|
Archived Transcript for 7 November 2001: Pages
51 to 100
51
1 that you and I are both talking about the interim
2 document produced by social services and not the police.
3 PS SMITH: That is correct.
4 MR GARNHAM: Secondly, you told me that other than the CPT
5 manual you had no other written source of guidance. Did
6 you not have firstly "Working Together"?
7 PS SMITH: I was talking about specifically police generated
8 instructions.
9 MR GARNHAM: I thought you were but I wanted to put the
10 question anyway so that it is clear. Did you have
11 "Working Together"?
12 PS SMITH: We had "Working Together".
13 MR GARNHAM: Did you have a companion called "Investigators'
14 Companion" by Mr Smith?
15 PS SMITH: We had access to that because I think there was
16 two copies in the office. Subsequent to being part of
17 our own department, every officer within SO5 has been
18 given a personal copy of that book.
19 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham, thank you Mr Smith.
21 MR GARNHAM: DI Anderson please.
22 DI MICHAEL GEORGE JAMES ANDERSON (sworn)
23 MR GARNHAM: Please have a seat Mr Anderson. Your full name
24 please.
25 DI ANDERSON: Michael George James Anderson.
52
1 MR GARNHAM: Your professional address.
2 DI ANDERSON: It is now the Civic Centre, Station Road,
3 Harrow, Middlesex.
4 MR GARNHAM: You have made one statement I think for this
5 Inquiry.
6 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: It is found at volume 4, page 9, I think a copy
8 is in front of you. Can you glance through it, and
9 confirm that you have signed it please.
10 DI ANDERSON: Yes, I have.
11 MR GARNHAM: Can you confirm that its contents are true?
12 DI ANDERSON: They are but I do need to correct one
13 paragraph.
14 MR GARNHAM: Would you do so?
15 DI ANDERSON: Paragraph 16, I noticed on reading through the
16 terms of reference questions that were being asked of
17 me, I have misread the question there. I was referring
18 to interagency dealings, I should have been referring to
19 intraagency dealings.
20 MR GARNHAM: How would you put it now?
21 DI ANDERSON: It refers to exchange of information within my
22 own agency as it were. I would answer that by saying
23 that all Metropolitan police stations and units had
24 access to SO3 records, which we have heard about I think
25 yesterday, a general registry record, and could carry
53
1 out cross-border searches of the CRIS machines for any
2 area they wished to. What was not available to other
3 units would be internal database checks within
4 individual CPTs. That is something which I believe is
5 to be addressed shortly with a new computer system which
6 would allow all CPT units to interrogate each other's
7 databases. Otherwise the statement is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: Thank you for that correction. I may come back
9 to that point later. You I think Mr Anderson joined the
10 Met in 1971?
11 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: After two or three years you became
13 a detective?
14 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: You worked at Wood Green as a detective
16 constable then in the company fraud department?
17 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Promoted to Sergeant and returned to uniform?
19 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: 1987 back to detective duties as Detective
21 Sergeant?
22 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
23 MR GARNHAM: 1991 promoted to Detective Inspector working
24 first at West Hendon?
25 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
54
1 MR GARNHAM: 1996 DCI Edgware Police Station in charge of
2 two CP teams?
3 DI ANDERSON: DI, not DCI, that is correct.
4 MR GARNHAM: By 1999 you had 19 years experience as
5 a detective by my calculations.
6 DI ANDERSON: I think that is probably right, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Although you joined the child protection teams
8 in 1996, I think it is right that you never received
9 training in child protection duties.
10 DI ANDERSON: No, I have had no formal training in child
11 protection.
12 MR GARNHAM: And that remains the case?
13 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Do you regard that as a deficiency?
15 DI ANDERSON: I do to a certain extent though when I joined
16 the child protection team the training which was
17 available, the formal course you heard about from
18 DI Smith a moment ago was not designed for detective
19 inspectors to go on. I think the assumption was
20 detective inspectors should not need the investigative
21 training that was taught on there and other aspects of
22 the intra-agency dealing would be dealt with more often
23 by the junior officers if you like and the DI did not
24 actually have to have the course given to him.
25 MR GARNHAM: Would it not have been beneficial to have those
55
1 parts of the course other than the detective training?
2 DI ANDERSON: It would have been, yes. I was reliant to
3 a certain extent when I first joined CPT on what was in
4 the Child Protection Manual and simply on talking to
5 colleagues.
6 MR GARNHAM: It does seem surprising that that should be the
7 position given that you are in charge of two CP teams,
8 do you agree?
9 DI ANDERSON: It may seem surprising but I think I am
10 perhaps making it sound more difficult than it is. It
11 is not that difficult a system to pick up and
12 understand.
13 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever request child protection training?
14 DI ANDERSON: No.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because you did not think you needed it?
16 DI ANDERSON: Partly that and I did not expect to get it if
17 I did request it.
18 MR GARNHAM: Why?
19 DI ANDERSON: For the reason I said, the courses available
20 were not designed for detective inspectors, they were
21 designed for constables and sergeants only.
22 MR GARNHAM: Was that something you ever pointed out to your
23 superiors?
24 DI ANDERSON: No, it was not. I do not think so.
25 MR GARNHAM: Who was your line manager?
56
1 DI ANDERSON: In 1999?
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
3 DI ANDERSON: DCI Wheeler.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did he have operational responsibility for you
5 or was this just a formal reporting structure?
6 DI ANDERSON: I would say more a formal reporting structure.
7 He was the Area DCI for the northwest area crime OCU.
8 As such in addition to responsibility that he may have
9 for child protection teams he also had other duties to
10 carry out on behalf of the area, most noticeably I think
11 looking after the informant system for the area and one
12 or two other smaller units.
13 MR GARNHAM: How much time was he able to devote to
14 supervising you?
15 DI ANDERSON: It is difficult for me to say exactly how much
16 time he was devoting.
17 MR GARNHAM: How often did you see him?
18 DI ANDERSON: Very seldom.
19 MR GARNHAM: How else mighty be devoting time to you except
20 when seeing you?
21 DI ANDERSON: He would have had access to a CRIS machine,
22 where he could have at least dip sampled our work and
23 I did have meetings with him together with other CPT
24 DI's on a monthly basis.
25 MR GARNHAM: You were not then discussing your personal work
57
1 or the work simply of your team?
2 DI ANDERSON: No, it was more a strategic overview of what
3 was happening on the area or throughout the Met. There
4 was a section within the agenda normally where we had
5 the opportunity to draw to attention any particularly
6 unusual cases that may have come up in order to get some
7 best practice views from the other members present.
8 MR GARNHAM: It does not sound as if there was anybody with
9 direct operational responsibility for you and your team.
