unsolved-murders.co.uk
Unsolved Murders
Tags

Daniel Morgan

Age: 37

Sex: male

Date: 10 Mar 1987

Place: Golden Lion Public House, Sydenham Road, Sydenham, London

Daniel Morgan was killed outside the Golden Lion public house in Sydenham on 10 March 1987.

He was found in the car park with an axe embedded in his neck.

He had four wounds to his head, four of which were consistent with having been caused by an axe and the fith consistent with having been caused by a blow to the head or contact with a heavy blunt surface such as the ground. There was no evidence of defence wounds.

The axe was noted for having had Elastoplast strips around the shaft which were removed and 117 fibres recovered and preserved. However, no fingerprints were found on the axe.

There were several arrests and two trials, but no one was ever convicted.

His murder was was noted for the investigation into it having been hindered by police corruption in the Metropolitan Police Force. Inquiries were undertaken and three groups of people considered suspects although his business partner was considered in all three groups.

It was also claimed that members of the local CID had known that Daniel Morgan was going to be killed so that one of them could take over Daniel Morgan's role in his business, Southern Investigations, which the policeman later did.

It was also heard that an ex-employee of Daniel Morgan claimed that Daniel Morgan had been trying to sell a story about police corruption to a newspaper at the time of his murder.

The general outline of events in the investigation of Daniel Morgan's murder include:

  • 10 March 1987: Daniel Morgan murdered.
  • 3 April 1987: Five arrests.
  • May 1987: Release of five suspects.
  • 1988: The detective sergeant left the Metropolitan police and joined Southern Investigations.
  • April 1988: Inquest rules that Daniel Morgan was unlawfully killed.
  • February 1989: First trial of business partner and associate.
  • May 1989: First trial dropped.
  • April 2008: Five people charged with February 1989 Daniel Morgan's murder.
  • March 2011: Second trial collapses.

Daniel Morgan had worked for Southern Investigations, a business based in Thornton Heath, South London, that he had set up with a business partner and his business partner and some other people were initially arrested of suspicion of his murder but later released.

At the time of his murder Southern Investigations had been involved in a civil action with Belmont Car Auctions as well as a massive fraud inquiry involving a West Yorkshire firm. The company usually covered divorce cases, car repossession and collecting debts and worked with a number of active and retired police officers.

Daniel Morgan, although married, was said to have been having several affairs at the time, up to four, and had been seeing a woman shortly before he went to the Golden Lion public house.

Arrests were made in 1987 but the people arrested were later released.

The men were arrested again in 2009 along with another man and they were sent for trial, however, they were aqcuitted after the trial collapsed, in part because it was heard to have reliaed mainly on the evidence of a super-grass whose evidence was not allowed at the trial.

Four reviews have been carried out into the failings of the investigations and the reasons why the case collapsed.

The case was also noted for the mysterious death of Alan Holmes, an acquaintance of Daniel Morgan who was said to have committed suicide in the summer of 1987.

The five investigations into Daniel Morgan's murder and the police corruption associated with it were called:

  1. Morgan One Investigation, 1987.
  2. Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation, July 1988
  3. Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges
  4. Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation
  5. Abelard Two Investigation

The main suspects in the 1987 arrests were:

  • Daniel Morgan's business partner
  • A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan police, working in the Catford Crime Squad.
  • Brother A, brother-in-law of Daniel Morgan's business partner.
  • Brother B
  • Detective Constable A.
  • Detective Constable B.

The suspects arrested in the 1989 investigation were:

  • Daniel Morgan's business partner
  • Business Associate, professional body guard.

The suspects arrested in the 2008 investigation were:

  • Daniel Morgan's business partner
  • A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan police, working in the Catford Crime Squad.
  • Brother A, brother-in-law of Daniel Morgan's business partner.
  • Brother B
  • Builder

Southern Investigations had been set up by Daniel Morgan and his business partner who had been an ex-Metropolitan Police officer. As a police officcer Daniel Morgan's partner maintained good relations with other existing police officers, including the detective sergeeant who it was claimed had plotted to murder Daniel Morgan so that he could take his place in Southern Investigations. It was said that that connectivity had allowed the men accused of Daniel Morgan's murder to get inside information on pregress in the case, the ability to destroy evidence, to know of any pending arrests and to otherwise influence the investigation and protect themselves.

Daniel Morgan had been drinking with his business partner at the Golden Lion public house who left him at about 8.30pm at the Golden Lion pub was later found dead in the car park at 9.40pm by a pub customer as he arrived. He said that he saw Daniel Morgan's body there in the light of his headlights with an axe 'in the right of his neck'.

He was found dead with an axe left in his head. His watch was missing but he was found to still have his wallet and a large amount of cash, about £1,170, that he had had on him at the time. However, it was noted that papers regardin some work that he was involved with and seen with shortly before were missing.

It was noted that after his body was found that when the police arrived a number of mistakes were made in the way that it was handled ranging from not securing the crime scene and allowing customers at the pub to drive off through to not taking witness statements.

It was also noted that the detective sergeant that had known both Daniel Morgan, his business partner and Southern Investigations had not declared that when he himself, being on the catford Crime Squad, interviewed Daniel Morgan's business partner.

The detective sergeant that had interviewed Daniel Morgan's business partner had been part of the Catford Crime Squad and he and all of the other officers in the squad were returned to their duties on 16 March 1987 after which the main Morgan One Investigation team took over the murder case.

The first set of suspects were arrested soon after on 3 April 1987.

The timeline of Daniel Morgan's day was roughly as follows:

  • 8.30am: Daniel Morgan left home.
  • 9am: Office manager at Southern Investigations arrives at the office to find Daniel Morgan already there.
  • 10.20am: Daniel Morgan returns to the office after having gone out to the dry cleaners to pick up a suit which he then cahnged into. It wwas the suit tht he has wearing when he was murdered.
  • 11am: Daniel Morgan and another employee at Southern Investigations went off to Rosan & Co. auctioneers where they served a writ after which they went for a meeting with a representative of CWS Property Group in Slough.
  • 11am: An associate of Daniel Morgan and his business partner said that he went to the offices of Southern Investigations at 11amto discuss a loan although other people said that he didn't. The associate said that when he had been there the previous day that he had been told that Southern Investigations was being sued but that they had been fighting the action in court and needed £10,000 to lodge with the court and that he had said that he might have been able to help. However, he said that when he met Daniel Morgan's business partner on 10 March 1987 that he was asked again for the money said that he would try but said that he had in fact been stalling him as he knew that he would not be able to loan the money for such a long time from the person that he was thinking of asking for it from. The associate said that he left at about 12 noon.
  • 12.30pm: Daniel Morgan’s desk diary stated that his meeting in Slough was due to start.
  • 3pm: Daniel Morgan called the office manager at Southern Investigation and described the meeting as 'good', adding that a number of levy warrants had been obtained.
  • 4.30 pm to 5.00 pm: Daniel Morgan returned to the Southern Investigation office where his business partner said they both were in separate offices until about 6pm.
  • 5.15pm: a Manwent to Daniel Morgan's home to see him but he was not there and so Daniel Morgan's wife called Daniel Morgan on his car phone and the man spoke to Daniel Morgan but was told that he had a 'very important business conference tonight' and would be late. however, it was noted by the police that the last call to Daniel Morgan's car phone was at 4.25pm.
  • 5.30pm: The office manager left the offices of Southern Investigations after handing Daniel Morgan £1,170 in cash which he said that majority of which had been collected from the execution of rent warrants that had been brought to the office too late to be banked and was given to Daniel Morgan for safe-keeping. THe office manager said that when he left that several people had been in the office with Daniel Morgan, his business partner, an employee there, another man and pssibly another Metropilitan detective constable.
  • 6pm: THe employee said that he saw Daniel Morgan leave the office, stating, 'I saw him pop his head around his business partner's door and say, 'I’ll see you in the Golden Lion at 7.30 pm'.
  • 6.20pm: Daniel Morgan met a woman that worked in a nearby estate agent’s office at Regan’s Wine Bar in Thornton Heath for a drink where they shared a bottle of wine. She said that Daniel Morgan told her that he had to meet his business partner at 7.30 pm bur couldn't remember where he said that would be.
  • 7.15pm: Daniel Morgan and the estate agent empolyee left Regan’s Wine Bar after whcih she said that Daniel Morgan went off to meet his business partner.
  • 7.15pm to 7.50pm: The Manager of Victoria Wines in Thornton Heath High Street who knew Daniel Morgan said that she saw him in the high street. She said that he had three or four beige files with him and that he had appeared to have been in a hurry, saying that he looked 'more anxious than normal'. She noted that  as he passed that he carried an advertising board into her shop for her.
  • 7.15pm: Daniel Morgan's wife said that Daniel Morgan called her from his car phone saying that he was going to a meeting and would be home by about 8.15 pm but didn't saying where or who he was going to see.
  • 7.30pm: Daniel Morganmet his business partner at the Golden Lion public house. However, there were no other definitive witnesses and his business partner said that the tmime was '7.30 quarter to eight' but also later said that he had arrived between 7.15 pm and 7.45 pm and that Daniel Morgan had arrived betwen 7.45 pm and 8.15 pm.
  • 9pm: Daniel Morgan's business partner said that he left the Golden Lion public house, just before Daniel Morgan who had at that time been writing with a Parker stainless steel ballpoint pen.
  • 9.04pm: Daniel Morgan's business partner recieved a call on his car phone.

As such, it was noted that it was not possible to say exactly when Daniel Morgan entered or left the Golden Lion public house.

Daniel Morgan's business partner said in his statement, 'We chose that Pub as we had arranged to meet our associate who was going to introduce us to a Third Party in the hope of securing a loan. However the associate failed to appear because his wife had had an accident at work so we just stayed in the Pub for a drink. Daniel was not drinking particularly heavily that evening. I think he had two or three drinks of white wine and soda. Our conversation was mainly about business and new Clients. At about 9 pm I cannot be exact about the time, we finished our drinks and made to leave the Pub. I was a few seconds ahead of him as he was held a short while making notes on a piece of paper. We said our goodbyes inside the Pub and I just walked out of the front door of the Pub and into my car which was parked in Sydenham Road almost outside the Pub. I was not made aware by Daniel where he had parked his car, although I assumed he had parked it in the rear car park. I assume that Daniel left the Pub by the rear door as I think he was only a very short time behind me and I would have noticed if he followed me through the front'.

The customer that found Daniel Morgan's body said that he thought that it had been a tailor’s dummy at first but that when he got out he saw that it was real and so he went into the pub to inform that landlord. He noted that when he saw Daniel Morgan's body that he noticed two packets of crisps on the ground by Daniel Morgan's left hand and noticed that Daniel Morgan's trousers were torn. In his statement regarding going into the pub to himform the landlord he said, 'the bar was crowded and I was trying to attract his attention without causing a panic. It took me maybe a minute, two minutes, to actually call him over. I whispered to him that he had a problem in his car park'.

The customer said that they then both went outside and that he then touched the back of Daniel Morgan’s left hand which he said was cold to the touch. They then went back into the pub to call the police and waited there until the police arrived. The call was made at 9.50pm.

When the police arrived it was noted that they should have carried out certain procedures to preserve the scene and potential evidence, including:

  1. Attempt to secure the car park so that no vehicles could leave.
  2. Request that all customers in the premises remained until they had been spoken to by a police officer.
  3. Identify any possible witnesses outside the premises.
  4. Establish the parameters of the crime scene and begin taping it off.
  5. Consider the immediate securing of any obvious evidence, to ensure its preservation.

However, it was noted that much of that didn't happen and that the whole car park was not taped off and customers were allowed to drive off. The first police investigation into the case stated, 'The crime scene should have been defined by the Senior Investigating Officer and should have included the entirety of the ground floor and any other public areas of the Golden Lion public house, as well as the beer garden and the whole car park, encompassing an area that extended just beyond the car park boundary wall and covered the alleyway access to the side of the building, shown in the map. There is no evidence in the papers available to the Panel that this happened'.

The review said that evidence showed that one witness had said that as they had walked past the Golden Lion car park on 10 March 1987, they had seen that 'Police were there with lights from a van shining on the body and the car park was taped off'. However, other evidence from the first Police Sergeant to arrive at the scene stated that he and the first Police Constable to arrive had 'taped off an area around the body and articles on the floor, in order to preserve this scene for forensic examination'. It was further noted that over time many of the documents from the time had since been lost.

It was similarly noted that the pub itself was not sealed off and that whilst the police were arriving at the scene and dealing with the area around where Daniel Morgan's body was found, customers had started to use a makeshift pedestrian exit to an adjacent street through a hole in a fence which was commonly used as a short cut. There had been three doors to the pub and only one policeman was guarding one of them.

