Essex Police

15.0 ESSEX POLICE

15.1 WITNESS PROTECTION

15.1a MICHAEL BROWN

Michael BROWN retired from Essex Police in 2002. He gives details of his involvement in the Rettendon investigation and his subsequent role as NICHOLLS' Witness Protection Officer.

Because of the importance of his evidence and for the sake of clarity, Brown's statement is reproduced in full. He states:

".....In early 1996 I undertook a new role as a Detective Constable working on the Major Investigation section of the Central Detective Unit at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford. Having commenced that role I was immediately deployed as part of the investigation team for the aforementioned murders.....

......I remember one such operation where I was involved in surveillance upon a subject called Darren NICHOLLS, who was suspected of drug importation offences. On one particular day I began work later in the day due to the time of my finish the previous evening. Darren NICHOLLS had been arrested for the offence that he was suspected of prior to my arrival at work. I remember that I went to a briefing where DC Chris WINSTONE and myself were directed to interview NICHOLLS in relation to the offences he was under arrest for. I believe that Detective Superintendent Ivan DIBLEY made this decision.

At some point NICHOLLS asked for DC Wolfgang BIRD and was told that he (DC BIRD) was also in custody. Later NICHOLLS asked to see a senior police officer. I was not present during these two requests but that is my understanding of the course of events.

Detective Superintendent Ralph BARRINGTON, DC WINSTONE and myself then visited NICHOLLS in a cell where NICHOLLS said that he had something to say that the police would be extremely interested in and wanted to be interviewed by officers who he could trust. Mr BARRINGTON assured NICHOLLS that DC WINSTONE and I could be trusted.....

.....Subsequently DC WINSTONE and I interviewed NICHOLLS on a number of occasions, these interviews were tape-recorded. During those interviews NICHOLLS gave his account of what happened upon the night of the triple murder. As a result of that account NICHOLLS was arrested for murder. During all of those interviews a solicitor called Lee CRADDOCK was present to represent NICHOLLS.

In the days that followed I remember being present at a meeting with Crown Prosecution Service representatives who made the decision that there was not enough evidence to support a charge of murder against NICHOLLS.

Darren NICHOLLS subsequently agreed to make witness statements about the murders and he was afforded the status of a Protected Witness. DC WINSTONE and I took those statements from NICHOLLS whilst he was still in custody at Rayleigh Police Station for the drugs offences, I cannot remember if Lee CRADDOCK was present or not. DC WINSTONE and I were detailed to be the Witness Protection Officers responsible for NICHOLLS.

NICHOLLS spent a long period of time housed at a Police Station Custody Suite. During that period of time I visited NICHOLLS regularly in my role as his Witness Protection Officer. I had never been specifically trained in the role of Witness Protection Officer and had never previously acted in such a role. Having said that I considered myself more than capable of working effectively in such a role. I was an extremely experienced officer in terms of my involvement in the investigation of serious crime. Initially I worked with DC WINSTONE mainly but he was moved on at some stage and I worked with DC Billy CLARKE mostly. I would point out that DC WINSTONE was moved on because of "tenure", which means that at that time officers were only permitted to work a certain period of time in one role before they were required to change roles. DC Pat LEE also worked with us but she was mainly used in relation to the protection of the wife of NICHOLLS.

The legal situation regarding NICHOLLS residing at a Custody Suite at a Police Station was complicated. My memory is that after he was initially charged with drugs importation offences he was at some stage bailed. Having been bailed, NICHOLLS voluntarily stayed at the Police Station for his safety. As I remember my instructions were that should NICHOLLS try and leave the Police Station then I should arrest him for being in breach of bail conditions.

On visiting NICHOLLS the conversation obviously was not restricted to matters surrounding his protection, small talk about all kinds of issues was prevalent. From my first meeting with NICHOLLS I was straight with him and told him the truth. I remember that NICHOLLS used to talk about having money, villa's, a nice house and a car when he was eventually free. I knew full well that this would not be the case and that a Protected Witness would and should only be given a similar standard of living that he had prior to involvement with the police. NICHOLLS was informed of this in no uncertain terms, he was told that he would only have what he had at the present time. NICHOLLS had fanciful ideas about unlikely schemes such as becoming a helicopter pilot. We used to take NICHOLLS out of the police station regularly for a change of scenery.

Sometimes we would take him for just a ride, sometimes for lunch, sometimes to shops. As NICHOLLS was not technically a prisoner we used to allow him to walk about the shops as a free person. We would be in the same shop as NICHOLLS or in his general vicinity but he could view goods without us knowing what he was looking at. I cannot specifically remember taking NICHOLLS to a book shop. We travelled extensively with NICHOLLS on these days out, as he may have been under threat in Essex and the surrounding areas. While NICHOLLS was with us he ate "McDONALDS" meals on a regular basis. I never took him to such a restaurant to meet anybody. I also remember taking NICHOLLS to see his people such as his barrister, QC Ann RAFFERTY.

At some stage NICHOLLS was remanded into custody and served time on remand in prison. Again my responsibilities included visiting NICHOLLS and producing him from these establishments to Police Stations for evidence gathering purposes. I remember on returning NICHOLLS to prison he was always searched thoroughly by prison staff.....

.....Eventually NICHOLLS was granted bail and he was housed at a secret address under an assumed name.

The trial of Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES, who had been charged with the three murders, took place at The Old Bailey at a later date. During this trial I was to give evidence and it was thus decided that it would be inappropriate for me to undertake Witness Protection and escort duties until the conclusion. These roles were undertaken by DC CLARKE at this time.

I am aware of the contents of NICHOLLS evidence and circumstances being used in a book and a television programme since the trial. The passage of time has possibly clouded my memory but I will try and piece together the sequence of events which lead to me becoming aware of these facts.

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 families relocation. My memory of my reaction was that I would have advise 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. I am not sure at this stage whether I mentioned these issues to the Senior Investigating Officer, although of course I would regularly be involved in giving him a detailed briefing of how NICHOLLS was coping.

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. This obviously, in my opinion, placed those who had contact with NICHOLLS at an increased risk which included my colleagues and I. I am sure I would have mentioned this initial knowledge to the Senior Investigating Officer, but again I do not remember the specifics.