10 DI ANDERSON: I do not think there was, no.
11 MR GARNHAM: Is that common in the Met, a team of your size
12 operates in that way?
13 DI ANDERSON: I think to be honest I would have to say it
14 was probably common within Child Protection. Bear in
15 mind when I am talking about DCI Wheeler's CPT
16 responsibility I think there were at that time in 1999
17 I think it was seven boroughs covered by six teams that
18 he would be responsible for. It is not just my team
19 that was obviously not getting great supervision, but
20 all of them.
21 MR GARNHAM: It makes it sound, and I do not want to be
22 unfair but this is an expression used in some of the
23 documents as if you are somewhat semi-detached.
24 DI ANDERSON: Me personally or as a unit?
25 MR GARNHAM: Your team.
58
1 DI ANDERSON: I think that is true. I mean you heard the
2 expression yesterday about the poor cousins and I know
3 another expression that was used some months ago by my
4 most recent senior manager, the Cinderellas of the
5 force, and I think everyone would agree to that, we were
6 the Cinderellas, and only recently have we started
7 moving on from that.
8 MR GARNHAM: Has there been an improvement? Is Cinderella
9 going to the ball now?
10 DI ANDERSON: She is on her way I think you can say.
11 MR GARNHAM: The coach is there, is it?
12 DI ANDERSON: Since SO5 was set up a little over a year ago,
13 initially I think it had teething troubles but you
14 appreciate when I gave my address as to Harrow Civic
15 Centre, I have retired from the Metropolitan Police now
16 a few weeks ago, but prior to my retirement I was
17 definitely noticing improvements. The senior management
18 I think, as Mr Smith pointed out quite rightly, are far
19 more committed now and exclusive to child protection and
20 they are working very hard to improve our resources and
21 our systems in order to bring about best practice and
22 best possible results within the Met.
23 MR GARNHAM: Do you know what the prompting for that
24 improvement has been? Is it Victoria's case?
25 DI ANDERSON: I think I would be cynical if I said no. It
59
1 is this case, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you a little about the way Brent was
3 operating in 1999 and the resources that were then
4 available to it?
5 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: First of all you tell us that there were two
7 manuals used by your team, the Brent Interim Child
8 Protection Procedures and the Metropolitan Police Child
9 Protection Manual.
10 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
11 MR GARNHAM: You I think were in the room when DS Smith was
12 giving his evidence.
13 DI ANDERSON: I was.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you also to look at the minute that
15 I showed here, volume 45, page 238. This is a meeting
16 that I think normally you would have been at.
17 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: We see you are listed in the apologies for
19 absence on an ACPC course at the time.
20 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
21 MR GARNHAM: Normally you would have attended this I think?
22 DI ANDERSON: Yes I would. It is a regular monthly meeting.
23 MR GARNHAM: This is a meeting that took place
24 in October 1999, so two months or so after the time with
25 which we are concerned.
60
1 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Over the page at 4.2 the CPT manual and you
3 have probably heard me read this paragraph out.
4 DI ANDERSON: I did.
5 MR GARNHAM: Does the description given of the manual there
6 accord with your view of it: "old, inaccurate and not
7 user friendly"?
8 DI ANDERSON: I certainly go along with old. I think for
9 the most part it was accurate in what it said. Not user
10 friendly, I think I would be more inclined to say it was
11 not particularly useful rather than not particularly
12 user friendly. It tends to spend a lot of its time
13 simply repeating statutes or instructions from elsewhere
14 and does not lay down terribly much in the way of
15 specific instructions as far as I am concerned, or
16 practical instructions for police officers.
17 MR GARNHAM: As a non-attendee at this meeting were you sent
18 a copy of this minute?
19 DI ANDERSON: I would imagine so, yes. I would be surprised
20 if I was not.
21 MR GARNHAM: So did you know that as a result of this
22 meeting the manual was withdrawn or discharged I think
23 is the word used?
24 DI ANDERSON: No, I think the word discharged on these
25 minutes is pointing out that this was an action or
61
1 matter arising from a previous meeting and that that
2 action had been discharged in that the rewriting of the
3 manual I think was not to take place.
4 MR GARNHAM: What does the word "it has been decided that
5 there will not be a CPT manual" mean then?
6 DI ANDERSON: Again I think these have been written slightly
7 inaccurately. I think there would not be a rewriting of
8 the CPT manual at that time. There were during that
9 time efforts being made to have a rewritten manual and
10 I think Superintendent Akers had been tasked to do it
11 and had found that because of other commitments it was
12 simply an impossible task, particularly for one person
13 to be asked to do.
14 MR GARNHAM: The next sentence also suggests that there is
15 going to be a different document used in the absence of
16 a manual: "all boroughs have their own protocols". That
17 too suggests that the manual is simply withdrawn from
18 use.
19 DI ANDERSON: It would suggest, yes, that it was redundant
20 if you like, yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: In practice did you continue to have resort to
22 the old manual?
23 DI ANDERSON: It was there, sir, in the office available for
24 myself and other officers. I --
25 MR GARNHAM: That sounds like a careful answer.
62
1 DI ANDERSON: I do not think it was consulted very often
2 sir.
3 MR GARNHAM: So that in practice you were operating without
4 a manual?
5 DI ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
6 MR GARNHAM: You say in paragraph 4 that in addition to
7 these manuals:
8 "... within the unit, systems were set in place to
9 ensure that the needs for investigations under
10 Section 47 were appropriately identified and that
11 investigations were carried out appropriately in
12 conjunction with the London Borough of Brent Social
13 Services."
14 I think precisely the same words as were used by
15 Mr Smith in his statement. Is that because they were
16 drafted by the same person?
17 DI ANDERSON: They were drafted on advice from the same
18 person, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: What systems were in place to ensure that the
20 occasions were properly identified?
21 DI ANDERSON: I think Mr Smith gave a fairly accurate and
22 concise answer on that. The first thing was the regular
23 checking of the CRIS reporting system in order to
24 identify any cases which had been drawn to our attention
25 by boroughs but not necessarily notified by telephone
63
1 call directly to an officer on the team, to make sure
2 that they were relevant to our -- in our terms of
3 reference and could be allocated to an officer for
4 dealing.
5 The second system was the photocopy, the faxes,
6 photocopies which Mr Smith referred to, something called
7 a form 78. I do not know if it has been explained
8 before. A form 78 is headed "Notification of a child or
9 young person coming to police notice". That has to be
10 created by police officers in the Metropolitan Police on
11 any occasion when a young person comes to notice for any
12 reason whatsoever and the instructions are that a copy
13 of that is immediately sent to the Child Protection Team
14 and the system that we had in place in Brent, which
15 I think was very efficient and has actually been adopted
16 now as best practice for the whole Met, was a very
17 strict tracking system where they were recorded, entered
18 on to a database, and subject to a pro forma sheet and
19 each one was passed in to a supervising sergeant or, in
20 the absence of a supervising sergeant, myself, and we
21 would check the contents of every single 78 and
22 establish for ourselves whether we felt it needed
23 further action or could just be dealt with or had been
24 dealt with adequately on division by borough.