It was also noted that a search of the scene was not made, not even around where Daniel Morgan was found. The review stated that there was no evidence or record within the material disclosed to the Panel of a search of any part of the car park, the beer garden, the outside toilet, the streets in the immediate vicinity of the Golden Lion public house or even of the area where Daniel Morgan’s body was found, on the night of the murder or subsequently and that no police officers stated they initiated or were involved with any such search, as would be expected if it had been done.

It was further noted that although it was known that Daniel Morgan had been drinking in the Gollden LKion public house only minutes before his murder, that there was no evidence that the interior of the Golden Lion public house was searched and no officer present said that they searched the Golden Lion public house and no officer stated that they directed someone else to do that. It was further noted that when the Forensic Science Laboratory Liaison Sergeant that had attended the scene of the crime was asked exactly what his scene search had entailed on the night of the murder, he said that he, 'searched the pockets of Daniel Morgan’s clothing and having looked in his car before making a 'visual sweep of the public house car park and the area immediately behind an adjacent wall', after the body had been removed to the mortuary', which it was noted was not a proper search. It was also noted that some items found near the body were not sent for forensic analysis.

It was also noted that no effort had been made to take fingerprints off any of the cars that had been in the car park at the time.

It was also noted that the crime scene photographer, whilst at the scene for two and a half hours, only took five photographs, all of which were of Daniel Morgan's body and which only showed the surrounding area incidentally. The review noted that the guidance for murder investigations at the time read, 'In cases of sudden death where there are suspicious circumstances, or doubt as to how the death occurred, photographs should be taken of the scene and the body in situ'.

However, when the Scenes of Crime Officers who had been involved in the investigation was later interviewed, he said that he took six Polaroid photographs at the scene of the murder which were documented as having been recieved in evidence but were not found at the time of the review into the investigation in 2009.

It was further noted that in the photographs that did exist that coins found near the blood from Daniel Morgan and certain other debris had not been collected and examined.

On 31 July 1988 a member of the public contacted the Metropolitan Police reporting that while clearing out his garage, he had found a briefcase containing police property which had not been there when he moved into the premises in August 1987. Amonst other items, the briefcase had contained 15 photographs of Daniel Morgan's body. however, it was not later known whether they were different ones, or duplicates. The briefcase had also contained a Daniel Morgan Appeal for assistance poster, a CID report book with a photo in the back and various other stationery and police items. The items  had been reported stolen from a detectives car on 21 October 1987.

It was also noted that a tyre mark shown in one image was not photographed on its own even though the regulations stated that they should have been. The Metropolitan Police General Orders stated, 'When clear impressions have been left at or near the scene and it appears likely that they may afford valuable evidence if the offender is caught, a suitable recording of the impressions should be taken. If the impressions are in mud, soft soil, damp sand or concrete, plaster-of-paris casts should be taken. Marks occurring in dry dusty soils, and those made in dust, or put down by muddy boots, are better photographed. If the impressions are in the open, they should be protected by upturned boxes, dust-bin lids or other suitable means. At a major scene of crime, if a photographer is available, it is as well to get the marks photographed before any attempt at casting, or, if it is felt necessary, an officer from the Laboratory will attend and prepare the casts'.

It was further noted that no attempt to seek any examination of the tyre mark could be identified in the available records.

It was also noted that no pathologist was called out and although no reason was given it was later assumed that if he didn't come out then he must been otherwise busy.

When Daniel Morgan's body was examined, he was found to  have had £1,076.47 on him, comprisiong of two £50 notes, 97 £10 notes and £6.47 in coins. However, his Rolex watch, which he was thoughtt to have been wearing, was missing.

In 2007 the Scenes of Crime Officer, who had attended the scene of the murder on the night said, 'Whilst still at the scene, I was aware of a BMW motor car, close to the victim’s body. During my initial briefing I had been informed that this was the victim’s car. I saw persons, in plain clothes at this vehicle. I saw the boot open as well as the doors. I recall various items being removed from this car, including a briefcase and paperwork. This also caused me concern as nobody appeared to be taking any notes and there was no exhibits officer to record it'. No trace of the briefcase or documents was ever recorded.

It was noted that no exhibits officer was appointed at the crime scene and that no record was made at the time of items found at the scene or recovered other than in officers notes. In particular, there was no record of what was found in Daniel Morgan's car, including a number of files that were seen being taken out of his car boot by plain clothed police officers.

It was additionally noted that the Manager of Victoria Wines off-licence had said that she had seen Daniel Morgan carrying three or four beige files when he met her, however, it was not known whether he had returned them to the Southern Investigations office before he drove to the Golden Lion public house, or whether he had them with him, either on his person or in his car, when he got there.

The review stated, 'there is no record that those files were recovered from Daniel Morgan’s car or his body after his murder. It is not known what those files might have contained. It later transpired that Daniel Morgan was allegedly going to a meeting in connection with securing a loan required for a civil action against Southern Investigations by Belmont Car Auctions, a subsequent line of enquiry in the murder investigation. It is not improbable that those files contained information which may have been relevant to the murder investigation. There is no evidence that the Morgan One Investigation pursued this matter'.

The report concluded, 'No enquiries were made by the Morgan One Investigation as to what these files were. The lack of records showing when and by whom items were removed from Daniel Morgan’s car was a serious failing'.

Other failings noted included the failure to place protective bags over Daniel Morgan's head and hands to preserve evidence, failure by the scene of crime officers to wear protective clothing, shoes or gloves to prevent any contamination of evidence and failure to properly bag and label evidence, all of which made continuity of evidence compromised. the report concluded, 'The failure to record the proper handling and management of exhibits seized, or the location in which those exhibits were stored, was unacceptable. Evidence may have been lost, tampered with or contaminated. This failure had the potential to undermine any future prosecution'.

When the police went to see Daniel Morgan's business partner, no records from the time were made about how he or his wife responded to the news that Daniel Morgan had been murdered.  however, two years later, a detective constable made a statement regarding his visit, stating,

'Daniel Morgan's business partner appeared extremely nervous and dry-mouthed. He gave me the impression of being frightened. I told him that his partner had been murdered, and he said he had been with him until 9 p.m. that night at the Golden Lion public house. We were in the dining room when I told him this. His wife was sitting in the lounge opposite watching TV only ten to twelve feet away approximately. She was aware of the conversation. She continued to watch the TV and made no move to turn away from it, even though she must have heard what I had to say. This appeared to me to be very strange behaviour. I asked Daniel Morgan's business partner if I could use the telephone to contact a Detective. I phoned to tell him that I was in the house with Daniel Morgan's business partner and that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been with Daniel Morgan that night. The telephone was in the same room as where his wife was watching television, and she continued to watch it. She took no part in the conversation whatever. I think I asked the detective if he wanted me to bring Daniel Morgan's business partner to Catford for interview, and the detective said that yes he did. I asked Daniel Morgan's business partner to accompany me to Catford Police Station and to bring the clothes that he was wearing earlier that night. I did not arrest him. I said to him 'My boss would like to see you at Catford tonight. Can you come with me?' He said 'yes'. I said 'What were you wearing tonight?' and he said 'These clothes' indicating the trousers and shirt he was wearing and other clothing. This I believe was a raincoat and a pair of shoes. There was possibly other clothing which I cannot now recall.
We went to Catford Police Station'.

When the detective was later questionened during the review he said thart he found the behaviour of Daniel Morgan's business partner and his wife that night to be odd. He said that Daniel Morgan's business partner appeared scared, looking both pale and sweaty, and his wife seemed petrified during the conversation. Although she must have been able to hear everything he said to her husbanmd, she sat rigidly in front of the television the whole time he was there, neither acknowledging him nor giving any indication of the impact of what he was telling her husband.

The other detective that had gone ti see Daniel Morgan's business partner agreed with his partners observations, and said, 'He looked very pale and waxen and I got the impression even before anything was said that he knew the purpose of our visit. His wife was watching TV in the front room. I recall that the other detective asked Daniel Morgan's business partner if he could use the telephone which he did, and I believe he spoke to the detective. He readily agreed to come with us and told his wife where he was going. I got the impression that feelings were a bit strained between him and his wife as she seemed to take no interest in what he said'.

However, it was noted that although both detectives became suspicious about Daniel Morgan's business partner's bahaviour, they didn't say anything at the time and no records were made.

It was noted that Daniel Morgan's business partner was not considered a suspect at first but that the observations of the two detectives that wnt to see him should have been reported and further that as Daniel Morgan's business partner had been the last person to have been with Daniel Morgan that he cshould have been fully interviewed, his clothes examined, his house searched, his car searched and his wife interviewed, all of whic would have been standard procedure at the time and whic didn't happen and that that was a serious failure of the initial investigation.

The report concluded the detective superintendnt, 'knowing that the man was Daniel Morgan’s business partner, and having been informed by a detective that he had been drinking with Daniel Morgan immediately before his death, should have considered whether Daniel Morgan’s business partner might be a suspect. Daniel Morgan’s business partner should have been the subject of immediate further enquiries, and his wife, Sharon Rees, should also have been interviewed as a matter of priority. The failure to do this meant that initial investigative opportunities were missed which could never be recovered'.

When Daniel Morgan’s business partner was taken to the police station he was identified as a friend of the detective sergeant as he was known by a number of people there although that information was not passed on to the detective superintendnet until December 1987.

A police constable that saw Daniel Morgan’s business partner at Catford police station when he was brought there at about 1.30am said:

  • He had known Daniel Morgan’s business partner for about 18 months, having been introduced to him by the detective sergeant.
  • The detective sergeant and Daniel Morgan’s business partner had been friends for some time.
  • He had seen Daniel Morgan’s business partner on approximately 12 occasions, always at Catford Police Station.
  • Daniel Morgan’s business partner regularly telephoned the Crime Squad office to speak to the detective sergeant.
  • He was never surprised to see Daniel Morgan’s business partner in the Crime Squad office.
  • Daniel Morgan’s business partner attended social functions at Catford Police Station.
  • Daniel Morgan’s business partner acted as a legal representative for prisoners.
  • He had thought that Daniel Morgan’s business partner was a former police officer, and that he would use police jargon.
  • He had telephoned the detective sergeant and told him that Daniel Morgan had been murdered and that Daniel Morgan’s business partner had been arrested. THe detective sergeant had asked if Daniel Morgan’s business partner could telephone him when he was released.

It was also noted that Daniel Morgan’s business partner's clothing, whilst examined at the police station visually, was not kept as evidence or examined in detail and that no records were made as he had not been a suspect at the time. One forenic expert when asked why his clothes were not sent off for analysis said, 'There were two reasons. Initially, as I told you, within two or three hours of having been involved in this murder I did not consider Daniel Morgan’s business partner a suspect. Blood-staining or blood-splashing is clearly visible to an expert in that field and if the Detective Sergeant had considered that there was a possibility of blood being found that he could not see with the naked eye then he might have suggested that it goes to the Metropolitan Police Laboratory. However, it is my experience that if you cannot see it with the naked eye it is very unlikely that the Metropolitan Police are going to find it in their laboratory'.

It was also noted that during the examination that Daniel Morgan’s business partner was not asked whether the clothes they had examined had been the clothes that he had been wearing on the night.

However the review concluded, 'The visual search conducted would not necessarily have identified small blood splashes and other evidence which may have been present on Daniel Morgan’s business partner’s clothing. In addition, it would not necessarily have identified any fibres which may have been relevant to the investigation. Daniel Morgan’s business partner’s clothing (including his scarf, tie and gloves) and his shoes should have been examined by a forensic scientist. Not recovering Daniel Morgan’s business partner’s clothing and shoes for forensic analysis for blood marks was another significant failure of the Morgan One Investigation. There is no record that any attempt was made to trace the scarf, shirt, tie or gloves which Jonathan Rees was wearing at the Golden Lion public house on the night of the murder, or to consider their submission for forensic examination.

It was noted that after Daniel Morgan’s business partner was interviewed that he was asked to inform Daniel Morgan's wife that Daniel Morgan was dead and that he 'pulled a face but agreed to do so'. He then went with some other police officers and collected two of Daniel Morgan's wife's friend so that she would have someone there that she knew at the time, and one of the other police officers informed her of Daniel Morgan's death.

The review stated, 'The Panel has concerns regarding the conduct of the attending officers and the proposal that Daniel Morgan’s business partner inform Daniel Morgan’s wife about her husband’s death. In fact, Daniel Morgan’s business partner did not inform her, it was another detective constable'.

The establishment of the Major Incident Room and the murder investigation team began the following day, 11 March 1987. However, it was noted that at the time there were no specialist squads of detectives dedicated to dealing with murders and other serious crimes within the Metropolitan Police and negotiation with local commanders was required for the secondment of police officers from various divisions and departments to a murder investigation but such commanders were often very reluctant to lose staff for indeterminate periods. As such a Senior Investigating Officer had little or no control over who was attached to an enquiry, and staff often had little training for, and limited experience of, investigating murder and the quality of some of the officers seconded to the Morgan One Investigation was poor, with many of them being young and inexperienced. It was further noted that 8 members of the Catford Crime Squad, including the detective sergeant that had been intending to join Southern Investigations as a partner.

