|
Archived Transcript for 19 November 2001: Pages
201 to 250
201
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you make any attempt to locate Victoria at
2 this stage?
3 PC JONES: Only by letter.
4 MR GARNHAM: Addressed to Kouao?
5 PC JONES: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: But you made no attempt to locate Victoria?
7 PC JONES: No.
8 MR GARNHAM: And you should have done?
9 PC JONES: I should have done, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Because you did not know what was happening to
11 her?
12 PC JONES: I did not feel she was suffering from significant
13 harm but I would agree with you, I should have.
14 MR GARNHAM: While you were away on leave, both for the
15 19 days in November/December and over the Christmas
16 period until 9th January, who was looking after your
17 cases?
18 PC JONES: I do not think -- I do not know.
19 MR GARNHAM: What is usual procedure in Haringey CPT if
20 there is a case active where one of its officers has a
21 series of tasks to perform and that officer has leave?
22 What is the normal procedure for ensuring the job is
23 done while she was away?
24 PC JONES: Sometimes when people go away their job has to be
25 allocated but it depends on the urgency, perhaps. The
202
1 urgency of the case.
2 MR GARNHAM: So who makes the assessment as to whether
3 something needs to be done in the officer's absence?
4 PC JONES: It would be a sergeant to make the assessment,
5 but if I had or another officer had felt something was
6 urgent, then you would speak just to make sure --
7 MR GARNHAM: You agree that you should have ensured that
8 these steps were taken at a much faster pace than they
9 did happen?
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: But surely the sergeant looking at your work
12 should also have appreciated that nothing had been done
13 in response to the strategy meeting, should he not? Let
14 me put it another way: was there anything you said to
15 Sergeant Bird or to your inspector that would have led
16 him to think there was no reason for following this
17 matter up?
18 PC JONES: I do not think I -- I did not bring the case to
19 their attention, not that I can remember. I was not --
20 I did not feel it was something that I could not deal
21 with. I did not bring it to their attention as to say:
22 I think this is an urgent matter, I think this should be
23 done.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever discuss with your supervisor the
25 difficulty you were having with the translator?
203
1 PC JONES: At one point, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Were you given any advice as to what you should
3 do?
4 PC JONES: I think when I had the discussion with them, the
5 letter had arrived, but it was late, and we just tried
6 to work out something in French but we could not.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did your supervisor say to you: "Never mind
8 worrying about getting this translated, just ring her
9 up"?
10 PC JONES: No.
11 MR GARNHAM: Or, "Go and see her"?
12 PC JONES: No.
13 MR GARNHAM: Or, "Go and find out what is happening to
14 Victoria"?
15 PC JONES: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: The original idea behind the letter as
17 I understand your evidence is that a letter requiring,
18 inviting, Kouao to come to the police station would
19 underline how seriously you regarded this incident.
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: That effect was completely dissipated by the
22 passage of time, was it not?
23 PC JONES: Yes, it was.
24 MR GARNHAM: Kouao did not turn up on either the 26th or
25 31st January, the two alternative days you offered her.
204
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: Let me ask you about that: why send two letters
3 giving two different dates?
4 PC JONES: I would be in the office on both those dates. It
5 was just -- I felt there would be no harm to send them
6 both. That gives her two options.
7 MR GARNHAM: At the very least it was confusing to her.
8 PC JONES: One way or the other she might have rung me.
9 MR GARNHAM: It is a bizarre way to go about inviting
10 somebody to a police station, is it not: send them two
11 conflicting letters in the hope they ring up to find out
12 what you are on about?
13 PC JONES: No, it was in the hope she would turn up at one
14 of them.
15 MR GARNHAM: How would she know which one she was expected
16 on?
17 PC JONES: She would ring me. One way or the other you
18 would get something, that it was I felt.
19 MR GARNHAM: If you wanted to offer her a choice, why not
20 write one letter saying, "You could come on either of
21 these two dates, give me a ring and say which"?
22 PC JONES: That is just the way I did it.
23 MR GARNHAM: It is plainly unsatisfactory.
24 PC JONES: Yes, it is.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did your supervisors know that was what you
205
1 were doing: sending out two letters with different dates
2 in?
3 PC JONES: No.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did they know that you were still sending out
5 invitations to Kouao to come in during January?
6 PC JONES: They knew I was sending --
7 MR GARNHAM: A letter?
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did they ever reprimand you for the delay in
10 getting this matter dealt with?
11 PC JONES: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did they ever say: "This is an allegation of
13 sexual assault two months ago and still we have not seen
14 Kouao"?
15 PC JONES: No.
16 MR GARNHAM: Did anyone ever discuss with you the way you
17 were handling the case?
18 PC JONES: No.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you have supervision meetings at which it
20 would come up?
21 PC JONES: Well, supervision -- at that time we did not,
22 but -- during that period -- but supervision would
23 usually come by way of the CRIS machine, someone would
24 have a look at the reports.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did anybody reading the CRIS machine ask you
206
1 about the way in which you were dealing with
2 the November sex assault incident?
3 PC JONES: No.
4 MR GARNHAM: You tell us -- paragraph 66 -- that you spoke
5 to Lisa Arthurworrey on 7th February and she told you
6 that she had had no contact with the family.
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: She had been to the house more than once and
9 found no one at home.
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: From the conversations she had with Kouao, you
12 say, she believed that the family had returned to
13 France.
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: What did you understand to be the basis of that
16 belief? Simply her two visits when nobody was there?
17 PC JONES: No, she had had a conversation with Mrs Kouao and
18 Mrs Kouao had explained -- or Mrs Kouao had indicated
19 that she would return to France and I think -- I hope
20 I am not saying things because I have read it
21 subsequently, but that she was collecting money or would
22 get money from some of her relatives in France to go
23 back home.
24 MR GARNHAM: But the only evidence to confirm that she had
25 turned that plan into action was the fact that she was
207
1 not there on the two occasions when Miss Arthurworrey
2 visited, that was your understanding?
3 PC JONES: Yes, but also to me it did not seem inconceivable
4 to think that she could have returned home after
5 deciding she could not really make it in England.
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you think it worthwhile, your visit to the
7 premises?
8 PC JONES: Not at the time.
9 MR GARNHAM: But you should have done?
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: At any time during those months did the thought
12 occur to you that Victoria might be at home with a man
13 or a woman abusing her?
14 PC JONES: No.
15 MR GARNHAM: And that that might be continuing to happen,
16 even if she had gone to France?
