Could you have got a warrant in those
19 circumstances?
20 PS SMITH: Under those circumstances, no.
21 MR EGAN: Finally this. You were asked about the closing of
22 the file and the Inquiry have your evidence about that.
23 And the way the question was put, I will probably
24 paraphrase it clumsily, is: "What investigation had been
25 done into this alleged crime?" If there was medical
43
1 evidence that the injuries thought to be non-accidental
2 had a medical explanation, had an explanation which
3 meant that they had not been unlawfully caused, was
4 there a crime?
5 PS SMITH: No.
6 MR EGAN: Would you wait there.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith, you have given evidence in a very
8 straightforward and helpful way and I am grateful to you
9 for that. I would just like to ask you some questions
10 really to clarify my thinking, if you would, please. In
11 answer to Mr Garnham about how this matter was being
12 handled, you said that the investigation consisted of
13 a discussion with the social worker. Could you tell me
14 when is a police investigation of a potential crime
15 a police investigation, and I emphasise a police
16 investigation? What should a police investigation
17 consist of?
18 PS SMITH: Sir, the police investigation consists initially
19 of a discussion with the social services because under
20 these circumstances the initial referral came through
21 social services. The police investigation would start
22 with the exchange of information that the social worker
23 and the police officer had taken the referral at that
24 time. That would be the start of the police
25 investigation. I would expect the officer to ask
44
1 questions about the circumstances of whatever
2 information is available. At that very point in time
3 decisions would be made as to what subsequent actions
4 should be taken as part of the police station
5 investigation.
6 It is an anomaly in police work that police
7 investigations are influenced by social workers'
8 opinions and social workers', if you like, decisions.
9 On occasions they are direct and they assist police
10 investigations.
11 Subsequent to that then background enquiries should
12 be undertaken to establish if there is anything known
13 about the child, about the suspect, about the address.
14 I would expect the police investigation to establish
15 from the medical reports any opinions that might be
16 available as to the cause of the injuries and the extent
17 of the injuries.
18 The police investigation would also include
19 subsequently interviewing any potential witnesses. It
20 would include memorandum interviewing Victoria, and
21 then, having gained as much information as possible,
22 arresting whoever has been identified as the suspect,
23 interviewing that suspect and then once all the
24 information and evidence is available the decision is
25 made as to whether the person should be charged or
45
1 whether the matter should be referred to the Crown
2 Prosecution Service for further advice.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to you. That was a very
4 comprehensive, very helpful answer. What I do not
5 understand, and perhaps you can help me understand, is
6 why when that process started with the referral from the
7 social worker it did not immediately continue, in other
8 words why did the police not actually act as a police
9 service investigating a potential serious crime?
10 PS SMITH: My examination of the CRIS report indicates that
11 the officer acted in accordance with the guidelines that
12 had been set out in "Working Together", whereby a joint
13 investigation has to take place. There are decisions
14 made at the strategy discussion or strategy meeting,
15 whatever it is, as to who should undertake specific
16 functions. The pace of the investigation is a decision
17 that would be taken at that time.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think that the pace was the correct
19 pace?
20 PS SMITH: Yes, I do.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And do you think there was evidence here of
22 police being over-influenced by social workers and
23 doctors?
24 PS SMITH: I do not think there is evidence of police
25 being -- what was the word you used?
46
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Over-influenced.
2 PS SMITH: No, I do not. One of the principles of working
3 in child protection is the trust you put in other
4 agencies, other professionals. It was alluded to
5 yesterday about the working relationship with Brent
6 Social Services. Some of the social workers you would
7 put your trust in, others you might want to clarify and
8 check on their judgment.
9 With regard to the medical opinions that were
10 expressed, having looked at this particular case and
11 obviously I have given it a great deal of thought
12 subsequently about what happened on that evening, my
13 response to what I saw initially would have been before
14 you take any action this child would need to be examined
15 by Dr Schwartz.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just so that I am clear from something you
17 said earlier on to Mr Garnham, did something happen in
18 the case of Victoria that you would describe as
19 a strategy meeting?
