Directions to the investigating officer

19.0 DIRECTIONS TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

19.1 FIRST DIRECTIONS

19.1a ELEMENT ONE

Make enquiries to establish what evidence there is to show that Mr NICHOLLS' dealings with the media at the relevant time were known to officers of Essex Police, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and/or the Prison Service.

Responses to each element:

•    ESSEX POLICE - There is no conclusive evidence to show that prior to the trial any officers from Essex Police were aware of NICHOLLS' contact with the media either whilst he was in custody or after he was released from custody. They appear to have only discovered this fact in late 1998 when they were formally contacted by L.W.T. who informed them about of the programme (which was still in production). They subsequently viewed some of the content of the proposed programme and then made representations to L.W.T. stating that the programme could put NICHOLLS and his family in danger as they could be identified in some of the footage. As a result of those representations, various parts of the programme were re-filmed.

Note

•    Essex Police appeared to have made it quite clear to L.W.T. that they were not happy with the programme being shown, due to the possible risks to NICHOLLS and his family. They then appeared to have made strenuous attempts to have some programme's content altered in an attempt to reduce that risk. As a result of their subsequent Risk Assessment they offered to re-house NICHOLLS and his family. It is submitted that the fact that the police were so late in making attempts to prevent the broadcast of proposed television programme is indicative that they did not know about it beforehand.

•    The Witness Protection Officers were in NICHOLLS company almost continuously from May until late October 1996. They also later spent many hours with him in prison (and also when he was released from prison into temporary police custody). These officers (and a number of other of witnesses) describe NICHOLLS as a very talkative individual and because of this there appears to have been a tendency by them not always to take much notice of what he was saying.

•    In his statement Dc CLARK states: "It certainly is fair to say that Darren is talkative. I spent many hours with Darren and he would talk about many of his dreams, most of which were impossible. Darren talked of becoming an airline or a helicopter pilot. NICHOLLS had the effect of making me not take too seriously what he said on occasions. I do remember at some stage Darren told me about going to Hollywood in relation to the things that had happened to him, I laughed. I think Darren told me that he was going to write a book as well. I cannot remember when these subjects were first raised by Darren but I did not take him seriously."

•    Dc BROWN states: "I remember during NICHOLLS time in custody prior to him being bailed he spoke of his inclination to write a book and make some money, to assist with his and his family's relocation. My memory of my reaction was that I would have advised him that he was unwise to do so; public airing of such a story could only increase his chances of being identified in any later change of identity or relocation. Having said that I did not take NICHOLLS' idea too seriously, I really thought he was "Shooting the breeze" at this stage...."

• In relation to when they first became aware of NICHOLLS involvement with the media:

• Dc CLARK states: 7 remember at some later stage I saw Darren in a lay-by, by a burger van, where I gave him a telling off for not having told us about the fact that he was to appear in a television programme. It may have been this same meeting, I cannot be sure, when Darren told me that there was going to be a book about him called "BLOGGS". I am not 100% sure whether this meeting was before or after the trial, but my initial thought was that it was after the trial. At some stage I must have mentioned this to the Senior Investigating Officer but again I cannot remember doing so. I have no memories of discussing with Darren at any stage about the contracts he may have entered into and what monies he was to have earned from his story. At some stage around this time I and others from Essex Police visited a television company where I watched Darren appearing in a film about himself."

• Dc BROWN states: "I believe that after NICHOLLS was bailed I first found out for certain that a book was being published, or had been published. I really cannot give an estimation of the date or where this occurred in the sequence of events. It is fair to say I was livid and told NICHOLLS so. At about the same time I found out that NICHOLLS had done some filming, again I was livid and let NICHOLLS know my thoughts. My reasons for the anger were mainly because I believed that NICHOLLS was putting his own security in jeopardy."

•    It appears that because of the passage of time the witnesses cannot remember exactly when NICHOLLS made these comments but it can be seen that they both have a recollection that it was around the time of the television programme's production. This is a very clear indication that they only became aware of NICHOLLS of involvement with the media in late 1998 or early 1999, (in other words ,some months after the conclusion of STEELE'S and WHOMES' trial).

•    All of the senior officers and 'case preparation' officers involved in the investigation (with the exception of Ivan DIBLEY who retired two months before NICHOLLS' arrest) have been interviewed and have affirmed that they had no knowledge of NICHOLLS' involvement with the media prior to the trial.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE

There is no evidence to show that any member of the Metropolitan Police knew of NICHOLLS' dealings with the media. His witness Protection Officers were from Essex Police and the Metropolitan police were only involved in his identity change and for a brief period his custody "BLANKED OUT"

Note

•    The Metropolitan Police staff "BLANKED OUT" were not interviewed (THOMPSON has stated that his visits to NICHOLLS took place at Harlow Police Station. This was confirmed by NICHOLLS and there is no other evidence to indicate that this would be a productive line of enquiry). The Metropolitan staff involved in NICHOLLS' identity change were not interviewed because they would have had no direct face-to-face contact with him.

THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

There is no evidence to indicate that any member of the Crown Prosecution Service had any knowledge of NICHOLLS contact with the media.

H.M. PRISON SERVICE

•    There is no evidence to indicate that any prison officer, either at H.M.P "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha' or H.M.P."BLANKED OUT" 'Beta' had any knowledge of NICHOLLS dealings with the media.

19.1b ELEMENT TWO

Make enquiries as to whether there is any evidence to show that any police or prison officers connived in arranging or facilitating Mr NICHOLLS' contacts with representatives of the media.

ESSEX POLICE

•    There is no evidence to indicate that any officer or police staff member connived in arranging or facilitating NICHOLLS contact with the media.

Note

•    Available evidence indicates that NICHOLLS arranged THOMPSON'S initial visit's by telephone (to which it appears he had free access whilst he was in custody). On all subsequent visits it appears that THOMPSON was allowed access once NICHOLLS had agreed to the visit.

•    THOMPSON states that he believed he was introduced to the police officers involved in his detention as a "family friend". NICHOLLS gives a very strong indication that it was mainly the custody staff who were involved in any visits he may have had. It appears he simply told the custody staff he had a visitor coming and they would then let them in. If a visitor turned up asking to see NICHOLLS (under his new name) the staff on the police station's enquiry office would simply ask the custody staff who would in turn ask NICHOLLS if he agreed to the visit. Most of his visits were in the evening when his Witness Protection Officers had finished their tour of duty.

•    There is a very strong indication from the custody staff that visitors to NICHOLLS were sanctioned by the Witness Protection Officers and that the arrangements were "very strict".

•    Dc BROWN, one of the Witness Protection Officers states "I would point out that whilst he was resident at Harlow Police Station, NICHOLLS himself decided who his visitors were to be. As far as I remember there were no formal rules about visitors to NICHOLLS.....it was believed that NICHOLLS was highly unlikely to invite a person who would cause him harm thus no vetting or verifying the identity of his visitors at the police station took place. NICHOLLS was allowed to make telephone calls in private..."

•    DC CLARK, one of his other Witness Protection Officers states: "NICHOLLS was allowed to have visitors, which generally DC BROWN and myself would facilitate. NICHOLLS never had that many visits and we used to go along with NICHOLLS requests to be visited by individuals. As far as vetting of those visitors goes, as far as I remember we never had any reason to prohibit any visitors. We never had a rigid system for vetting and trusted that NICHOLLS would never invite anyone who would cause him harm. I cannot remember ever checking the identification of any visitors, but it obviously was a long time ago. I remember the following visitors to NICHOLLS at Harlow.....and black man called THOMPSON. Darren said that THOMPSON was his friend I believe, or possibly a friend of his (Darren's) brother, or even possibly another member of his family.

•    In summary, it appears that there was no rigid system of vetting or otherwise agreeing to NICHOLLS' visitors. The overwhelming opinion of the custody staff is that the Witness Protection Officers authorised all visitors to NICHOLLS. It appears however that it was the Witness Protection officers' view that if NICHOLLS asked for a particular visitor, this was acceptable as he was unlikely to request a visit from someone who would then cause him some harm. It appears that the Witness Protection Officers saw their role as relating almost exclusively to the physical protection of their subject witness, with little or no consideration of the need to prevent compromise to OR contamination of the prosecution process.

H.M. PRISON SERVICE

There is no evidence to indicate that any staff of H.M. Prison service connived in arranging or facilitating NICHOLLS' contact with the media.

Note

•    During the investigation it became very apparent that the regime at H.M. "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha' was not as efficient and effective as it should have been and this was one of the reasons why the Protected Witness Unit moved to H.M.P. "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta' in late 1996. The new regime at "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta', particularly in relation to visits, was much stricter than it had ever been at H.M.P. "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha'.

•     However, it appears from the evidence available that THOMPSON only visited NICHOLLS at H.M.P. "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha'.

•    At H.M.P. "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha', there were no records whatsoever regarding any aspect of their Witness Protection Unit that had closed down in late 1996. It was therefore very difficult to trace all of the staff who had worked there at the time. This was made even more difficult because of the high volume of staff that had apparently worked in the unit before it closed. Therefore without interviewing all of the staff from the unit it was very difficult to get a complete picture of what had happened during NICHOLLS' time in custody there, and thus it was impossible to conclusively prove or disprove that any staff had connived in arranging or facilitating NICHOLLS' contact with THOMPSON.

•    However, it can be assumed that if the prison service had asked the "BLANKED OUT" police to agree NICHOLLS visits, they would have been agreed by them

on the same principle indicated above , ie the belief that NICHOLLS would be unlikely to ask someone he thought would cause him harm to visit him in prison."BLANKED OUT"

19.2 SECOND 'DIRECTIONS'

"make enquiries to establish what evidence there is to 19.2 show that Mr NICHOLLS' evidence at the trial may have been in any way affected by his dealing with the media"

There is no evidence to indicate that NICHOLLS' evidence at the trial of STEELE and WHOMES was in any way affected by his dealings with the media.

