|
Archived Transcript for 19 November 2001: Pages
51 to 100
51
1 matter in paragraph 14 that it was your understanding
2 that the photographs had already been taken.
3 PC JONES: Yes, it was.
4 MR GARNHAM: It seems to us now from the evidence we have
5 heard that that may well not have been right and that
6 they were only taken some time later. If you had known
7 that, would you then have continued the route you had
8 chosen of seeking to obtain those photographs when
9 produced?
10 PC JONES: If I knew that the photographs had not been
11 taken?
12 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
13 PC JONES: If I knew they had not been taken, I probably
14 would have gone to the photographer, a police
15 photographer to take the photographs.
16 MR GARNHAM: Did you in fact ever see the photographs before
17 the criminal trial?
18 PC JONES: No, I never saw them.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did it not concern you that you were making
20 a judgment about the way in which this case could be
21 dealt with without seeing photographs that you have said
22 you needed?
23 PC JONES: No, because when I saw the letter from
24 Nurse Quinn that contained Dr Rossiter's diagnosis,
25 I assumed that she had examined Victoria and not
52
1 found -- not had any concerns about those marks. If
2 I saw the photographs it might be possible that I could
3 not even interpret the marks. Do you understand?
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you. I said I would return to the
5 question of the medical report. You said to us that you
6 had asked Karen Johns to obtain a medical report. Why
7 did you ask Karen Johns to do that?
8 PC JONES: It was asked through the strategy meeting because
9 she was the hospital social worker, she worked at the
10 North Middlesex Hospital, she had access to the ward and
11 she knew the doctors, they knew her, it would have been
12 easier, it would have been a smoother path to take.
13 MR GARNHAM: Was it not part of your job as a police officer
14 conducting what was at least at that stage still
15 a criminal investigation, was it not part of your job to
16 get statements from doctors?
17 PC JONES: I was not expecting Karen Johns to take
18 a Section 9 statement, you know, an ordinary police
19 statement. What I was expecting was a statement report
20 from a doctor that would give a diagnosis of the marks
21 seen on Victoria.
22 MR GARNHAM: But you would need, would you not, as part of
23 your investigation to have a statement taken under
24 Section 9 of a Magistrates Court Act?
25 PC JONES: Of course and once that report had come back,
53
1 just supposing a report had come back and a doctor had
2 said, "Yes, this child has got a belt buckle mark" or
3 something, some non-accidental injury and then the next
4 stage would be to make an appointment with that doctor
5 and go and take a Section 9 statement.
6 MR GARNHAM: But you already had that information, did you
7 not? You had from the moment you had first learned of
8 this case been told that the doctors had thought there
9 was evidence of a belt buckle mark on Victoria's skin.
10 PC JONES: No, I did not have that evidence. What we were
11 told was that a nurse had seen marks on Victoria, some
12 which -- two that may have resembled a belt buckle mark.
13 There was not a doctor had seen it and no one had
14 written anything down. I had assumed that Victoria had
15 yet to be examined.
16 MR GARNHAM: You did not regard what you had already
17 received as enough grounds for your going to see doctors
18 to obtain their views about the marks on Victoria's
19 body?
20 PC JONES: It was not -- it had not even -- it was not even
21 clear that a criminal offence had taken place at that
22 stage.
23 MR GARNHAM: No, but in fairness that is stuff and substance
24 of police officers' work, is it not? It is not always
25 clear an offence has taken place, you have to
54
1 investigate to find it out?
2 PC JONES: That is right and that is what I was doing. We
3 needed to get the crime confirmed.
4 MR GARNHAM: But the means by which you get the crime
5 confirmed, to use your words, is surely by you, the
6 police officer in the case, conducting an investigation
7 by talking to the witnesses?
8 PC JONES: Well, in an ordinary circumstance that might be,
9 but Karen Johns was going to be the linking to the
10 doctors, and get any report that they had about
11 Victoria, which could outline their diagnosis.
12 MR GARNHAM: By the end of the strategy meeting there was,
13 was there not, clear evidence being suggested of
14 physical abuse of Victoria?
15 PC JONES: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: Does not the information you received about
17 belt buckle marks being noted on her skin by a nurse, if
18 that be the case, was that not enough to suggest at the
19 least that Victoria had been subject to serious physical
20 abuse?
21 PC JONES: No, that was not evidence to suggest that.
22 MR GARNHAM: Allied to that you had scalding to the girl's
23 head and in the light of the fact that somebody had
24 noted belt buckle marks were you not then suspicious
25 about the circumstances of the scalding?
55
1 PC JONES: Well, what I was told about the scalding was that
2 Victoria had been in hospital for four days, because of
3 her scalding injuries and her scabies, but the scalding
4 injuries had been looked at by a doctor and the hospital
5 had accepted that it could have happened in the way in
6 which Marie-Therese and Victoria had said it had
7 happened.
8 MR GARNHAM: That it could have?
9 PC JONES: That it had happened, that is what they told,
10 that is what I was led to believe.
11 MR GARNHAM: That is what you say you were told by
12 Cooper-Bland?
13 PC JONES: No, at the strategy meeting, the scald, it was
14 explained that she was in hospital with these scalds but
15 it had been accepted by the hospital.
16 MR GARNHAM: I see. Who said that to you?
17 PC JONES: Well, I assume it would have been Karen Johns.
18 She gave the information.
19 MR GARNHAM: Karen Johns said to you that the hospital had
20 accepted that the scalding injury --
21 PC JONES: The hospital had accepted the scalding injury.
22 MR GARNHAM: -- had been accidental?
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: You do not mention that assertion in your
25 statement, do you?
56
1 PC JONES: I do not think I do. I do not know.
2 MR GARNHAM: It is quite important, is it not, if you are
3 saying that one of the principal persons giving
4 information at the strategy meeting had told you that
5 the hospital had accepted this? Why does it not find
6 its way into your statement?
7 PC JONES: The thing is, what we were investigating was the
8 ABH. We were not investigating a scalding.
9 MR GARNHAM: What would a scalding be, GBH?
10 PC JONES: No, a scalding.
11 MR GARNHAM: That would be an assault, would it not? If
12 somebody had tipped hot or boiling water over a child's
13 head that is plainly an assault and a serious one?
14 PC JONES: But that had not happened.
15 MR GARNHAM: Well, you are at the strategy meeting in order
16 to discover what you can about the circumstances of
17 Victoria's admission to hospital.
18 PC JONES: About the ABH as well.
19 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but as you consider that information you
20 take into account everything that is put before you?
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: That includes a report of many marks to
23 a child's body, including two resembling belt buckles?