17 PC JONES: No.
18 MR GARNHAM: Was there any attempt made to contact the
19 French police?
20 PC JONES: No.
21 MR GARNHAM: Should there have been?
22 PC JONES: It was not something I would have considered --
23 it was not something I was told to do.
24 MR GARNHAM: You say you understood that social services
25 were going to close their files on the matter and you
208
1 made a report to that effect, to the effect that you had
2 been unable to trace the family to substantiate the
3 allegation.
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: The only attempt you had made to trace the
6 family was this much delayed letter?
7 PC JONES: That is right.
8 MR GARNHAM: Not much of an attempt, is it, Ms Jones?
9 PC JONES: No.
10 MR GARNHAM: You produced a closing summary dated
11 8th February, which I think we have in volume 30 at
12 page 55. Do you have that?
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Note from you dated 8th February to DI Howard:
15 "This matter came to light in July 1999 when Anna
16 attended hospital after being scalded. Hospital found
17 concerning marks and scars on her body, investigated and
18 found the child had scabies."
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Was that your understanding then of the cause
21 of the marks?
22 PC JONES: No, it was not my understanding of the cause of
23 the marks, but she did have scabies.
24 MR GARNHAM: What then was your understanding of the cause
25 of the marks?
209
1 PC JONES: Well, nobody had said -- nobody had said these
2 marks are because of, or these marks are not. So
3 I suppose it was an assumption that she had scabies --
4 I put she had scabies.
5 MR GARNHAM: And that was an assumption to explain the
6 marks?
7 PC JONES: Yes, it must have been.
8 MR GARNHAM: "In November 1999 her mother then reported
9 a that male living at the household had exposed himself
10 to Anna."
11 It was rather more than that, was it not?
12 PC JONES: Yes, but also with this we would have the CRIS
13 and all, and the documents.
14 MR GARNHAM: So DI Howard is expected then not to rely on
15 your closing statement but to look at the rest of the
16 documents?
17 PC JONES: Well, maybe not just DI Howard but this would go
18 to general register and anybody else getting it would
19 have to look at the CRIS to have everything -- all the
20 background information. This is just a brief summary of
21 something that happened.
22 MR GARNHAM: But it is an inadequate summary, is it not,
23 because the allegation was much more than a simple
24 exposing?
25 PC JONES: It was more than exposing, but you would have to
210
1 look into the file to see the full allegations.
2 MR GARNHAM: "She later retracted the allegation admitting
3 that she thought it would help her to be rehoused. The
4 family were from France and it is believed" -- on the
5 basis you have told us --
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: -- "that they have returned. The matter is now
8 complete and may this file be put away."
9 If I suggest to you that is a wholly inadequate
10 closing statement, would you agree?
11 PC JONES: I would, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: You then go on in paragraph 67 to 97 to
13 describe events in February of that year and we can read
14 those for ourselves. I have just one question arising
15 out of that. You say in paragraph 67:
16 "... Victoria had been transferred to St Mary's
17 because the doctor believed that Victoria was dying."
18 Yes?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: The strategy meeting on that occasion was
21 arranged for Monday, 28th February, three days later.
22 PC JONES: I just put what I was told. That obviously did
23 not happen, but that was what I was told, I put it in my
24 notes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why in a case as serious as this, with a child
211
1 in hospital dying from abuse, does it take three days to
2 organise a strategy meeting?
3 PC JONES: That is what I was told. I was not thinking
4 about the dates at that time when I rang the social
5 services. I was thinking of getting down to the
6 hospital.
7 MR GARNHAM: But can you tell us why it takes --
8 PC JONES: I cannot --
9 MR GARNHAM: -- CPT three days to organise that?
10 PC JONES: It was not for my CPT to organise it but whoever
11 I spoke to, it might have been Rose or Lisa, they said
12 the strategy meeting will take place on Monday. It
13 might have just been through habit that they said this,
14 it does not mean to say that might have been the case.
15 MR GARNHAM: It could have been arranged in a case as
16 terribly serious as this in a matter of hours.
17 PC JONES: I am sure it would have been, but I went down to
18 the hospital and I am sure they would not have waited --
19 MR GARNHAM: Is the reason -- sorry, I will let you finish.
20 PC JONES: Please go on.
21 MR GARNHAM: Is the reason that this happened on a Friday
22 afternoon and so people do not fancy strategy meetings
23 until Monday?
24 PC JONES: I would not have said so in a case like this.
25 I went to the hospital and I am sure that that is not
212
1 what happened at social services. I am sure they would
2 not just think, "I am going home, it is Friday".
3 MR GARNHAM: There is no other obvious explanation for why
4 it takes three days to organise it, is there?
5 PC JONES: I think you should ask them that.
6 MR GARNHAM: I want to ask you before we finish, please,
7 Ms~Jones a little about the resources available to your
8 team. What was the full establishment of officers at
9 Haringey CPT?
10 PC JONES: I am not sure -- I do not know what the full
11 quota should have been.
12 MR GARNHAM: You say that during your first year there there
13 were twelve members of the team plus two administrative
14 staff, one person away on long-term sick.
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: When you returned in June 1999 there were only
17 nine members, and one had gone on maternity leave, plus
18 I think one admin worker.
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: So there had been a drop in numbers.
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Did you find out what it should have been?
23 PC JONES: No, sir, I did not, I am sorry.
24 MR GARNHAM: Did that change in numbers, the drop from
25 twelve to nine have any effect on the way you went about
213
1 your work?
2 PC JONES: It certainly meant that we were more pressurised,
3 because of the volume of work. Obviously because some
4 officers were not there anymore, the volume of work did
5 not increase, it was still the same, if not higher.
6 MR GARNHAM: So you were busier?
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Does that explain why on occasions it appears
9 from the papers as if you were not getting on with
10 things as promptly as you should?
11 PC JONES: I would say, yes, because -- I do not know if
12 this is the right word, but you would prioritise, not to
13 say things are not serious, but you would prioritise
14 workload, and sometimes, because you were under
15 pressure, cases that ought to be dealt with would be put
16 off.
17 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Is that what happened to Victoria's case
18 in November?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you about the facilities at your
21 station? How many CRIS machines were available in your
22 office?
23 PC JONES: At first one, and then later on, I think --
24 shortly after I came back, in July, we had two.
25 MR GARNHAM: So soon after your return to the office they
214
1 had got another one in?
2 PC JONES: Or it may have been there when I returned but it
3 was a new machine.