25 MR GARNHAM: So those systems dealt both with ensuring that
64
1 the investigations when needed are identified and they
2 are properly carried out, you would say?
3 DI ANDERSON: They are identified and probably initiated
4 I think would be better than saying carried out, because
5 obviously having initiated them, if there was need for
6 an investigation to come from a form 78 then that
7 investigation should become subject to a CRIS report and
8 then supervision of the CRIS report would take place in
9 the normal way.
10 MR GARNHAM: And that supervision of the CRIS report is the
11 means by which the adequacy of the investigation is
12 monitored, is it?
13 DI ANDERSON: That is probably the way that I would be best
14 equipped to monitor it because it is the record which
15 I have easiest use of. My sergeants would have
16 monitored investigations more closely by actual one to
17 one discussions with the officer under the command.
18 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that Brent was a busy Child
19 Protection Team.
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes it was.
21 MR GARNHAM: On what basis do you say it was busy? What do
22 you compare it with?
23 DI ANDERSON: I had occasion -- you have heard both
24 yesterday and this morning that I regularly submitted
25 reports asking for more staff. On more than one
65
1 occasion those reports included graphs and charts which
2 I prepared by carrying out search of the CRIS machine in
3 particular which is actually the only real source of
4 comparison available to me, which show the comparative
5 workloads on CRIS of both the Brent and the Harrow teams
6 as compared to other teams initially on the northwest
7 area and also elsewhere within the Metropolitan Police.
8 MR GARNHAM: And the result of that comparison was that
9 Brent was top in terms of workload?
10 DI ANDERSON: In terms of northwest area, yes it was, and
11 I think in terms of Metropolitan Police it was very well
12 up the chart.
13 MR GARNHAM: What was the typical caseload of a CPT officer
14 at Brent?
15 DI ANDERSON: In 1999?
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
17 DI ANDERSON: It would have averaged out at around 100 cases
18 a year, possibly a little more.
19 MR GARNHAM: That is two new cases a week?
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: You will have to fill us in a little more as to
22 why that results in a busy workload. Some of them
23 presumably are long-running, are they?
24 DI ANDERSON: That is it. The difficulty always with any
25 kind of analysis like this is you have to try to carry
66
1 out a qualitative as well as a quantitative analysis.
2 You have seen the charts that Sergeant Gorry produced
3 which were sub-divided within the bars as to whether
4 they were childcare issues and the various different
5 types of allocations.
6 The difficulty is that it is easy to dismiss the
7 idea of a childcare issue as being an unimportant
8 investigation. The reality is that experience shows
9 that sometimes a childcare issue can take an enormous
10 amount of investigation simply to establish that it is
11 a childcare issue and there is not something more
12 serious underlying it. So although I accept the fact
13 that the two cases a week does not sound very much, it
14 can be -- and from my experience of the difficulties
15 that I had looking after the welfare of my staff,
16 because of the number of them who were I think very much
17 on the edge due to overload indicates to me that that
18 was in fact a very high workload and certainly compared
19 to other teams it was much higher.
20 MR GARNHAM: Were you up to establishment?
21 DI ANDERSON: At the time in the mid-1999 it was just on
22 establishment, yes, exactly.
23 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard establishment as adequate?
24 DI ANDERSON: No.
25 MR GARNHAM: How much short?
67
1 DI ANDERSON: That is a difficult figure. I know the figure
2 of four additional constables has been mentioned. That
3 I think would be a good and adequate number. I suspect
4 I probably could have coped with -- maybe two or three
5 more would have been good. Certainly an extra sergeant
6 would have been extremely useful.
7 MR GARNHAM: Could you look at volume 33A, page 007. These
8 are minutes of a meeting and I am going to ask you to
9 look at a number of minutes of such meetings. Can you
10 first of all tell us what these meetings are?
11 DI ANDERSON: This is a meeting in January 1999. This is in
12 fact the area CPT meeting. Apologies having been
13 received from Superintendent Akers. DCI Brown was the
14 DCI in charge of CPTs. They were absent, so it appears
15 I probably chaired that meeting.
16 MR GARNHAM: It was attended by four other DIs in charge of
17 CPTs?
18 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: These meetings take place once a month?
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Normally in the presence of the Detective
22 Superintendent and the DCI?
23 DI ANDERSON: At that time the Detective Superintendent used
24 to come. More often recently it would only be the DCI,
25 not the Detective Superintendent.
68
1 MR GARNHAM: Can you go to the third full paragraph on page
2 8 quoting you:
3 "DI Anderson was almost embarrassed to report that
4 after a lengthy period of upheaval his teams were for
5 the time being up to establishment. However, he went on
6 to produce figures showing that during 1998 overall
7 increasing case loads from CPTs on 2 Area against the
8 previously year had been 26 and a half per cent. Only
9 the Camden team had experienced a very small drop, but
10 of course that team had investigated the high profile
11 Australian nanny case. Remaining teams experienced
12 increases. During the course of that year most of the
13 teams had been working at below establishment. Pointed
14 out that establishment staffing levels for CPTs were
15 actually lower than when the teams had been established
16 in 1988/89."
17 DI ANDERSON: Correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: That was a concern you were taking to this
19 meeting?
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Was it shared by the other attendees?
22 DI ANDERSON: Yes, I think that last point about
23 establishment levels of 1989/1990, that is very much
24 anecdotal. There is no record as far as I know of
25 exactly what the staffing levels were in 1989/1990 but
69
1 anecdotally, I heard from an officer who had been on the
2 Brent team at that time that the establishment was
3 actually two officers more in 1989 than it was in 1999.
4 MR GARNHAM: The minutes go on:
5 "All present agreed that even at established levels
6 the teams needed additional staff."
7 That seems to reflect what you have said to us.
8 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: "Agreed that each DI would prepare a report
10 setting out his bid and submit them to DI Anderson by
11 9th February who would prepare a covering report for
12 consideration by the SMT."
13 What is the SMT?
14 DI ANDERSON: Senior management team.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did you do that?
16 DI ANDERSON: I think I did but I cannot produce it
17 obviously will be your next question. I have looked for
18 various reports that I have done and I cannot actually
19 find a report like that though I have heard from another
20 officer that he has seen a report which I produced at
21 around this time with graphs and charts.