24 PC JONES: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: In the light of that do you not think again
57
1 about the circumstances of the scalding, at least to ask
2 yourselves, "I wonder whether that might not have been
3 part of the same abuse"?
4 PC JONES: Well, in this case the hospital had looked at
5 that and had accepted what had happened, said that it
6 was an accident, and so no.
7 MR GARNHAM: Do you then close your mind to the possibility
8 that that might be yet further evidence of abuse in the
9 light of the fact that you had evidence of marks to
10 Victoria's body? Do you just shut it away and say well,
11 I can put that in its own box?
12 PC JONES: I would not say close your mind to it, but
13 without evidence you are dealing with an accident.
14 MR GARNHAM: You keep saying without evidence but your
15 function in all this is to obtain the evidence, is it
16 not?
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: What evidence did you go out and obtain
19 relating either to the scalds or the belt buckle marks?
20 PC JONES: Well, if I deal with the scalds, the evidence was
21 there already, that doctors had said, "We accept this,
22 that happened. Victoria poured the hot water on her
23 head".
24 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard that matter as being closed?
25 PC JONES: I did speak to Victoria about that incident.
58
1 MR GARNHAM: So you did not regard it as being closed?
2 PC JONES: I did not regard it as a crime.
3 MR GARNHAM: So the question of whether or not the scalding
4 to her head was a crime was something you considered
5 closed?
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Simply because on your account a hospital
8 social worker has reported the view of some unidentified
9 doctor or nurse that they had accepted that this was
10 accidental?
11 PC JONES: Well, I mean, not simply. I would not say
12 simply.
13 MR GARNHAM: What else did you have?
14 PC JONES: Karen Johns was a social worker coming from the
15 hospital with information. I would not expect her to
16 mislead us in any way.
17 MR GARNHAM: But what else did you have except her report
18 being second-hand of what some unidentified person had
19 said?
20 PC JONES: Well, I had what she had told me, her
21 information, and that was what I had.
22 MR GARNHAM: So nothing else except what she had told you?
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: And that was sufficient for you to regard that
25 matter as closed as a crime?
59
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Despite the fact that in the same meeting you
3 heard from the same source evidence about marks to this
4 child's body, including potentially belt buckle marks?
5 PC JONES: The difference between the two is that one was
6 that a nurse had seen something that resembled a belt
7 buckle mark, so that could be any mark, but with the hot
8 water Victoria had been admitted to the hospital and she
9 had been seen by consultants. I might not have known
10 the consultant's name but she had been seen by doctors
11 and that was deemed to be an accidental injury.
12 MR GARNHAM: So you investigate that point no further?
13 PC JONES: Well, it is closed as a crime.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did the information you had received about
15 neglect, about the way Victoria behaved in the presence
16 of her mother, about what her mother did about bringing
17 clothes in and the like, did that not lead you to
18 reconsider that question?
19 PC JONES: Can you ask that again?
20 MR GARNHAM: Did the information you were receiving at the
21 strategy meeting relating to neglect not lead you to
22 reconsider the conclusion you had reached about the
23 scalding?
24 PC JONES: No.
25 MR GARNHAM: Because it is at least possible, is it not,
60
1 that if you had a "mother" who is taking little care
2 about her daughter's hygiene and state of dress, that
3 she might also be the sort of person who would allow her
4 eight year old access to boiling water?
5 PC JONES: I think that what I did consider after I had
6 heard everything up until the point when I spoke to
7 Marie-Therese, I considered that she did have what
8 I would call poor parenting skills.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you consider the possibility that that
10 might amount to a crime?
11 PC JONES: No, it did not amount to a crime.
12 MR GARNHAM: What was the basis of that conclusion?
13 PC JONES: What crime are you talking about?
14 MR GARNHAM: Neglect.
15 PC JONES: Well, for a start, if I talk about the clothing
16 first. You say she -- well it says that she had -- she
17 was well dressed and you say she did not bring clothes
18 in for Victoria and Victoria had attended the hospital
19 in a dirty dress and no underwear. I spoke to
20 Marie-Therese about that and she gave quite a plausible
21 explanation in saying that after Victoria had scalded
22 herself she picked up the first thing to hand which was
23 a dirty dress from the dirty linen basket and put it on
24 Victoria. That did seem reasonable to me at the time.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did you consider the timings of those
61
1 activities?
2 PC JONES: No, I did not consider the timings of it.
3 MR GARNHAM: Because it was said, was it not, that the
4 scalding had happened at noon or maybe as late as
5 3 o'clock, different times have been given, but it was
6 some two or three hours before she had got to the
7 hospital?
8 PC JONES: That was not brought to my attention at the
9 strategy meeting and I had overlooked it in my notes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Because it did at a stroke dispose of the
11 explanation you had had from Kouao about the reason for
12 Victoria's poor state of dress, did it not?
13 PC JONES: As I say, at the time it was not brought to my
14 attention and I did not notice it in any of the notes
15 that I had.
16 MR GARNHAM: But you knew it by the time you saw Kouao, did
17 you not?
18 PC JONES: No, I did not.
19 MR GARNHAM: It was in the information available to you by
20 the time you saw Kouao?
21 PC JONES: Yes, it was. I overlooked that information.
22 MR GARNHAM: Because if you had looked at it you would have
23 seen that the explanation given by Kouao for that matter
24 was nonsense?
25 PC JONES: Well, it would have -- I would not say it was
62
1 nonsense but she would certainly have some time
2 difference, some time to make up.
3 MR GARNHAM: That would lead you, would it not, to
4 reconsider the whole of her account? If she was being
5 untruthful about that, she might have been being
6 untruthful about the scalding?
7 PC JONES: Well at any time something can lead you to
8 believe that somebody is being untruthful.
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes, and I am suggesting that this would have
10 led you to question whether Kouao's explanation for the
11 scalding was truthful.
12 PC JONES: I do not know.
13 MR GARNHAM: Think about it now. You have a little girl
14 coming into hospital, brought by her carer who says she
15 has tipped hot or boiling water over her head.
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: But that happened two, three, four, five hours
18 ago and I have only just brought her into hospital and
19 my explanation is one that does not stand analysis.
20 That would lead you, would it not, to query whether the
21 explanation for the scalding was also incapable of
22 belief?
23 PC JONES: Possibly, but you see the doctors had already
24 looked at that.
25 MR GARNHAM: Or so you had been informed.
63
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: So you tell us you had been informed.
3 PC JONES: Yes and they had decided that that was an
4 accidental injury.
5 MR GARNHAM: But they may or may not -- you did not know --
6 know about the timings?