4 MR GARNHAM: Were they reliable?
5 PC JONES: No, they would break down. The first one we had
6 was just old -- an old machine. The station has stopped
7 using that type of machine. The new one that we got was
8 the newer type that stations were using, but it still --
9 they would still break down, they would often freeze,
10 just lock -- you might get the screen and you could not
11 get rid of the screen whatever button you pressed.
12 MR GARNHAM: Was there an Otis machine available to you?
13 PC JONES: There was an Otis machine upstairs but not
14 available to me because I had not been trained to use
15 it.
16 MR GARNHAM: Would having access to Otis have assisted you
17 generally in your work?
18 PC JONES: Yes, I think so. I would sometimes ask one of
19 the sergeants to use the Otis machine for me, they could
20 do checks and things for you, rather than you having to
21 ring the station --
22 MR GARNHAM: Would it have assisted you in Victoria's case?
23 PC JONES: No, because she was no trace.
24 MR GARNHAM: It would not have assisted you in finding out
25 what had happened at Brent?
215
1 PC JONES: No, I do not think so. I do not think so,
2 because her name was spelt differently you see.
3 MR GARNHAM: Next, travelling. You tell us in paragraph 112
4 that your team had to use their own cars, you could
5 claim mileage.
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did using your own vehicles cause difficulties?
8 PC JONES: Well, for a start you had to have your vehicle
9 available. You had to have a car. So -- if anything
10 had happened and you did not have the car, you were kind
11 of at the mercy of hitching a lift with somebody.
12 MR GARNHAM: And if you did have your own car?
13 PC JONES: I did not like using my car and I think in
14 general nobody at the CPT liked to use their cars.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because?
16 PC JONES: Sometimes people would damage your car. You
17 could not transport children or families in your car,
18 and you certainly did not want to transport prisoners in
19 your car.
20 MR GARNHAM: Did that lack of transport have any impact on
21 the way you carried out your investigation into
22 Victoria's -- first of all the original allegation?
23 PC JONES: No, because -- I used my car to get to and from.
24 MR GARNHAM: What about the sex abuse allegation?
25 PC JONES: No.
216
1 MR GARNHAM: Next question: what was the accommodation like
2 for Haringey CPT?
3 PC JONES: We were based in a station. It was -- it was
4 just an ordinary old station, one -- you see the older
5 stations.
6 MR GARNHAM: Adequate or inadequate for the work you were
7 doing?
8 PC JONES: Inadequate.
9 MR GARNHAM: In what way?
10 PC JONES: It was small, too small for us. We had a small
11 team but it was too small. We did not have a memorandum
12 interview suite. It was, in relation to where we had to
13 go, in the back of beyond.
14 MR GARNHAM: If you wanted to do a memorandum interview,
15 where did you have to go?
16 PC JONES: We used to use Southgate, which is about
17 six/seven miles away, or to the NSPCC, which is about
18 six miles away.
19 MR GARNHAM: The same question as before: any impact on the
20 way you handled Victoria's case?
21 PC JONES: No.
22 MR GARNHAM: What about the absence of an interview suite?
23 Would it not have been easier to arrange to memorandum
24 interview Victoria if you had had the facilities at your
25 own station?
217
1 PC JONES: Arrangements would have been easier.
2 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
3 PC JONES: But I did not memorandum Victoria as you know.
4 MR GARNHAM: No.
5 PC JONES: But arrangements would have been easier.
6 MR GARNHAM: Next, personal equipment: did you have personal
7 radios?
8 PC JONES: No we did not.
9 MR GARNHAM: So what did you do if you wanted to speak to
10 colleagues during the course of your working day?
11 PC JONES: If you wanted to speak to a colleague you would
12 just ring, use a telephone, find a telephone, or what we
13 did was use our mobile phones.
14 MR GARNHAM: Any impact on your conduct of Victoria's case?
15 PC JONES: No, I would not say so, no.
16 MR GARNHAM: Next, training, please. Had you ever received
17 critical incident and community race relations training?
18 PC JONES: No.
19 MR GARNHAM: Had others in your team?
20 PC JONES: Not that I am aware of.
21 MR GARNHAM: Had others on your division?
22 PC JONES: Yes. As far as I know, the Hornsey Division and
23 Tottenham Division had been trained, I cannot say every
24 officer, but as far as I know.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you know why you were treated differently?
218
1 PC JONES: Because I think we -- we would just be trained
2 last because we were seen as not a front line policing,
3 so things would come to us last.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you have available to you a child
5 protection manual?
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: A manual produced by the police, by the Met?
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Was it up-to-date?
10 PC JONES: No, it was written in 1995.
11 MR GARNHAM: Were you familiar with that 1995 edition?
12 PC JONES: Yes. Familiar? Sorry?
13 MR GARNHAM: But you regard it as out-of-date by the time
14 you were dealing with Victoria's case?
15 PC JONES: I would say the manual was out-of-date when
16 I went on my training course in 1996, not all of it.
17 For instance, in the manual it refers to crime sheets
18 and by the time I joined the CPT we were on crime --
19 CRIS machines, but the manual still -- even on my
20 course -- still spoke about crime sheets.
21 MR GARNHAM: Any other specific incidents you can give us of
22 how the out-of-dateness affected your work?
23 PC JONES: You could not look at it to -- or at least
24 I would not use it to look at Acts and Sections. We
25 bought another book to do that, a book by Kevin Smith.
219
1 MR GARNHAM: Was the Child Protection Manual actually being
2 used by officers? Were they referring to it on a weekly
3 basis or ...
4 PC JONES: People definitely -- I would refer to and
5 I believe others would refer to the child protection
6 manual because it did have -- it did have snippets in
7 it, like for me, I would look at it from forensics,
8 packaging and things like that, also some people --
9 I used it as a check list.
10 MR GARNHAM: So it continued to have a use?
11 PC JONES: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did you know it had been withdrawn?
13 PC JONES: No.
14 MR GARNHAM: There is a passage in the introduction to that
15 manual that invites officers who come across it to
16 suggest amendments if they are needed; you are familiar
17 with that?
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: It is volume 32, page 339. Did you ever have
20 occasion to suggest an amendment, because it had gone
21 out-of-date?
22 PC JONES: No. The only time I ever had suggested any --
23 anything in the book had gone out-of-date was on my
24 course when like everybody else it spoke about crime
25 sheets and it was obvious we were on the CRIS machine.
220
1 MR GARNHAM: What proportion of your team were detectives?
2 PC JONES: None.
3 MR GARNHAM: What training had you received in detective
4 work?
