Chapter 5: Hampshire Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service
Police and CPS relationship
As a general observation, the Panel notes that the more complex an investigation, and the greater its scale, the more likely it is that investigative advice and guidance will be required by the police from the CPS. In a case as complex and novel as this one, there may have been an increased need for regular and constructive liaison between the police and the CPS but this does not appear to have been the case.
By August 2003, Det Insp Niven had decided to engage the services of Mr Lohn “to assist in investigation and interview strategy as sought by the SIO” (HCO000638, p85). The CPS was not consulted on this decision at the time and only later became aware of Mr Lohn’s involvement, at which time Mr Close expressed concern about Mr Lohn’s suitability to advise on a complex criminal investigation. It is not clear from the documents viewed by the Panel how and on what basis Mr Lohn was selected. When the wisdom of this decision was questioned by the CPS, the police responded:
“For the avoidance of any doubt - In respect of FFW [solicitors’ firm where Mr Lohn was a partner] - they are there to assist us investigate. The decision making process has and will always rest with yourselves. We do not seek to substitute the CPS. The results of the experts is in its infancy and should only be viewed as a filtering process as had been explained.” (HCO000638, p126)
On 6 July 2004, Det Ch Supt Watts and Detective Superintendent (Det Supt) David Williams met with the CPS casework directorate at Ludgate Hill. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an investigation overview, discuss timescales and priority cases. It was also agreed that the CPS would “review the briefing file and provide a briefing note”. This appears to be the first occasion when the investigation strategy was discussed in any detail.
On 2 August 2005, Det Supt Williams noted in a letter to the CPS:
“I am informed that Mr CLOSE is in possession of Counsels advice which was due to be completed by the end of June. My staff have made requests on my behalf to meet with Counsel to discuss issues arising from their review of the papers submitted to date, but no such meeting has been forthcoming. I will make myself available between Tuesday 9th August and Thursday 18th August to discuss the case, please make every attempt to facilitate a meeting within these timescales with Counsel. Finally I understand that Mr CLOSE has refused a request for advanced sight of Counsels advice prior to any meeting commenting that it is not CPS policy to release this material. Given the complex nature of the investigation and the continued investment of police staff and experts to investigate at significant cost to the public purse this position seems to me to be totally unwarranted. The advice would serve to give an advanced current legal perspective of the investigation to date and would factor heavily into the ongoing investigative strategy. May I ask that you reconsider the position in terms of disclosure of Counsels advice, if it is against existing policy please forward a copy of that policy and register that I wish to formally appeal the position.” (HCO000642, p113)
The Panel is not aware of any protocol that explains this approach, which did not seem to assist the police in their investigation.
Eventually, on 15 December 2006, the CPS confirmed the decisions not to prosecute. By that time, Mr Close had already informed Ann Reeves, the daughter of Mrs Devine, that the police had received the decision from the CPS, therefore denying the police the opportunity to discuss the decision with the CPS beforehand. In fact, it appears that no liaison took place between the police and the CPS regarding the outcome of the CPS decision.