7 PC JONES: Well, no, I did not know if they knew or not --
8 MR GARNHAM: You --
9 PC JONES: -- at that time.
10 MR GARNHAM: You did not go back to the doctors, did you, to
11 ask them the basis for their views?
12 PC JONES: No, I did not because it had come from
13 Karen Johns, the hospital social worker.
14 MR GARNHAM: And you did not go to the doctors to obtain
15 a statement from them to explain what had happened?
16 PC JONES: About the scalding?
17 MR GARNHAM: About the scalding and all that occurred to
18 Victoria in hospital.
19 PC JONES: Well, that would not have been -- I would not
20 have gone to the doctors in that incident, once they had
21 said it was accidental, to take a statement about
22 something which was accidental.
23 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You tell us that the jobs you took away
24 from the strategy meeting were firstly to contact
25 Immigration.
64
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Secondly to conduct a joint visit with social
3 services to see Kouao.
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Third to ensure that if Kouao attempted to
6 remove Victoria from the hospital that a police
7 protection order, as you put it, would be put in place.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you about each of those three please?
10 Did you contact Immigration?
11 PC JONES: Yes, I did.
12 MR GARNHAM: Who?
13 PC JONES: I cannot remember the person's name.
14 MR GARNHAM: Where?
15 PC JONES: It is a central immigration number. I cannot
16 remember where, I am sorry.
17 MR GARNHAM: What were you told?
18 PC JONES: That there was no trace. I was told that it was
19 very difficult to trace people coming from France to
20 England.
21 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. At the strategy meeting what was
22 decided about the joint visit?
23 PC JONES: That Lisa or a social worker and I would visit
24 Mrs Kouao and explain the Child Protection Procedures.
25 MR GARNHAM: What was your view from that meeting about
65
1 where that should happen?
2 PC JONES: Well, it said a visit but my view was -- they
3 normally specify a visit or home visit but my view was
4 it would be a home visit because that is someone's
5 natural environment.
6 MR GARNHAM: The third item related to police protection.
7 You talk about needing to take out a Police Protection
8 Order if Kouao attempted to remove Victoria from
9 hospital?
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Were you confident at this time that you
12 understood police powers in this area?
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Why do you talk then about obtaining an order?
15 PC JONES: Yes, it is jargon. I know it is called
16 a police -- it is police protection but police officers
17 often refer to it as PPO's and they stick an order on
18 the end because in the Children Act all the other things
19 have orders, a care order, it is jargon.
20 MR GARNHAM: You knew at the time did you that the power you
21 had was under Section 46 of the Children Act?
22 PC JONES: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: And it was a matter of taking a child into
24 police protection?
25 PC JONES: Yes.
66
1 MR GARNHAM: But there was no order involved?
2 PC JONES: Yes, I did. I am sorry.
3 MR GARNHAM: I simply want to understand what was in your
4 mind at the time.
5 PC JONES: Right.
6 MR GARNHAM: Was the discussion about the possible need to
7 take Victoria into police protection based on the
8 evidence available at that strategy meeting or was it
9 based on the evidence that you thought might emerge
10 subsequently?
11 PC JONES: I think a bit of both on what I heard and what
12 I thought might emerge.
13 MR GARNHAM: Because there was enough, was there not, in the
14 discussion at the strategy meeting to suggest a police
15 protection order, to use your phrase, might be
16 necessary?
17 PC JONES: No, that is why I did not take a police
18 protection out.
19 MR GARNHAM: It was not necessary at the time, was it,
20 because Victoria was already safe in the hospital?
21 PC JONES: That is right.
22 MR GARNHAM: But even on the basis of what you knew at that
23 time, if the following day Kouao had turned up and said,
24 "I want to take Victoria home", that would have been the
25 occasion for taking Victoria into police protection,
67
1 would it not?
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: So there was enough information then at that
4 stage for you to be concerned that you might need to use
5 those powers?
6 PC JONES: Well, shall I tell you the reason why? Maybe it
7 might help. The reason why I thought police
8 protection -- I wanted the hospital to know that they
9 could fall back on police protection was because it was
10 because of what we did not know. We did not know
11 anything about Kouao's home conditions, where she was
12 living; all I knew was that someone was alleging that
13 they had seen a belt buckle mark on Victoria. I did not
14 know what those marks were. There was a diagram with
15 body maps. We did not know what that was. I did not
16 know if it had come from scabies. There was a lot of
17 unanswered questions and if Mrs Kouao had come to the
18 hospital and tried to take Victoria, and still she had
19 not finished her treatment at the hospital, she would
20 not have been discharged at that time.
21 MR GARNHAM: No, but that was not the reason why you would
22 have contemplate police protection, was it? It was
23 because you could not then be sure that it was safe to
24 discharge Victoria?
25 PC JONES: Well, yes, basically.
68
1 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I notice the time. I wonder whether this
2 would be a convenient moment if you wanted to take
3 a break for a short period.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed, thank you very much. Ladies and
5 gentlemen, we will break until a quarter to 12 on that
6 clock.
7 (11.35 am)
8 (A short break)
9 (11.45 am)
10 MR GARNHAM: Two more points about the strategy meeting
11 before we move on please. You said to us before we
12 broke that the suggestion about belt buckle marks had
13 come from a nurse.
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Do you not recall Karen Johns explaining to the
16 strategy meeting that that observation and the concerns
17 which flowed from it had been reported to her by
18 a Dr Forlee?
19 PC JONES: No.
20 MR GARNHAM: And it was Dr Forlee who had suggested there
21 were marks indicative of belt buckle injuries?
22 PC JONES: No, I think I have read something to that effect
23 on the strategy meeting minutes but that was not my
24 recollection at the time.
25 MR GARNHAM: Second thing: you mentioned for the first time
69
1 this morning -- I say that because it is not in your
2 statement -- that you were told by Karen Johns at the
3 strategy meeting that the doctors had decided that the
4 scalding injuries were accidental.
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: I suggested to you earlier that that had not
7 been mentioned before.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: And in fact to the contrary effect, it was said
10 by Karen Johns to this Inquiry that she had said that
11 the question was whether or not they were accidental or
12 deliberate and that the matter was still open as far as
13 they were concerned.
14 PC JONES: Well --
15 MR GARNHAM: Is that not what happened at the strategy
16 meeting?
17 PC JONES: No, that is not what happened. If you look at
18 the CRIS report that Sergeant Cooper-Bland had started,
19 he made the first entry, that was the information
20 that -- he got the same information as me from
21 Shanti Jacobs.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I had seen that but that predated much of
23 the material that Karen Johns brought to the strategy
24 meeting, did it not?