22 MR GARNHAM: It does not seem to me, looking through these
23 minutes thus far -- I will be corrected if I am wrong --
24 as if there is anything to suggest that you did produce
25 that report and serve it on those who were attending
70
1 these meetings, but you tell me if I am wrong.
2 DI ANDERSON: I do not know to be honest.
3 MR GARNHAM: That would have been the obvious way, would it
4 not, to have relayed to the senior management the
5 concern of those DIs about establishment levels?
6 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether by any other means those
8 concerns were relayed to senior management?
9 DI ANDERSON: They were relayed regularly verbally
10 certainly.
11 MR GARNHAM: Verbally from you?
12 DI ANDERSON: I certainly relayed my concerns to senior
13 management team members.
14 MR GARNHAM: To whom?
15 DI ANDERSON: It would have been at that time I think to
16 Superintendent Akers and also to the personnel manager
17 at the time.
18 MR GARNHAM: Who was?
19 DI ANDERSON: Rachel Burford.
20 MR GARNHAM: So if we ask Miss Akers she will be able to
21 tell us that you reported those verbally to her?
22 DI ANDERSON: I think so, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: Your team you say required more resources.
24 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Your team was up to establishment, was it,
71
1 throughout 1999?
2 DI ANDERSON: I am not sure. I do not think it was up to
3 establishment for the entire year but certainly for
4 parts of it.
5 MR GARNHAM: Can I get you to look in the same volume at
6 page 13, a meeting in February. Second paragraph, you
7 reported that Brent and Harrow teams were up to
8 establishment with imminent resumption of one officer on
9 maternity leave and would shortly be over establishment
10 for a short time.
11 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
12 MR GARNHAM: Page 34 in that bundle. May 1999, penultimate
13 paragraph:
14 "DI Anderson reported the Harrow team sergeant was
15 on maternity leave and one of the part-time officers on
16 Brent team had requested a career break."
17 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: No other suggestion of dropping below
19 establishment.
20 DI ANDERSON: No.
21 MR GARNHAM: Finally on this subject, page 54, please. You
22 need to look at the previous page with deals with
23 personnel. Nothing there I think to suggest any fall
24 below establishment for your team:
25 "Brent 5.14 due to lose Debbie Mahoney on
72
1 a five-year career break. Need part-time officer to
2 replace her. In October losing a PC to become DC, only
3 a temporary loss because an officer is due back from
4 maternity."
5 I take it from that you remained up to establishment
6 at least until Mahoney left?
7 DI ANDERSON: I believe so yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Next with regard to resources, IT facilities.
9 You have made some mention of those.
10 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Were you in general content with the facilities
12 available to your team?
13 DI ANDERSON: We were able to cope with what we had although
14 we could have done with some more CRIS terminals as it
15 was sometimes rather difficult for officers to get on.
16 There were three CRIS terminals for the team which meant
17 it was sometimes rather difficult for them to get on.
18 We had a reasonable number of stand-alone computers to
19 prepare reports on. What we did not have unfortunately
20 was Otis. You have heard about Otis, effectively an
21 important telecommunications system within the
22 Metropolitan Police, something which I had asked for
23 personally from the borough we were working and been
24 refused it, and something which repeated requests I
25 think from all the CPT DIs have been made for and we
73
1 were simply assured that yes we would get it, but the
2 timescale kept getting put back and back.
3 MR GARNHAM: An important part of the IT arrangements in
4 your team I would have thought from what you have said.
5 DI ANDERSON: Sorry?
6 MR GARNHAM: The information technology arrangements in your
7 team, an important deficiency?
8 DI ANDERSON: Yes, I think an important deficiency, becoming
9 progressively more so. As time went on my officers were
10 falling further and further behind in the use of that
11 technology which was something that the Metropolitan
12 Police has become more and more reliant on in recent
13 years. I think you heard yesterday accounts of officers
14 saying they had e-mailed something to us and obviously
15 they could not have done because we were not on the
16 e-mail system but more and more often now officers tend
17 to go straight to Otis to communicate rather than any
18 other way.
19 MR GARNHAM: Can I in that regard ask you to explain another
20 entry in one of these minutes, page 9 in that bundle.
21 To put it in context we also look at page 8 where you
22 are discussing other matters including information
23 technology and accommodation and then on page 9 we see
24 reference to you:
25 "DI Anderson too was happy with his IT arrangements
74
1 but fearful of the future of his accommodation."
2 On the face of it you appear to be telling your
3 colleagues here that you are content.
4 DI ANDERSON: By that time we were resigned to the fact that
5 Otis would not be coming to us but other than Otis I was
6 happy that we had sufficient equipment.
7 MR GARNHAM: You do not mention Otis in that.
8 DI ANDERSON: No, I did not mention it, but at that stage by
9 that time we knew that we would eventually get it and it
10 was something that was raised on a fairly regular basis.
11 We were simply informed that we would have to wait.
12 MR GARNHAM: The problem about Otis had been raised before
13 this so everybody knew about it by the time this meeting
14 was taking place.
15 DI ANDERSON: That is effectively it, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: This paragraph also deals with accommodation.
17 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: You need "... an additional lock to be fitted
19 in order to stop his officers being locked in at night.
20 This has happened three times."
21 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: It does not help with maintaining establishment
23 really if you keep locking officers up.
24 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
25 MR GARNHAM: "When appointments are made for visitors,
75
1 social workers etc, it is necessary to ask them to bring
2 a mobile phone or use a call box to tell officers when
3 they arrive in order to be admitted to the building."
4 Does not sound ideal.
5 DI ANDERSON: Not at all.
6 MR GARNHAM: How long did that persist?
7 DI ANDERSON: We managed to get a doorbell fitted about
8 18 months ago I suppose.
9 MR GARNHAM: Good.
10 DI ANDERSON: Perhaps a little longer than that, and the
11 situation regarding accommodation, I think I probably
12 need to explain some of the history of the
13 accommodation. It has been raised on more than one
14 occasion.
15 MR GARNHAM: If you would direct your answers to what you
16 saw as the inadequacies in the accommodation at the time
17 with which we are concerned, 1999.
18 DI ANDERSON: In terms of actual accommodation it was -- it
19 is not inadequate in terms of size, it was not too bad,
20 it was manageable. It was undoubtedly scruffy. You
21 have heard about paint peeling off the walls and so on.
22 We were located on the top floor of Edgware Police
23 Station. It was not a particularly pleasant environment
24 to bring members of the public or members of other
25 agencies to. They had to come in and walk up a very
76
1 formidable stairway which looked more like a prison
2 I think than anything else.
3 We had the problem for a while there of because the
4 police station was not manned at night times, the last
5 officer leaving the police station during the day was
6 required to lock the back gate of the car park and the
7 end result there was as I have mentioned in this report,
8 on three occasions I think one of our officers while
9 working late at night found she had come down to the
10 back yard and could not get out and had to ring the
11 controller and wait two hours on one occasion for them
12 to send someone to let her out of the police station,
13 which was totally unsatisfactory.