5 PC JONES: None -- sorry, back to your last question, we did
6 have a detective once, but he left. I think he left
7 just --
8 MR GARNHAM: Name please.
9 PC JONES: Mark Braithwaite.
10 MR GARNHAM: After he had gone did you have any?
11 PC JONES: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: What training did you have in detective work?
13 PC JONES: None.
14 MR GARNHAM: So that meant all allegations were investigated
15 by uniformed officers?
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: I asked you earlier about your workload. Did
18 you ever have occasion to complain about it?
19 PC JONES: No I did not.
20 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever make complaints about your working
21 conditions?
22 PC JONES: Not about working conditions, no. I did speak
23 about I suppose you could call it our training, but not
24 about working conditions.
25 MR GARNHAM: What were the remarks you made about training?
221
1 PC JONES: The Working Together course that we had,
2 I thought that we could benefit from some more training
3 with regard to working together and also the Memorandum
4 of Good Practice, I thought we could benefit.
5 MR GARNHAM: Had you ever suggested a CID foundation course?
6 PC JONES: I had never said to the sergeant, "I want to go
7 on a CID foundation course" but it was the general
8 consensus in the office we felt we would benefit.
9 MR GARNHAM: How well supported did you feel by senior
10 officers in the Met?
11 PC JONES: On my team, I felt supported, but --
12 MR GARNHAM: Beyond your team?
13 PC JONES: Not supported at all.
14 MR GARNHAM: How often did you see officers senior in rank
15 to your inspector?
16 PC JONES: Once, I saw Mr Wheeler once.
17 MR GARNHAM: Once in what period?
18 PC JONES: When I returned --
19 MR GARNHAM: Once over what period the whole time --
20 PC JONES: A few hours, at a meeting.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, you said you saw him once.
22 PC JONES: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: This is once through -- once a week, once
24 a year, once a month or once through the entire time you
25 worked in Haringey CPT?
222
1 PC JONES: One the entire time I worked at CPT.
2 MR GARNHAM: Finally, Ms Jones, I wonder if you could have
3 volume 2, please, page 203. Do you recognise that
4 document?
5 PC JONES: Yes, it is Operation Blue Martin.
6 MR GARNHAM: It is part of the police's internal
7 investigation into Victoria's case I think.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Go to page 216, please.
10 PC JONES: 216?
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: There is a list of points noted by the officer
14 carrying out this investigation that it is said were not
15 recorded by you on the CRIS sheets.
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Would you glance through that, please. Do you
18 agree that they were not recorded?
19 PC JONES: I would agree with some of it.
20 MR GARNHAM: Tell us which ones you say were recorded.
21 PC JONES: I did not record emotional abuse on the CRIS,
22 I did not know or record when the mother visits, I did
23 not know about that. Did not know about "Anna cries on
24 arrival", I did not know about "Anna seeks praise and
25 attention", I did not know about "Anna jumps to
223
1 attention". I did not know about servant and master
2 relationship. I learned about eating, I did not record
3 that on the CRIS. I did not know about the -- mother
4 not changing child when wet. I knew that she -- there
5 were issues around clothing, but I did not put "did not
6 bring clean clothes in". My issues around clothing were
7 the clothes were dirty.
8 I did not know about Anna frightened of being
9 undressed, I did not know about Anna frightened of
10 mother's partners, did not know about Anna's love for
11 mother. I did not know treated from a GP, I did not
12 know she had overtreated the scabies condition. And
13 I did learn about the treatments -- the Hibiscrub.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you?
15 PC JONES: Yes, and I did not put that on there.
16 MR GARNHAM: One of the matters with which this Inquiry will
17 be concerned is trying to see how communication between
18 agencies can be improved. In the light of the fact that
19 there are this large number of pieces of information of
20 which you were not aware, or which you did not record,
21 are you able to say how the procedure ought to be
22 improved? What did you need to have in order to be able
23 to be aware of and record those pieces of information?
24 PC JONES: I think that there has to be more structure in
25 the strategy meeting. Not necessarily where it is held,
224
1 but there must be a tighter control on who attends the
2 strategy meeting, and possibly one form that we all use
3 and record the same thing, and checklist it before
4 leaving.
5 MR GARNHAM: Was there anything on that list you could not
6 have found out if you had made the necessary enquiries,
7 either of hospital or social services?
8 PC JONES: No. I probably could have found out everything
9 on that list eventually at some point, because hospitals
10 do not release information readily, but I would say,
11 yes, I could have found out. But you rely on people
12 when you are working together.
13 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. I think we will
15 finish the witness evidence before we break. So
16 Ms McGowan?
17 MS McGOWAN: Ms Jones, not many questions. You were asked
18 fairly recently about training and courses that were
19 made available to you. I would like to ask you please
20 about a number of passages towards the end of your
21 statement provided to this Inquiry. Did you at any
22 stage suggest a training programme?
23 PC JONES: Yes I did. It was the Working Together training
24 programme and it would look into -- have a more involved
25 look at what social services did and what the police
225
1 did, and it would be -- I was hoping to do this by
2 exchanging -- people would have a working role in the
3 social -- like a police officer would go to the social
4 services and work with them, like a work experience on
5 a suitable case and vice versa, a social worker would
6 come and work with us.
7 MS McGOWAN: So much closer liaison between the two
8 agencies?
9 PC JONES: Yes.
10 MS McGOWAN: What happened to the suggestion you made?
11 PC JONES: I spoke to the then DI about it and
12 Sergeant Cooper-Bland endorsed it, he thought it was a
13 very, very good idea, but when the DI put it to Social
14 Services' Ann Graham, she said she did not think it was
15 a good idea and we were not able to do it.
16 MS McGOWAN: That was the suggested course. Were there any
17 other courses that you yourself undertook voluntarily?
18 PC JONES: Yes, because of the Memorandum of Good Practice
19 I did not think that we had adequate knowledge of how to
20 interview children or how they might present after
21 having gone through such stressful episodes in their
22 life, so I undertook a counselling course, counselling
23 diploma in evening school.
24 MS McGOWAN: Who paid for that originally?
25 PC JONES: I did, but later on the Met agreed it was
226
1 a a good course and would pay part of my fees.
2 MS McGOWAN: You talk about what the children had gone
3 through at the time of the memorandum interview. In
4 your view can the memorandum interview itself sometimes
5 contribute to the abuse that a child may have suffered?