20 PS SMITH: I think one of the errors that Rachel has made
21 with her report, the initial entry she has put she has
22 not used the words "I have had had a strategy discussion
23 with Michelle Hines". Look at her report. She has had
24 a strategy discussion but she has not called it that.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there something in that report that you
47
1 would describe as being both strategic and some plan of
2 action? I mean did you think that if it was a strategy
3 meeting, what you call a strategy meeting, strategy
4 report, did you think it was adequate as such?
5 PS SMITH: I think adequate is probably the word I would
6 use.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think there was anything inadequate
8 about it?
9 PS SMITH: I think it was adequate.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that if I heard you right you have
11 done some memorandum training yourself.
12 PS SMITH: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Actually conducted the training I mean.
14 PS SMITH: Yes.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: What do you currently teach police officers
16 about how to behave in circumstances that prevailed at
17 the time that Victoria needed protection?
18 PS SMITH: Not wishing to dodge the question, I have not
19 done any training of memorandum for about two years
20 because I gave up the role of training sergeant because
21 it was becoming too -- it was too much for me to deal
22 with and I have subsequently been promoted. It is not
23 a function I undertake.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: If you were called upon to do some memorandum
25 training?
48
1 PS SMITH: At the moment I think I would deal with each case
2 on its merits. The reason I say that, and I am not
3 trying to avoid the issue, is I have just taken over
4 a child protection team where the practice is to go and
5 visit the child and I am aware that that is the practice
6 on most of the teams in east London and I am evaluating
7 as to whether I think that is the right course of
8 action.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Looking back, you said that you felt
10 passionately, if I understood you right, about the
11 inadequacy of the resources that the child protection
12 team was given.
13 PS SMITH: Yes sir.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Had there been the level of resource that you
15 think would have been proper for adequate child
16 protection, would things have been handled differently
17 in this case?
18 PS SMITH: I think the question, not wishing to be
19 offensive, I think the question is too narrow. I think
20 with regard to the training what was alluded to
21 yesterday about police protection and the fact that
22 Victoria was not personally seen by the designated
23 officer, the fault lies with the service to her because
24 the notice that was issued is not in accordance, as I am
25 told, with the Home Office instructions. Certainly the
49
1 training I received never indicated to me that we had to
2 personally see the child.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right then. One very quick point.
4 I think you have your statement in front of you. If you
5 can go to the paragraph that is at the top of page 215.
6 The third-last sentence of that paragraph begins:
7 "Having read the contents of the report I was
8 satisfied that the report was ready for closure."
9 PS SMITH: Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you, do you remain
11 satisfied or do you think that things could and might
12 have been done differently?
13 PS SMITH: I think had the training been better, had whoever
14 was responsible for the police notice with regard to the
15 designated officer, then clearly Victoria would have
16 been personally seen by the designated officer and it is
17 possible whoever that person may be, whether it would
18 have been Rachel or whoever had taken the investigation
19 on that particular occasion, that having seen Victoria,
20 it would have set into motion a whole different chain of
21 events.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to you.
23 MR GARNHAM: Sir I only have one question but I am asked to
24 put two others by one of the interested parties. The
25 question I want to put arises from a question Mr Egan
50
1 asked you about the circumstances in which it might have
2 been proper or improper to arrest Kouao. We have heard
3 evidence that the carer, Mrs Cameron, was asked by
4 another lady what she had said to Kouao each evening
5 after caring for Victoria that led Kouao to beat her.
6 Now, if you had obtained -- if you the police had
7 obtained that evidence, suggestive as it is of a regular
8 beating, would that have justified an arrest?
9 PS SMITH: It might have justified an arrest but not
10 necessarily at that time. The point that we are making
11 is that if you are going to conduct an interview of
12 a suspect then the best practice is to, obviously
13 bearing in mind things that have been mentioned about
14 forensics and the possible suspect absconding, is to
15 have all the information available to you before you
16 commence the interview. The allegation that you have
17 just put would only form a very small part of that.
18 MR GARNHAM: But a significant element surely in your
19 assessment of whether or not there had been a crime?
20 PS SMITH: It would be a part of that, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Significant part?
22 PS SMITH: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: The two questions I am asked to put to you,
24 I asked you whether the Brent Interim Child Protection
25 Procedures remained interim and you can confirm I think
|