14 Subsequent to that Edgware Police Station was
15 actually closed completely to the public and something
16 which I was very unhappy about was the fact that the
17 only way we found out that it was being closed was by
18 reading in the local newspaper on a Thursday to find out
19 it was closing the following Monday and that was the
20 only communication we had about that.
21 We had no canteen facilities there. One of our
22 rooms was necessarily set aside to be a rest room and
23 somewhere where officers could simply make cups of tea
24 and so on.
25 That is about it really. It was -- I think you
77
1 asked one of the officers yesterday to rate it on
2 a scale of good bad or average and in relation to the
3 Metropolitan Police as a whole I would say it was
4 distinctly bad. However, I have to say that I know from
5 colleagues and visiting colleagues' premises in relation
6 to CPTs, it was probably average.
7 MR GARNHAM: That being so, I am a little surprised by the
8 minute at page 35 in this bundle. Can you help us with
9 that? Minutes for May 1999.
10 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: You were attending. Under the heading
12 "Accommodation", third paragraph:
13 "None of the managers reported any immediate
14 problems with regard to accommodation."
15 DI ANDERSON: Yes, that was specifically raised at that time
16 because it was a time when a lot of police stations in
17 London were being closed down and there was talk of
18 selling them off and that was the specific information
19 that was asked then, was if anyone was actually fearing
20 that his accommodation was in jeopardy.
21 MR GARNHAM: Were you reporting your concerns about
22 accommodation to senior management?
23 DI ANDERSON: Probably not in writing, no.
24 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask and why it concerns me is you
25 have told us that you were not entirely content with the
78
1 arrangements for your own supervision by DCI Wheeler,
2 who did not appear, on your account, did not have
3 operational responsibility for that supervision and
4 I wonder therefore, if you are not reporting your
5 concerns in writing, how management are supposed to know
6 that the accommodation is not up to scratch?
7 DI ANDERSON: I think at these meetings more than anything
8 else it was raised and informally in discussions and by
9 telephone but I have to put the caveat on that that as
10 I have said, in terms of CPTs this accommodation was
11 probably no worse than any, better than some.
12 MR GARNHAM: Was it affecting the way your CPT operated?
13 DI ANDERSON: No, I do not think so, I do not think the
14 actual accommodation was a major factor.
15 MR GARNHAM: Apart from officers getting locked in?
16 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: If this is of any consequence, is it not
18 essential that you raise it with those who are your
19 seniors?
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: I have looked through these minutes and I may
22 well have missed it but I cannot see where that is
23 raised here. It does not appear to have been raised
24 with Wheeler, so how is it raised?
25 DI ANDERSON: As I have said I personally felt that if
79
1 I complained too much I was -- my accommodation was no
2 worse than a lot of others. We did not have generally
3 good accommodation as CPTs.
4 MR GARNHAM: Next training. Did you regard your team as
5 adequately trained?
6 DI ANDERSON: No, I did not.
7 MR GARNHAM: In what respects?
8 DI ANDERSON: Many of them had joined the team after the
9 time when CPT training had been -- suspended is probably
10 generous, it actually stopped completely in 1996 and
11 they had to learn on the job as it were, and the other
12 aspects of training which I was very unhappy about were
13 that apart from specific CPT training they were also
14 missing out on the generic kind of training which all
15 police officers are supposed to have in relation to
16 officer safety, first aid and so on which was not being
17 made available to them because we did not have
18 a structure as existed within boroughs of if you like
19 a training unit that was looking after matters like
20 that, monitoring skills, profiles and so on and
21 identifying deficiencies with officers and arranging
22 training for them.
23 MR GARNHAM: What about the number of officers who were
24 detective trained in your team?
25 DI ANDERSON: Actually myself and one part-time DC were the
80
1 only ones.
2 MR GARNHAM: Is that enough?
3 DI ANDERSON: No. I mean ideally the teams when first set
4 up were supposed to work on a 50/50 basis of detectives
5 and uniformed officers. The difficulty which as
6 I understand it arose throughout the 1990s and is
7 probably still there now to a certain extent is it was
8 very, very difficult to encourage trained detective
9 officers to apply to join CPTs.
10 MR GARNHAM: Why?
11 DI ANDERSON: I think for a variety of reasons. One of the
12 first ones I think is that information about CPTs
13 generally had not been well sold throughout the
14 Metropolitan Police service. Even now there are
15 a number of officers who still think that the Child
16 Protection Team is the unit which goes round and gives
17 talks in schools about stranger dangers and so on or
18 deals with what used to be called the Youth and
19 Community Section. We frequently get documents
20 addressed to YACS at Edgware Police Station when they
21 mean CPT and that is something that vanished many, many
22 years ago.
23 That would be I think probably more than anything
24 else the perception of CPTs, not that they were a good
25 career move for detective officers, I think would be the
81
1 easiest way of putting it.
2 MR GARNHAM: One of the reports perceived they are described
3 as the cardigan squad.
4 DI ANDERSON: I have not heard that expression but I know
5 what is meant I think by that.
6 MR GARNHAM: What is meant?
7 DI ANDERSON: I think they meant they are a sort of softie
8 squad who do not get out and do active work, they just
9 have a nice sit around drinking cups of tea I suppose,
10 exchanging stories and recipes and that sort of thing,
11 which could not be further from the truth in my
12 experience.
13 MR GARNHAM: What was morale like in your team?
14 DI ANDERSON: Morale as such I think was actually quite
15 good. I mean you asked, I think when you put the
16 question to Mr Smith you phrased it slightly
17 differently, what was the spirit like, and when I heard
18 him being asked that question the expression which
19 sprang to mind was sort of a Dunkirk spirit almost,
20 determined to get on and do the job despite what they
21 perceived to be as inadequacies or adversities.
22 MR GARNHAM: Surely before Victoria came to the attention of
23 your team I think you went on a team building course in
24 Wales.
25 DI ANDERSON: We did.
82
1 MR GARNHAM: What was the purpose of that?
2 DI ANDERSON: That was effectively what it says. I think
3 officers, a lot of officers were getting quite stressed
4 with the amount of work they had on and fortunately one
5 of the officers who recently joined my team was
6 a qualified trainer for those kind of exercises and was
7 actually used by team management within the police and
8 I gained authority for as many officers as possible to
9 go on an exercise with him for a few days.
10 MR GARNHAM: It lasted I think four days.
11 DI ANDERSON: I think a total of, yes, Monday to Thursday,
12 two of those days virtually all travelling.