However, the members of the Catford Crime Squad were removed from the murder investigation team on 16 March 1987 after it was considered that the detective sergeants was too closely associated with Daniel Morgan’s business partner.

Excerts from Daniel Morgan’s business partner consisted of:

  1. He first met Daniel Morgan in early 1980, when they were both employed as enquiry agents with BE Madagan & Co. in Croydon. Both men then formed a partnership in February 1981 (Southern Investigations). Daniel Morgan dealt mainly with the process-serving and bailiff side of the business, while he specialised in different types of investigations. He also said that 'on many instances we each took on the other’s aspect of the work'.
  2. Southern Investigations had six employees, whom he named.
  3. Daniel Morgan was 'an extremely energetic partner', 'active and normally of an outgoing and friendly disposition'. He was 'well liked, especially by solicitors, he generated a lot of work'. He was 'a man of considerable courage, a brave man. He was a good family man who cared and showed great consideration for his wife and children'.
  4. Daniel Morgan gave 'no consideration for debtors whatsoever', 'would always stand firm' and Jonathan Rees had seen this 'lead to situations of quite serious confrontations'. He continued, 'I have seen him in public houses interrupt people's conversation and interject with opinions. These were often total strangers, and this led to arguments on occasion, but never violence'.
  5. Daniel Morgan sometimes had sexual relationships with women whom he had met while serving injunctions on their estranged husbands. He named four women with whom Daniel Morgan had allegedly become involved. He added that 'unfortunately there were a substantial number of such women but that is only what I know from conversation with him'.
  6. He and Daniel Morgan had been in the Golden Lion public house on the evening of 9 March 1987, the day before the murder, between approximately 7.30 pm and 10.00 pm. Daniel Morgan had parked his car in the car park at the back of the Golden Lion public house. He said he had left slightly before Daniel Morgan, and that he did not see him go to his car. He said that, during the latter part of the evening of 9 March 1987, he and Daniel Morgan had been joined by a small group of plain clothes police officers. None of those officers were named (one in fact was the detective sergeant who was taking the statement).
  7. He and Daniel Morgan were both in the office until about 6pm on 10 March 1987, and Daniel Morgan had then left to keep an appointment 'about which he had no details'. They had then met at about 7.30 pm in the Golden Lion public house. He said, 'I did not ask him where he’d been as there was no need to do so'.
  8. He and Daniel Morgan had arranged to meet their associate, 'who was going to introduce us to a third party in the hope of securing a loan. However, the associate failed to appear because his wife had had an accident at work so we just stayed in the Pub for a drink.' (No further detail was provided about what this loan was for.)
  9. 'At about 2100 hours, I cannot be exact about the time, we finished our drinks and made to leave the pub. I was a few seconds ahead of him as he was held a short while making notes on a piece of paper. We said our goodbyes inside the pub and I just walked out of the front door of the pub and into my car which was parked in Sydenham Road almost outside the pub. I was not made aware by Daniel where he had parked his car, although I assumed he had parked it in the rear car park. I assume that Daniel left the pub by the rear door as I think he was only a very short time behind me and I would have noticed if he followed me through the front. I then drove off towards Croydon and to The Beaulha Spa public house, Crystal Palace where I did meet the associate who often uses that pub. In fact, en route home I spoke to the associate on my car phone and arranged to meet him. I stayed in that pub until the first bell and left to go home. I did visit a kebab restaurant in Portland Road, SE25, and bought two kebabs. I then took them home arriving at shortly after 2300 hours. I stayed indoors until the police arrived and informed me of Daniel’s death'.
  10. He described customers he had seen in the Golden Lion public house on that evening, described his own clothes as comprising grey trousers, no jacket, a blue and white striped shirt, a blue tie with white spots on it, a red scarf and a white mackintosh. He also recorded what Daniel Morgan had been wearing. He listed exhibits from Southern Investigations' offices which had been handed to police on the morning of 11 March.
  11. He had been asked by police about a trip which Daniel Morgan had made to Malta in February 1987. He said that he had 'no detailed information regarding this enquiry. However Daniel did mention to me on his return that he had received serious threats whilst in Malta from some person with whom he had dealings who travels regularly from Malta to England'.

It was noted that it had been the detective sergeant that had taken the statement from Daniel Morgan's business partner and that he had been in the Golden Lion public house on the eveing og 9 March 1987 andwoulf have know that his statement was incorrect as he later said that in fact they had not met them in the Golden Lion but found that they were in the Dolphin public house across the street and that they had gone over and invited them back to the Golden Lion public house.

It was also noted that there were a number of things missing from Daniel Morgan's business partner's statement that they would have expected to have seen:

  • Daniel Morgan’s other movements on 9 March 1987, the day before he was murdered.
  • Whether or how often he and Daniel Morgan had previously been in the Golden Lion public house.
  • The business relationship between Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan, and why Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan were seeking a loan on the night of Daniel Morgan’s murder.
  • Daniel Morgan’s relationship with a woman, with whom Daniel Morgan had shared a bottle of wine the night he was murdered.
  • The identity of the officers with whom he and Daniel Morgan were drinking in the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987 (The detective sergeant, who was taking the statement, being one of those officers).

As such, the review concluded that, 'There was a significant failure by the detective sergeant to obtain important information from Daniel Morgan's business partner to inform the murder investigation. The detective sergeant did not ensure that information was included in the statement which he knew and in which he had a personal interest, his own name as one of the officers who had been at the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, and the reason for the loan being sought. Daniel Morgan's business partner should have been questioned in much greater depth about what he knew about Daniel Morgan. The statement made by Daniel Morgan's business partner does not indicate that the detective sergeant asked robust questions about Daniel Morgan’s lifestyle and contacts when taking this statement'.

however, when the detective sergeant was questioned over the content of the statement, he said that it was never meant to be final or definitive statement and that it was the very beginning of the enquiry and that there was never any doubt that gaps would have to be filled in as the enquiry developed and other questions arose. He also said, 'It was handed into the system on the day I took it. It must have been read by almost everybody on that murder squad. I think it grossly unfair that after all that they accuse me of glossing parts over, they should have said something earlier if not satisfied with it. I remained on that squad and in direct contact with Daniel Morgans business partner on the instructions of the investigating officer and could easily have been instructed to take a fuller account'.

Daniel Morgans business partner was interviewed twice more, on 16 March and 20 March 1987 at which times he added the following:

16 March 1987

  • Provided details of the vehicles owned by Southern Investigations and used by him and by Daniel Morgan.
  • Produced 31 files of cars repossessed by Daniel Morgan over the previous 12 months, and said that nine other files for identified vehicles were not in the office at that time.

20 March 1987

  • Explained his telephone calls on the evening of 10 March 1987.
  • Described his departure from the Golden Lion public house and his route home.
  • Described his clothing that night as comprising a white raincoat, red scarf, grey trousers and black shoes.
  • Said he started to leave at 10.50 pm and drove towards home at 11.15 pm, he stopped and bought kebabs which he and his wife ate when he got home, he sat watching television.
  • Said that at about 12.30 police arrived and told him that Daniel Morgan had been murdered.
  • Said that he had been asked by police whether he had ever telephoned the woman at home, he said that he had telephoned her at work, but had never telephoned her at home, did not know her phone number and never had an affair with the woman.
  • Provided information about discussions about a possible merger which had occurred in mid-1986 with Madagans, for whom he and Daniel Morgan had worked previously.

It was noted that when Daniel Morgan was found that he had a tear in his trousers but that that tear was not looked into as a viable line of enquiry for 20 years. The tear recorded as:

  • The seams at the top of the rear vents of the jacket were pulled open, that is, damaged.
  • There was a tear of 45.5cm to the right-hand outside seam of the trousers.
  • There was damage to the right hip pocket, which was torn along the seam, and that there was a small tear in the rear pocket.

It was said that although Daniel Morgan’s trousers were ripped across the waistband on the right-hand side and from the waistband down the right leg almost to his knee, that there had been no instruction to the forensic scientists to examine the clothing and shoes to determine whether the body had been moved or dragged. The report concluded, 'There is no evidence, within the material which has been made available to the Panel, of efforts to establish the reasons for, or significance of the very large tear in Daniel Morgan’s trousers and the level of force that it would have taken to cause such a tear. Nor was any request made by the Morgan One Investigation for any forensic examination of the tears in the trousers. No further action appears to have been taken about this matter until almost 20 years later, when the Abelard Two Investigation team requested some scientific analysis. This should have formed a line of enquiry from the moment Daniel Morgan’s body was discovered'.

When enquiries were made into the possibility of blood splashes it was determined that the assailant would not have nessecarily been covered with blood as the axe had not entered the soft tissues and had not repeatedly entered the same area and that there would not have been any blood splashed. The inquirie stated, 'the amount of blood likely to be splashed onto the assailant’s clothing would be limited, as the axe did not enter any soft tissue, only bone. For any blood splashing the axe would have to enter tissue or the assailant would have to make multiple strikes with the weapon into the same area of the body. Examination of the scene shows no blood splashing onto the cars nearby. Therefore, any blood traces on the assailant’s clothing would be minimal'.

A supplementary report on 24 February 1988 stated:

  • During the production of wounds 1 to 5, there would not necessarily have been significant spraying of blood.
  • After these wounds were produced, blood would then run from the wounds and in so doing, would contaminate the surrounding area.
  • There were numerous splashes of blood over the handle of the axe and upper part of the clothing. These splashes were caused when blood, which had run over the face and mouth was sprayed during the terminal respiratory efforts.
  • A person in close proximity to the deceased, whilst the injuries were inflicted, would not necessarily have been contaminated to any significant degree with blood. If a person was in close proximity during the terminal respiratory efforts, contamination with blood might have occurred.

It was noted that the Golden Lion public house had been busy on the night of the murder. It had consisted of a saloon bar, a public bar and a function room, however, there was uncertainty as to exactly how many people had been inside the premises on the night of the murder. It was trhught that there had been 83 people in the pub at the time, 51 in the saloon bar between 7pm and 11pm, 16 in the public bar and 16 members of a women’s darts team in the function room and 11 individuals unidentiofied.

It was noted that in murder cases Personal Descriptive Forms were standard at the time along with individuals marking their location on a map but that not everyone completed one, including Daniel Morgan's business partner. In total 61 plans were completed with some couples using the same plan. The review concluded that there was no acceptable explanation within the material disclosed as to why Daniel Morgan's business partner was not required to mark his position within the Golden Lion public house on the night of the murder, nor why a Personal Descriptive Form was not completed for him, as was the policy at the time.

Out of all the witnesses, only two people recalled seeing someone that was considered to have been Daniel Morgan.

  1. Person T4: A man that had been to the pub with a friend and who had sat on the raised area with his back to the rear doors of the pub. He recalled seeing a man with a  beard with another larger man with fair short cropped hair. He said that after ten or fifteen minutes, the larger man left, but he returned a short time later wearing a white raincoat and black gloves, which he had not been wearing previously and that the larger man then left followed shortly afterwards by the bearded man, both men walking off towards the front of the building.
  2. Barmaind: THe barmaid said that she served a man with two drinks and two packets of crisps about 9.20 pm, shortly before she saw him leave the bar. It was noted two packets of crisps had been found by Daniel Morgan’s body. She that he had been sitting on the settee opposite the bar, which is a different location from that stated by the other witness, and that she thought that he was with 'another man, who was also wearing a suit, and he was white'. when she was shown a photograph of Daniel Morgan on 16 April 1987 she said that was definite that he was the man that she had served two drinks and two packets of crisps.

As such, it was noted that there was no definitive evidence as to where Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan had been sitting on the night of the murder, with the evidence stating that thety were either sitting directly opposite the saloon bar or were sitting in a separate raised area at the back of the bar, near the door leading to the rear car park.

It was also noted that a detective had thought htat the barmaid had been confused in her evidence about the time at which Daniel Morgan bought the crisps and drinks, stating that she could not remember serving Daniel Morgan at any time other than 9.20pm by whch time Daniel Morgan was dead. However, the review noted that there was no reason to beleive that Daniel Morgan had been dead at that time as the only evidence regarding his death was that he was found in the car park at 9.40pm.

The review stated, 'The barmaid was convinced that the man she had served with two packets of crisps was Daniel Morgan. She identified him from the photograph, and she described him accurately. Nobody else was identified as having bought two packets of crisps that night, and two packets of crisps were lying beside Daniel Morgan’s body when he was found. It is not surprising that the barmaid was unable to remember the specific time at which she served Daniel Morgan on 10 March 1987, and precisely who was sitting where, given that she would have served a number of people that night, both before and after the discovery of the body. No attempt was made to retrieve the till rolls from the bar, either on 10 March 1987 or subsequently. The till rolls might have given the time at which the crisps were bought by Daniel Morgan and might therefore have indicated when he was last in the bar. It is not known now whether such evidence could have been retrieved'.