25 PC JONES: Well --
70
1 MR GARNHAM: That is a matter of fact, it plainly did
2 predate it.
3 PC JONES: But, well, it was not my recollection of that
4 happening at the strategy meeting.
5 MR GARNHAM: I have to suggest to you that if what you now
6 tell us is right, that you were told at that strategy
7 meeting that the scalds had been a conclusion reached by
8 the hospital authorities, in respect of the scalds that
9 they were accidental, that would have been at the very
10 forefront of the statement you prepared for this
11 Inquiry?
12 PC JONES: No, because we were dealing with an ABH.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but plainly if it were the case that the
14 scalds, one of the matters that had been raised in
15 respect of this child, had been disposed of as far as
16 you were concerned, you would have told us that in your
17 statement, would you not?
18 PC JONES: I cannot say why I did not put it or why I did
19 put it.
20 MR GARNHAM: But you can see why it is important, can you
21 not?
22 PC JONES: When you bring it up, yes I can, but what I was
23 thinking was that we were dealing with the ABH.
24 MR GARNHAM: The scald might be ABH or a great deal more.
25 PC JONES: But it was not.
71
1 MR GARNHAM: You had amongst the papers some body mark maps.
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Those maps were part of the child protection
4 forms, were they not?
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: And they show scalding injuries to the head?
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Is that not at least suggestive of a conclusion
9 that the hospital authorities regarded the scalds as
10 child protection relevant?
11 PC JONES: No. What I saw was a body map and they were on
12 the CP forms or CP -- they call them CP forms. I had
13 never seen those forms before and I was led to believe
14 that those forms were to show us where injuries or marks
15 were on Victoria.
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, and they showed serious scalding injuries.
17 PC JONES: Yes, that were accidental.
18 MR GARNHAM: It does not say so on the form, does it?
19 PC JONES: But that is what we were told.
20 MR GARNHAM: It was attached to a child protection form the
21 purpose of which was to indicate the extent of abuse.
22 PC JONES: As far as -- well, from what I was led to believe
23 those CP forms were not indications that child abuse had
24 occurred. It was an indication of where marks were on
25 the child's body.
72
1 MR GARNHAM: Again, nothing about that in your statement.
2 PC JONES: No.
3 MR GARNHAM: Nothing about that in your CPS statement
4 either.
5 PC JONES: No.
6 MR GARNHAM: Nothing about that in the evidence you gave to
7 the Old Bailey.
8 PC JONES: Well, I gave the best evidence that I could. If
9 I have missed something ...
10 MR GARNHAM: But it just so happens that nowhere before this
11 morning do we find any suggestion that you had been told
12 in the strategy meeting that the scalds had been treated
13 as accidental by the hospital.
14 PC JONES: If I go back to the crime report that
15 Sergeant Cooper-Bland had written up before, when he got
16 the information from Shanti Jacobs who I assume got the
17 information from the hospital, it was clear there that
18 the scalding injuries were accepted.
19 MR GARNHAM: I see. At the end of this strategy meeting
20 what jobs did you take away that you needed to do?
21 PC JONES: There was the immigration.
22 MR GARNHAM: Which you told us about.
23 PC JONES: Yes. I had to do a home visit --
24 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
25 PC JONES: -- with a social worker. Through Karen Johns
73
1 find out what the doctor's diagnosis was in a statement
2 or a report. If I can just look.
3 MR GARNHAM: Do. I think the only other thing is the police
4 protection.
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: If it proves necessary.
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Did you take the view that you had to do
9 anything else or was that the totality of the jobs for
10 you?
11 PC JONES: Could you elaborate?
12 MR GARNHAM: You have identified those three particular jobs
13 that had been assigned to you.
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did you think you had anything else to do?
16 PC JONES: No. I mean things may have -- it may have become
17 apparent later on that there was more to do but at that
18 time those were the jobs I concentrated on.
19 MR GARNHAM: You felt as you left that meeting, "If I do
20 those three jobs then I have done my job"?
21 PC JONES: I would not put it in those words. I had to do
22 those three tasks but as I say things may have come
23 about from doing those three tasks that something else
24 needed to be done.
25 MR GARNHAM: But nothing else was at the front of your mind
74
1 as needing to be done as you left that meeting?
2 PC JONES: No.
3 MR GARNHAM: I think in fairness to you you do go on and
4 make a check on the police national computer.
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: But that is not the principal point I want to
7 ask you about. Because I have to suggest to you
8 Ms Jones that as soon as that meeting finished there was
9 an obligation on you to conduct a full police
10 investigation.
11 PC JONES: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree?
13 PC JONES: Yes, I do.
14 MR GARNHAM: Not just do the three jobs you had come away
15 with but do all that was necessary to investigate an
16 alleged serious assault on this girl.
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: You should have gone to the hospital and seen
19 the child, should you not?
20 PC JONES: No, not at that stage, not in this case.
21 MR GARNHAM: Why?
22 PC JONES: Well, first of all Victoria was safe in hospital.
23 We did not know what we were dealing with. My
24 understanding was that a nurse had seen a mark that may
25 resemble a belt buckle mark. It was not certain, it was
75
1 not sure. So we were not sure what crime, what was
2 being dealt with here. We needed information from
3 a consultant, a doctor, somebody needed to examine
4 Victoria and tell us what these marks were and from
5 there we could take it. I would not have gone to see
6 Victoria in hospital -- well, first of all without
7 permission, which I could have got, but it was important
8 to get the doctor's report first and even without the
9 doctor's report you would not know what type of
10 interview you might want to have with Victoria, you
11 would not know what form you want the interview to take.
12 MR GARNHAM: The meeting finished at 3 pm.
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: What else did you do that day?
15 PC JONES: I think I went home, I went off duty.
16 MR GARNHAM: What time does your shift start?
17 PC JONES: 7 o'clock.
18 MR GARNHAM: If you had needed to do the overtime to carry
19 out investigations that evening you could have obtained
20 it, could you not?
21 PC JONES: Yes, I could have.
22 MR GARNHAM: But you did not regard there as being anything
23 urgently needed that night?
24 PC JONES: No.
25 MR GARNHAM: Should you not have identified the crime scene?
76
1 PC JONES: You need to identify the crime first.
2 MR GARNHAM: You have been told from the CRIS report that
3 ABH is suspected.
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: That is a crime.
6 PC JONES: Yes -- well, no.
7 MR GARNHAM: ABH is not a crime?
8 PC JONES: ABH is a crime but it is a referral that was
9 made, we were not sure if we were dealing with an ABH.
10 MR GARNHAM: No but you have to investigate.
11 PC JONES: That is right.
12 MR GARNHAM: I am suggesting that one of the steps in the
13 investigation should have been to go to the suggested
14 crime scene.