13 MR GARNHAM: 10 officers attended?
14 DI ANDERSON: I think so.
15 MR GARNHAM: Which is the majority of your team?
16 DI ANDERSON: Indeed.
17 MR GARNHAM: What happens to child protection in Brent
18 whilst you are on a team building exercise in Wales?
19 DI ANDERSON: I organised cover with another team to do it.
20 MR GARNHAM: Highgate?
21 DI ANDERSON: Yes, my administration unit obviously were not
22 with us, they remained present, so they continued doing
23 the work of 78's and so on and arrangement was made with
24 a Highgate team that officers would come over to Brent
25 and basically monitor any work that was coming in and
83
1 take on any urgent needs straightaway before we came
2 back.
3 MR GARNHAM: For your note sir, reference to that is made at
4 page 56 in that volume.
5 Can I ask you about supervision? You were here when
6 Mr Smith gave his evidence.
7 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: You will have heard my questions to him about
9 the structure of the supervision.
10 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Was it a matter of the three more senior
12 officers, him, you and the other sergeant, mixing and
13 matching to supervise the PCs, or did you maintain
14 a structure whereby you looked after the sergeants and
15 they looked after the PCs?
16 DI ANDERSON: As far as possible, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: The latter?
18 DI ANDERSON: Yes. The sergeants were responsible for
19 each -- responsible for three officers or three officer
20 posts. One of them had four because we had two
21 part-timers there. I tried to run the team on what is
22 known within the police as the CIPP guidelines, which
23 arose in a review of criminal investigation work about
24 10 or 12 years ago.
25 MR GARNHAM: SIP?
84
1 DI ANDERSON: CIPP: Crime Investigation Priority Project,
2 and that carried out a review in the late 1980s I think
3 of how CID officers were run and suggested, and it was
4 accepted Met-wide that they should be run on the basis
5 of small groups within the office of a sergeant and
6 a small number of DCs with that sergeant being
7 responsible for those officers.
8 It had come about I think because the perception was
9 that over a number of years detective sergeants had
10 really become little more than senior investigators and
11 they were not actually carrying out a supervisory role,
12 so my intention -- and as far as possible it worked
13 I think -- was that the Brent CPT should be run in that
14 way with two CIPP teams each consisting of a sergeant
15 and three officers, the sergeant responsible for the day
16 to day supervision of their officers. I supervised the
17 sergeants in respect of their own workload and with
18 regard to their other skills if you like in terms of how
19 they supervised and how they managed their staff, but at
20 the same time I was also conscious of the fact that
21 they, because of a comparative undermanning they did
22 have to take a fairly big workload themselves, so
23 I would keep an overview of the work of the constables
24 but as far as possible without interfering unless I felt
25 it necessary to do so.
85
1 MR GARNHAM: How did it come about then in Victoria's case
2 that Dewar looks to you for her supervision rather than
3 to Gorry?
4 DI ANDERSON: I do not know sir.
5 MR GARNHAM: Is that normal first of all?
6 DI ANDERSON: No, I would say not.
7 MR GARNHAM: She should ordinarily have --
8 DI ANDERSON: I think ordinarily she would have gone to
9 Sergeant Gorry.
10 MR GARNHAM: How does it come about that she was going to
11 you?
12 DI ANDERSON: Honestly I do not know and maybe I was wrong
13 not to send her away, but I did not feel any need to
14 when she came to me.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard it as your job to ensure that
16 the sergeants were promptly made aware of referrals to
17 the officers for whom they were responsible?
18 DI ANDERSON: I had not thought of it in that way. As far
19 as I was concerned they were always made aware.
20 MR GARNHAM: That question is prompted by your answer in
21 relation to this case and to the fact that Dewar came to
22 you rather than Gorry. Even if you were going to
23 provide her with the advice at the time, would it not
24 have been appropriate for you to refer her back to her
25 sergeant thereafter? Tell me how it is. If I am being
86
1 unrealistic in the way it works, tell us.
2 DI ANDERSON: The way the system worked would have been that
3 Rachel Dewar would have been answerable to
4 Sergeant Gorry on a day-to-day basis. I cannot explain
5 why she chose to come directly to me on the morning of
6 15th July 1999. She just did and I did not feel any
7 need to send her away.
8 MR GARNHAM: Were there in fact personal supervision
9 sessions between officers and their supervisors?
10 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Regularly, diarised?
12 DI ANDERSON: They were not diarised as far as I know but
13 I know certainly that Mr Smith and Mr Gorry both held
14 regular meetings with their officers, I remember seeing
15 them and keeping out of the way while they were doing
16 it.
17 MR GARNHAM: Was there an appraisal system?
18 DI ANDERSON: Annual appraisal yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Annual only, not anything more frequent?
20 DI ANDERSON: Only annual appraisals.
21 MR GARNHAM: Were there team meetings to discuss cases that
22 were being managed?
23 DI ANDERSON: We had team meetings on a monthly basis but
24 they were not specifically for the purposes of
25 discussing cases. The team meetings mainly were for me
87
1 to be able to share with the team information that had
2 come to me from the management meetings and so on and to
3 give them an opportunity to air any problems that they
4 may have.
5 MR GARNHAM: Next, monitoring of work. You have told us
6 something about the way in which it worked with you and
7 the sergeants monitoring via means of the CRIS system.
8 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: I think that is what happened in the case of
10 Victoria.
11 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: You would often come in early in the mornings?
13 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
14 MR GARNHAM: To perform various functions?
15 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
16 MR GARNHAM: And that indeed it appears you did when you
17 came to look at Victoria's case?
18 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: Your entry is made at 7.23 am on 16th July.
20 DI ANDERSON: That is right.
21 MR GARNHAM: You tell us in your statement paragraph 8 that
22 that entry -- perhaps we should see it, it is volume 30
23 please -- precisely sets out your involvement in this
24 case.
25 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
88
1 MR GARNHAM: Will you have a look at page 131 in volume 30.
2 That is where we see your description of your
3 involvement in this case.
4 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: When did you first learn of Victoria or Anna as
6 she was known perhaps to you?
7 DI ANDERSON: I have been racking my brains about that.
8 I think it was when Rachel Dewar came and spoke to me
9 that morning.
10 MR GARNHAM: Did she speak to you before or after she had
11 received a telephone call from Michelle Hines?
12 DI ANDERSON: I honestly do not know, I cannot remember.
13 MR GARNHAM: If she had come to you before, what would you
14 have said to her, given that at that stage the material
15 the police had was that a 7-year old girl was in
16 hospital with injuries that have been described by the
17 doctors as non-accidental and she had been taken into
18 police protection?