House ito house enquiries were also undertaken, but it was noted that two leads in particular were not followed up. They were:

  1. One person said that they saw two people hanging around sometime around 7.30pm to 8pm on Monday 9 March 1987 but no further action on that was taken.
  2. Another person had been sitting in a vehicle in Loxley Close with a friend at around 10.05 pm on 10 March 1987 and said that he saw a man parked in Loxley Close and have a looked through the fence of the car park of the Golden Lion public house. Howeever, no further action was taken on the grounds that it was after Daniel Morgan was murdered.

The police review stated that in the case of the first person, that the police had failed to consider that the two people that had planned the murder might have visited the pub the night before, noting that the dark corner of the car park appeared to have been carefully selected. Similarly, the report concluded that the statement of the second person and his friend who also saw the man looking through the fence, should have been looked into further.

Appeals for information resulted in the following:

  1. A man carrying a plastic bag who came in through the back door of the Golden Lion public house after Daniel Morgan had left but before police had arrived.
  2. A man, who was ‘sort of Italian looking, probably foreign, mid-European, between twenty-two and twenty-five years old, around 5’10” or 6’ tall, who appeared at around 9.00pm and looked into the bar three times. On the final occasion he was accompanied by another man who had tight curly hair that was quite short and close to his head.’ Both men then walked away.
  3. A white man wearing a pale blue jacket with quite thick eyebrows, fairly long hair parted on his left side, and quite a pale face, who was said to have looked into the window of the saloon bar of the Golden Lion public house at 8.45 pm.
  4. Two men who were seen arguing between about 7.20 pm and 7.25 pm on 10 March 1987 outside the Golden Lion public house.
  5. A group of youths who were seen arguing with a black man at the bottom of Berrymans Lane at the junction with Sydenham Road, sometime after about 9.00 pm.562,563 There was no report to police of any such incident at the time that this was alleged to have occurred.
  6. A policeman was talking to a man with a skinhead cut at 10.40 pm outside the Golden Lion public house, who had a friend who was known to have carried an axe in the past.

However, they were all investigated but no useful information was identified.

An appeal for information was made in a BBC Crimewatch television programme broadcast on 23 April 1987. It sought the following:

  • Any information on the axe (which had two strips of elastoplast© around the handle).
  • The missing Rolex watch.
  • Any witnesses who saw anyone leaving the scene between about 9pm and 9.40pm.
  • Two men were seen looking through the door of the Golden Lion. The first is described as Italian looking, 22-25, 5'10'' to 6', broad shouldered with jet black hair, quite a gaunt face, and wearing a leather jacket. He looked through the pub door about three times. On the third time he was with another man who’s described as having tight curly hair which is short and close to the head. An appeal for these two men to come forward was made.
  • Anyone with any information which may help solve the crime, i.e. Do you know who did it?

After the broadcast of Crimewatch, the investigation team received information which led to several enquiries in London, Bridlington, Chester, Kent and Worcestershire. However, nothing of value emerged from these enquiries although it did prompt the West Yorkshire police to contact the murder investigation squad in relation to the Malta connection.

It was thought that it had been unusual for Daniel Morgan to have socialised with his business partners and his police friends and so the police interviewed 43 police officers who served, or who had served, at Catford Police Station regarding their meetings with Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan and found that 17 officers had met Daniel Morgan's business partner over the previous 2/3 years but that none of them had ever met Daniel Morgan.

The police also carried out investigations into the origin of the axe with no result. The transcript of a radio appeal stated:

'We are keen to trace the origin of the murder weapon, a small axe which was found at the scene. Made in China by Diamond brand, the axe is quite common and easily available for about £4.50. It has a 14 inch handle with a black four by six inch blade with a silver edge. The axe used in the murder had two strips of sticking plaster on the handle and didn’t appear to have any marks on it so we think it was quite new. If you’re a shopkeeper and have sold one recently, particularly in the South London area, we need to hear from you'.

However, the conclusion of the appeal was that the axe was quite common and easily available.

Efforts were also made to trace Daniel Morgan's Rolex watch. It was determined that he had insured the watch and when the police interviewed the insurer he produced a cy, a receipt for its purchase and a photograph of the watch and noted that the watch had had a unique serial number. However, no trace of the watch was found and it was stated that it was unclear as to whether he had actually been wearing one when he was murdered.

The police investigation also looked into why Daniel Morgan had gone to the Golden Lion public house, noting that he was not a regular there and that it was not on the way home for him or his business partner or the detective sergeant all of whom lived in different locations some distance from the Golden Lion, the pub itself being four miles from the office of Southern Investigations. The police added that they were also trying to establish why Daniel Morgan had parked in such a dark corner of the car park.

The review noted that it appeasred that Daniel Morgan's business partner, accompanied by Daniel Morgan in a separate car had met the detective sergeant by chance in Sydenham Road as he was investigating him for carrying a TV set and that they later agreed to meet in the Golden Lion of the Dolphin later that night. The detective sergeant said that he later saw Daniel Morgan's business partner's car parked in the car park og the Golden Lion and later webnt there with his friends for a drink but found that they were not there and then went over to the Dolphin where he found them and brought them over.

However, the police review stated that it was not possible to state conclusivly why Daniel Morgan and his business partner went there the following night, and further that whilst Daniel Morgan's business partner had said that the purpose had been to mee tteh associate to discuss the loan, the associate denied that any meeting was arranged. The issue of who knew hat Daniel Morgan was going to be at the Golden Lion public house on the night was also looked into and considered in one report, after lookig at over 200 statements, that only Daniel Morgan's business partner knew of the meeting with the possibility of the detective sergeant knowing. However, it was additionally noted later that the office manager also knew as he had stated that when Dasniel Morgan had left the office he had popped his head around his business partners door and say, 'I’ll see you in the Golden Lion at 7.30pm'.

The issue of why Daniel Morgan had parked his car in such a dark spot in the car park was also considered and it was determined to be unusual for him as he had a valuable BMW and had been careful about where he left it with several people stating that Daniel Morgan would not have been expected to park his car in a dark place where it might have been the subject of crime.

Telephone records were also checked. Howevver, it was noted that in early 1987 it was not possible to obtain itemised billing for landlines in the United Kingdom, and so that was not available at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder. However, the police were able to get itemised billing for outgoing calls from mobile phones.

In particular this showed that Daniel Morgan's business partner rarely made calls on Sundays but that on the Sunday, 8 March 1987, Daniel Morgan's business partner had made a call to the number of the builder that was later tried for Daniel Morgan's murder in 2009. However, no action along that line was taken. It was heard that the number had actually been identified as being that of the builder's wife and that she was not internviewed until 8 February 1988 at which time she said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had called to speak to her husband about doing some recovery work for Southern Investigations. It was further noted that the builder had been on bail at the time having been charged with an unrelated offence and would only be seen in the presence of a solicitor. However, no enquiries were carried out to ascertain further information about the builder, including any criminal record he had, or who his associates were.

The review concluded, 'The failure adequately to follow up the only call made by Daniel Morgan's business partner from his car phone on 8 March 1987, two days before the murder, which was to the builders wife's landline, was significant. This was the only call made to this number and represented one of only a few occasions when Daniel Morgan's business partner used his car phone on a Sunday during the period covered by the call data'.

When the called on Daniel Morgan's business partner's phone for 10 March were analysed it was found that he had a few in the morning and then nothing until shortly after the time that Daniel Morgan weas murdered.  The calls were:

  • 11.03am - outgoing: To his home address.
  • 11.06am - outgoing: To the estate agent that he hand Daniel Morgan had both been seeing.
  • 11.07am - outgoing: To Catford Crime Squad.
  • 11.12am - incoming: not detailed.
  • 9.04pm - incoming: Daniel Morgan's business partner said that his wife spoke to him as he was driving home (the call lasted for 11 minutes and 31 seconds). However, his wife didn't mention that call in her statement. She said that she spoke to him at 4pm and the next and only occasion was at 9.30pm when he called her to ask her if she wanted anything brought home.
  • 9.17pm - outgoing: Daniel Morgan's business partner said that he called the associate to ask about the loan and arranged via his wife to meet him at the Beulah Spa public house.
  • 9.21pm - incoming: Daniel Morgan's business partner said the associate called him to confirm their meeting at the Beulah Spa public house but the associate denied making that call.
  • 9.23pm - outgoing: Daniel Morgan's business partner said that he called the associate on his car phone.
  • 11.25pm- outgoing: Daniel Morgan's business partner said that he called his home telephone.

As such, it was noted that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been unable to account adequately for the two telephone calls which were made to his car phone at 9.04 pm and 9.21 pm on 10 March 1987.

However, it was further noted that no enquiries were made to determine whether any of the other interested parties in the case had had car phones.

When the relationship between Daniel Morgan and his business parter was looked into it was determined that they had beoth been involved with the maanager of the estate agents from across the road to Southern Investigations. Wehn the woman was interviewed she said that she had started seeing Daniel Morgan in December 1985, saying, 'we have had a sexual relationship though not so much in recent times'. she said that it begam in December 1985 and lasted only a few weeks but that she was good friends with Daniel Morgan.

Analysis of Daniel Morgan’s car phone records, which started on 1 January 1987, showed only two contacts with the estate agents’ for whom the woman worked, and one call to her home address. However, when the police examined Daniel Morgan's business partner's phone records, they found that 60 phone calls had been made from his car phone to her office in the three and a half months prior to the middle of March 1987, and four calls to her home. When the estate agent manager was questioned, she denied having a sexual relationship with Daniel Morgan's business partner.

Analysis of calls made in the ten days prior to Daniel Morgan’s murder, five calls to her were made, and on the day that Daniel Morgan was murdered he called her at 11.06am.

It was said that when the details of the relationship with the estate agent manager first came out it was condiered to have been a possible motive for Daniel Morgan's murder.

Following the discovery of his body the police, which involved the detective sergeant that was planning on joining Southern Investigations, said that they thought that he had been murdered by someone connected with one of the divorce or debt collecting cases that Daniel Morgan had been involved with. It was also later stated that it was thought that he might have been 'silenced' because he had known too much.

However, shortly after the police said that they started to develop suspicions against Daniel Morgan's business partner and then later still against the detective sergeant, citing:

  1. Suspicions that he was in, or had had, a relationship with the estate agent manager.
  2. Because he was the last known person to see Daniel Morgan alive.
  3. Because elements of the statements which he had made had been contradicted by others.
  4. THe relationship between him and the detective sergeant.

Regarding point 4 it was noted that Daniel Morgan's businesss partner and the detective sergeant both visited the associate and questioned him but that when the detective sergeant called the murder team he only offered information regarding two women that Daniel Morgan was alleged to have been seeing and didn't disclose the conversation he nad Daniel Morgan's business partner had had with the associate.

THe review stated that that was a breach of the general duty not to disclose information improperly, by allowing Daniel Morgan's businesss partner to overhear any other information that the business associate had to impart.

To place Daniel Morgan's businesss partner relationship with the murder team into perspective, one detective said, 'because of the help Daniel Morgan's businesss partner was giving us and his obvious friendship with certain Police Officers in the Investigation Team I got the feeling that he was almost an extension of the Squad'.

A few days later it was said that the detective sergeant asked to be removed from the murder team because of his relationship with Daniel Morgan's businesss partner and asked whether he could take his annual leave, finishing his dutiies on 13 March 1987 and he was released to normal duties.

The detective superintendent said, 'On Sunday 15th March 1987 it was clear to me that the friendship between the detective sergeant and Daniel Morgan's businesss partner could have an adverse effect on the investigation of this murder. I felt that all aspects of the police enquiry were being discussed by these two men. I therefore saw the detective sergeant and told him that as from Monday 16th March he would no longer be employed on the enquiry but would resume his normal role as the officer in charge of the Crime Squad at Catford. The detective sergeant did state that he wanted to return to normal duty as his friendship with Daniel Morgan's businesss partner was suffering. I subsequently learnt that he had previously spoken to another detective about his employment on the Murder Squad'.

It was later concluded that the detective superintendent made the correct decision to remove the detective sergeant from the investigation because he had a potential conflict of interest due to his friendship with Daniel Morgan's businesss partner. However, it was noted that it also appeared that there may also have been concern that the detective sergeant was leaking information about the enquiry to Daniel Morgan's businesss partner although that was not recorded in the decision to remove him.

When finance was considered as a motive it was noted that the alleged purpose for meeting at the Golden Lion on the night of 10 March 1987 had been to see the associate about a £10,000 loan required by the High Court in relation to the case between Belmont Car Auctions and Southern Investigations. The court action for breach of contract and negligence relating to the loss of monies collected during the auction at which Southern Investigations were providing security and Daniel Morgan's businesss partner had reported being the victim of a robbery and losing the money.