6 PC JONES: Yes, because you are asking a child to relive or
7 recount very stressful moments in their lives and some
8 children had been videoed in sexual abuse and there you
9 are videoing them as well, so it is important to think
10 carefully about the effects of it.
11 MS McGOWAN: In general terms questions have been asked of
12 you and indeed other witnesses about the practical or
13 sensible attitude or approach to speaking to Victoria
14 more than once, to commissioning photographs more than
15 once, to adding to the number of medical examinations.
16 You recall today you were asked about getting in
17 a forensic medical examiner.
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 MS McGOWAN: Was your view about repeating those processes
20 in respect of the same child?
21 PC JONES: I think it can be distressing for an adult but
22 most definitely it is more distressing for a child.
23 MS McGOWAN: I would like to deal please with what I think
24 may be a misunderstanding in terms of some of the
25 documentation. Can I ask, please, that you have in
227
1 front of you the letter from Isobel Quinn dated
2 3rd August 1999 addressed to Lisa Arthurworrey. Do you
3 have that in those papers? The copy I have, which may
4 assist, is volume 6, page 238.
5 PC JONES: I do not have that.
6 MS McGOWAN: That is the faxed copy. Could I ask, please,
7 in addition that you have in front of you Karen Johns'
8 notes arising out of the strategy meeting and again the
9 copy I have, if it assists, is at volume 5, page 254.
10 Could you also, please, be given the critical incident
11 log sheet, volume 37, page 275. It was suggested that
12 the letter from Isobel Quinn to Lisa Arthurworrey was
13 a specific answer to a specific query about emotional
14 abuse and nothing else, you remember that being put to
15 you?
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MS McGOWAN: If you look, please, at the critical incident
18 log sheet, down at the bottom of that page we can see an
19 entry clearly made and signed by Isobel Quinn, it is
20 dated 3rd August 1995 and it is timed 11.20. Do you see
21 that?
22 PC JONES: Yes.
23 MS McGOWAN: It records a phone call from Lisa Arthurworrey,
24 gives her fax number. The note itself:
25 "She needs to make a home visit with the police
228
1 before Anna can go home. She has requested that I fax
2 the CP1 form to her and any concerns we may have."
3 Do you see that?
4 PC JONES: Yes.
5 MS McGOWAN: The fax in fact from Isobel Quinn we can see,
6 looking back to the North Middlesex Hospital letter, is
7 timed at 12.23 that same day.
8 PC JONES: Yes.
9 MS McGOWAN: Seemingly the answer to the query of "any
10 concerns that we may have."
11 PC JONES: Yes.
12 MS McGOWAN: If you look also please at Karen Johns' note to
13 which you were referred earlier, her record of what
14 happened in that strategy meeting was:
15 "She [Karen Johns] was to seek the report from the
16 ward staff dealing with neglect."
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MS McGOWAN: Would that suggest that the report dealing with
19 neglect would go back to Karen Johns?
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 MS McGOWAN: Going further up the page to the centre, it is
22 Haringey, in other words Lisa Arthurworrey, who are to
23 request the medical report regarding the skeletal survey
24 of old injuries.
25 PC JONES: Yes.
229
1 MS McGOWAN: So in other words the medical report or any
2 medical matters would go back to Lisa Arthurworrey?
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 MS McGOWAN: Did you understand Isobel Quinn's letter of
5 3rd August to be setting out the doctor's medical view,
6 diagnosis?
7 PC JONES: Yes I did.
8 MS McGOWAN: Finally, please, Ms Jones, I would like to ask
9 you about this: I understood that it was being put to
10 you that you had at no time in your statement ever
11 mentioned that your understanding was that the hospital
12 had accepted the explanation as to accident in respect
13 of scalds.
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MS McGOWAN: I think in fact that is mentioned twice in your
16 statement, is it not, at paragraph 23 and in
17 paragraph 30? In any event that can be checked. Was
18 that your understanding?
19 PC JONES: Yes, it was.
20 MS McGOWAN: That consultants and paediatric specialists had
21 accepted the child's account and the mother's account?
22 PC JONES: Yes.
23 MS McGOWAN: Did you then feel that it was within your
24 province to challenge the medical findings of
25 a consultant paediatrician?
230
1 PC JONES: No, I did not. No.
2 MS McGOWAN: Would you in your view have been doing the
3 child any good if you had tried to look at her injuries
4 and make diagnosis of your own?
5 PC JONES: I would not have been doing any good and it would
6 not have been my place. We are not allowed to examine
7 children.
8 MS McGOWAN: Thank you Ms Jones.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a few questions just for clarification,
10 if I may. First of all, do you have in front of you
11 238, which I think you might have just --
12 PC JONES: I have it, yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to be clear, because I thought in
14 relation to Mr Garnham you said you were not aware of
15 Victoria jumping out of bed and the master/servant
16 attitude.
17 PC JONES: I did say that, yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think if you look at the top of 238, that
19 is in the information that you had already seen.
20 PC JONES: Yes, sir, I apologise, yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I heard a lot this morning from you about how
22 this was not your job, this was the social workers' job
23 or this was the doctors' job or the nurses' job. It
24 would be enormously helpful if you could tell me briefly
25 what you would say were your distinctive
231
1 responsibilities, that only could you fulfil.
2 PC JONES: My distinctive responsibilities were to
3 investigate the crime, once we had the allegation
4 confirmed. My responsibilities would have been to go
5 and collect -- or go and get any Section 9 statements,
6 police statements, i.e. statements for court.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you say that you had not seen the child
8 protection forms relating to Victoria or did you say you
9 did not even know about child protection forms?
10 PC JONES: I saw the child protection forms Karen Johns had
11 brought to the meeting. They are the ones I saw.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Those forms had in them in summary
13 allegations of physical assault, that is in relation to
14 scalding; allegations of physical old injuries, on the
15 body; emotional concerns that were just referred to, of
16 neglect, unkempt appearance of the child, et cetera, and
17 of the long delay in getting the child to hospital,
18 despite what were quite serious injuries. Did you not
19 feel that at that stage then and there you on behalf of
20 the Met Police ought to begin a proper investigation?
21 PC JONES: I felt I had begun the investigation by trying to
22 confirm the crime.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. It is that bit that you will have to
24 help me with, because I do not understand that. You can
25 only confirm the crime if you actually begin an
232
1 investigation, that only the police can undertake.
