The Stephen Lawrence detectives will not stand trial

A review has found that four retired detectives who led the initial investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence should not be held criminally responsible for their actions in the case.

The opinion from a senior lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) upholds an earlier decision not to prosecute, which was challenged by Stephen’s parents and friend.

Stephen was murdered in April 1993 in a racist attack in south London.

His mother, Baroness Lawrence, said she was “surprised, disappointed and angry” by the decision, adding: “I’m sure the public will be too.”

“Today’s decision means – as things currently stand – that no officer will ever be held accountable in any shape or form for the manifest and inexcusable failings in the Stephen case,” she said in a statement.

She said the CPS decision “represents the worst new way in which the justice system has treated me and my family” and that it is “unjustified”.

The CPS said it understood the decision not to prosecute would be “extremely disappointing” for Stephen’s family and friends and has arranged to meet with close family members to explain its reasons in detail.

The initial investigation led to no one being brought to justice, although in 2012 two men were convicted of Stephen’s murder.

The officers were investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) but last year the CPS decided not to prosecute after considering the evidence.

Stephen’s parents, Dr Neville Lawrence and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, as well as his friend Duwayne Brooks, who was present during the attack, invoked the victim’s right to have the decision to press charges reconsidered.

The latest review found there was insufficient evidence to realistically expect a conviction and therefore none of the four individuals will be charged.

The decision means no officers have been held criminally responsible for what is widely regarded as one of Scotland Yard’s worst disasters.

The four retired officers under investigation by the IOPC are:

• Detective Chief Inspector Ian Crampton, who was the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) for the first four days of the murder investigation

• Chief Superintendent Brian Weeden, who took over as SIO from Mr Crampton and held the position for 14 months

• Inspector Benjamin Bullock, who served as Deputy SIO under Mr Crampton and Mr Weeden

• Chief Inspector William Ilsley, who oversaw the team responsible for the first murder investigation

Rosemary Ainslie, head of the CPS Special Crimes Unit, said the decision last July not to bring criminal charges against the four officers was taken “carefully” following objections from the family.

She said the review “involved an independent prosecutor who re-examined a significant amount of evidence and material in the case.”

“Offences relating to misconduct in public office were reviewed, but the review upheld the original decision not to bring any criminal charges against the four officers in this case,” she said.

But Baroness Lawrence said the review only looked at the “first few weeks of failure” for the four officers, “when we know that the failures of the first investigation continued into 1994”.

She said the review only looked at failings involving the five main suspects, “but we now know that there were serious failings involving other suspects and Matthew White in 1993.”

Last year, the BBC publicly identified a sixth suspect in Stephen’s murder, Matthew White, who died in 2021, and revealed a number of related failures, including the fact that he was not considered a suspect in the first investigation despite numerous reasons to treat him as one.

The first investigation team also seriously mishandled the approach of White’s stepfather, who wanted to tell police that his stepson had admitted to being present during Stephen’s murder. The BBC revealed that Brian Weeden was aware of his stepfather’s approach but it was not implemented properly.

This major setback was not part of the case against any of the four officers who were not charged. That case covered only the first few weeks of the 1993 investigation.

Baroness Lawrence said: “How is it possible that such obvious negligence was not part of the case the CPS presented today?

“The only conclusion I draw is that the IOPC and NCA conducted a shallow investigation, focusing solely on matters in the public domain and placed too much trust in retired officers.”

She continued: “The reviewed decision released today does not contain a single mention of racism.

“Everyone now accepts that institutional racism was at the heart of the first inquiry, yet there was no consideration of how that affected the decision-making process. Clearly, it did.

“How can racism not be part and parcel of the CPS decision in Stephen’s case? This is inexcusable.”

In 1999, a public inquiry chaired by Sir William Macpherson found that the initial investigation into Lawrence’s murder “was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers”.

The Macpherson Report was highly critical of the decision not to make quick arrests.

No arrests were made for two weeks, even though police received information incriminating the four main suspects within 24 hours of the stabbing attack.

A 1997 police investigation also proved critical, but at that time only Mr Bullock was serving in the Metropolitan Police and could face disciplinary action.

The IOPC investigation that led to the referral to the CPS began in 2014 and involved allegations of corruption made against a separate officer – John Davidson – who worked on the original Lawrence murder investigation.

The investigation, conducted on behalf of the National Crime Agency, follows an official review by solicitor Mark Ellison KC which concluded there were outstanding issues in relation to corruption allegations involving Mr Davidson.

In 2019, Davidson was told he was no longer under investigation, with the IOPC ultimately focusing on four senior officers from the original murder investigation and how they handled the first part of the case.

In 2020, the IOPC submitted a collection of evidence to the CPS asking it to consider whether officers may have committed misconduct in their public office.

The criminal offence of misconduct in public office is committed when a person holding an office acts – or fails to act – in a manner that constitutes a breach of the duties pertaining to that office.