I remember at some stage Detective Superintendent Brian STOREY, Detective Sergeant Robin WYATT, DC CLARKE and I went to a television studio to view the proposed programme about NICHOLLS. We raised our objections to the programme as it was felt that aspects threatened the security of NICHOLLS.

In relation to the author of the book about NICHOLLS, Tony THOMPSON, we have never met as far as I know. I believe that THOMPSON visited NICHOLLS once or twice whilst NICHOLLS was resident at Harlow Police Station. I was not aware of the visit at the time and only became aware of this when the book came out. I have been shown a custody record dated 9th March 1997. This record has an entry at 1010 indicating the beginning of a visit from THOMPSON to NICHOLLS. At 1055 hours an entry signifies my visit and at 1207 hours an entry signifies the end of the visit by THOMPSON. The latter two described entries I recognise as being my writing. I cannot remember the visits written about. Also I do not remember any black men visiting NICHOLLS, in fact I do not remember any of his visitors. 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 at the time of his residence or custody at the police stations. 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 stations took place. NICHOLLS was allowed to make telephone calls in private and write and send letters. As far as I remember there were no rules in general for how to monitor visits to protected witnesses. I have no knowledge of NICHOLLS recording his own video diaries whilst either in or out of custody.

In relation to Francis REID I can only say what NICHOLLS told me in interview. I had no dealings with REID at all. Had I have been aware or suspected that NICHOLLS had been lying about REID'S involvement then NICHOLLS would have been challenged and encouraged to have told the truth. Any grounds that I had to believe that NICHOLLS may have been lying would have been reported to the Senior Investigating Officer. I had no grounds for believing that NICHOLLS told me lies in relation to REID.

As far as I remember there were no formal rules in those days about contact by Protected Witnesses with the media, authors or journalists. If NICHOLLS had made me aware that he was definitely in the process of arranging the making of a book, television programme or film I would have quite clearly forbidden him from doing so and indicated that he may be putting his position on the Witness Protection Scheme in jeopardy. As soon as I was aware of such a serious intent to sell his story I would have told the Senior Investigating Officer. I was not aware of the seriousness of NICHOLLS intention until it was too late. The enquiry team were obviously aware at some stage what had happened, as I have previously mentioned in relation to members attending the viewing of the proposed television programme. NICHOLLS never discussed with me what he received for selling his story.

Once NICHOLLS began to tell us what he had witnessed in relation to the three murders as far as I can remember his story was consistent. I have never read the book or watched the television programme so cannot comment upon their contents. In relation to allegations that the police may have given NICHOLLS "a script" this is simply not true. The sound of papers in interviews is merely the notes of officers. There were occasions where, for example, NICHOLLS was confused about directions he had taken, I had a good knowledge of the area and pointed out the impossibility of certain routes. These issues were covered during my cross examination at court.

The allegation that the police suggested to NICHOLLS that he should admit more serious offences than he had actually committed are false and contemptible. The same applies to any suggestion that the police suggested in any way that NICHOLLS should lie in any way.

As far as I know everything I have said in this statement is true. NICHOLLS was never given any comforts or inducements influencing him to tell anything but the truth.

I am certainly not party to any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice with NICHOLLS or anybody else.

I am extremely proud of being involved in this piece of police work and the subsequent conviction of those responsible for the murders....."

15.1b DETECTIVE CONSTABLE CHRISTOPHER WINSTONE

Christopher WINSTONE is a serving officer with Essex Police. Because of the nature of the allegations being investigated he was served with a Regulation 9 Notice under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999.

On 30th March 2004, he was interviewed under caution by the Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Superintendent READ.

The full transcript of the interview, which is appended to this report, gives full details of his role within the Rettendon investigation, his dealings with NICHOLLS and his awareness of NICHOLLS' involvement with the media.

However, in summary he denies any suggestion that NICHOLLS' evidence was concocted ie coached, 'leading', etc.

WINSTONE also stated that he had "no memory at all" of THOMPSON and that the first time he became aware of the book Bloggs 19 was when someone told him that they had read it and that he [WINSTONE] was named in it. [The publication date of the book was in the year 2000]. He also stated that the first time he became aware of the television programme was when he was told by DC BROWN that NICHOLLS had obtained the injunction to prevent the programme's transmission.

15.1c WILLIAM CLARKE

DC CLARK was employed by Essex Police as a Detective Constable until his retirement in 2001. He took over NICHOLLS' witness protection duties when Dc WINSTONE moved on to other duties.

He states: "I would like to confirm that I have no knowledge of any information whatsoever that would suggest that NICHOLLS, or any of the officers who initially dealt with him, told lies in his statements or during his later testimony in court.....Suggestions that the Police connived with NICHOLLS in creating a false story are ridiculous and he was never encouraged to admit offences he had never committed. NICHOLLS was only encouraged to tell the complete and utter truth. I have no knowledge of suggestions that NICHOLLS was encouraged to admit drugs offences of a more serious nature than he had actually committed. Also the same applies to suggestions that he was encouraged to falsify evidence about a gun".

In relation to his witness protection duties he worked almost exclusively with DC Michael BROWN, but very occasionally DC Pat LEE or DC Paul KEEBLE would assist them.

In relation to visitors to NICHOLLS, he 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; his wife Rachel (although I cannot be sure she did visit), his mother, his brother, possibly Rachel's sister, his solicitor, his barrister, Ricky (a kitchen maker from Braintree) and a 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. I do vaguely remember one visit by THOMPSON which I believe was in the interview room as opposed to the cell.....Darren certainly never said that

THOMPSON was writing a book and I had no idea at this time that THOMPSON was a journalist or book author, and would have prevented the visit had I have known. Of course the full facts would have also have been passed on to the Senior Investigating Officer as well."

He confirms that "I do not recall specifically taking NICHOLLS to a bookshop, but would not rule it out. NICHOLLS was definitely never taken by myself to McDonalds in ROMFORD to meet THOMPSON.