2 PC JONES: Right, those forms -- the hospital had made an
3 allegation, they believed -- a nurse had seen a mark
4 that may resemble a belt buckle mark, and that was
5 not -- that was an allegation of a crime but it was not
6 a confirmed crime, so what I was hoping was a doctor
7 would have a look at those marks, and say this is
8 a non-accidental injury, but that did not happen, that
9 did not come back as non-accidental injury.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: So why did you believe that Victoria was
11 admitted to hospital?
12 PC JONES: Because she had poured the hot water on her head,
13 she had scabies.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: When did you believe the child protection
15 forms are actually completed?
16 PC JONES: I thought they had been completed when -- well,
17 when they thought she had seen -- the nurse had thought
18 she had seen the marks.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Which nurses, when?
20 PC JONES: Can I have a look at the form please, sir?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: You can have a look at the forms and I am
22 sure colleagues around here will direct your attention
23 to the actual forms but what I am concerned about and
24 what I want to know is: when you were first made aware
25 of the allegation of injuries to Victoria, when did you
233
1 enquire about, first of all, who completed the forms and
2 when were they completed?
3 PC JONES: I think that would have been at the strategy
4 meeting.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. What were you told or what did you
6 find out about when the forms were completed and who
7 completed them?
8 PC JONES: I cannot remember for sure but I believe they had
9 been completed between the time Victoria had come into
10 hospital and just before the strategy meeting.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: So you did not even bother to find out that
12 the forms were completed at the time of Victoria's
13 admission to hospital?
14 PC JONES: I believe the forms were dated. I just cannot
15 remember, sir.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: And you do not remember who actually
17 initiated the completion of the forms?
18 PC JONES: I thought Dr Forlee had completed some of the
19 forms.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: So a doctor had actually inspected Victoria,
21 and had decided that there were sufficient grounds for
22 child protection forms to be filled out?
23 PC JONES: That was not what I understood. I understood
24 that a doctor had -- that those forms had been completed
25 to show where the marks were, but it did not say what
234
1 the marks were.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Is it, looking back, a matter of
3 concern to you that you did not actually, as a police
4 officer, establish as full a picture as possible of the
5 circumstances that led to Victoria being admitted to
6 hospital?
7 PC JONES: At the time I was told that Victoria had been
8 admitted to hospital as a result of pouring water on her
9 head and this had been accepted by the hospital, that
10 this was accidental.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, just to go to the other extreme, your
12 discharge summary actually begins:
13 "This matter came to light in July 1999 when Anna
14 attended hospital after being scalded ..."
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a big difference between saying she
17 had been scalded from saying she had poured water over
18 herself.
19 PC JONES: What I meant was she had received a scalding
20 injury, she had been scalded.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: When you received your training, what kind of
22 training did you receive about accuracy of recording?
23 PC JONES: Well, we were always told to record things,
24 but -- well we were always told to record things, yes.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Were you told that accuracy actually is
235
1 important?
2 PC JONES: Yes, sir.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: From the records that you have kept, what
4 would you say was the sort of standard of accuracy?
5 PC JONES: At the time I was satisfied with them, but
6 looking back, I can see now I could have added a lot
7 more and I believe that in CPTs, we do add a lot more
8 now.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: What were you told about speed of conducting
10 investigations into allegations of child protection?
11 PC JONES: It is important, speed is important, but it is
12 not -- individual cases are different.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure that is true, but is it not the
14 case that every hour of delay is likely to make any
15 investigation more difficult?
16 PC JONES: In some cases, sir.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: But not in this case?
18 PC JONES: In -- are you talking about both incidents?
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Let us deal with the July one.
20 PC JONES: In July I would not say I was tardy in the
21 investigation there. In November, yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: So if I were to say, sitting where I sit, and
23 this is where I want you to help me, it sounded to me as
24 if it was a case of after you clawed, if I can put it
25 this way: "It is the social worker, it is the nurse, it
236
1 is the doctor. I am always waiting for somebody else to
2 do something". Is that an unreasonable statement to
3 make?
4 PC JONES: Yes, because we are supposed to be working
5 together, and things might revolve around other people
6 as well as yourself.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am sure there is a lot in the "Working
8 Together" document that encourages multiagency working
9 but would you agree with me there is a lot in there that
10 indicates the separate responsibilities of the different
11 services?
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Knowing what you know about "Working
14 Together", and of the distinctive role that the police
15 have in these circumstances, how do you now look upon
16 the way in which this matter was investigated in July?
17 PC JONES: Sorry, could you repeat that question?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I will try again then. I think you said you
19 were familiar with "Working Together".
20 PC JONES: Yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: "Working Together" certainly encourages
22 a multidisciplinary approach.
23 PC JONES: Yes.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: But it also spells out in some detail the
25 responsibilities of the different services.
237
1 PC JONES: Yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Including the police.
3 PC JONES: Yes.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: And the police have a distinctive and
5 separate role.
6 PC JONES: Yes they do.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thinking of the July incident, how well do
8 you think the police carried out their distinctive and
9 separate role?
10 PC JONES: How well?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me put it another way: was it a model of
12 good practice?
13 PC JONES: I think at the time I felt I was doing the job
14 correctly. I do not know if you could call it a model
15 of good practice, but I did not think I had done so
16 badly.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: It was a pretty good effort?
18 PC JONES: Yes.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. The delay that we have heard about,
20 the long delay in getting the letter translated --
21 PC JONES: Yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: -- was this an example of the fact that none
23 of these concerns were actually being taken that
24 seriously?
25 PC JONES: It was an example of -- it was from a build-up of
238
1 the history of the case, all the things that had
2 happened, what had led to the allegation, how it had
3 been made, the social services interaction with the
4 family. It was a build-up of that.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: A build-up -- let me put it clearly: do you
6 think or do you not think, and tell me exactly what you
7 do think, if you would, could it be seen as an example
8 that these concerns were not being taken seriously?
9 PC JONES: Yes, it could be.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Finally, you have in front of you I think
11 bundle 30, document 30, somewhere there. This is just
12 a point of clarification. It is 30/131.502. 30/131.502
13 two inches down from the top of the page, where it says:
14 "Location: Type S. Flat: maisonette."
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: It then says "SS hot spot"; what is that
17 please?
18 PC JONES: The area that this house is in is a -- it is in
19 an area that Hornsey police or Tottenham police regard
20 as a place where a lot of crime has happened.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: So is it from a lay point of view, which
22 I am, to be interpreted: this is an area where the
23 police would need to be especially alert and especially
24 concerned?