19 DI ANDERSON: Had I been given the situation then my
20 response would have been, having known that she was
21 actually awaiting further medical examination --
22 MR GARNHAM: Would you have known that?
23 DI ANDERSON: Presumably, because when Rachel came and told
24 me that she had been seen by Dr Schwartz, I presume she
25 told me -- a short time earlier that morning she would
89
1 have been telling me the child was under police
2 protection in hospital awaiting further medical
3 examination by Dr Schwartz.
4 MR GARNHAM: I do not think we have had any evidence to
5 suggest that Dewar was anticipating there being
6 a further medical examination at that stage, so assume
7 for the moment that I am right about that and so it was
8 not a matter of awaiting a further medical examination,
9 what would you have said to Dewar? Here we have
10 a 7-year old girl in hospital having suffered what was
11 being described as grievous bodily harm. She had been
12 taken into police protection, there had been
13 a discussion with a social worker, a photographer had
14 been organised but had not attended but that pretty well
15 is it. There had been some checks made on computers and
16 such like. Would you have told Dewar that the
17 investigation should get moving?
18 DI ANDERSON: I think I would in those circumstances, sir.
19 MR GARNHAM: Because?
20 DI ANDERSON: As far as I am concerned from my knowledge of
21 this case -- you are putting a hypothetical situation to
22 me because I am sure I was not told about this prior to
23 knowing that, at least knowing that a medical
24 examination was pending, and certainly I think I did not
25 know until after it had taken place.
90
1 MR GARNHAM: I put it to you because you were not sure one
2 way or the other but let us proceed on that basis.
3 DI ANDERSON: Certainly. If the child was simply in
4 hospital and nothing else had been arranged then I would
5 want Rachel immediately -- I would suggest my first
6 course of action would be to say she should get back to
7 social services straightaway and get a proper strategy
8 organised for a plan of action to be put in place to
9 continue with the investigation.
10 MR GARNHAM: That plainly was what was required at that
11 stage, was it not?
12 DI ANDERSON: A strategy discussion but as far as I am aware
13 that had already taken place.
14 MR GARNHAM: And that strategy would have included, would it
15 not, an interview with the carer who had brought the
16 child into hospital?
17 DI ANDERSON: At some stage, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: And promptly, before there is any risk of
19 evidence disappearing or the situation getting worse or
20 other children being affected by the actions of the
21 person who may be responsible. No?
22 DI ANDERSON: I think yes but promptly is a word which has
23 a loose interpretation on it. I think a strategy
24 discussion should have taken place and as far as I am
25 aware had taken place, a course of action put in place
91
1 which should have been followed and that course of
2 action logically in this case I would suggest would have
3 been a medical examination from an authoritative source.
4 As far as I was aware -- and again I am not saying I was
5 aware -- when I was told about it later the child had
6 been seen by I think a fairly junior doctor.
7 MR GARNHAM: A senior house officer and a registrar, both of
8 whom's view was this was non-accidental injuries.
9 DI ANDERSON: I think well -- I think it was later revealed
10 that in fact at least one of those doctors was uncertain
11 because the case was referred to Dr Schwartz for the
12 purpose of elimination of NAI.
13 MR GARNHAM: The panel can make a judgment about that
14 factual matter.
15 DI ANDERSON: The end result is that the action I think
16 should have been an authoritative medical examination
17 and then a memorandum interview of the child. Then to
18 take a view of arresting a suspect and at the same time
19 perhaps obtaining statements from the informant.
20 MR GARNHAM: Would you have been content for the officer in
21 the case to continue at that course if you had known
22 that that had not taken place thus far?
23 DI ANDERSON: If absolutely no plans had been made for any
24 further action since the night before then I would not
25 have been, no.
92
1 MR GARNHAM: In your view was Police Constable Dewar
2 justified in taking Victoria into police protection in
3 the first place?
4 DI ANDERSON: On the circumstances explained to me I think
5 yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: On the basis of what was explained to you, what
7 did you understand to be the basis for her belief that
8 absent police protection Victoria was likely to suffer
9 harm?
10 DI ANDERSON: I think because it was unknown how the child
11 had come about, the marks or injuries on her body, and
12 in a case of uncertainty such as that she was in, to use
13 the old fashioned term, a place of safety and it was
14 important to keep her there, that it was reasonable to
15 suspect or reasonable to fear that if she was taken from
16 that place then she might come to significant harm.
17 MR GARNHAM: Dewar says that she did not herself inform
18 Victoria, who was a bright 7-year-old, that she had been
19 taken into police protection.
20 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
21 MR GARNHAM: Is that not what Section 46 requires, 46.3C?
22 DI ANDERSON: 46 does require that police inform the child
23 insofar as practicable if she is old enough to
24 understand what is going on. All I can say there is
25 that it is accepted practice I would say throughout the
93
1 Met that interpretation of that section where
2 information is concerned that it could be interpreted as
3 cause to be informed rather than do it personally.
4 MR GARNHAM: Even on that basis somebody has to tell
5 Victoria and the police have to ensure that somebody
6 tells Victoria.
7 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: That does not appear to have happened.
9 DI ANDERSON: It is not recorded as such, no.
10 MR GARNHAM: That would be a failure of normal procedures,
11 would it not?
12 DI ANDERSON: It would be following a normal procedure
13 within the Metropolitan Police which I accept is not
14 what is laid down within the statute.
15 MR GARNHAM: Nor it appears did Dewar discover Victoria's
16 wishes which also is a required step under Section 46,
17 is it not?
18 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: Nor did she inform the woman who is believed to
20 be the child's mother, which again she should have done
21 under Section 46.
22 DI ANDERSON: As I understand it she caused that to be done
23 via the social worker.
24 MR GARNHAM: And your contention is, is it, that that is
25 adequate for compliance with Section 46?
94
1 DI ANDERSON: I believe so, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Do you have any authority for the suggestion
3 that it is sufficient for the police to cause these
4 things to happen rather than doing them themselves?
5 DI ANDERSON: No.
6 MR GARNHAM: Was this common practice in the Met though?
7 DI ANDERSON: Yes, it was. If I may say so, I think it is
8 borne out by the fact that I understand a recent
9 instruction has been sent down from the officer in
10 charge of SO5 pointing out to all officers that they
11 must do that, which would suggest that he is aware of
12 the fact that it is not normally done.
13 MR GARNHAM: And furthermore that it should be done?
14 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: And by implication that what was done in this
16 case was inadequate.
17 DI ANDERSON: It was not in compliance with the statute,
18 sir.
19 MR GARNHAM: Nor did Dewar seek to speak to the child
20 whether to inform her that she was now in police
21 protection or to gain any information from her. Do you
22 regard that as acceptable?
