Chapter 5: Hampshire Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service
Contact with families during the investigations
In the course of the third investigation, Hampshire Constabulary recognised that a family liaison strategy had been lacking and the families’ confidence in the police investigation had been dented. By November 2002, a large number of families were being represented by Ann Alexander (Solicitors) (HCO004764, HCO003041). Ann Alexander’s involvement brought about the establishment of family group meetings, some of which Hampshire Constabulary attended to provide updates and answer questions for the families. The police also provided bulletins to the family group meetings (HCO000001). Mrs Mackenzie was represented by Ken White of Cornfield Law, with whom Hampshire Constabulary also kept in contact (HCO002246, p3). The police also telephoned and corresponded with Ann Alexander and family members in order to provide updates and to answer any queries (HCO004767; HCO000639, pp38–40; HCO000639, pp93–100; HCO001980, pp4–5).
On 21 May 2004, a family liaison officer, Detective Constable (Det Con) Kate Robinson, was appointed to review existing arrangements and to take a family liaison strategy forward (HCO000640, p13). At this time, a report on the ongoing family liaison confirmed:
“There are currently 79 main Family Group Members, who are the/joint point of contact for their family … The Family Group Members are kept informed of events which may impact on them by way of letter. ie change of address and contact numbers. When there are a number of items with which to update the Family Group, a bulletin is prepared and again sent by post.” (HCO000640, p14)
It is clear from the documents that family members felt that Hampshire Constabulary’s level of communication was inadequate (HCO002486, p3).
Following the decisions on prosecution in December 2006, the families affected were offered the opportunity to meet with the CPS and Counsel (CPS002008).
Following the conclusion of the third police investigation, poor family liaison was the subject of a complaint by Mrs Reeves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in 2007. The IPCC independent investigator noted:
“The issue over communication and Family Liaison provision was again part of Mrs Reeves’ original complaint and was subject to investigation. This concluded in May 2006 with the recommendation that Superintendent James receives operational advice over his management of the victims’ families. The issue over family liaison is raised in the review by Chief Superintendent Johnston, [Head of CID at] Avon and Somerset, and again in Assistant Chief Constable Cole’s investigation report to the IPCC … the role of the FLO [Family Liaison Officer], amongst others, is to keep the family informed of the progress of the investigation and to act as a conduit between the investigation team and the complainant. During the period of the latest investigation with Detective Superintendent Williams in charge there is a mass of correspondence supplied by Mrs Reeves herself with letters and e-mails between herself, D/Supt Williams, Dep Ch Const Readhead and others answering the issues that she raises. Included are the 7 update bulletins that she received from Operation Rochester, the last being 18 February 2005 … In addition there is detail of contact that Mrs Reeves instigated with Kate Robinson on at least two occasions … Clearly there has been a breakdown of trust between Mrs Reeves and the Hampshire Constabulary, which has admitted failures in their Family Liaison Policy following the earlier investigation.” (IPC100813, pp6–8)
The IPCC investigator concluded that the complaint of poor communication was unlikely to be substantiated (IPC100813, p8).
The Panel notes a paucity of information provided to and the sporadic nature of the family group meetings. There was a two-year delay in appointing a family liaison officer. There does not appear to be any rationale for not adopting a family liaison strategy far earlier than 2004. Despite the appointment of a family liaison officer, families lost confidence in the police.
The Panel has not seen documents relating to the Family Liaison Policy File and therefore has been unable to consider the full extent of the family liaison records.
During the first year of the third police investigation, Det Ch Supt Watts applied for and accepted a place on a Strategic Command Course by 7 January 2004. This started a few weeks later. Although Det Ch Supt Watts would be attending the course full time, a decision was made that he would retain supervision over the investigation (HCO000640, pp88–90). The families expressed concern about this (FAM003222). The Panel has not seen any document that confirms how it was that Dep Ch Const Readhead agreed that Det Ch Supt Watts could retain ‘overview’ of the investigation in such circumstances. Dep Ch Const Readhead appeared not to recognise the families’ perception that they were being failed and the subsequent impact this had on the confidence they had in his force. The Panel observes that the duration of a Strategic Command Course is approximately 12 months and considers this a long period of time to be away from a prolonged and complex investigation such as the third police investigation. The Panel has seen no documents to confirm Det Ch Const Readhead’s rationale for allowing Det Ch Supt Watts to attend the Strategic Command Course while retaining the direction of a large-scale, complex and serious investigation, which had been declared a critical incident.