In relation to NICHOLLS' time within the prison system, he states: "After some time NICHOLLS was moved from Harlow Police Station to the prison system. Initially NICHOLLS went to HMP "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha' and then HMP "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta'. I had no idea that NICHOLLS was visited by THOMPSON while he was in prison. As far as I was aware NICHOLLS never received any visitors while he was at HMP "BLANKED OUT" Beta "BLANKED OUT" I never had any request from NICHOLLS that THOMPSON should visit him in prison and certainly never told the prison authorities that he could. NICHOLLS was eventually bailed to live with his wife for some months prior to the trial, during which he was taken back into custody at a police station. During the trial I alone looked after NICHOLLS, as DC BROWN and DC WINSTONE were excluded from seeing him on advice from counsel. I certainly never discussed NICHOLLS' evidence with him during the long period he was giving that evidence to the court."

In relation to the book and television programme he confirms: "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. I 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. Darren was wearing clothing that he always wore and in my opinion his face was clearly recognisable. The concerns of Essex Police were raised to the television company representatives who were present. I have no memories of Darren making video diaries about himself in connection with this production and indeed have no memory of him being in possession of a camcorder of any description at anytime.....

.....I was certainly aware of the disclosure principles that were in place at the time and would have made the incident office aware if I had seriously believed that NICHOLLS had made contact with any member of the press, a journalist, an author or media representative".

15.1d DETECTIVE CONSTABLE PATRICIA LEE

Patricia LEE is Detective Constable with Essex Police.

Her responsibilities were primarily to work with NICHOLLS' wife Rachel. She worked mainly working with a DC Paul KEABLE but occasionally she would also work with Darren when his Witness Protection officers needed time off.

She states: "I never had anything to do with the interviewing of Darren NICHOLLS or indeed the taking of any statements from him. Indeed I never discussed the contents of Darren's evidence with him on the occasions that I met him. I do seem to remember Rachel's sister visiting Darren on one occasion. Apart from that I never had anything to do with visitors to

Darren whilst he was in custody.....I have no memory of a visitor to Darren called Tony THOMPSON or indeed any visitors who were black in colour".

In relation to the media she states "the first memory I have of any mention of the press, media or a journalist being involved with Darren is when DC CLARK and DC BROWN told me that a television programme had been made about Darren. I was told that Essex Police were going to try to prevent the programme being show, apparently Darren was filmed "BLANKED OUT" I was shocked that he and Rachel were putting themselves in jeopardy. Rachel had never said anything to me about the making of the television programme. This all came to my attention after the trial of the offenders. The only mention I had ever heard about the press was when Darren had talked about going to the press or refusing to give his evidence. These comments were made over financial issues and as far as I remember those issues were resolved amicably."

She also confirms: "I have no knowledge at all of any mention of Darren's evidence being concocted in any way shape or form. Rachel NICHOLLS and Darren NICHOLLS never gave me any indication at all that any part of Darren's evidence was in any way false. I cannot see any motive or incentive for Darren giving false evidence, he and Rachel ended up living the same lifestyle they had previously been accustomed to."

15.1e DETECTIVE CONSTABLE PAUL KEABLE

Paul KEABLE is a Detective Constable in Essex Police. In relation to NICHOLLS he states: "Because of my responsibilities towards another witness my contact with Darren NICHOLLS was kept to an absolute minimum. In fact I am reasonably certain that I did not meet Darren NICHOLLS until after the convictions of Jack WHOMES and Michael STEELE. I vaguely remember meeting Darren NICHOLLS at a police station for a very brief period of time. I was with DC Michael BROWN and Detective Superintendent BRIGHT who needed to discuss issues, unknown to me, with NICHOLLS.....

......I do not know how the rules were set in relation to who was allowed to visit NICHOLLS and how these visitors were vetted. I also had no idea that NICHOLLS had contact with any members of the press, media or any journalists until I remember officers attending a meeting at a television company just prior to a proposed programme about NICHOLLS.....

......I certainly have no knowledge or have never heard anything to suggest that NICHOLLS fabricated any of his evidence in any way, shape or form."

15.2 SENIOR OFFICERS

15.2a BRIAN STOREY

Because of the importance of Brian STOREY'S role within the murder investigation, his statement is shown in full:

"I was previously employed by Essex Police as a Police Officer.

In December 1995 I was a Detective Chief Inspector when I attended the scene of the murders of Tony TUCKER, Pat TATE and Craig ROLFE. I attended the post mortems of the victims the following day but because of my other commitments I did not remain on the enquiry at that stage. Detective Superintendent Ivan DIBLEY was appointed as the Senior Investigating Officer the lead the investigation team.

On 11th March 1996 I became the Senior Investigating Officer in the case of the murders and remained in that position until after the later convictions of Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES. Upon my appointment the retiring Detective Superintendent Ivan DIBLEY fully briefed me on the state of the investigation. I was promoted on 1st April 1996 to Detective Superintendent.

In May 1996 three individuals were arrested for these murders. The people arrested were Darren NICHOLLS, Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES, all of whom had been suspects from early on in the enquiry. The trio and others were also in custody whilst under arrest for drugs importation offences. To complicate matters further a police officer by the name of DC Wolfgang BIRD was also in police custody at the same time for various offences, some of which were connected to the drugs offences although I had no involvement whatsoever in this investigation.

I became aware that at an early stage in his arrest Mr NICHOLLS wished to speak to a senior police officer and indicated that he wanted to give an account to police. Subsequently following this account Mr NICHOLLS was charged with drugs offences and after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service he was used as a prosecution witness in the murder case.

I cannot now remember why Darren NICHOLLS changed his solicitor while in the process of being interviewed. I recall that Darren NICHOLLS was given the option of a number of solicitors but I cannot remember the sequence of solicitors he used or Lee CRADDOCK'S involvement.

I certainly have no knowledge of anything at all that would support the allegations that papers were passed to Darren NICHOLLS during police interviews, that he was encouraged to admit to more serious drugs offences that he had not actually committed and that he was asked to change the dates in his account of when he purchased a gun.

I have also been asked if I can comment upon allegations that during interview, statement making and through to giving evidence Darren NICHOLLS covered up for Francis REID and his alleged guilty participation in a drugs importation. I do not remember the finer points of what Darren NICHOLLS said about Francis REID and I cannot remember how we dealt with Mr REID. Again though I have no knowledge of anything that would suggest that Darren was dishonest in his account.