15 PC JONES: But what was the suggested crime scene?
16 MR GARNHAM: That was a matter that you would have to
17 discover but one of the obvious candidates would have
18 been the home where the child had been living before she
19 went into hospital, would it not?
20 PC JONES: Well, if I can put it this way, a nurse who has
21 seen what resembles a belt buckle mark does not give you
22 an indication that the home address, or it does not give
23 you reasonable grounds to suspect that the home address
24 is a crime scene.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why not? I would have thought it is precisely
77
1 what it does.
2 PC JONES: That could be from anywhere.
3 MR GARNHAM: Of course it could but you are investigating.
4 PC JONES: Yes and that is why we needed to first identify
5 the crime and then in that -- it could follow on that
6 you will identify the crime scene.
7 MR GARNHAM: You do not have to prove the crime, do you,
8 before you go to the crime scene?
9 PC JONES: No, you have to identify it.
10 MR GARNHAM: If you had found a belt at Victoria's home, the
11 buckle of which matched the marks found on Victoria's
12 body, that would have been pretty compelling evidence,
13 would it not?
14 PC JONES: Yes, it would.
15 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not go to the home to see whether
16 you could find such a belt?
17 PC JONES: Well, first of all I would need to identify the
18 crime.
19 MR GARNHAM: Why do you need to know more than that there
20 has been an allegation?
21 PC JONES: Well you need to have evidence.
22 MR GARNHAM: This is what you are going to do, is it not?
23 You are going to go and get the evidence?
24 PC JONES: Yes, the process would be that you speak to or
25 get -- you have the crime confirmed and then in this
78
1 case I wanted the crime confirmed by a doctor.
2 MR GARNHAM: Why?
3 PC JONES: Because that is -- for an ABH you would need
4 a doctor to tell you what these marks are.
5 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, I interrupted you.
6 PC JONES: You would need a doctor to tell you what these
7 marks are. Are they marks from scabies, are they marks
8 from somebody hitting Victoria with a belt buckle, and
9 maybe describing them.
10 MR GARNHAM: Why do you need to do that before you go to the
11 scene to see if you can find the belt?
12 PC JONES: Well, Victoria's home address or Carl Manning's
13 home address, there was nothing in the information that
14 I received to say that that the crime had taken place at
15 that home address.
16 MR GARNHAM: Of course there was not but it was an obvious
17 possibility, was it not?
18 PC JONES: But that is not good enough. You cannot just say
19 it is an obvious possibility. You must have some
20 evidence, reasonable grounds to suspect.
21 MR GARNHAM: How about the fact that there is an eight year
22 old girl in hospital with a belt buckle mark? Would
23 that not be ground enough to look for the belt?
24 PC JONES: Yes, of course it would.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not?
79
1 PC JONES: There was not an eight year old girl in hospital
2 with a belt buckle mark. Do you see what I mean?
3 MR GARNHAM: No.
4 PC JONES: Right. Victoria was in hospital and there were
5 marks on her body.
6 MR GARNHAM: Which it had been suggested to you either by
7 a doctor or a nurse --
8 PC JONES: By a nurse.
9 MR GARNHAM: -- they resembled a belt buckle.
10 PC JONES: That is not confirmation of that and we never did
11 get confirmation of that.
12 MR GARNHAM: You never will and you never would unless you
13 went to the scene and looked for the belt.
14 PC JONES: Well --
15 MR GARNHAM: No doctor is going to be able to say that this
16 mark is definitely a belt buckle mark, is he? He is
17 only going to be able to say it resembles it, it is
18 consistent with.
19 PC JONES: Okay, supposing a doctor was going to say that
20 that is a belt buckle mark, then what you would do is
21 once you have a clear indication of a crime, it might be
22 that you go on to take statements from witnesses, maybe
23 speak to Victoria, you might identify the crime scene
24 that way. I am saying supposing.
25 MR GARNHAM: During which time there would be plenty of
80
1 opportunity for the assailant to dispose of the belt.
2 PC JONES: It might be that you never find the belt.
3 MR GARNHAM: But you have a better chance if you go quickly
4 to the scene, to the possible scene.
5 PC JONES: In some cases, yes, of course.
6 MR GARNHAM: Why not this case?
7 PC JONES: Because we have to identify the crime first.
8 MR GARNHAM: What do you need more than ABH?
9 PC JONES: You need evidence of it.
10 MR GARNHAM: Are you following some instruction when you
11 tell us this? Is this what the Met teach you?
12 PC JONES: Well, yes, it is. I mean as far as I know it is
13 law, you need to find evidence of the crime.
14 MR GARNHAM: That suspicions based on observations of those
15 at a hospital that there are belt buckle marks is not
16 sufficient for you to go and look to see the crime?
17 PC JONES: No, because everybody has a belt in their house.
18 It does not mean to say that it comes from that house.
19 You need some evidence to suggest.
20 MR GARNHAM: You know, do you not, that it is possible for
21 forensic scientists to do comparison between a belt that
22 is found and seized by the police and the marks on
23 a child's body?
24 PC JONES: Yes, I do.
25 MR GARNHAM: You were depriving the police, were you not, of
81
1 the chance to make that sort of comparison?
2 PC JONES: No, because no one had indicated that a crime had
3 happened and no one ever did.
4 MR GARNHAM: What does it say on the CRIS report?
5 PC JONES: It is an allegation of ABH. It does not mean
6 that a crime has happened.
7 MR GARNHAM: Of course it does not, but that is your job.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Police do not start their investigations once
10 it has been proved there is a crime, do they?
11 PC JONES: No, but you have to get to a certain level. You
12 have to get to the level that it is a crime and by doing
13 so, my method of doing so was to try and get a doctor to
14 have a look at Victoria and give me a diagnosis as to
15 whether they thought it was a non-accidental injury or
16 not.
17 MR GARNHAM: What you should have done that very day or at
18 the very latest the following morning was to go to the
19 hospital and speak to the doctors, was it not?
20 PC JONES: No.
21 MR GARNHAM: And obtain statements from them, Section 9
22 statements?
23 PC JONES: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: You should have arranged to speak to Victoria,
25 if necessary under memorandum conditions?
82
1 PC JONES: Well, no, that would not have been the process
2 that I would have taken.
3 MR GARNHAM: You should have arranged to have the premises
4 where it is likely this assault took place searched so
5 that the belt could be seized, if there was one?
6 PC JONES: You would have to have evidence or reasonable
7 grounds to suspect that that was the premises.
8 MR GARNHAM: If you go through the process I have just
9 described you would undoubtedly have had such evidence,
10 would you not?