Note

•    Following NICHOLLS' arrest he was interviewed under caution on a number of occasions in respect of the drugs offences for which he was arrested (and later charged), and also in respect of the Rettendon murder investigation. He later made a number of witness statements in respect of the murders and also Operation Apache, which was a corruption investigation being conducted by Essex police into a number of its officers (including Dc Wolfgang BIRD, NICHOLLS' informant 'Handler'.

•    NICHOLLS made a number of statements in respect of the murders - as follows:-

•    21/5/96 - full account of murders etc.

•    bet. 20/8/96 - 27/8/96 additional account re murders.

•    29/8/96 - account re purchase and disposal of shotgun.

•    27/11/96 - re description of Stones Bar. Amsterdam.

•    7/2/97 - NICHOLLS 'movements' on 5/12/95

•    It can be seen from the above dates that the majority of NICHOLLS' statements had been taken by the time NICHOLLS initially contacted THOMPSON in early September 1996. In addition to this, the available evidence shows that the statements had all been taken after he had given his account of the murders under caution and on audiotape.

•    The statements taken in closest proximity of time to NICHOLLS' initial contact with THOMPSON are those taken on 20th August and 29th August 1996. The statement taken between 20th August and 27th August 1996 outlines the full circumstances of the murder and is basically the same as the statement taken on 21st May 1996 - but includes greater detail.

•    The statement taken on 29th August gives details of the purchase and subsequent disposal of a shotgun (to STEELE) "between three and seven days after the murder". It is left to the discretion of the reader to determine whether this would have any significant bearing on the trial or whether it was a 'glamorous' or 'colourful' event included by NICHOLLS' at that stage , to make his version of events more 'attractive' to the media.

•    In respect of his first contact with THOMPSON, NICHOLLS stated in his first interviews: "no it never crossed my mind that it might be financially beneficial. It was only after ...em...you know when you, when I started the original interviews and.....then I end up being a protected witness it hadn't crossed my mind at all. My mind was too pre-occupied with fucking hell like what's happening to me. It wasn't till I was left alone after it had all you know washed over and ... you know I wasn't of their interest anymore. They take all their statements, it's put him in a cell what the hell do we do with him and then get rid of him [sic].

19.3 THIRD 'DIRECTIONS'

" make enquiries to establish whether there is any evidence to support the allegation that Darren NICHOLLS falsified his account of the events surrounding the murders, either with the support of police officers or otherwise "

Note

•    There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that NICHOLLS falsified his accounts of the events surrounding the murders.

•    There is no evidence to indicate that any police officer assisted NICHOLLS in falsifying his account of events.

•    NICHOLLS strenuously denies any of the allegations made regarding 'coaching' or 'fabrication' .

•    All the officers involved in either NICHOLLS' interviews, or generally as part of the investigation team, also strenuously deny the allegations NICHOLLS' solicitor during the majority of his interviews, Lee CRADDOCK affirms that:

•    at no time did NICHOLLS give his answers "from a prepared script",

•    NICHOLLS gave his answers "without prompting"

•    NICHOLLS was not supplied, in his presence, with information either verbally or in writing by the police,

•    Each interview was conducted in accordance with the Codes of Practice [of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984].

•    It was apparent from the interviews with the police officers involved in the investigation that, until NICHOLLS began to give his account of the circumstances surrounding the murders, the investigation team had, no idea how, exactly, the murders had occurred. A small number of senior officers were aware of the exact detail of the cell site analysis but - the evidence indicates that the interviewing officers (who interviewed NICHOLLS when he first gave his account) did not. The available evidence reveals that following NICHOLLS' first account that there was a great deal of 'jubilation' within the investigation team because NICHOLLS account 'matched' the cell site analysis that they had already obtained.

•    In the majority of cases NICHOLLS' legal representative was present during his interviews under caution.

•    Most of the allegations made by NICHOLLS' fellow protected witnesses were made during the trial and were reported in the media.

•    The fresh allegation that that NICHOLLS was told to say he purchased the shotgun before the murders, is strenuously denied

•     It is no exaggeration to state that both NICHOLLS and the interviewing officers underwent vigorous cross-examination at the Central Criminal Court. This included a long and detailed examination of accusations that NICHOLLS had in some way been 'coached' or 'led' during his accounts by the interviewing police officers.

•    The material elements of the cross-examination were also commented on by the judge in his summing up.

•    The investigation team recruited the assistance of an independent analyst to conduct a thorough examination of NICHOLLS' accounts. NICHOLLS' interviews under caution ; his witness statements ;and his subsequent testimony at the Central Criminal Court were all subjected to the scrutiny of professional analysis. The Analyst's findings are appended. The document shows a list of all the "possible coaching aspects during interview" and any "differences in NICHOLLS' accounts" (between the interviews under caution, his subsequent witness statements and his testimony in the witness box). The analysis reveals that many of the inconsistencies, or suggestions that NICHOLLS had been 'led' or 'coached', were subjected to the exposure of detailed and challenging scrutiny during the trial.