Clarkie emerged from the mist; he was dressed head to foot in blue and wore a bullet-proof vest. The baseball cap with the chequered band on his head indicated that he was one of the boys in blue. Radios and other gadgets were pinned to him just as anyone watching a good police drama would expect.
He was in his element. It was the result of at least a year’s hard work by the detectives at the Barnes branch office of the Flying Squad. Allan Clarke was their SOCO, a hard-working and totally effective professional, who I was pleased and honoured to be associated with.
The Barnes Flying Squad office was the smallest and least busy of the four branch offices. Its patch of south-west London had its fair share of robberies and armed robbers, but it lacked the gritty volume of east London where I was based. The Barnes team was ribbed by some of the other offices because it was so much quieter than some of its neighbours. But the officers there were just as professional and dedicated and effective in their work. Clarkie personified that.
The arrest which heralded my arrival outside the scene cordon was the culmination of investigation and surveillance under the codename Operation Young.
Not that the gestation period had gone unnoticed by the other offices, which regularly arrested ‘on the pavement’ many armed robbers in a similar period. One office had sent a birthday card to Barnes, another an MOT certificate (required by a car at three years of age) to draw attention to the length of their endeavours.
And ‘on the pavement’ was the classic way to do it. It clearly describes the arrest of the suspect as they approach their victim, the bank, building society or security guard transferring a bag of cash to one of these premises. It is the classic arrest of ‘conspiracy to rob’ and still the hardest to prove. Without the luxury of arresting suspects immediately after they have committed an offence, Flying Squad officers would arrest them going in, and so the intent of the suspect had to be proved. Its benefits were obvious, bank employees and members of the public were not put at risk. The downside is that the suspect would put try to put forward a defence which would negate the fifteen years of imprisonment they could expect for armed robbery, and present some other explanation, even if they were masked and carrying a gun. The arrest on the pavement was inherently dangerous for the Squad officers, many of whom were not armed. Yes, there were armed officers present, but not all the officers were routinely armed. Their bravery was only matched by what to onlookers would appear as stupidity. But brave they were. That bravery was not without a very professional purpose. It is very dangerous for an armed police officer to have direct physical contact with someone they are trying to arrest. Apart from the danger of a weapon being discharged at close quarters, the suspect may try to disarm the arresting officer, making the situation even more dangerous. From a scientific evidence point of view it is very unhelpful if the arresting officer is armed as they could contaminate the suspect with residues if they have fired shots or are contaminated with firearms discharge residues (FDRs). So it is normal for armed officers to control the arrest whilst unarmed officers lay hands on the suspect to effect an arrest.
Tonight the alleged robbers had been caught. It was alleged that, during the arrest, the suspect had fired shots at the arresting officers.
As Clarkie briefed me and my two Flying Squad SOCO colleagues who had raced from the three corners of London to help Barnes in its hour of need, a priority emerged to examine the detained suspect who had allegedly fired the shots for FDRs. FDRs are the small particles which emerge from the chamber of a weapon when it is fired and form a cloud. They fall on the back of the hand and sometimes on the face if a weapon is held closer for firing. They are delicate and fall off the hands and face within a few hours. They can remain a little longer in facial or head hair and longer in pockets of clothing. The residues are specific to firearms discharge as they contain three elements, which in combination are only found in the percussion cap of ammunition and in the residues from their discharge. I volunteered to go to the police station where the suspect in question was being held.
When I arrived at the police station the suspect was still being booked into the custody area. He was still clothed, which was good because I wanted to examine him for residues before his clothing was removed. This was to ensure that there was no disturbance of any material which was directly on his exposed skin areas.
Once again I considered PACE. Under the Act, the swabbing of exposed external areas of a suspect could be undertaken with the consent of a suspect and with the authority of a police inspector, where it was believed that evidence could be found to prove or disprove the involvement in a criminal offence. As explained before, in a serious case, such as this, even if the suspect refused or did not consent in writing, the external samples could still be taken with the authority of a superintendent.
To say that the suspect was happy for me to take the samples may be stretching the view. Anyone arrested in an offence such as conspiracy to rob and discharging a firearm at arresting officers is unlikely to be at their best. With the appropriate authorities, and in the absence of any force being needed, I could undertake the examination, which I did. Had it come to a struggle, though, I would have to advise that the swabbing was unpractical in such a situation. This is because any force used could not be controlled and there would be a risk of poor and possibly contaminated sampling and, of course, injury. Again, as I’ve said before, in that case my notes and the custody record would show the refusal. This in itself could be presented in evidence and a prosecution lawyer use a clause in the Act to suggests that a refusal hid the complicity of the suspect. The examination had the ability to disprove as well as prove involvement.
Having examined many suspects for FDRs in the past, I was very familiar with the procedure. The Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory provided a special swabbing kit for the purpose. The kit was made under specific conditions to ensure that its contents were free from contamination before it was released for use. Its batch and history were monitored. When used, the procedure started with the operator (such as me) obtaining control samples from the room in which the examination was taking place and also from my own hands. Again this was to check and ensure that there was no contamination from the sampling process.