11 PC JONES: No, because no doctor ever said that Victoria had
12 been abused.
13 MR GARNHAM: But you did not ask them.
14 PC JONES: But Karen Johns went to the hospital to get
15 a report. They knew that we were investigating the
16 assault because they had made the allegations.
17 MR GARNHAM: It is your job. How long are you going to wait
18 for Karen Johns to get this report?
19 PC JONES: The time it took. I think the report came
20 through on the 3rd.
21 MR GARNHAM: Why do you not, when you realise it is not in
22 your hands by the following morning, say, "This is not
23 good enough, I will go and see the doctor and get
24 a statement"?
25 PC JONES: It is not as easy as that.
83
1 MR GARNHAM: Why?
2 PC JONES: It is way easier for Karen Johns to go to the
3 hospital and get a statement. Doctors do not just make
4 statements to police officers.
5 MR GARNHAM: They do not?
6 PC JONES: No, they do not.
7 MR GARNHAM: Are you suggesting if you had made a request to
8 the hospital authorities that you needed a statement for
9 the prosecution of somebody for child abuse, they would
10 have declined to assist?
11 PC JONES: They would not have declined. There would be
12 a process I have to follow just like they explain in the
13 letter you said on 05/262.
14 MR GARNHAM: But you did not even begin that process.
15 PC JONES: No, because Karen Johns was to go first and she
16 would find out, she would get a report saying, "Yes,
17 this is a non-accidental injury and it looks like ..."
18 or "No, this is not" and then supposing she had come
19 back with a report that did say "This is
20 a non-accidental injury," then that would have been
21 something in writing and we could start the ball rolling
22 straightaway. I would have gone to the doctor, I would
23 have gone to any nurse or anybody who had information
24 about Victoria and taken a statement from them myself.
25 I did not expect Karen Johns to take it.
84
1 MR GARNHAM: If it had taken, as it did, seven days before
2 you got anything out of the hospital, you just sit
3 there, do you, and wait?
4 PC JONES: No, it did not take -- I did not feel it was an
5 unacceptably long time. This hospital, they do take
6 quite a while to produce statements, doctors, but
7 Victoria was safe as well in hospital.
8 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not get a forensic medical
9 examination done of Victoria? You know the difference
10 between an ordinary one and a forensic medical
11 examination?
12 PC JONES: In this case the allegation was ABH and it is
13 considered that a doctor from the hospital is quite
14 capable of having a look at injuries and telling us
15 whether it is non-accidental injury or not.
16 MR GARNHAM: If the scalding had been non-accidental, or if
17 the marks had been bad this would have been GBH, would
18 it not?
19 PC JONES: It would have been, yes. I mean if it was --
20 yes, if it was --
21 MR GARNHAM: So there was a distinct possibility that you
22 were dealing with grievous bodily harm, not just actual
23 bodily harm?
24 PC JONES: No, there was not a distinct possibility.
25 MR GARNHAM: There were marks all over Victoria's body.
85
1 PC JONES: Yes, but we did not know what those marks were.
2 MR GARNHAM: You did not know the cause.
3 PC JONES: No.
4 MR GARNHAM: One possibility was that she had been the
5 victim of repeated assaults.
6 PC JONES: Yes, that was a possibility.
7 MR GARNHAM: But you did not investigate it?
8 PC JONES: Yes I did.
9 MR GARNHAM: What did you do?
10 PC JONES: Karen Johns at the strategy meeting was tasked to
11 go back to the hospital and speak to the doctors and
12 they were to -- in my understanding they would examine
13 Victoria and they would make a report about what they
14 saw.
15 MR GARNHAM: So you delegate the entire investigation to
16 Karen Johns, do you?
17 PC JONES: No, I did not delegate it.
18 MR GARNHAM: What were you doing?
19 PC JONES: She was the hospital social worker. She could go
20 into the hospital and quite easily speak to the doctors.
21 She had access to the wards she could easily go and
22 speak to any nurses or anybody and in particular
23 a doctor and --
24 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, please finish.
25 PC JONES: Speak to a doctor and get his report or her
86
1 report and what the injuries were on Victoria and come
2 back.
3 MR GARNHAM: She might have been able to do that but it is
4 your job, is it not, not hers?
5 PC JONES: No, that was her job.
6 MR GARNHAM: You are the police officer.
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: You are investigating an alleged crime.
9 PC JONES: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Why should you leave this task of gathering
11 evidence to a social worker?
12 PC JONES: It is not a task of gathering evidence, it was
13 a task of trying to find out if we were dealing with
14 a crime and the social worker was the best person, and
15 at the strategy meeting acknowledged she was the best
16 person to go into the hospital and get that information,
17 and that is the difference between working in the police
18 station perhaps on the beat and working on child
19 protection where you are working together.
20 MR GARNHAM: You would never, would you, have left this
21 exercise of collecting information to someone else if
22 this had not been a child protection matter?
23 PC JONES: No. Well, if it had not been a child protection
24 matter and you were on the beat you would not have the
25 luxury of a social worker in the hospital already.
87
1 MR GARNHAM: But there are no circumstances outside your
2 Child Protection Team, are there, in which a police
3 officer would leave these sort of tasks to someone else?
4 PC JONES: No, child protection, I do not think so. Child
5 protection and ordinary policing are completely
6 different things.
7 MR GARNHAM: That might well be a conclusion that can be
8 reached on your evidence. Your job description makes it
9 clear that your first function is to investigate crime.
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: You did not investigate this alleged crime, you
12 left it to someone else, did you not?
13 PC JONES: No, I did not.
14 MR GARNHAM: Why not go and speak to Victoria?
15 PC JONES: Well, as I explained before, I wanted to have the
16 doctor's report before me to find out exactly what we
17 were dealing with. If it was a crime, this doctor's
18 report could help us firstly plan the interview and help
19 us to decide what form the interview should take, would
20 it be a memorandum interview or would it be a verbal
21 interview.
22 MR GARNHAM: There was nothing to stop you either going to
23 have a brief initial conversation with Victoria
24 straightaway or conducting a memorandum interview that
25 following day, was there?
88
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: What?
3 PC JONES: Well, could not do a memorandum interview because
4 we had no clear indication that a crime had taken place.
5 MR GARNHAM: But you had a suggestion of it and asking
6 Victoria about it might or might not have confirmed it.
7 PC JONES: Well, I had a suggestion of it but it is not an
8 indication that a crime has taken place.
9 MR GARNHAM: The longer you leave it the greater the chance
10 that the assailant can put pressure on the victim.
