Detective failed to meet Lawrence family for a year

THE senior Scotland Yard detective who led the investigation into the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence admitted yesterday that he did not meet Stephen's parents until more than a year after he was killed.

Former detective superintendent Brian Weeden told the public inquiry into Stephen's death that he made "considerable efforts" to see Neville and Doreen Lawrence after their son was stabbed by a white gang in Eltham, south-east London, in April 1993.

But he agreed with Michael Mansfield, QC, counsel for the family, that their first meeting in fact took place in May 1994, shortly before he retired. "Of course this was far too late to be as beneficial as an early meeting," he said.

Cross-examined about the breakdown in relations between police and the Lawrences in the first fortnight, Mr Weeden suggested that the family should accept some of the blame.

He said he wrote a letter to them early on, requesting a meeting, and sent verbal messages through two family liaison officers. He also invited them to visit the incident room.

"I was creating the opportunities, but they were not being taken up," he said. "At the end of the day there does need to be a degree of co-operation. It is a two-way process. It takes two to tango."

Told by Mr Mansfield that the Lawrences never received the letter, Mr Weeden replied: "Well, that's the first I've heard of it."

Mr Weeden, who was in charge of the murder inquiry for 14 months, agreed that when he decided to arrest the five prime suspects, he made no arrangements for the family to be notified beforehand. But he said he believed that they were informed less than an hour after officers went to the suspects' homes.

Mr Mansfield told him that the Lawrences found out about the development from television and radio news. "The message about the arrests did not get through to the family," he said.

Later, questioned by Michael Egan, counsel for the Police Federation, Mr Weeden sought to clarify his admission on Wednesday that he had not until recently understood the legal grounds on which suspects could be arrested. He said that by the time he was interviewed for a Police Complaints Authority report last year, the barrage of criticism he had faced over his failure to make swift arrests had left him confused. "In 1993, the knowledge I had of the criminal law was far better than five years later," he said.

Mr Weeden also denied that the investigation was obstructed by racism, or by a corrupt link between a police officer and the father of one of the five suspects.

The corruption allegations, he said, were "frankly ludicrous". And he went on: "When one looks at the matters that have been advanced, they will be seen as being very, very thin, if not transparent ...

"My officers did everything they possibly could to see this case through to a successful conclusion. They all worked extremely hard, and the fact that there was no successful prosecution was not a consequence of a lack of commitment, but rather a lack of evidence."

The inquiry continues.