25 PC JONES: For beat crime, street crimes, crimes in general,
239
1 yes.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed, that is very helpful. Thank you very
3 much indeed, Ms Jones. Thank you, Mr Garnham.
4 MR GARNHAM: Sir, nothing from me, but two interested
5 parties have asked me to put matters, I hope I can do it
6 fairly shortly.
7 First of all, with regard to your training, can you
8 confirm that you attended the following courses:
9 Memorandum of Good Practice interview course?
10 PC JONES: Yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: 1996, Working Together course, 1996?
12 PC JONES: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Initial CPT course in September 1996?
14 PC JONES: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: That was a two-week residential course I think?
16 PC JONES: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: That latter course, is it right that during
18 that you were taught basic law of child abuse?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Principles of working together?
21 PC JONES: We did not really touch too much on working
22 together, it was a brief because of the Working Together
23 course.
24 MR GARNHAM: Use of the CPT manual?
25 PC JONES: Yes, we used the CPT manual throughout the
240
1 course, yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: The need to investigate child abuse referrals
3 to the highest standards?
4 PC JONES: Sorry, say that again.
5 MR GARNHAM: This is a quotation. The investigation of
6 child abuse referrals "to the highest standards".
7 PC JONES: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: And to ensure the crime report is written
9 correctly?
10 PC JONES: Yes -- well, yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Knowledge of report writing and statement
12 taking?
13 PC JONES: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: How to identify signs of abuse?
15 PC JONES: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Cognitive interview skills?
17 PC JONES: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Child protection conferences?
19 PC JONES: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Expert evidence?
21 PC JONES: Perhaps I cannot remember for sure about that
22 one.
23 MR GARNHAM: The second matter I am asked to put to you: is
24 it right on 6th August -- and it involves you going back
25 to the occasion of your visit to the ward -- the nurse
241
1 who you saw there did not suggest that Victoria needed
2 to stay in hospital over the weekend?
3 PC JONES: No, she did not.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did she suggest to you that discharge needed to
5 be postponed until the Monday?
6 PC JONES: No, she did not.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did she express any reluctance about Victoria's
8 discharge?
9 PC JONES: No.
10 MR GARNHAM: Did she speak to you about how Victoria had
11 been behaving and playing?
12 PC JONES: She -- I think she did, but not in great detail.
13 Because when we got there she had to call Victoria.
14 MR GARNHAM: Had she been playing happily?
15 PC JONES: I assume so, I had not seen this myself.
16 MR GARNHAM: Thank you.
17 Sir, in the light of those additional questions and
18 yours, sir, it may be you will think it appropriate to
19 let Miss McGowan have another bite at the cherry.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course.
21 MS MCGOWAN: On that last question, the issue of the nurse
22 you saw on the ward on 6th August, and you were not able
23 to remember her name earlier.
24 PC JONES: No.
25 MS McGOWAN: If I put a name to you, see if it reminds you:
242
1 Millicent Graham.
2 PC JONES: Yes.
3 MS McGOWAN: One final matter about the document that you
4 sent to your Detective Inspector seeking effectively to
5 close the case.
6 PC JONES: Yes.
7 MS MCGOWAN: You have been asked about the use of the phrase
8 "had been scalded". Did you use that to suggest
9 in February that your view then was that another person
10 deliberately scalded the child?
11 PC JONES: No, I used that to say this is what had happened,
12 Victoria had scalded herself, had been scalded as
13 a result of what her actions were.
14 MS McGOWAN: Finally this: when she was admitted to hospital
15 in July and your role as you say was to investigate
16 a crime, in the absence of a complaint from the child
17 that she had been assaulted, were you not heavily
18 dependent, if not totally dependent, on a diagnosis of
19 deliberate assault from the medical team?
20 PC JONES: Yes, I was dependent.
21 MS McGOWAN: In your view as an experienced police officer,
22 did you ever receive such a specific diagnosis?
23 PC JONES: No.
24 MS McGOWAN: Thank you, that is all I would like to ask.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss McGowan, I am grateful to you
243
1 and thank you, Ms Jones, for your evidence. We will
2 have a short break now. I would be grateful if we could
3 get back here by 4.20 pm.
4 (4.13 pm)
5 (A short adjournment)
6 (4.20 pm)
7 MR GARNHAM: Sir, Mr Sheldon will take the next witness.
8 MR SHELDON: Thank you sir. The next witness is
9 Richard Bird.
10 PS RICHARD JOHN BIRD (sworn)
11 MR SHELDON: Good afternoon, Mr Bird.
12 PS BIRD: Good afternoon.
13 MR SHELDON: Could you confirm your full name and
14 professional address please.
15 PS BIRD: Richard John Bird, work out of Stratford Police
16 Station at the moment in West Ham.
17 MR SHELDON: I believe it is correct you have made
18 a statement for use by this Inquiry. I think a copy of
19 that is on its way to you. Could you have a look at it
20 please. Turn to the last page, if you would; is that
21 your signature?
22 PS BIRD: Yes, it is.
23 MR SHELDON: Are you contents that the facts and matters in
24 that statement are true?
25 PS BIRD: Yes, I am.
244
1 MR SHELDON: For the benefit of your note, sir, Mr Bird's
2 statement appears in volume 4 of the witness bundle, it
3 starts at page 15.
4 Mr Bird has also made short statement to the CPS in
5 connection with the criminal trial. That is to be found
6 in volume 46, starting at page 31.
7 Mr Bird, by my calculation you have been a policeman
8 for about 24 years, is that right?
9 PS BIRD: That is correct, it will be 25 in March.
10 MR SHELDON: You describe yourself in your statement as
11 Detective Sergeant, but as I understand it your DS
12 status is branch status only.
13 PS BIRD: That is correct, yes.
14 MR SHELDON: You are not and never have been a trained
15 detective?
16 PS BIRD: No, I am not.
17 MR SHELDON: There is a date missing in paragraph 1 of your
18 statement. I wonder if you could help me with that.
19 You say that you were at Haringey from 20th March 1999
20 until 27th April ... this year?
21 PS BIRD: This year.
22 MR SHELDON: 2001, thank you. That as I understand it was
23 your first child protection role?
24 PS BIRD: Yes, that is correct.
25 MR SHELDON: I would like to deal first, please, with the
245
1 makeup of that team in Haringey, and you helpfully point
2 us to the Child Protection Manual which sets out some
3 guidelines for the composition of child protection
4 teams. I wonder if you could have a look at those:
5 volume 32, page 344. I should perhaps refer you first
6 of all, Mr Bird, to page 336, to make sure I am looking
7 at the manual that you intended to refer to.