11 PC JONES: I would not have gone up to Victoria to say to
12 her, "Have you been the victim of a crime" at that
13 stage.
14 MR GARNHAM: Why could not you conduct a memorandum
15 interview the following morning?
16 PC JONES: Because I had no clear indication that a crime
17 had taken place and it says so in the Memorandum of Good
18 Practice that you should.
19 MR GARNHAM: Why was Kouao not interviewed?
20 PC JONES: Because there was no crime. First of all there
21 was no indication that a crime had taken place so we
22 needed a doctor to confirm what those marks were on
23 Victoria. Also, from the strategy meeting I had nothing
24 to suggest that Kouao, I had no evidence to suggest that
25 she or Carl Manning at that time were the suspects.
89
1 MR GARNHAM: You see, the truth is that you were told at
2 that strategy meeting that Dr Simone Forlee had examined
3 Victoria and had found evidence on her body consistent
4 with physical abuse.
5 PC JONES: No, not at all and I do not believe it reflects
6 that in the strategy meeting minutes.
7 MR GARNHAM: If that is the case, then you would agree that
8 that would have been sufficient for you to do all these
9 things?
10 PC JONES: If that had been the case, which it was not,
11 I would probably go and speak to Dr Simone Forlee
12 straightaway myself but that was never suggested.
13 MR GARNHAM: And you would then have arrested Kouao and
14 interviewed her under PACE?
15 PC JONES: Possibly not straightaway.
16 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
17 PC JONES: I would -- just supposing that Dr Forlee had
18 said, "These marks are non-accidental injuries," it does
19 not give you reason -- that would not give you
20 reasonable grounds in itself to suggest that
21 Carl Manning or Mrs Kouao was the suspects but what
22 I would have done was had a memorandum interview with
23 Victoria.
24 MR GARNHAM: This child had been in the care of Kouao and
25 Manning. She is taken into hospital with these marks.
90
1 Who else were you going to suspect of doing them to her?
2 PC JONES: Well, children come in contact with many people.
3 You cannot just say just because this person is
4 pretending to be somebody's mother that they are the
5 guilty suspects. You need evidence.
6 MR GARNHAM: You may not be able to conclude that they are
7 guilty but they are plainly suspects and there is
8 plainly enough evidence to justify your interviewing
9 them, is there not?
10 PC JONES: Well, my process would have been to have
11 a memorandum interview with Victoria.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you liaise with any other CPT? Did you
13 make any enquiries about whether this child had come
14 into contact with any other CPT in London?
15 PC JONES: When the referral came in I was not -- I do not
16 think I did the check myself but I believe that the
17 checks were done.
18 MR GARNHAM: By whom?
19 PC JONES: I cannot say for sure but it would either have
20 been Sergeant Cooper-Bland or our admin clerk.
21 MR GARNHAM: What checks did they do?
22 PC JONES: There is a juvenile index check where you can
23 check on the names of juveniles, and by juveniles I mean
24 young people, to see if they come to notice.
25 MR GARNHAM: Throughout London?
91
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: And if there had been such a check it would
3 have revealed that Brent CPT had had some dealings?
4 PC JONES: It would not have revealed that, no, because
5 Brent CPT had spelt the name quite differently from us.
6 MR GARNHAM: How did you spell it?
7 PC JONES: K-A-U-A-O is the name we checked on and we were
8 told, and Brent CPT had a completely different spelling
9 and I cannot remember what their spelling is.
10 MR GARNHAM: And the computer does not allow you to look at
11 similars?
12 PC JONES: The Met system does not allow you to look at
13 similars.
14 MR GARNHAM: The medical report around which you say this
15 whole thing hung, did you eventually get it?
16 PC JONES: After disclosure, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: After disclosure.
18 PC JONES: Yes. I am sorry, I did not understand what you
19 were saying. Yes, when I went to see Lisa on the
20 5th August then I saw it.
21 MR GARNHAM: So by the time of your meeting on 3rd August
22 you had seen it?
23 PC JONES: No, she told me that she had it.
24 MR GARNHAM: Let me ask you a little about the 3rd August.
25 I think you again happened by chance to be at North
92
1 Tottenham District Office.
2 PC JONES: I did.
3 MR GARNHAM: And you saw Lisa Arthurworrey?
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did you know she was the allocated social
6 worker by then?
7 PC JONES: I do not think I knew she was the allocated
8 social worker. I do not know, but I must have known
9 I suppose. I cannot remember how it came about, if she
10 came up to me and said, "I am the allocated social
11 worker", or if I knew. I cannot remember, sorry.
12 MR GARNHAM: What was the conversation between you?
13 PC JONES: She said that she had received a statement or
14 statements from the hospital about Victoria and she
15 said -- I thought she said that one of the marks looked
16 like a belt buckle mark or someone had described the
17 mark as a belt buckle mark.
18 MR GARNHAM: You had the advantage over her at that stage
19 because you had been at the strategy meeting and she had
20 not.
21 PC JONES: That is right.
22 MR GARNHAM: She told you she had a statement from the
23 hospital.
24 PC JONES: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did she say from whom?
93
1 PC JONES: No.
2 MR GARNHAM: At that stage did you know what statement she
3 was talking about?
4 PC JONES: I knew it was about Victoria.
5 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but you did not know any more details than
6 that?
7 PC JONES: No.
8 MR GARNHAM: And you asked for a copy to be faxed to you?
9 PC JONES: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: And it did not come?
11 PC JONES: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: You have been waiting for this statement now
13 for, what, five days or so?
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: And it was the linchpin around which you were
16 going to conduct your entire investigation?
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: It has been delayed a little already, in fact
19 quite a lot. You then know that the social worker has
20 it and you do not get a copy then and there.
21 PC JONES: No.
22 MR GARNHAM: Why are you not on the phone immediately
23 saying, "Where is this medical report"?
24 PC JONES: At the time I think Lisa said she would fax it.
25 It had not come in that evening. When I came in the
94
1 next morning it had not come in but we had already
2 arranged to meet each other the next morning.
3 MR GARNHAM: That is another two days drifting by.
4 PC JONES: No, we had arranged to meet each other, I saw her
5 on the 3rd and we arranged to meet on the 4th.
6 MR GARNHAM: But you still did not at that stage have the
7 statement?
8 PC JONES: No, but I was not worried about it because I was
9 going to meet her and I would see it. Also Victoria was
10 still in hospital at this time.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes, she told you though that the hospital
12 wanted to discharge Victoria.