23 DI ANDERSON: In the circumstances, yes. You have heard
24 Rachel Dewar's explanation of that and also Mr Smith's.
25 Her general -- the guidelines for officers when talking
95
1 to young children, particularly if they suspect there
2 may need to be a memorandum interview at some stage, was
3 then -- as far as I know still is now -- they should
4 avoid as far as possible any contact with the child
5 beforehand.
6 MR GARNHAM: Mr Smith volunteered to us there was some
7 difference in practice amongst different parts of the
8 Met in relation to that. Some areas take the view that
9 it is appropriate to speak to the child as long as you
10 are open about it.
11 DI ANDERSON: I heard that, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: Is that your experience?
13 DI ANDERSON: I have no reason to doubt what Mr Smith says.
14 I have heard that.
15 MR GARNHAM: Nor did she speak to Mrs Cameron, the carer.
16 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
17 MR GARNHAM: The temporary carer, the person who brought the
18 child into the hospital. She should have done, should
19 she not?
20 DI ANDERSON: At some stage yes but my view of this case was
21 that the strategy discussion having taken place and
22 a course of action having been put in place, steps were
23 put in train to follow that course of action and it
24 would down the line have involved seeing Mrs Cameron
25 without a doubt, but the action was cut short when the
96
1 very authoritative opinion of a senior paediatric
2 consultant, who is also the named doctor in child
3 protection for the area, was that there were not
4 non-accidental injuries present.
5 MR GARNHAM: I am talking about the situation up until
6 receipt of that opinion.
7 DI ANDERSON: Yes, but having said that, up until that
8 opinion I do not think there are any grounds to suggest
9 that Rachel Dewar had no intention of speaking with
10 Mrs Cameron.
11 MR GARNHAM: What I have to suggest to you is that in
12 reality, in the period up to receipt of that opinion
13 from Dr Schwartz there was precious little investigation
14 done by your team whatsoever. Is that not right?
15 DI ANDERSON: This case had come into the office the evening
16 of the day before and I think this information was
17 passed to me fairly early in the morning of Friday the
18 15th and I consider that the steps that were taken
19 overnight were the most important steps, the ones to
20 safeguard Victoria during the night, and that then the
21 necessary action would be taken later on that day upon
22 receipt of information from social services for
23 continuing it. I personally consider, sir, that the
24 action taken was wholly adequate.
25 MR GARNHAM: What was your understanding in July 1999 about
97
1 the respective roles of the designated officer and the
2 officer in the case?
3 DI ANDERSON: My understanding was as is written down in the
4 police Child Protection Manual, that the designated
5 officer under police protection is either myself as
6 CPT DI, a trained CPT officer or, in the absence of
7 either of those, an inspector from a borough.
8 MR GARNHAM: Was Dewar a trained CPT officer?
9 DI ANDERSON: She was trained in respect of the fact that
10 she had served on a CPT for over a year.
11 MR GARNHAM: She had not in fact had what you regard as
12 adequate training, had she?
13 DI ANDERSON: She had you described this morning,
14 a three-day course which she said she had. I think that
15 was an experimental course which was brought in to try
16 to replace the course which had been abandon some
17 two years earlier. I think it was actually scheduled to
18 be more than three days but was abbreviated for those
19 officers who were already memorandum trained I think to
20 only three days, so she had probably had the only
21 training that was available to CPT officers at that
22 time.
23 MR GARNHAM: Section 46.3 is premised on the basis that
24 there is an officer who takes the child into police
25 protection and another, the designated officer who
98
1 enquires into the case.
2 DI ANDERSON: I see that.
3 MR GARNHAM: So does one of the Home Office circulars we
4 have looked at. I can take you to it if that would
5 assist, but you may be able to take it from me that that
6 is the case.
7 DI ANDERSON: I will take it from you. The Home Office
8 circular was 1991 I think you are referring to.
9 MR GARNHAM: That is right.
10 DI ANDERSON: Which I can say I have never seen in any
11 circumstances and I know from being in this room
12 yesterday that you also showed a police notice I think
13 from 1993 relating to other matters and I was surprised
14 to hear the contents of that were not reflected within
15 the 1995 Child Protection Manual.
16 MR GARNHAM: It remains the case that the statistic duty
17 guidance from the Home Office is premised on the
18 assumption that there are two different roles being
19 performed by two different individuals, is that not
20 right?
21 DI ANDERSON: It is right but the general accepted practice
22 or understanding of that is that that was for when child
23 protection was taken out by officers, borough officers
24 if you like, patrolling officers who have not got the
25 experience of dealing with child protection matters and
99
1 therefore another officer, either an inspector or child
2 protection team officer would be there to make sure that
3 officer had done things properly. When we talk about
4 having a CPT inspector or trained CPT officer doing it,
5 the expectation I think is that they were able to
6 take -- having taken police protection they were then
7 able to act as designated officer themselves.
8 MR GARNHAM: Two problems with that. Firstly that is not
9 what the statute says.
10 DI ANDERSON: That is correct.
11 MR GARNHAM: Secondly, it means that there is no element of
12 supervision of the officer in the case by the designated
13 officer, which is a healthy thing, is it not?
14 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: It is in a sense the equivalent of a custody
16 officer under PACE whereby one police officer exercises
17 independent judgment of the conduct of other police
18 officers.
19 DI ANDERSON: I would say the designated officer's situation
20 does have a similarity with the custody officer but it
21 would be to ensure that police protection is not kept in
22 place any longer than it need be, in much the same way
23 as custody is not kept on longer than necessary.
24 MR GARNHAM: Not only that, it is also to ensure that the
25 investigation is conducted properly after the child is
100
1 taken into police protection.
2 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Why was this not done in Brent? Why were those
4 two roles not maintained?
5 DI ANDERSON: Within the child protection training and the
6 manuals it clearly states that the designated officer
7 can be a CPT officer.
8 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, I accept that, but it does not say
9 that it can be the same person as the officer in the
10 case unless you tell me I am wrong.
11 DI ANDERSON: No, I am not going to tell you you are wrong,
12 of course not. The statute states that I can only say
13 it was the practice on my team and I am fairly confident
14 it was a practice in most other teams in Metropolitan
15 Police.
16 MR GARNHAM: But it should not have been, should it?
17 DI ANDERSON: Probably not, no.
18 MR GARNHAM: Finally can I ask you about the decisions taken
19 after the receipt of Dr Schwartz's opinion?
20 DI ANDERSON: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: I suggested to Dr Schwartz when she gave
22 evidence to this Inquiry, and I do not know whether or
23 not you heard it so I will tell you, the point that
24 other people such as the police or social workers appear
25 to have treated her opinion as decisive of the question
|