Darren NICHOLLS, his wife and children were subsequently cared for under the Witness Protection Scheme. Having been interviewed by DC Chris WINSTONE and DC Michael BROWN the pair were initially chosen to be the officers responsible for the protection of Mr NICHOLLS. I cannot remember exactly why the pair were chosen. I believe that their choice was based upon the good rapport they had built up with Mr NICHOLLS or the fact they may have attended training courses in witness protection. It may have been a combination of the two matters. Initially Detective Superintendent David BRIGHT and then Detective Superintendent Michael PAYNE were responsible for the day to day supervision of those engaged in the witness protection role. I am aware that Dc WINSTONE was later replaced as a Witness Protection Officer by Dc Bill Clark. I personally had never received any formal training in relation to witness protection.

It is fair to say that evidence existed in relation to the cell siting of the mobile telephones that belonged to Mr NICHOLLS, Mr STEELE and Mr WHOMES. This evidence was part of a massive amount of work that a separate intelligence cell had put together. As far as I know DC WINSTONE and DC BROWN and DC CLARK would have not had an extensive knowledge of this evidence. Information uncovered during the enquiry was not shared amongst others who did not need to know. The idea was to minimise any risk of leaks from within the organisation that would alert any suspects to our interest and the fact that they may be arrested and interviewed at a later date.

In my role as Senior Investigating officer I saw it as my responsibility to visit Mr NICHOLLS on occasions to update him on the state of the investigation, obviously in general terms without discussing individuals evidence. During those visits at some stage I remember that Darren NICHOLLS told me that he was thinking of writing a book about his experiences. I do not remember when this was but I formed the opinion that Darren NICHOLLS was purely talking about his future plans. I had no idea or reason to know that he was making active steps to arrange the sale of his story to the media before the trial of Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES had taken place.

I had no knowledge that Darren NICHOLLS was visited whilst in police and prison custody by a journalist and book author called Tony THOMPSON. This has only come to my attention as a result of being informed by Dl FANTOM and DC POWELL. I would not have known in 1996 and up until the trial who Tony THOMPSON was and I had no idea that his name was recorded on Darren NICHOLLS police custody record as a visitor. Custody records were kept in relation to Darren NICHOLLS being kept in police cells and these records should have shown the details of any visitors he had. I have been informed that Tony THOMPSON is shown on those records as visiting on five occasions. I believe that I remember the custody records were checked periodically by myself or my staff. Had I have seen this name I feel sure I would have asked the witness protection officers exactly who he was. I would have been interested to know the details of any visitors to Darren NICHOLLS but I cannot remember anything about the name Tony THOMPSON. It is possible that I did become aware of a visitor called Tony THOMPSON and that I was given an innocent explanation as to who he was and that I do not remember this now. I do not remember being involved in discussions about how visitors were to be vetted.

In relation to Darren NICHOLLS being in custody at the police stations it should be borne in mind that he was technically on bail for part of the time with the condition that he resided where I decreed, which of course was police cells. Therefore Darren NICHOLLS rights had to be carefully considered in relation to things such as telephone calls, visitors, food, monies, exercise and other mundane matters. As I remember the thinking adopted was that Darren NICHOLLS would be given similar rights to those enjoyed by a person who was serving time on remand in prison awaiting trial. Darren NICHOLLS most certainly would not have been allowed a video camera in police cells and I have no memory of him being found with one. Any telephone calls that Darren made should have been supervised by police but I cannot say if this actually happened.

I seem to remember that there were issues surrounding Darren NICHOLLS seeking an injunction about a television programme. This would have been my first knowledge that Darren had in fact gone to the media, but it was long after the trial. By now I was promoted to Chief Superintendent and was working elsewhere. I do not believe that I was even consulted about the issues surrounding the injunction and the television programme.

I retired on 8th November 1999 and it was not until after this date that I became aware that Darren NICHOLLS story was now published in book form. I never read the book.

My memories of the enquiry are clouded in places due to the passage of time. I would say that if there had been any suggestion of any acts of dishonesty or inappropriate conduct by police officers engaged on the enquiry then I would have taken the appropriate action. I have no memories of any such suggestions in relation to how Darren NICHOLLS was dealt with and feel sure I would still remember any such indication that would have come to my attention.

Of course I was also fully aware at the time that any press or media involvement or contact with Darren NICHOLLS would be of interest to the defence team of those standing trial. Had I had been aware of any such involvement or contact then I would have ensured that the circumstances were investigated and that the information was disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service. I would also have been very mindful as to any possible resulting security implications for Darren NICHOLLS and anybody connected with him."

15.2b DAVID BRIGHT

David Bright retired from Essex Police in December 1999.

He states ...."Between 1992 and 1994 I was the senior investigating officer (SIO) for a complex operation, which

Officer, namely Detective Constable Wolfgang BIRD and a Darren NICHOLLS who was suspected of being concerned in the murders of TATE, TUCKER AND ROLFE.

From initial covert enquiries made it was clear there were areas of considerable unrest concerning criminality involving these men (BIRD and NICHOLLS) as well as other serving officers.

Following on from my original enquiries a full-scale investigation was embarked upon code named Operation Apache. This operation, which I headed as the senior investigating officer at its height had 35 officers seconded to it and ran for a period of four years from 1996 to 1999. It was and still remains the biggest internal investigation ever undertaken by Essex Police.

Aside from being in direct command of Operation Apache I was also required to carry on in total with my role as a Divisional Commander dealing with all aspects that the role demanded, one of which involved overseeing the Witness Protection Programme which at this time included the protection of Darren NICHOLLS and his wife and children. This situation came into being following on from NICHOLLS having been arrested and subsequently making admissions with regards to his involvement in the murders of TATE, TUCKER AND ROLFE. Also arrested and charged in connection with these murders were Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES.

Throughout the time that NICHOLLS was remanded within the prison system or whilst on bail and residing at police premises, I did not see him on a daily basis as it were but at regular intervals I would visit him, at times his wife and family were present and at other times he was alone.