As such, the police obtained all statements and copy crime reports about the robbery which took place on 18 March 1986. The investigation found the following:

  1. Southern Investigations had been contracted to provide security for Belmont Car Auctions, which had previously been robbed on 28 February 1986. A police officer who was the cousin of a director of Belmont Car Auctions believed that the detective sergeant had a friend who might be able to advise them on security, Daniel Morgan's business partner, and later introduced him to the two directors of Belmont Car Auctions on 3 March 1986. At the meeting it was agreed that Southern Investigations would provide six 'minders', who would attend the auctions and transfer takings to the bank afterwards. One of the directors subsequently learned that two of the 'Minders' had been the brothers who were later arrested in 1987 and 2009.
  2. Southern Investigations had provided security on ten occasions. Those present had included three police officers, including the detective sergeant. The officers were off duty when they were at Belmont Car Auctions and the detective superintendent said that he believed they had not informed the Metropolitan Police that they were working in that  way as required by police regulations.
  3. On 18 March 1986, while transporting £18,280.62 belonging to Belmont Car Auctions to the bank, Daniel Morgan's businesss partner had allegedly been robbed.5 He had left Belmont Car Auctions with the night’s takings accompanied by the two brothers. Daniel Morgan's businesss partner said that he had been unable to lodge the takings at the Midland Bank in Lewisham, because the key hole of the night safe had been blocked and that he had decided to take the money home and deposit it the next day. He said that he drove to his own home and dropped the two brothers off at their homes en route but that when he got home he had been unable to park near his house and had to park about 70 yards away and that as he walked to his house he was assaulted and robbed by two men.

It was noted that despite a police investigation, no arrests were ever made in respect of the robbery and the money was never recovered.

The robbery had led Belmont Car Auctions to take legal action against Southern Investigations, which was what the £10,000 for the court that the partners were trying to secure was for. It was heard that following Daniel Morgan's murder that the police went to the offices of Southern Investigations on the morning of 11 March 1987 and took the file, number 4208, along with some files on a matrimonial case that related to a woman that Daniel Morgan had been having an affair with but that the files were never seen again and Daniel Morgan's business partner later claimed that there was no Belmont Car Auctions file.

The files were said to have been collected by the detective sergeant that had wanted to become a partner of Southern Investigations and another member of the crime squad. The office manager at Southern Investigations said that when the police arrived he was asked for the files and then looked up the location of the Belmont Car Auctions file, which was numbered 4208, and then retrieved the matrimonial file whilst Daniel Morgan's business partner retrieved the Belmont Car Auctions file, and that they were then both given to the detective sergeant and that to his knowledge, they had not been returned to the office by 30 March 1987.

It was noted that the Belmont Car Auctions file was later considered to have been very significant in the case because it provided a motive for Daniel Morgan’s murder.

The records later showed that the matrimonial file had been handed to the police on 30 March 1987, the same day the office manager said that he had given iot to the police on 11 March 1987 and that there was no record of the Belmont Car Auctions file.

When Daniel Morgan's business partner was arrested on 3 April 1987, he denied having given the Belmont Car Auctions file to the detective sergeant, saying, 'The office manager could not have given the file to anyone as it doesn’t exist, except for part of the litigation document that I maintain and are still in my possession'. When he was told that the office manager had been shown the file, he said that that was 'utter and complete nonsense'.

When the detective sergeant was arrested on 3 April 1987 he denied having ever had possession of the Belmont Car Auctions file or trying to destroy them, adding that trying to destroy it would have been futile as there would have been countless copies of it. When the other crime squad officer was questioned over the removal of the files he said, 'I did not recall removing any files or any documents which were not personal to Morgan' and added that the detective sergeant removed nothing.

The police later contacted the solicitors acting for Belmont Car Auctions and Southern Investigations to retrieve copies of all the documents that they had on the case, including pleadings. Documents provided by solicitors for Belmont Car Auctions on 16 November 1987 included a security report written by Daniel Morgan's business partner for Belmont Car Auctions in 1986, Southern Investigations’ costings for 'night security officers' dated 7 March 1986, Southern Investigations' invoices dated 8 March 1986 and 14 March 1986, a summary of cash handled by Southern Investigations and a Southern Investigations’ prospectus.

However, it was noted that on 14 January 1988 Daniel Morgan's business partner informed the solicitors acting for Belmont Car Auctions that he was unable to provide four documents which he said had been seized by the Metropolitan Police in April 1987 in connection with their investigations into Daniel Morgan’s death.

It was later revealed that people that said they had seen the file indicated that it had had content removed, with one detective saying that when he first saw it it was two inches thick but that when he later saw it it was about an inch thick.

When a detective superintendent in the case was later questioned over the files on 15 April 1988, he said:

  • Q. Do you know where the Belmont Car auctions file is?
  • A. Do I know where it is? I have seen some papers on the Belmont car file.
  • Q. You have seen some papers on it. Have you seen what you consider to be the full file?
  • A. I do not know what the file is.
  • Q. You expressed, in the way you answered that question, some doubt as to whether it was a full file. Do you have reason to believe there might be some papers missing from it?
  • A. I was certainly looking for the Belmont car file. I found papers relating to the Belmont car auction case. It might well be there were no other papers but I was certainly looking for any relating to Belmont.
  • Q. Was there actually a file rather than just papers.
  • A. I think there was a brown fold-over file.
  • Q. You did say just now that the file was not brought in by the detective sergeant.
  • A That is right.
  • Q. So there is some conflict or potential conflict of evidence between whether the file was actually taken from Southern Investigations or whether it actually got.
  • A. I took a certain course of action subsequently because I thought the file had not been brought in. Certain things I did led me to suspect that the file had been removed, but having taken that action the man who told us, the office manager, that the file was handed to the detective sergeant, was subsequently unsure.
  • Q. I will leave it at that. There seems to be a lingering doubt, an unresolved doubt.
  • A. Yes.

When the office manager was questioned over the file in 2002, he said that he had handed the Belmont Car Auctions file to the detective sergeant on the morning of the murder and that when he saw the file about a year later that he was 'astonished to see that the majority of the file was missing'.

On 17 February 2003 he said, 'The Belmont Car Auctions file was about two inches thick. The next time I saw this file was at a police station some six or seven months later. I recognised it as the same cardboard folder I had handed over. There were some handwritten notes inside made by someone that I recognised. However, the file itself was a lot thinner than it had been when I handed it over. It was now less than an inch thick'.

The police review concluded in part, 'There is a clear contradiction between the office manager’s assertion that the Belmont Car Auctions file and the matrimonial case file were given to the detective sergeant, and the detective sdergeant’s and Daniel Morgan's businesss partner’s denial of this'.

It was also stated that anohter visit was made by the detective sergeant and another detective constable on either 12 or 13 March 1987 when other documents were removed but that there was no record of what. The detective constable that had gone said, 'we took possession of a number of documents from the desk of Daniel Morgan which were handed to the detective constable at Sydenham Police Station'. He later said that a number of files were removed and placed in a bag which the detective sergeant took away in his own private vehicle, believing that they were then handed to the exhibits officer. However, no reciept was found for the items or any record found in the copy exhibits book of any items taken from Southern Investigations by the detectives on 12 or 13 March 1987.

Belmont Car Auctions later instigated civil proceedings on 4 April 1986 against Southern Investigations for negligence and breach of contract to recover its losses as a result.

It was noted that on 19 March 1987, information was recieved stating that Daniel Morgan 'was of the opinion that the robbery on his business partner on 18.3.86 was a put up job'.

The office manager later said that Daniel Morgan had appeared upset over the Belmont Car Auctions’ case and that 'at one stage he was going to lodge his own defence to the action thereby dissociating himself with the whole transaction', adding that 'the money was not going to come from the company'.

However, the civil action was settled at Court on 18 July 1990. The terms of the settlement provided that the Defendants (Daniel Morgan’s widow, and Daniel Morgan's business partner) were to pay the Plaintiff (Belmont Car Auctions) the sum of £18,000 plus costs.

When the details of the robbery came to light the police began to suspect that the work Southern Investigations had done for Belmont Car Auctions, the subsequent alleged robbery of Daniel Morgan's business partner and the ensuing civil action provided a motive for Daniel Morgan’s murder. The detective superintendent said, 'The office manager alleged that MORGAN intended to lodge a separate defence and was keen to contest the action. This would obviously have placed the three Police Officers, including the detective segeant, in a very difficult position'.

In a letter dated 27 June 1990 the detective superindendent explained why he had grounds for reasonable suspicion that the three police officers involved in the Belmont Car Auctions case had been involved in Daniel Morgan’s murder. His reasons in the letter were as follows:

  1. Despite national press coverage of the murder, and an internal message sent to every station in the Metropolitan Police requesting information relating to Daniel Morgan and Southern Investigations, none of the three police officers had notified the detective superintendet of their association with Belmont Car Auctions.
  2. Daniel Morgan's business partner had made no reference to Belmont Car Auctions in the three statements he gave in March 1987.
  3. The detective sergeant had made no reference to Belmont Car Auctions in the two statements he gave in March 1987.
  4. Daniel Morgan had been of the opinion that the Belmont Car Auctions robbery of his business partner was 'a put up job'. Additionally, in a witness statement, dated 19 March 1987, a man said that Morgan 'had his doubts about the robbery'.
  5. Daniel Morgan's wife had described Daniel Morgan as being 'annoyed' about the Belmont Car Auctions robbery. Other witnesses also described Daniel Morgan being upset with his business partner.
  6. The office manager had said, 'Daniel has always been upset about this whole affair'. He also stated that Daniel Morgan's business partner handed to the detective sergeant a file on Belmont Car Auctions on 14 March 1987, which a detective said never came into the possession of the investigation team. In fact, the office managerhad stated that the file had been handed to the detective sergeant on 11 March not 14 March.
  7. On 10 March 1987 (the day of Daniel Morgan’s murder), Daniel Morgan's business partner had contacted the Catford Crime Squad by telephone. The detective superintendent believed that that call was to the detective sergeant.

The detective superintendent said, 'It was my firm belief that these officers could have been involved in the murder of Daniel MORGAN. The three of them, including the detective sergeant,,  were all highly paid Police officers and eventually would each have gained a substantial Police pension. If the Police Service had known they were acting as Security Guards I feel they would have faced dismissal and between them they would have lost pay and pension rights totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds. I feel that MORGAN who was clearly unpredictable, could have caused them a problem and therefore this was a motive for Murder'.

He added in conclusion that out of 200 statement it appeared that the detective sergeant had been the only person that had known that Daniel Morgan was going to be at the Golden Lion public house on the night of 10 March 1987.

On 3 April 1987 the police arrested six men, including three CID officers in an operation which was described as having been so secret that only three of detective superintendents team knew about it. However, they were all later released.

The review stated that by 31 March 1987, the detective superintendent had determined the following:

  1. Significant evidence in the form of statements about the movements of Daniel Morgan and his business partner on 9 and 10 March 1987.
  2. Identified concerns about the relationship between Daniel Morgan's business partner and the detective sergeant and formed the view that they were both concerned in Daniel Morgan's murder.
  3. Developed susicions that the two other detectives that had carried out security at Belmont Car Auctions were also involved because of the alleged robbery and the civil action against Southern Investigations.
  4. He had also developed suspicions against the two brothers that had also been involved in the secutiy provided to Belmont Car Auctions.

In consequence it was determined to arrested the six men and search warrants were obtained. By that time the murder squad had been reorganised with all the exisintg officers replaced axcept for the detective superintendent.

A document title, 'Operation' was drawn up and handed to the teams of arresting and searching officers to inform them of the strategy for the proposed arrests and searches. However, the document was later critised for being too vague considering the scale of the operation and its optimal objectives.

The plan involved arresting the men and searching their homes and the offices of Southern Invesetigations. It also encompassed taking the three detectives to police stations in Bromley, Orpington and Bexleyheath, Daniel Morgan's business partner to Catford police station and the two brothers to Croydon police station.

The plan also stated, 'In connection with the searches we are looking for a Rolex watch, elastoplast and any signs that axes or other hand held tools have elastoplast on the handles. Also correspondence relating to any connection with Southern Investigations or Belmont Car Auctions'. However, it was stated that the plan did not encompass other objectives such as taking clothing into evidence and in the case of the two brother's, officers were only briefed to search for the Rolex watch. The review concluded, 'The ‘Operation’ document was inadequate to inform the officers involved of what was required of them during the arrests of the six named individuals and the consequential searches. It provided a very limited list of the articles to be seized during the searches and did not instruct officers to look for any particular clothing or other general items. The ‘Operation’ document should have contained more information for the six teams of officers conducting the searches'.

It was also noted that the Operation was further comprimised after it was heard that details of it had been leaked to the press on 2 April 1987, the day before it was carried out.