13 PC JONES: Yes, she did.
14 MR GARNHAM: What was your reaction to that?
15 PC JONES: I knew that time was of the essence so we would
16 have to move quickly but I did not think the hospital
17 would discharge her without us having completed our
18 inquiries.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you think that all the hospital was saying
20 to you was that she was medically fit for discharge as
21 opposed to, "We are going to discharge her"?
22 PC JONES: Yes, I thought she was medically fit for
23 discharge.
24 MR GARNHAM: Were you aware that Karen Johns was pressing
25 the doctors to amend the child protection forms?
95
1 PC JONES: No.
2 MR GARNHAM: That was not discussed at the strategy meeting,
3 the fact that they would need to be amended?
4 PC JONES: No.
5 MR GARNHAM: Need to be amended in order to reflect the fact
6 that there was evidence of abuse?
7 PC JONES: No, I was not aware of that.
8 MR GARNHAM: Was it during the course of the meeting on
9 3rd August that you learned that there had been a delay
10 in admitting Victoria after the scalds had occurred?
11 PC JONES: No, I knew there was a delay at the strategy
12 meeting because Karen Johns said that she had come in on
13 the 24th.
14 MR GARNHAM: Knowing that, what were your feelings about the
15 injuries with which Victoria was presenting? Did that
16 change your view of the case, discovering that there had
17 been that delay?
18 PC JONES: I would not say it changed my views. I mean
19 I knew there had been a delay but what I understood was
20 that Victoria had come in on the 24th with scabies and
21 the scalding and she was just being treated, she was
22 a child in hospital being treated for those things and
23 then on the 28th a nurse had seen what she thought was
24 a belt buckle mark and it was referred. That was my
25 understanding.
96
1 MR GARNHAM: But did you know that there had been a delay
2 between the scald occurring and Kouao bringing Victoria
3 into hospital?
4 PC JONES: No, I did not.
5 MR GARNHAM: When did you discover that? On the 3rd or
6 before?
7 PC JONES: No, it was after.
8 MR GARNHAM: 4th, 5th? You knew it by the time Victoria was
9 discharged on the 6th, did you not?
10 PC JONES: I do not think I did. I cannot remember but I do
11 not think I did.
12 MR GARNHAM: You cannot remember when it was you who
13 discovered that piece of information?
14 PC JONES: No.
15 MR GARNHAM: Was it not discussed at the strategy meeting?
16 PC JONES: No, there was nothing about delay discussed.
17 MR GARNHAM: Whenever it was that you did discover it, did
18 that change your view of this case?
19 PC JONES: No I do not think so.
20 MR GARNHAM: How did you regard the fact then that Kouao had
21 spent somewhere between two and five hours getting this
22 child the short distance from her home to the hospital?
23 PC JONES: I just -- it was something that I did not pick up
24 on, I missed.
25 MR GARNHAM: Because if you had thought about it it was
97
1 obvious that this was not the behaviour of an average
2 caring mother.
3 PC JONES: Well, it would not -- I would not have suggested
4 that it was, no.
5 MR GARNHAM: When you were told on 3rd August that the
6 hospital were contemplating Victoria's discharge, were
7 you horrified, concerned, not bothered?
8 PC JONES: I was not not bothered. I was not horrified.
9 I would put it in more the category of concerned in that
10 we obviously did not want Victoria to leave the hospital
11 without knowing exactly what we were dealing with yet.
12 I did not think that they would discharge her without us
13 completing our inquiries.
14 MR GARNHAM: Was there some concern about Victoria's home?
15 PC JONES: Yes, it had never been assessed.
16 MR GARNHAM: I have been reminded of a point which I would
17 like to ask you about. Would you look at volume 30,
18 page 7, please. Do you recall I was asking you a moment
19 ago about whether the delay in taking Victoria to
20 hospital had been raised at the strategy meeting? Just
21 have a look at 30, page 7, please. I appreciate you did
22 not see these notes at the time they were made or for
23 some time thereafter.
24 PC JONES: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: But do you recognise this as part of those
98
1 records?
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Immediately above the figure 2, second
4 paragraph, do you see a note: "Delay in mother taking
5 child to hospital"?
6 PC JONES: I know it is there. Sorry, where are you
7 referring to because I have seen it myself.
8 MR GARNHAM: Immediately above figure 2.
9 PC JONES: Right, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: "Delay in mother taking child to hospital".
11 PC JONES: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: That would suggest that as far as the author of
13 that note was concerned, that matter was raised at the
14 strategy meeting, but you still say it was not?
15 PC JONES: I say it was not raised at the strategy meeting.
16 I have seen that on there and it was not raised at the
17 strategy meeting and I was not aware of it. It was
18 something that I had overlooked.
19 MR GARNHAM: I was asking you a moment ago about the
20 prospect of discharging Victoria home.
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: What was the concern that you were aware of
23 with regard to the suitability of the home?
24 PC JONES: Well, social services had not assessed the home
25 situation as yet. We did not know anything about it,
99
1 so~...
2 MR GARNHAM: So what was it going to be assessed for?
3 PC JONES: Suitability to live in. There was just nothing
4 known about it but assessments are something that social
5 services need to do.
6 MR GARNHAM: You did not see it as part of your function
7 then?
8 PC JONES: It was not one of my roles to assess Victoria's
9 home, no.
10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Can I turn to the 4th August. You
11 say that day you phoned the NMH Casualty Department.
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: And you say you did that because you were going
14 to join Lisa Arthurworrey on a visit to the home?
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: You phoned with the intention of discovering
17 a little more about scabies?
18 PC JONES: Yes I did.
19 MR GARNHAM: Are you confident that it was the Casualty
20 Department you phoned?
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Why as a matter of interest did you phone
23 Casualty rather than the ward where Victoria had been
24 treated?
25 PC JONES: Well, the Casualty just seemed the natural point
100
1 to ring. I did not consider ringing the ward that
2 Victoria was on. The Casualty Department is something
3 or a place where everybody goes, all sorts of people go
4 through Casualty, and so that was the place I rang.
5 MR GARNHAM: You say you spoke to a nurse.
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did you make a note of her name?
8 PC JONES: No, I did not.
9 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
10 PC JONES: It was just a general inquiry. I did not make
11 a note of her name.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you record this conversation?
13 PC JONES: On the CRIS machine.
14 MR GARNHAM: Yes, anywhere else?
15 PC JONES: I may have written down ...
16 MR GARNHAM: A note which you then used to complete the
17 CRIS?
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Again, nothing to identify who it was you spoke
20 to?
21 PC JONES: No. It was a lady, that is all I can tell you.
22 MR GARNHAM: What were you told?
23 PC JONES: A series of things, if I could have a look.
24 MR GARNHAM: Do.
25 PC JONES: To wear protective clothing, not to remain in the
|