The day-to-day "minding" of NICHOLLS was undertaken by officers from my division who were attached to the Witness Protection Unit, the officers concerned had been selected by myself for this specialised and demanding role. All were proven detectives with good "people skills" who were discreet, reliable and with an abundance of common sense, all essential attributes for the duty role they were required to perform.

Aside from general welfare issues, another reason for visiting with NICHOLLS would be for him to officially be told by myself as to the reasons why frequent requests and demands for a whole range of "benefits and treats"

involved the use of four vulnerable witnesses, all of whom were afforded protected witness status. To ensure the continued safety and well-being of the individuals concerned, whilst complying with all the legal rules governing the use of such witnesses, I brought into being and was responsible for running the then new concept for Essex Police, that of a formalised Witness Protection Programme.

On the 1st October 1995 I was promoted to the rank of Detective Superintendent and appointed as Commander of the Crime Operations Division.....My division was divided into a number of specialised departments namely Major Investigation, Special Branch, Surveillance, Child Protection, Drug Squad, Fraud Squad, Motor Vehicle Crime, Witness Protection and Covert Operations.

At approximately 6.30 am on the morning of 7th December 1995, this being the first day of a period of annual leave for myself, which was to be taken out of the country, I was at my home address when I received a telephone call from a then serving Detective Constable working on the Drug Squad informing me that three men had been found shot dead in a Range Rover motor vehicle at an isolated location in Rettendon, Essex. It was a gangland style killing.

Two of the deceased were immediately identified as Patrick TATE, Tony TUCKER and in due course the third man was found to be Craig ROLFE, all of these men were known to me and were "known players" in major drug dealing circles operating throughout Essex and the South East of England.

I instructed the caller to make telephone contact with all officers under my command who were serving on the Major Investigation Section and the Drugs Squad and for all of them to report to the senior officer at the murder scene.

Although I did not take part in the investigation into the deaths of TATE, TUCKER AND ROLFE, the officers from my division who were allocated to the investigation from the outset remained working on the enquiry until its eventual conclusion.

On the 16th February 1996 I was instructed by the then Deputy Chief Constable of Essex Police James DICKINSON to undertake enquiries regarding a suspected inappropriate relationship between a then serving Essex made by himself for himself and his family were either refused or would not be considered. Making it known that any such decisions were mine and mine alone. This course of action, although my responsibility, was also a ploy undertaken to prevent NICHOLLS falling out as it were with the protection officers tasked with looking after him and his family.

I have been asked if I am aware of the fact that whilst in police protected custody Darren NICHOLLS sold his story to a journalist. I had no idea at the time leading up to the Central Criminal Court trial involving himself STEELE and WHOMES that he (NICHOLLS) was engaged in meeting with a journalist. Furthermore I have no knowledge whatsoever that he was recording video diaries in this same period of time.

Similarly I had no information whether the officers responsible for the day to day caring for NICHOLLS were aware of such activity taking place but I am certain that if they had known of such goings on they would have informed me of the situation and, had I been so notified, I would have instigated a full investigation into the circumstances without any delay and would have further made sure that the facts would have been brought to the attention of chief officers and also disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service and the prosecuting Barristers for the Crown.

Had any such activity been embarked upon by NICHOLLS, as suggested, I would have had two serious areas of concern, namely damage that could be done to the forthcoming trial involving himself and his co-accused and any such a situation would clearly have been a cause of considerable concern with regards to the day to day security of NICHOLLS and his family.

I first became aware that NICHOLLS had sold or told his story when I saw a television "promo" advertising a forthcoming documentary programme about him (NICHOLLS). I also read a book entitled BLOGGS 19 written by Tony THOMPSON, which is allegedly NICHOLLS recollection of his involvement with Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES and his time spent with Essex Police. I am unsure now whether I read the book before viewing the television programme or I bought the book after watching the documentary.

I have also been informed that certain allegations have been made that NICHOLLS was dishonest in his evidence and that he connived with the police to tell lies. I have absolutely no knowledge or any information, which would give these theories any credence whatsoever. The Witness Protection Officers involved with NICHOLLS were as previously stated selected due to their reputations for high integrity and dedication and I simply cannot believe that they would have been foolish enough to become involved in such a course of action.

Furthermore during the times that I spent with NICHOLLS he never gave me any indication that he had sold his "story" to anyone. There was also no evidence that came to my attention during the Operation Apache investigation that suggested NICHOLLS conspired with anyone to lie about the Rettendon murders.

As far as NICHOLLS was concerned it was felt he would not be foolish enough to invite a visitor who may do him harm, but what also should be borne in mind, is that whilst he was lodged at some of the police stations within Essex, and in particular Harlow Police Station, he was technically on bail subject to a condition of residence determined by the police where he was to reside and as such in theory he could meet and speak to who he chose to, subject to not breaking any bail condition imposed by the court.

Whilst NICHOLLS was in police protective custody, as per my instructions, the protection officers always took a common sense approach in deciding who would be allowed to visit or communicate with NICHOLLS, or indeed the other protected person in this investigation, and if there was any doubt regarding such matters I would be contacted and would be the decision maker after discussion with the senior officer in the case as to who could see or speak with him (NICHOLLS).

Without exception, not just with NICHOLLS but with all other protected witnesses in a similar situation i.e. on court bail but living in a cell complex within a police station, a decision made by myself was that an apprehension record (pink sheet) should be kept and all relevant information would be recorded as if the protected person was a detained prisoner. Such a record was kept for a dual purpose, namely the protection and welfare of the individual concerned and also as a safeguard for the officers tasked with minding the "witness", as well as other police personnel who may come in contact with the protected witness thereby helping to prevent or nullify any allegations of bad practice and the like made at a later date at any court hearing or with regards to any complaints made against the police by the protected witness in question or those associated with such persons."