THe day after rthe arrests the Daily Mirror published a report about the arrests and on 2 November 1987 one of the writers provided a statement to the polices stating that they 'had received a tip that three Policemen were involved with the murder of Daniel Morgan and were being questioned by Detectives'. She said that after recieving the tip she attempted to verify the information by contacting a number of her associates, including the Press Bureau at New Scotland Yard or the South London area Press Liaison Officer as well as the detective superintendent, but could not contact him. she also said that she had contacted Southern Investigations and it was thought that she might well have warned Daniel Morgan's business partner of the impending operation.

It was said that although no media reports regarding the arrests on 3 April 1987 appeared until the following day, it was clear that the fact that police officers were to be arrested was known to persons inside and outside the murder investigation team, and that that information was passed to journalists. The review concluded that, 'It is very probable that some, if not all, of those arrested had warning of the arrests, which would have enabled them to take any action they thought necessary prior to the arrests and afforded them the opportunity to ensure that no incriminating material, should such have existed, was to be found in property owned by them. This was a major compromise of the Morgan One Investigation. The source of the leak has not been identified with any certainty, nor is it known whether the story was leaked for financial gain, to protect someone, or for some other reason. The person or persons who leaked the information originally would have known they should not have disclosed the information. Therefore, this was a deliberate and corrupt act'.

It was said that the leak was one of the early causes of concern about possible police officer corruption during the Daniel Morgan murder investigation.

It was later determiend that one of the detectives on the case had brough an ex-policeman into the murder investigation room on 2 April 1987. The detective was later removed from the case. However, Daniel Morgan's business partner later made a complaint stating that the detective had allowed a reporter from the Today newspaper into the murder squad incident room who had then obtained details of his home address, telephone number and personal details. He later said that an unamed police officer had told him that the detective had received payment for information supplied to the newspaper about him and that he had heard the sum of £5,000 mentioned as the sum involved, adding, 'it was only rumour he had heard and that he had nothing on which to base his allegations'.

When the police interviewed the two Today reporters who had worked on the Daniel Morgan murder and the News Editor responsible for payments, to establish whether there was any evidence to confirm the complaint they declined to answer any questions on legal advice.

When the detective that was alleged to have brought the ex-policeman into the murder squad investigation room was questioned in June 1989 he admitted brining an ex-detective into the room but did not say when that happened, however, another detective said in June 1989 that he was sure that it had been the day before the arrests.

In November 1988 a detective sergeant made a statement that 'no members of the Press were permitted access to the incident office because of the sensitive nature of the information displayed on the notice boards. This policy was strictly adhered to'.

When the detective that had brouhtt the other ex-detective into the murder squad investigation room was questioned, he completely denied the allegation but was far from convincing. It was noted that he had been a personal friend of the man he was alleged to have brought itno the room and it wasnoted that hte ex-detective hadh had numerous contacts in Fleet Street, and had worked from an office at Briefs Wine Bar, where his brother was a partner with a solicitor who by June 1989 serving a term of imprisonment for his involvement in the Brinksmat enquiry.

Daniel Morgan's business partner was arrested at 6.45am on 3 April 1987 and taken to Catford police station. The warrant stated that they were looking for 'files, diaries & documents relating to the business carried out by Southern Investigations' and they found two pieces of adhesive tape, adhesive tape and protective backing for adhesive tape, a Band Aid box containing adhesive tape and a ‘cut-throat’ razor. However, in his car they found a police file and a police property bag containing a screwdriver. when he was asked about the items found in his car Daniel Morgan's business partner said that the detective sergeant had left them there the day before when they had attended court together.

The review oncluded that 'There is no evidence among the papers available to the Panel of any action having been taken by the detective superintendent in relation to the police file and evidence bag found in Daniel Morgan's business partner’s car. There is no evidence that the detective sergeant was questioned about the matter. This was a serious omission for which no explanation was given. This was a matter which should have been referred for immediate investigation, as it indicates possible misconduct the detective sergeant. It is also indicative, at the very least, of the very close and unprofessional relationship which the detective sergeanthad with Daniel Morgan's business partner. Daniel Morgan's business partner should not have had possession of a police file or a police property bag containing evidence'.

It was noted that the detective superintendent questioned Daniel Morgan's business partner in the police car on the way to the police sttion. However, the later review stated that he should not having, saying, 'The sdetective sduperintendent should not have engaged in conversation with Daniel Morgan's business partner on the way to the police station. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice C, states that questions should not be put except at a police station unless delay would lead to certain stated consequences, which did not apply in this case. The effect of the exchange was to give Daniel Morgan's business partner advance warning of what he was going to be questioned about, and, more importantly, what police knew and did not know. However, both the detective superintendent and another detective present acted correctly in recording the conversation in the car'.

When Daniel Morgan's business partner was interviewed at Catford police station he identified an employee of Southern Investigations, the two brothers an ex-detective and Daniel Morgan as having carried out security duties at Belmont Car Auctions on behalf of Southern Investigations on various occasions, adding that he himself had been present at every auction. However, the police review noted that there was no confirmed evidence to corroborate that Daniel Morgan had been there other than one person that said he thought he had seen Daniel Morgan there on a few occasions.

When he was then questioned about whether police officers had been present at Belmont Car Auctions on the nights when Southern Investigations provided security Daniel Morgan's business partner referred to the other three police officers, including the detective sergeant, stating that he had seen them there along with officers from the Stolen Vehicle Squad but denied that they had been there at his request. when he was told that a police officer had said that he had paid him £4 an hour for his services at Belmont Car Auctions, Daniel Morgan's business partner denied payiong him any money at all and denied making payments to any police officer for work at Belmont Car Auctions.

When asked how payments were made to the security guards who worked at Belmont Car Auctions, Daniel Morgan's business partner said that they were paid by cheque at the end of each week and when he was asked if these details were contained within the Southern Investigations accounting system and replied that they were. However, another police officer made a statement on 7 April 1987 stating that he had worked at Belmont Car Auctions as a security guard and that he had been paid between £25 and £35 per night and £20 on Saturday mornings, in cash.

When he was asked whether he knew that solicitors for Belmont Car Auctions had contacted had contacted the three police officers said to have worked there, and what he thought their reaction was and whether they had expressed concern about possible disciplinary proceedings because of their involvement, Daniel Morgan's business partner said, 'the officers did not need to advise me of possible discipline proceedings as a result of this totally unfounded allegation made by Belmont Auctions. As far as I can remember all three officers have purchased vehicles through Belmont Auctions at the time of their attendance'.

He also said that there had been no discussion about the Belmont Car Auctions case in the Golden Lion public house on the night of 9 March 1987 because 'Danny and myself believed we had found a satisfactory solution to the problem and we agreed not to discuss the matter further. As it soured the conversation'.

When he was asked why Daniel Morgan had parked his car in a very dark car park at the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, Daniel Morgan's business partner said, 'I suspect he felt his car would be safer out of the way'.

When he was asked about how the meeting at the Golden Lion had been arranged, he said that it was the result of a phone call earlier in the day with the detective sergeant asking if they  wanted to meet for a pint that night, adding that he didn't think he had seen the detective sergeant that day before the meeting in the public house.

however, it was noted that during the the interview, the detective superintendent said, 'on the night of the murder you told me that apart from the Monday and Tuesday the 9th and 10th of March, Danny hadn’t been in the Golden Lion for over 2 months?', to which Daniel Morgan's business partner replied, 'Yes I think that’s about right'. However, the police review noted 'This is the first occasion on which anything which was said by Daniel Morgan's business partner in the early hours of 11 March 1987 was referred to or recorded. This question indicates that the meeting on 9 March 1987 was discussed in the early hours of 11 March 1987. It also indicates that Daniel Morgan's business partner had referred to Daniel Morgan being in the Golden Lion public house two months previously. There was no note of this meeting. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that this first meeting was not recorded. It might well have enabled further questions to Jonathan Rees and others, and further investigative activity'.

Daniel Morgan's business partner then said that Daniel Morgan had decided to go back to the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987 because Daniel Morgan had said 'he was attracted to a blond barmaid and secondly that Sid and his crew may have been in there'. Daniel Morgan's business partner also said that Daniel Morgan had tried to buy the barmaid a drink on the previous evening, but that 'he was being obviously over charming to her'. However, when the police made inquiries they found that the barmaid at the Golden Lion public house had no memory of any man meeting Daniel Morgan’s description or any other man behaving in the way described.

He added that the purpose of the meeting on the evening of 10 March 1987, which he said had been arranged with the associate, had been to try to arrange a loan to cover the £10,000.

He added that the associate had been bragging that he had numerous very wealthy contacts who could be persuaded to lend the money and that both he and Daniel Morgan 'never believed for one second that he was capable of such financial arrangements'. He said that the associate Daniel Morgan, in his presence, that he would speak to someone that day andarranged to meet them later at the Golden Lion public house, but added, 'As we expected neither he nor his wealthy friend attended'.

Daniel Morgan's business partner was also questioned about the telephone calls that he had made that evening but was unable to account for the 9.04pm and 9.21pm calls.

It was noted that there had been many inconsistencies between the evidence given by Daniel Morgan's business partner and others and that when presented with conflicting evidence, he had disputed it. Towards the end of the interview, when it was put to him that there was a list of ten people whom he had called 'a liar' during his interviews his responce was to question the police's 'inept interpretation of people’s statements'.

It was later noted that the following issues were not raised with Daniel Morgan's business partner during his interviews:

  1. Why he had said that he spent two-and-a-half to three hours in the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, whereas according to the evidence available from the members of the Catford Crime Squad, they had only been there for about 45 minutes having come from the Dolphin public house across the road.
  2. Where he was between leaving Southern Investigations and arriving at the Golden Lion public house on the evening of 10 March 1987.
  3. What he knew about where Daniel Morgan was during the hour and a half before their meeting at 7.30pm on 10 March 1987, and why he had said that he did not know where Daniel Morgan had gone, when, according to the associate’s account, he had told him that Daniel Morgan was with the estate agent manager.
  4. Why he said that the associate was incapable of securing access to £10,000, and what he meant when he had said that the problem of how to meet the Court’s demand for £10,000 had been solved.
  5. What the overall financial position of Southern Investigations was at the time of the murder, although he was questioned about how Daniel Morgan and he had planned to raise the £10,000 required for the civil court proceedings. He did not provide any response other than that they were looking for a loan.
  6. Whether he had left his seat in the Golden Lion public house and returned to it wearing his raincoat and gloves, as a witness had alleged, and if so where had he retrieved these items from, before his departure on 10 March 1987 at around 9.00 pm.
  7. How he accounted for the apparent discrepancies between his statement that Daniel Morgan was 'in an ordinary and relaxed state of mind' and his subsequent statement of Daniel Morgan having 'complained of the chest pains he had now obviously decided to go home'.
  8. To clarify the exact route he took towards the Beulah Spa public house and subsequently to his home on the night of the murder.
  9. About any conversation he may have had with his wife when he arrived home on the night of the murder, and why his wife showed no reaction when told of Daniel Morgan’s murder.
  10. Where he had been prior to his return to his house at 6.45 am on 3 April 1987, the day he was arrested.
  11. Whether he had ever purchased an axe similar to the one used in Daniel Morgan’s murder, or whether he had ever handled such an axe with Elastoplast on the handle.

The detective sergeant was arrested at his home at 6.40am on 3 April 1987.

He was 40 yedars old and had joined the Metropolitan Police on 31 May 1965, became a Detective Constable on 26 August 1975, and a Detective Sergeant in June or July 1978. He had been close friends with Daniel Morgan's business partner for between four and five years and became implicated in the murder through his suspected involvement in providing security for Southern Investigations at Belmont Car Auctions.

After his arrest he was taken to Belvedere Police Station and his home searched but no items were seized. however, he had had a knife on him when he was arrested, however, it was noted that it was not examined forensically to see whether there was any link between it and the scoring on the axe used to murder Daniel Morgan.

When he was questioned as to how he came about to arranging to meet Daniel Morgan's business partner at the Golden Lion he gave a different account to that of Daniel Morgan's business partner, stating that he had met him in Sydenham Road and that they had had a conversation and agreed to go to the Golden Lion later that night. He added that he had no memory of Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan arranging to meet again in the Golden Lion public house the next day and that he could not remember the Belmont Car Auctions civil action being discussed. He also said that he had used the Golden Lion public house previously and had met both Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan there, but not regularly.

The review later noted, 'The detective sergeant gave a completely different account of why he met with Daniel Morgan and Daniel Morgan's business partner in the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, from that given by Daniel Morgan's business partner at the time. THe detective sergeant claimed Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan had pulled into the side of the road as he was dealing with an incident and that the he had spoken to Daniel Morgan's business partner and arranged to meet later that day. Daniel Morgan's business partner denied that there was any meeting on the road during the late afternoon of 9 March 1987 at which the later meeting, at the Golden Lion public house, was planned. This apparent inconsistency should have been explored further at the time. In 2020, however, Daniel Morgan's business partner said this meeting had taken place'.