Only once this was done would I then put on a pair of gloves from within the kit and swab, with small sticky pre-labelled tabs, the fingers, back of hands and the face of the suspect. I would then comb the hair of the suspect for residues, using a comb with lint-filled moistened teeth designed for the purpose. The combing was also suitable for fibres and glass examination should that also be required later.
Having completed each swabbing, the items were placed back in the sample tubes, an examination information sheet filled in and all the items, including the sheet, placed in the single bag provided for the purpose which I labelled and sealed. It was marked my Exhibit PFM/1. It was the only exhibit I personally took. I ensured it was entered on the suspect’s custody record and placed with the property seized from him.
Having completed my examination and notes, I left the arresting detective officer present to recover the suspect’s clothing.
It was over a year later that I was called to give evidence at the trial of the suspect and his co-defendants at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey in the City of London.
I probably sat outside the court for a couple of hours, but by then I was an old hand, and, like other expert witnesses, I was only called to the court once my turn was imminent.
The case was obviously being fiercely contested by the defence team. This was evident from the fact that no detectives were allowed in court, with the exception of the exhibits officers in the case (a detective constable from the Barnes office), who was needed to find exhibits when they were called for. The absence of the officer in the case (the leading investigator) was bound to hamper the progress of the case from an investigation point from view but indicated mistrust of the police by the defence.
The court usher called my name and I entered the courtroom, it was one of the newer larger rooms. The witness box was a few paces inside the door with the judge immediately to my left and the jury further left still. A row of lead barristers, one prosecutor and one for each of the defendants, sat in line, with a similar row of junior counsel behind. Then behind them were all the defendants (including the one I had examined) flanked by prison officers.
The fact that I had only taken one exhibit, the swabs for suspected FDRs, during the examination of the suspect did not necessarily mean that my time in the witness box was to be quick, straightforward and painless.
However, it was – so much so that I have little memory of it. I explained what I had done and I identified my exhibit PFM/1 when it was presented to me. What I do remember is the cross-examination by the lead counsel representing the defendant I had examined. He, I was later to find out, was the son of a leading politician and member of the House of Lords.
Defence counsel’s opening remarks to me were unusual. He stated that there were no allegations about my conduct during the investigation. This rather took me aback. That’s very kind of you, I thought. He went on to say that his client had never fired a weapon and that he wanted me to explain how I had sealed the item before I passed it on. From bitter experience in other cases over the last two or so years I then knew I was in for a day or so in the witness box, arguing about when I had sealed the item, whether it had been interfered with and even if it was still in the same bag.
I seized the moment.
I had already had the opportunity to look at the exhibit when presenting my evidence in chief. Before identifying it to the court, I had ensured that it bore all the hallmarks of my original exhibit: the exhibit number, signature, signature seal, date, time, place, suspect’s name and my report number. They were all there. There was no doubt that this was my original exhibit. I had also noticed the single opening and resealing with the signature and name of Dr Geoff Warman of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory. I had many dealings with Geoff and his colleagues, where he was a senior scientist and expert in FDRs. It was apparent to me (although not my evidence) that Geoff had examined the item at the laboratory before resealing it at the end of his examination.
As counsel spoke, I interrupted him and asked His Lordship if I could once again look at my exhibit PFM/1.
It is dangerous to appear clever when giving evidence, but experience and certainly exposure to the way of the courtroom can give you some confidence. I had no wish to stand in the witness box for a day whilst counsel wove a web of doubt about the origin and integrity of my exhibit, because I was sure of certain facts.
Holding the item in front of me I explained that the item bore the name of the suspect, my exhibit number and signature, the date and time it was sealed and also my signature seal. I observed that it contained one opening for which I could not account but also that I noticed the seal and signature across that opening of Dr Warman, who, if asked, might be able to throw light on that subject. I went on to state that when the item left my possession it was sealed and had it been received in any condition other than sealed I would expect the scientist who was asked to examine it to reject it for fear of contamination.
I closed with the statement that if, as counsel was suggesting, someone had interfered with the item after I took the swabs, contaminating or planting FDRs, it would have had to have taken place before I sealed the item at 16.47 as recorded on the item and in my notes on the day in question. I would have had to have been a party to any act of contamination or planting and I was not.
Shocked by my words, counsel said, ‘And that is your answer?’ ‘It is, My Lord,’ I replied. Counsel sat down with a stunned slump.
His Lordship thanked me and I was released from giving further evidence. The court rose for lunch and I walked out of court pretty pleased that I had avoided a prolonged time in the witness box. I was pursued from the court by DC Regan, a real-life namesake of that fictional Flying Squad detective, who was the exhibits officer in the case and the only officer allowed in the court. He had witnessed the whole (but I was pleased to say short) episode and he gleefully and vigorously shook my hand.
I made my way back to the office. ‘Sorted,’ I could hear the fictional Jack Regan say.