15.2c RALPH BARRINGTON

At the time of the Rettendon investigation, Mr BARRINGTON was a Detective Chief Superintendent with Essex Police. His position at that time was Head of their Criminal Investigation Department. He retired from Essex Police in June 1997 and since then has been employed as an Investigations Adviser by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

He states: "I have been asked if I have any recollection of the witness Darren NICHOLLS having contact with a journalist named Tony THOMPSON, or indeed any other members of the media prior to him giving evidence at the trial of STEELE and WHOMES. My answer is that I have no such recollection. I was aware that Darren NICHOLLS credibility would be an issue when he gave evidence and that anything affecting his credibility would have been a matter of concern. For this reason I am confident that had I been aware of any involvement between Darren NICHOLLS and a journalist I would have had the matter investigated and the outcome would have been disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service. At the time I worked very closely with Geoffrey MARKHAM, Assistant Chief Constable responsible for police operations, and had there been any suggestion of NICHOLLS' involvement with the media I would have brought this to his attention."

In relation to NICHOLLS' evidence, Mr BARRINGTON states the following: "I have also been asked whether I have any comment to make on the suggestion that the evidence given by NICHOLLS did not come from his own knowledge of the murders, but that he related facts provided to him by the police. I would make the following comments:

NICHOLLS provided a detailed account that included facts, which were completely unknown to the police, some of which we were able to corroborate. NICHOLLS was interviewed on tape and his first account of his involvement in the murders and what he could say about STEELE and WHOMES was recorded. I believe that NICHOLLS started to give his account fairly soon after his meeting with me on 14th May 1996. Even if members of Essex Police had the requisite criminal intent and had known facts that they could not have known prior to receiving NICHOLLS' account, it is difficult to see how NICHOLLS could have been given this information by the police prior to him giving his own account on tape. For the record I can confirm that at no time was there any suggestion of NICHOLLS' account being anything other than his own.

I have been asked if I have any recall of the name Francis REID, I have no such recollection. I have been informed that NICHOLLS stated during his evidence that REID accompanied him on a trip to the continent where controlled drugs were subsequently purchased and imported to England. Apparently this trip occurred before the Rettendon murders and NICHOLLS is saying that during the trip REID never had any knowledge of the drugs issues, or at least that he never made REID aware. I have been told that the police attempted to speak to REID as a witness and that he refused. I have no recollection of taking part in any conversation leading to the decision to deal with REID in such a manner. If I were involved in such a conversation then I would have insured that an entry was made in the policy file, I have been informed that there is no such entry. Given the circumstances as explained to me in relation to REID had I been aware at the time of the investigation then I believe I would more likely have been in favour of arresting REID and interviewing him after he had been cautioned. Having said that the circumstances given to me are brief and any such decision would have been made after deep consultation with other senior [officers] involved in the enquiry.

During the investigation he made two statements which outlined his role, responsibilities and actions during the Rettendon Inquiry. In addition to these statements, he also exhibits a copy of a document entitled "National Guidelines on the Management and Use of Informants" (which is dated 25th January 1995) and a document entitled "Essex Police Guidelines re Police Use of Informants (which is dated 7th June 1995).

15.2d GEOFFREY MARKHAM

Geoffrey MARKHAM served as the Assistant Chief Constable of Essex Police from 1981 to 1999. He gives evidence of the command structure in place at the time of the murder investigation. In relation to NICHOLLS' dealings with the media he confirms:

"I have no memory of any mention of Darren NICHOLLS having any contact with any members of the media, press or any journalists. I have no memory of any production of television programmes or a book about Darren NICHOLLS. I

have no doubt that had Ralph BARRINGTON been aware of any such contact by Darren NICHOLLS with the media, press or journalists then this would have been the type of issue he would have discussed with me. My first knowledge of these issues is today when I have been visited by Dl FANTOM and DC POWELL.

15.2e Note:

IVAN DIBLEY

Despite a number of requests, retired Detective Superintendent Ivan DIBLEY has refused to be interviewed by members of the investigation team.

15.3 OTHER SIGNIFICANT OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THEINVESTIGATION

15.3a DETECTIVE SERGEANT BRIAN WHITE

Brian WHITE is employed by Essex Police as a Detective Sergeant. Because of his in-depth knowledge of the Rettendon investigation and the importance of his evidence, his statement is shown almost in its entirety:

"In December 1995 Patrick TATE, Tony TUCKER and Craig ROLFE were murdered in Rettendon, Essex. At that time I was working as a Detective Sergeant on Central Detective Unit- Major Investigation Section at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford.

I became aware of these murders on the day the bodies were discovered and I was placed on the investigation team the very same day. Other Officers from the Central Detective Unit- Drugs Squad and Crime Operations also joined the enquiry on the same day.

Initially I worked in the HOLMES incident room performing the roles of Receiver and Action Allocator. At some later time during the course of the investigation I was given the task of supervising an intelligence cell and later still I became Office Manager. A separate telephone intelligence unit ran alongside the enquiry. This was staffed by other officers under the supervision of Detective Sergeant Robin WYATT.

During the course of the enquiry intelligence emerged indicating that STEELE, WHOMES and NICHOLLS were engaged in the importation of controlled drugs into the UK. This led to a joint investigation by Police and H.M. Customs and Excise and culminated in the arrest of Darren NICHOLLS in possession of about 10kgs of Cannabis Resin. Following this arrest I recall that STEELE, WHOMES were arrested on the same day and that a number of other subjects were all arrested later.

All three were interviewed and after initially making no comment NICHOLLS asked to see a senior police officer. I recall that he was seen by the head of CID at that time, Detective Chief Superintendent Ralph BARRINGTON. During further interviews NICHOLLS gave an account of his knowledge of the murders to the interviewing officers DC Chris WINSTONE and DC Michael BROWN.

It is fair to say that NICHOLLS account of the night in question gave me great satisfaction, as I knew that the information was corroborated by other evidence within the Incident Room.

The account given by NICHOLLS was detailed and comprehensive and was corroborated by cell site analysis of the mobile telephones used by himself, STEELE and WHOMES at the time of the murders.

I was excited by the prospect that I was to learn from NICHOLLS account, exactly how all the parties made their way to the scene of the murders and how the offenders had been able to effect the murders.

Indeed NICHOLLS account led officers to make further enquiries. During the enquiries a further witness was identified placing NICHOLLS in a vehicle near to the scene, the vehicle itself, a Volkswagen Passat, was recovered and a witness identified who linked STEELE to the vehicle.

Subsequently STEELE and WHOMES were charged with the murders and other defendants charged with associated offences concerning the importation of controlled drugs into the UK.