When he was asked the Belmont Car Auctions case he confirmed that he had introduced the director to Daniel Morgan and said that he had attended the auctions 'on a couple of occasions but more as friend of the director than anything else'. He said that he had never been to the car auctions whilst on duty and had gone there 'hoping for some reward all be it cheap car or something in fact I bought my car from the director the one I have got now'.

He added that he was not involved in the civil action by Belmont Car Auctions, although he had received a letter from the solicitors acting for Belmont Car Auctions asking him for an affidavit. however, he added that as far as he was concerned that the matter was dead and that he would never have been called, stating that the director at Belmont Car Auctions had assured him that he wouldn't and that he knew that Daniel Morgan's business partner would not either. However, when it was put to him that Daniel Morgan ‘intended to contest the action, you were going to be called as a witness which would put your future in serious jeopardy and you set him up with a phoney meet’, the detective sergeant said, 'wouldn’t be capable of doing that. I could never condone a man dying in that way'.

However, he was later challenged by a detective, who said, 'I am not alleging you intended to keep the meet I am saying you tricked Daniel Morgan into going to the Golden Lion expecting to meet you whilst you were in fact at home, you and Daniel Morgan's business partner had arranged for someone when he left to kill him'. The detective sergeant replied, 'that is entirely not true, why would Daniel Morgan want to meet me two days running for a specific appointment?'.

When he was asked to account for his movements on the evening of 10 March 1987 he said that he had finished work at 5.30pm and gone home and stayed there all night, going to bed at 10.30pm. He noted that his son had been at home with a friend when he arrived and that his wife returned shortly after and that at 9pm he suggested that his son's friend gshould go home. However, it was noted that his alibi was not checked and that the failure to do so was a serious omission.

The detective sergeant was released without charge on 3 April 1987 and on 8 September 1987 he went on sick leave, remaining so until he was midacally discharged from the Metropolitan Police on 20 March 1988.

It was noted that he again agreed to speak to the police on 3 February 1988 at which time he stated that he had been receiving psychiatric treatment and that he had been advised not to answer any questions, and during the interview he didn't answer any questions.

One of the other detectives arrested had been a 35-year-old who was attached to Plumstead Police Station and who had previously worked in the Catford Crime Squad with the detective sergeant. He was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Daniel Morgan on 3 April 1987, having been implicated in the murder through his suspected involvement in providing security for Southern Investigations at Belmont Car Auctions, and the related civil court proceedings.

He had been arrested at his home at 6.45am and taken to the custody suite at Orpington Police Station. Whenhe was cautioned he said, 'My conscience is clear. I have got absolutely nothing to worry about'. When his home was searched the police found a folder containing correspondence concerning the Belmont Car Auctions civil case whic hwas seized.

He admitted to failing to report that he had people at Belmont Car Auctions on 3 March 1986, one of the people being his cousin, as he was required toi do or that he had noted the fact that he had entered licensed premises, adding that there was nothing sinister about his failure to record what happened that afternoon. He also denied having worked at Belmont Car Auctions, or being paid to work there, stating that he had attended at Belmont Car Auctions to assist his cousin on several dates and that he knew that some of the other police officers had also attended in order to buy cars.

He also acknowledged that he had been contacted by Belmont Car Auctions lawyers as a potential witness after the robbery on 18 March 1986 and noted that he had not informed his senior officers about the letters because 'this was a family dispute which, because of these letters, had caused a rift between my mother and my uncle'. He initially denied having supplied the addresses of Daniel Morgan, Daniel Morgan's business partner and the two brothers, including information about one of the briother's criminal records, to a solicitor but when he was shown a hand-written document, he aggreed that he had done so although denied providing information on convitions or using the police computer to get that informastion, adding that he thought that information had been given by Daniel Morgan's business partner to the detective sergeant, adding that he had given that information to assist his cousin.

He added that he had gone straight home from Belmont Car Auctions on 18 March 1986 and similarly gone straight home from work on 10 March 1987.

He said that he considered the detective sergeatn a friend but had only been out with him twice, once with their wives and once to a Masonic meeting.

He was released without charge at 11.50pm on 3 April 1987.

The other detective had been in the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Metropolitan Police and had been 34-years-old at the time and had previously worked in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at Catford and was friends with the detective sergeant. He was implicated in Daniel Morgan’s murder through his suspected involvement in providing security for Southern Investigations at Belmont Car Auctions. He was interviewed at Bromley Police Station.

He said that the last time he saw the detective sergeant was at a Masonic meeting on on Wednesday 25 March 1987 in Penge at which time he and the other detective had discussed Daniel Morgan's murder as they had known that the detective sergeant had been on the investigation team. He said that the last time he saw Daniel Morgan's business partner was at the end of March 1986 and when he was asked whether Daniel Morgan's business partner had been a Mason, he replied, 'I don’t think so. I don’t know him that well'.

When he was asked whether he had acted as a security officer at the actions, he said, 'I was not employed by Southern Investigations, and I would like to explain why I was there. The detective sergeant and another man had approached me because the director had been in touch with Southern Investigations and they in the company could not produce the manpower needed at short notice. I was asked if I would go to the auctions with them to back up the director. This was primarily because he was a cousin of the other detective and in distress. I did it in my own time and as I understood it I was helping my friend and his cousin and that this was helping to allay complaints against Police and prevent crime maybe. In no way did I put the Force into disrepute or behave in any way other than would be expected'.

He ackowledged recieving letter from solicitors acting for Belmont Car Auctions but said that although he had written a draft responce, he had not resopnded to it yet or informed his senior officers as it was a civil matter.

When he was asked whether he had received a cut of the £18,000 supposed to have been stolen from Daniel Morgan's business partner, he said that he had not.

He saidf that he had finished work at 7pm on 10 March 1987 and gone straight home.

It was noted that both he and the detective sergeant had been Freemasons, an issue that was later looked into.

When he was asked whether he had killed Daniel Morgan he denied doing so and said he did not know who had killed him.

He was released without charge at 11.27pm on 3 April 1987.

Both of the detectives arrested, not including the detective sergeatn, later launched a civil action against the Metropolitan Police seeking damages for wrongful arrest.

In 1990, during the civil proceedings bought by the two detectives, the following statement was read out, 'As the Commisioner of Police for the Metropolis now recognises and publicly acknowlegdes those arrests should never have taken place. There are not and never were any reasonable grounds to implicate these plaintiffs in such a horrendous crime. The defendant appears today by counsel to apologise unreservedly for the immense hurt and distress caused to the plaintiffs by their unlawful arrest, the search of their homes and their detention and questioning and much regrets the unfortunate publicity which resulted therefrom. As a symbol of that regret, the defendant has agreed to pay each of the plaintiffs a substantial sum by way of damages and to meet their costs in bringing these proceedings. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs feel that their reputations have been vindicated and are content for this matter to rest. They are also happy to accept that at all material times those concerned in their arrest and detention were acting in good faith'.

Further, the review of the case concluded, 'No grounds to justify the arrest of th two detectives for murder have been found among the papers available to the Panel. There were sufficient grounds to arrest the detective sergeant on suspicion of the murder of Daniel Morgan. This was because, in addition to his suspected involvement with Belmont Car Auctions, he had been with Daniel Morgan on 9 March 1987 in the same location in which he was murdered the following day, and because the police were investigating whether the detective sergeant had taken relevant files from the offices of Southern Investigations, and whether he had deliberately taken an inaccurate statement from Daniel Morgan's business partner'.

The younger of the two brothers, Daniel Morgan's business partner's brother-in-law had been 26-years-old at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder and was implicated in the murder through his involvement with Southern Investigations in providing security for Belmont Car Auctions. He was arrested at 6.50am at his home on 3 April 1987 and taken to Croydon Police Station. his interview was recorded, but it was noted that tape recording was only just being rolled out at the time and the other interviews were not recorded.

However, he said that he had not committed any offence he was not prepared to say anything and after a short while the interview was stopped. He was interviewed again but similarly refused to answer questions. At the second interview he was shown a photograph of a Rolex watch and asked if he had ever seen a similar one and also two photographs of the murder weapon, one in black and white and the other in colour, and invited to comment on whether he had ever seen or handled a similar axe. It was said that the questions were important, as responses could have been used to refute any explanation he might have offered if he was later forensically linked to the murder weapon, or if it could have been proved that he had purchased it.

The elder brother had been 28-years-old at the time of the murder and was originally implicated in the murder through his involvement with Southern Investigations in providing security for Belmont Car Auctions. When the police arrived at his home at 6.30am on 3 April 1987 they were informd that he had gone off to work. The police searched his home and several items were taken.

The elder brother later telephoned the police at 7.40pm and said he would attend Croydon Police Station, stating that he would 'be there in about 40 minutes', however, he was arrested at his home at 7.55pm and taken to Croydon Police Station. However, he similarly refused to answer any questions. His interview was also taped.

It was noted that three other people were arrested and five others interviewed.

  1. Person Y19: He was arrested because it was determined that his wife had had an affair with Daniel Morgan after she had first met him, when Daniel Morgan was employed by her solicitor to deliver a court order enabling her to take custody of her child during a marital dispute. He was known to have had a history of violence and when his home was searched the police found an anorak with blood stains on it. However, no record of the anorak was found in the exhibits book and the man had an alibi, his wife, who was noted for being scared of him, stating that he had been at home at the time of the murder. It was alsdo noted that it didn't appear that he knew that his wife had had an affair with Daniel Morgan and he was released on the basis of his alibi.
  2. Two men were arrested after a man in custody for a burglary and stolen cheque cards 'stated he had information covering the axe murder in Lower Sydenham' and said that he had been an associate to a glazier that had fitted double glazing to the detective sergeants house and that he knew that the detective sergeatn had covered up something at the time of the murder on behalf of the licencee of the Golden Lion Public House. Following that information the glazier and his brother were arrested on 22 January 1988. The glazier said that he did not know who Daniel Morgan was nor did he know of the Golden Lion public house or Southern Investigations, but he said that he had known the detective sergeant who was related to his former wife asnd that he had met him 2 or 3 or a few times, noting that he had carried out work at his house six years previously. He added that he could not remember where he was on the night of the murder. The glazier’s brother had a history of violence. He could not remember where he was on 10 March 1987 but said he could check. He said he did not know Daniel Morgan or the detective sergeant, and he denied any involvement in the murder of Daniel Morgan. They were both later released without investigation.

The review concluded that in the case of Person Y19, he should not have been eliminated without further investigation it being noted that he was known to be violent and that his wife, who provided his alibi, was afraid of him. It was further stated that the bloodstained grey jacket taken from Person Y19’s house should have been recorded in the Exhibits Book and submitted for forensic examination and the fact that it was not forensically examined and could not now be found wass a significant failure of the Morgan One Investigation.

The review noted that in the case of the other two arrests, that although the Panel can see no reason to support their arrest, the two brothers should have been the subject of further investigation as neither could account for their movements on the night of the murder, and an attempt should have been made to determine whether they could be eliminated from the Morgan One Investigation.

Four other suspects interviewed were:

  1. A man was queastioned after the police were notified of a serious assault involving an axe on 16 May 1987. After the man was arrested in connection with the assault, a newspaper cutting, which referred to the murder of Daniel Morgan, was found in his pocket, but he denied any knowledge of it. He was later released.
  2. A friend of the man arrested in connection with the axe assault was also questioned but later released.
  3. A man was questioned on 19 May 1987 while he was in custody having been arrested following the receipt of information, which transpired to be malicious, from an unknown male and he was released.
  4. A man was questioned after being arrested for supplying controlled drugs, but he said that he had knowledge of Daniel Morgan’s murder and was released.

Whilst a lot of effort was put into looking into the connection with Daniel Morgan's business partner and the Belmont Car Auctions as the primary line of enquiry, several other lines of enquiry were examined, including:

Malta

It was determioned that Daniel Morgan had travelled to Malta to repossess a Range Rover motor vehicle on behalf of a finance company in the first week of February 1987. At the same time it was noted that the West Yorkshire Police were carrying out a £1,000,000 fraud investigation involving two companies and seven named individuals for which five people were later convicted and that Daniel Morgan's repossession of the Range Rover was connected. It was determined that officers had intended to meet Daniel Morgan and take a witness statement from him about the trip and an office diary found at Southern Investigations was found to contain the entry for 02 March 1987, 'Sgt to ring Daniel'.

It was stated that the fact that Daniel Morgan had been murdered the night before he was to have been interviewed by these police officers raised the obvious question as to whether the timings of the murder and of the visit were mere coincidence, or were connected. Therefore, the subject matter of the West Yorkshire officers’ visit and of the trip to Malta became a line of enquiry for the murder investigation.

Daniel Morgan had gone to Malta with another man that had been employed as a process-server at Southern Investigations and had worked regularly with Daniel Morgan for a year.