8 PS BIRD: That is correct, yes.
9 MR SHELDON: If I could take you back to 344 in that case
10 and section 7, which is entitled at the top of the page
11 "Job Descriptions of Child Protection Team". We see
12 there that there are described the job descriptions of
13 a detective inspector, underneath that a detective
14 sergeant, over the page a police sergeant and then
15 underneath that detective/police constables. That was
16 your understanding of what a standard CPT team ought to
17 look like?
18 PS BIRD: Yes, sir.
19 MR SHELDON: So a detective inspector, one of each detective
20 and police sergeant and then a mixture of detective and
21 ordinary constables?
22 PS BIRD: Yes.
23 MR SHELDON: I understand it in Haringey in the period with
24 which we were concerned, so July 1999 up until
25 the February 2000, you did have a detective inspector,
246
1 namely Detective Inspector Howard.
2 PS BIRD: That is right.
3 MR SHELDON: There was no detective sergeant on the team and
4 after DS Braithwaite left at the end of March 1999 there
5 was no detective constable either until May 2000, is
6 that right?
7 PS BIRD: That is correct, yes.
8 MR SHELDON: So what one could be certain of is that if
9 a crime was reported your team in mid-1999, unless
10 DI Howard dealt with it himself it was not going to be
11 dealt with by a detective?
12 PS BIRD: Essentially not.
13 MR SHELDON: Prior to starting on the Child Protection Team
14 you worked as I understand it in a Vulnerable Persons
15 Unit and a Beat Crimes Unit, Kilburn Division.
16 PS BIRD: That is correct, yes.
17 MR SHELDON: Before moving on to child protection practice
18 and procedures, I just want to ask you about one element
19 of the procedure in those divisions. I take it from
20 your statement that no officer in the vulnerable persons
21 unit would investigate such serious crimes as serious
22 assault or a rape unless they were a detective?
23 PS BIRD: That is correct.
24 MR SHELDON: Such crimes would be passed on to CID?
25 PS BIRD: That is correct, yes.
247
1 MR SHELDON: Similarly in the Beat Crimes Unit serious
2 crimes such as a serious assault or robbery would be
3 transferred to CID in the same way?
4 PS BIRD: That is true.
5 MR SHELDON: The reason for that is probably self-evident:
6 it is because CID had the training and resources to deal
7 with crimes of that nature?
8 PS BIRD: Very much so.
9 MR SHELDON: Let me check I understand the position
10 correctly in that case: the Vulnerable Persons Unit
11 dealt with domestic violence?
12 PS BIRD: Yes.
13 MR SHELDON: So if a man, for example, poured boiling water
14 on his wife, such as to constitute a very serious
15 assault, that crime would be referred to you and
16 investigated by CID?
17 PS BIRD: It would.
18 MR SHELDON: If he poured boiling water over his seven year
19 old child it would not be a crime or assault
20 investigated by a CID officer, it would be investigated
21 by someone who had, if it was in Haringey, no detective
22 training at all?
23 PS BIRD: If it was in Haringey that would be the case
24 during the relevant time.
25 MR SHELDON: Is there any good reason you can think of why
248
1 children should be treated differently to adults in that
2 respect?
3 PS BIRD: This is a very powerful question and I have given
4 it a lot of thought and I see there is every reason why
5 children should be treated more specially than that.
6 MR SHELDON: So I take it from that answer that that is the
7 situation which you regarded as deeply unsatisfactory?
8 PS BIRD: It is very unsatisfactory.
9 MR SHELDON: Did you regard it as deeply unsatisfactory at
10 the time?
11 PS BIRD: At the time that thought did not pass through my
12 mind, no.
13 MR SHELDON: It must though, must it not, come as a bit of
14 a shock to your system, having spent twenty years or so
15 referring this sort of crime, serious assault for
16 example, on to CID, to suddenly find yourself in the
17 Haringey Child Protection Team either dealing with such
18 crimes yourself or supervising ordinary constables,
19 dealing with them with no investigative training?
20 PS BIRD: It did. However, when I have visited Haringey CPT
21 prior to putting my investigation in, I had every --
22 MR SHELDON: Area application. You said investigation.
23 PS BIRD: My application in, I had every hope or I saw there
24 was a detective constable there and had every hope he
25 would still be there when I got there.
249
1 MR SHELDON: Only one though?
2 PS BIRD: However, a mine of information, if he is a trained
3 detective.
4 MR SHELDON: So you thought although he would not be able to
5 handle all the cases that required detective input
6 himself, he could certainly help out those others that
7 were doing that work?
8 PS BIRD: Yes.
9 MR SHELDON: So the withdrawal of that detective constable
10 resource, which I believe was in March 1999 --
11 PS BIRD: End of March 1999, yes.
12 MR SHELDON: -- which coincided almost exactly with your
13 arrival --
14 PS BIRD: About ten days sir.
15 MR SHELDON: -- changed the position dramatically as far as
16 you were concerned?
17 PS BIRD: Yes.
18 MR SHELDON: Thereafter, did you feel that either you or
19 your team as a whole were suitably qualified to
20 undertake the investigation of serious crimes against
21 children?
22 PS BIRD: I did not, no.
23 MR SHELDON: Of course you individually were being asked to
24 do more than that, were you not? You were not just
25 being asked to investigate those crimes, you were being
250
1 asked to supervise other people doing so.
2 PS BIRD: That is right, yes.
3 MR SHELDON: You say in paragraph 7 of your statement that
4 this was an omission and a difficulty which you brought
5 to DI Howard's attention, is that right?
6 PS BIRD: Yes, it is.
7 MR SHELDON: In particular, the lack of investigative
8 training that you had had, the lack of procedural
9 training that was available to child protection
10 officers, and also the lack of joint investigative
11 training with social services.
12 PS BIRD: Yes.
13 MR SHELDON: He was aware of all of those three omissions,
14 was he?
15 PS BIRD: Yes, he was. We talked about them, not just on
16 one occasion, it was talked about on many occasions.
17 MR SHELDON: I should imagine that with child protection
18 work, as with many other jobs, there is an element of
19 training which is formal, and is probably necessarily
20 formal, but also an element of training whereby you pick
21 up practices and good practice on the job through
22 watching others and through observing, is that right?
23 PS BIRD: Yes, that is correct.
24 MR SHELDON: To what extent do you feel you were able to
25 plug all those gaps in your training by on the job
|