Following these arrests Detective Sergeant Robin WYATT and I were identified as the officers responsible for the submission of the case papers and for the preparation of unused material schedules. All items in police possession were listed on a schedule for disclosure to the defence teams. This was with the exception of items of a sensitive nature which were the subject of a Public Interest Immunity hearing by the trial judge, Mr Justice HIDDEN.

We were responsible for defence solicitors attending and viewing all disclosed material and provided copies when requested. This process took a number of months to complete and was not only undertaken in respect of the murders but also in relation to the offences concerning the Importation of Controlled Drugs.

This policy of full disclosure was adopted despite the fact that the Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996 was not in force at this time.

Following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service NICHOLLS was used as a witness and he was afforded the status of being a protected witness. As I have already stated subsequent enquiries undertaken by the investigation team as a result of the interviews of NICHOLLS provided further corroboration to the account given by NICHOLLS.

I have been made aware that allegations have been made that the account given by NICHOLLS was not the full truth and that he had concocted the story with his interviewers. These allegations are totally untrue and would have been impossible to carry out. NICHOLLS provided information during his interviews which provided fresh lines of enquiry which, until then, were unknown to police. As far as I am concerned NICHOLLS account was credible and was corroborated by other evidence in police possession. I did not see him give evidence but I know that he was the subject of the most rigorous and detailed cross-examination by all defence counsel for a number of weeks.

I did not have any direct dealings with NICHOLLS when he was arrested, interviewed and gave statements although I did meet him at The Central Criminal Court prior to him giving his evidence and I believe I may have seen him whilst he was in custody at a police station although I am not certain of this. His interviewing officers Detective Constable WINSTONE and Detective Constable BROWN would have not had an intimate knowledge of the finer points of the intelligence gained from the cell site analysis and therefore would have been unable to concoct a story to fit that intelligence.

There were three distinct investigative departments within the team, the Incident Office staff making general enquiries, the Intelligence Cell and the Telephone Unit. Potentially sensitive intelligence and evidence would not be shared amongst the departments unless necessary.

I recall that during the investigation I made a radio broadcast appealing for witnesses to come forward in confidence. I tried to make the public aware of the way the investigation was being conducted and that information would only be shared amongst those police officers who had a justifiable need to know.

I had no idea that Darren NICHOLLS had sold or told his story to a journalist, author or any member of the media until I went to a court hearing where the defence team of WHOMES and STEELE were seeking access to an unedited version of a television programme about NICHOLLS. This was certainly after the convictions of STEELE and WHOMES. I had never heard of an author called Tony THOMPSON until a book about NICHOLLS was published. I have never read this book.

Had I been aware that NICHOLLS was in contact with any potential author or member of the media before the murder trial then I would have ensured that this information would have been reported to a senior officer and disclosed to the Crown Prosecution Service."

15.3b DETECTIVE SERGEANT ROBIN WYATT

Robin WYATT is a Detective Sergeant employed by the Essex Police.

Again due to his in-depth knowledge of the Rettendon investigation his statement is shown in its entirety:

"In December 1995 I was a Detective Sergeant on the Essex Police Drug Squad. At that time the Drug Squad were engaged in the preparatory stages of an operation into the alleged drug dealing activities of three men called Patrick TATE. Tony TUCKER and Craig ROLFE. Through my involvement in this operation I knew the three suspects by sight and in early December 1995 I had seen the suspect Craig ROLFE using a particular Range Rover.

On the morning of the 6th December 1995 I became aware of an incident where three men had been found shot dead in a Range Rover at Rettendon, Essex. When I established the registration of the vehicle I realised it was the same vehicle I had seen Craig ROLFE using a few days earlier. As a result I contacted the Senior Investigating Officer at the time, DCI Brian STOREY and was requested to attend the scene. Later the same morning I made a positive identification of the three victims as Patrick TATE, Tony TUCKER and Craig ROLFE.

In view of the current operation being conducted by the Drug Squad a decision was made to use the officers involved on the murder investigation team. I was initially made responsible for setting up an intelligence unit within the HOLMES incident room with specific responsibility for gathering and developing intelligence in respect of telephone usage including cell site analysis. The activity of the intelligence unit was directed by the intelligence/evidence being received/developed by the main HOLMES incident room. The intelligence picture obtained in respect of relevant telephones was provided to the management team for the incident but was not generally circulated unless necessary. I am aware that at a very early stage the defendant Michael STEELE was made a main suspect for the investigation.

At some time during the investigation I moved from the intelligence unit and performed the role of Office Manager within the main Holmes incident room. In this role I was fully aware and involved in all matters relating to the on-going investigation.

I have a good recollection of the activity which lead to the arrest of Michael STEELE, Jack WHOMES, Darren NICHOLLS and others in May 1996. The arrests were the culmination of a pro-active joint investigation with HM Customs and Excise into the on-going drug trafficking activities of Michael STEELE and his associates. The arrest of Darren NICHOLLS in possession often kilograms of cannabis received from Michael STEELE acted as the catalyst for the arrest of all persons identified as involved in the importations. At the time of the arrest Michael STEELE, Jack WHOMES and Darren NICHOLLS were also suspected of involvement in the three murders in December 1995. Michael STEELE had been identified as the person the three victims had been scheduled to meet at the time of their deaths and Jack WHOMES and Darren NICHOLLS had been linked to the scene of the murders at the relevant time through cell site analysis.

I am aware that at the time of his arrest Darren NICHOLLS was subject of a separate investigation that was investigating the alleged corrupt activity of two serving Essex Police Officers. Part of this investigation concerned the alleged corrupt relationship between one of the officers and Darren NICHOLLS who at that time was a registered informant.

I am aware that when interviewed Darren NICHOLLS initially made no comment to all questions in relation to the alleged importation and drug offences. I am also aware that later on the day of his arrest he made a request to speak to a senior officer. He was subsequently seen by Detective Chief Superintendent BARRINGTON and as a result of this meeting made a request to be further interviewed.

I have a clear recollection of waiting with the senior management team for the investigation whilst the interview with Darren NICHOLLS took place. I can recall the subsequent briefing provided to the management team by the interviewing officers, Detective constable Michael BROWN and Detective Constable Christopher WINSTONE. I can recall the initial account of events that had been put forward by Darren NICHOLLS in respect of the three murders and I can remember the elation of the investigation team. I have been informed that allegations of collusion between Darren NICHOLLS and the interviewing officers have been made. In my opinion, this allegation is ridiculous as at the time of the initial interviews the investigation team did not know how the murders had been committed and the interviewing officers would not have known the detailed intelligence picture available from the cell site analysis. In my view the first account provided by Darren NICHOLLS was fully supported by the intelligence available at the time. Further to this enquiries made as a result of Darren NICHOLLS interview revealed further independent corroboration of his version of events ie the confirmed sighting of a vehicle similar in detail to the one being used by NICHOLLS in the side road in Rettendon village at the relevant time and the recovery of the VW Passatt motor car used. This evidence was unknown to the investigation team prior to the arrest and interview and completely undermines the allegation of collusion between NICHOLLS and the investigation team.

After the arrests had taken place the murder incident room was reduced in size and myself and another Detective Sergeant, Brian WHITE were responsible for the preparation of the case file and producing the relevant unused material schedules. We were also responsible for making arrangements for the viewing of non-sensitive unused material by the Defence, a process that took a number of months. The investigation was pre-CPIA but a policy of full and open disclosure was adopted. All material included on the non-sensitive schedule was made available to the Defence for viewing and where requested copies were supplied. We were also responsible for producing the sensitive unused material schedules the contents of which were subsequently made subject of Pll by the trial judge. All material generated by the enquiry was included on one or other of the schedules.

DS Brian WHITE and I were also present throughout the subsequent trial at the Central Criminal Court that commenced in September 1997. I was present when Darren NICHOLLS was called as a witness and observed his reaction to an extremely robust attack on his evidence and credibility by two senior Queens Counsel representing Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES. In total NICHOLLS was present in the witness box for a period approaching three weeks and throughout this period he maintained his account. All avenues of attack were explored by the Defence including the allegation of collusion with the Police. These matters were fully aired during the trial and subsequently dismissed by the jury.

I am confident from my knowledge of the case that the evidence provided by NICHOLLS to the Court was truthful and accurate.

I have been asked if I was aware that Darren NICHOLLS had been in contact with a journalist or book author prior to the trial commencing. I can state that I was not aware of any such contact although I do have a recollection of one of the witness protection officers assigned to Darren NICHOLLS informing me that NICHOLLS had stated that he intended to write a book about what had happened. As far as I can recollect this conversation occurred after the trial. If I had become aware of contact between Darren NICHOLLS and a journalist prior to the trial I would have reported it to my senior officers.

I believe I have met Darren NICHOLLS on two occasions for short periods. I believe the first meeting was prior to the trial commencing and the second was when he attended the Court to give evidence. On both occasions the reason for the meeting would have been in respect of his position as a prosecution witness."

15.4 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPOSED TELEVISION PROGRAMME

15.4a MICHAEL PAYNE

Michael PAYNE retired from Essex Constabulary as a Detective Superintendent in April 2001.

He states: "On 1st April 1998 I was promoted to the rank of Detective Superintendent, Director of Intelligence. Part of my responsibilities were to supervise the day to day running of the then recently formed Witness Protection Unit. For some months prior to my appointment I did have some responsibilities towards the supervision of the same unit. I remember that amongst the officers working on the unit were DC Bill CLARKE and DC Mick BROWN. The pair were responsible for the protected witness, Darren NICHOLLS.

Darren NICHOLLS was a witness in relation to the Rettendon triple murders. I myself never had any role in this particular crime investigation. I cannot be sure at what point I became included in the supervision of the officers and their work with NICHOLLS. I am not sure if this was before or after the trial of those convicted of the triple murder.

At some point, again I cannot say when, Bill CLARKE and Mick BROWN came to me and informed me that they had a feeling that NICHOLLS was selling his story to the press or making a book. The pair went off to investigate their theories and almost immediately came back to me to confirm that a television programme called, "INSIDE STORY" was to be shown a week or so later about Darren NICHOLLS. Prior to the programme being shown Adam HUNT (Essex Police Solicitor), Bill CLARKE and myself went to London Weekend Television where we viewed a recording of the proposed programme "INSIDE STORY". After a discussion I informed the television representative that I believed it was not in the public interest to show the programme and that it would potentially endanger the safety of Darren NICHOLLS.

I would have documented this meeting and I believe arranged for a letter to be sent to Darren NICHOLLS expressing the concerns of Essex Police. Some time later a version of the programme was shown on television. The initial conversation I had with Bill CLARKE and Mick BROWN was the first knowledge I had of any press, television, media or journalist contact with Darren NICHOLLS."

15.4b ADAM HUNT

Adam HUNT is employed by Essex Police as their Force Solicitor.

He states that he first became aware of the proposed television programme on 1st February 1999 when Detective Superintendent PAYNE contacted him requesting advice.

He then gives details of viewing the programme prior to its broadcast, Essex Police's views on it content and the steps taken by them to reduce the risk to NICHOLLS and his family. He confirms that Essex Police had no involvement in obtaining the High Court injunction, which subsequently prevented the BBC from broadcasting the programme (until its content had been altered).

15.4c PETER LAURIE

Peter LAURIE is the Principal Press Officer for Essex Police.

He states that he first became aware of the proposed television programme in "late 1998" when Detective Superintendent STOREY advised him that he had been contacted by a television producer, Karen PLUMB. He then gives details of the subsequent meetings with the programme makers, the viewing of the proposed programme content and the action taken by Essex Police prior to NICHOLLS' High Court Injunction.

After being shown an extract of the BBC's 'skeleton argument' to the Court of Appeal which states: "Peter LAURIE, Essex Police's Press Officer, admitted that police officers had provided THOMPSON with "unofficial assistance" in writing his book about NICHOLLS....", Mr LAURIE stated: "I can confirm that throughout all my contact with the programme makers I never made this comment, nor did I make any comment that could be construed in this way. I have no knowledge of whether any police officer assisted THOMPSON in the writing of his book but I can confirm that nobody ever told me this was indeed the case."