The process-server said that a man had gone out to Malta with the Range Rover but had been deported and upon his arrival back in the UK in July 1986 he was arrested. Daniel Morgan and the process server later flew out to Malta to repossess the Range Rover which had been in the possession of the man arrested and who, along with several other people, had been the subject of the major fraud investigation by West Yorkshire Police of which the Range Rover's removal to formed a minor part of the subsequent prosecution against rthe man, it being noted that the man and several other people were later convicted of serious fraud with the man that had taken the Range Rover to Malta being sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The vsaid that when they came out to Malta that they had come into contact with a number of local people in their efforts to locate and repossess the Range Rover, and also had dealings with the Maltese Police and Maltese Customs.

They had been told that a lawyer in Malta would be able to help them locate the Range Rover but they could not find him and were later told by the finance company for which they were working that the man, who had a house on the adjacent Maltese island of Gozo, had been seen driving the vehicle there and so they went there. They were also told that a certain person had been storing the Range Rover in a barn on Gozo after locating the man they had to negotiate to obtain its release as storage charges were allegedly owed. It weas also noted that Customs duties were also payable to Maltese Customs before it could be exported from Malta and these matters, which amounted to some £2,000, were reffered to finance company in the UK for approval.

After getting approval, Daniel Morgan, the process-server and the man that had stored the acr went off to Customs offices in Valetta where Daniel Morgan paid the necessary charges for the car and the other man paid some money, not more than £100, to a Customs Officer.

However, it was noted that an unusual and unexplained aspect of the transaction was that at the same time the man handed the Customs Officer six passports, one of which was British and the others of different nationalities, none of them belonging to the man and that the Customs Officer stamped them all and then handed them back. It was stated that it was not known to whom they belonged, nor whether they had any relevance to the subsequent murder of Daniel Morgan.

Daniel Morgan was then authorised to remove the vehicle from Malta and the other man then gave the Customs Officer a further sum of money, the equivalent of about £20.

Daniel Morgan and the process-server then drove back to London, arriving at 3.30pm on 9 February 1987.

The process-server said that when they got back that Daniel Morgan telephoned West Yorkshire Police investigating the fraud ‘and told them about the Malta trip, the vehicle, the passports and corruption, the lot’.

Other witnesses provided evidence that, on his return to the UK, Daniel Morgan had remarked about the level of corruption he had witnessed in Malta, although little or no detail was provided. Daniel Morgan’s wife told police that after he returned he told her that, 'he couldn’t believe the amount of corruption over there and wouldn’t want to go back there again. I think he was shocked by the corruption and I don’t think he was threatened'.

A colleague of Daniel Morgan made a statement in which he said that when Daniel Morgan came back from Malta, 'he just kept on about how bent and corrupt the Maltese police, customs and people were. He mentioned a bloke, the man that had stored the car, who was a bit of a cool customer out there who had a thing going on out there and that no one could touch him, he didn’t say that he had been threatened or anything out there'.

When the connection between Daniel Morgan's murder and the trip to Malta was looked into it was determined that seven people associated with the fraud inquiry where:

  1. Man that had taken Range Rover to Malta.
  2. Man that stored the Range Rover.
  3. Man who was believed to be linked to notorious London criminals, the Krays. He had also been suspected of having been involved in the 1963 Great Train Robbery.
  4. Man who was stated to be a drug dealer.
  5. Man stated to have London connections.
  6. Man stated to be an American with European connections.
  7. Man.

It was also heard that the men had been of interest to detectives in Brighton.

A statement was taken from process-server regarding the trip to Malta on 24 March 1987 but the police stated, 'At this time there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that Daniel Morgan’s murder is connected with this fraud enquiry'.

It was further noted that a number of people referred to Daniel Morgan having recieved threats linked to his trip to Malta. These references were:

  • Daniel Morgan's business partner said on 11 March 1987 that 'Daniel did mention to me on his return that he had received serious threats whilst in Malta from some person with whom he had dealings who travels regularly from Malta to England'.
  • An acquaintance of Daniel Morgan made a statement on 13 March 1987 saying, 'I recall that back in January of this year Daniel mentioned in a telephone conversation we had that he was going to Malta to repossess a Range Rover and that prior to him leaving the country he’d had a threatening call to the effect that he’d 'be had for it''.
  • A Metropolitan Police officer who knew both Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan said on 17 March 1987 that on 24 February Daniel Morgan had told him that he had encountered a number of problems in relation to the trip, stating, 'Whilst engaged on his enquiry in Malta, he had come up against someone who had caused him lots of problems and had threatened him. The person who he mentioned and in fact named, had not threatened Daniel Morgan directly but the threats had been offered via third persons. Danny indicated that this man was the local gangster, and of Mafia proportions. However, Danny was prone to excitement and exaggeration and often you used to take what he said 'with a pinch of salt'. Danny did say that in a couple of weeks the Maltese man was coming to England to carry out some more business with the cars and he was expecting trouble again. Probably just to appease him I told him that if he had the slightest bit of aggravation that he was to contact me'. However, he added that he heard nothing further from Daniel Morgan and did not see him again after 24 February 1987.
  • The office manager at Southern Investigations said on 23 March 1987, 'The only other time that I was aware that Danny may have been threatened was shortly after he returned from his trip to Malta. I walked into the office one morning and I heard him slam the phone down. His face looked white. It often went like this if he was worried or tired. I asked him what was wrong. He said 'I’ve just had a phone call about that job in Malta'. I said, 'What sort of phone call'. I think his words were, 'A bit heavy'. With that he got up, said he’d be back and walked out'.
  • On 24 March 1987, a client of Southern Investigations said in a statement that, on 10 March 1987, he had had lunch with Daniel Morgan and then a meeting at the client's office in order to draw up a number of distress warrants in connection with civil court proceedings. During conversation, Daniel Morgan mentioned the trip to Malta and said, 'that he'd had trouble getting off the island'. It was not clear in the statement or elsewhere what kind of 'trouble' Daniel Morgan had been referring to but it might have simply been a reference to the issues encountered when leaving.
  • On 5 June 1987, a police officer from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, acting on behalf of the Morgan One Investigation, took a witness statement from a former employee of Daniel Morgan. Dumfries and Galloway Police had been asked simply to obtain details of the man's 'dealings with Daniel Morgan or Southern Investigations'. In his statement the witness said that, although he could not think of anyone who would have wanted to kill Daniel Morgan, he believed that he had repossessed a car in Malta and had also previously been involved in a case relating to a Soho club, the owner of which 'fell out with some of the local Maltese community'. The officer who took the statement subsequently reported that 'although the witness couldn’t provide me with any form of evidence, he is of the opinion that Daniel Morgan has had dealings with a number of the Maltese community both in London and back in Malta, which would have given them cause to dislike him to say the least'.
  • On 1 June 1987 a woman arranged wo meet with the police at Croydon railway station and said that she had heard 'heard through the grapevine' that Daniel Morgan's business partner was heavily involved in drug dealing and that Southern Investigations was a front for this with a Kray Brother's relative being the 'head of the drugs ring although he was not actively involved'. She said that Daniel Morgan had found out about the drugs and that and was going to do something and that that was why he was killed.
  • On 30 June 1987 a detective said that on 14 April 1987 a private investigator and former Metropolitan Police Detective Constable had told him that some time prior to the murder, a solicitor was alleged to have remarked that 'a driver of a Kray Brother's relative' had told him that ‘if Daniel Morgan 'didn’t keep his nose out, he'd be topped'.  Howeverit was noted that it was not clear to the it had taken him more than ten weeks to submit the report. The solicitor was later interviewed in August 1987 and made a very short, strangely worded and ambiguous statement in which he said, 'due to my profession, I have had numerous conversations with other people about possible causes for Daniel’s death, but all of these were purely speculative. I can say that I have never had a conversation with anybody about a certain motive for Daniel’s death'.
  • Later in 1989 the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation obtained further information concerning the hypothesis that there might have been a connection between the trip to Malta and the murder of Daniel Morgan after a statement was taken from an employee of Southern Investigations who said that one day in mid-April 1987 that she had joined Daniel Morgan's business partner and some other people in the Victory public house, stating, 'We were discussing the murder in general and various theories were being put forward as to how it had happened. One of the theories was that after returning to England with the Range Rover from Malta, Daniel had received a telephone call requiring him to hand over the packets that had been in the vehicle or there would be trouble. Daniel apparently told whoever was on the telephone to go to the Police. The telephone call was not a theory but apparently a fact. The theory was that Daniel was killed because of it. I do not know who in the group knew about the telephone call but whoever it was had obviously been told this by Daniel Morgan. I presumed the packets referred to related to drugs'.

The review noted that a person had made a statement saying that he had been informed of Daniel Morgan's murder by a mutual friend who had own several garages on Albion Place, South Norwood, a location which, he said, Daniel Morgan visited regularly. However, no efforts were made to contact or interview the mutual friend and in November 1987 the person was contacted but said that they had nothing to add to their statement. However, in 2006 the mutual friend was approached by police and interviewed on 13 November 2006. He said that he knew little of Daniel Morgan’s work other than that he was a private detective, but during the weekend Daniel Morgan told him that he had uncovered some damning evidence about some members of the Metropolitan Police. He had said that the information was so serious that he could not go to the Metropolitan Police about it and so had made contact with another police force. The mutual friend said that he could not remember which force had been named but said that ‘West Midlands’ came to mind, and he believed that arrangements had been made for Daniel Morgan to meet officers from that force the week that he was murdered. He noted that Daniel Morgan did not tell him what the evidence was.

It was later stated that the failure of the police to follow up the lead and trace the mutual friend was a missed opportunity.

It was noted that despite all the evidence received in March 1987, the Malta line of enquiry was not prioritised and that it was not until July 1987 that the police approached th epolice in Brighton.

It was noted that when Daniel Morgan's business partner was arrested on suspicion of Daniel Morgan’s murder on 3 April 1987 and interviewed under caution that towards the end of the interview when asked if he had any information that could be relevant to the murder he had said, 'the only thing that I’m not content with is Daniel’s connection with Malta and the process-server. I am willing to discuss this matter further informally'.

THe police also later recovered the Range Rover that Daniel Morgan had recovered from Malta and stripped it down to see if there were any hidden compartments that might be used to conceal drugs but none were found.

When the West Yorkshire Police were questioned, they said that Morgan’s visit to Malta in February 1987, the man tht had taken the Range Rover to Malta had, knowing that he was under investigation, fled the UK with about £500,000 in cash and a BMW car, as well as with the Range Rover. They said that he was subsequently deported from Malta and, on his return to the UK, he was arrested and charged by the West Yorkshire investigation.

They said that prior to the man's arrest, the West Yorkshire investigation carried out a series of coordinated searches at premises in Leeds and London, including at a solicitor’s offices on Oxford Street in London. One detective said that they had not told local Metropolitan Police officers of their intentions and were therefore surprised when, ten or fifteen minutes after they had commenced their search, two Metropolitan Police detectives turned up offering to assist. The detective said that he believed that the solicitor was corrupt and had telephoned contacts in the local Criminal Investigation Department (CID) when the West Yorkshire Police officers arrived.

He added that he believed at the time that, as well as being involved in the fraud, the man and his associates were also involved in drug-trafficking. He said that the intelligence the West Yorkshire investigation team had had was that cannabis was being brought out of North Africa by fast boat to Gozo in Malta, and from there smuggled by car ferry to Sicily and then through Europe to the UK.

The detective added that after he had seen the Crimewatch programme concerning Daniel Morgan’s murder, during which the two Mediterranean looking men who were allegedly seen looking into the Golden Lion public house on the night of the murder were mentioned, he telephoned the Morgan One Investigation to ensure that a connection was made between Malta, Gozo, drug-trafficking and the two men.

A number of investigative actions were undertaken to develop the Malta connection with each of the people involved in the West Yorkshire investigation being reasearched, however, none of them other than getting a statement from the insurance company were ever completed.

The man from Malta was never interviewed and it was not determined whether he had come to the UK after  Daniel Morgan returned with the Range Rover.

The person described as a drug dealer was linked to the person that had connections with the Kray Brothers as well as a car dealership in North London.

Although the American man was determined to have had an FBI file on him, it was never retrieved.

The person that had stolen the Range Rover and taken it to Malta was determiend to have lived in North London and it was found that he had been bailed at 5.30pm on the day that Daniel Morgan was murdered. It was determiend that he should be interviewed but that never happened.

The person with the connections to the Kray Brothers was reported to be a man of violence, having a previous conviction for affray and for possessing a firearm when prohibited because of his criminal record. He was said to 'have senior police officers in his pocket' so much so that the West Yorshire Police didn't share any intelligence they had with the Metropolitan Police Criminal Intelligence Bureau.

One of the other people involved who was researched was Person Z10 who was described as being an associate of the man that had taken the Range Rover to Malta. It was also recorded that in 1976 a very similar name, differently spelled from that of Person Z10, had been charged with keeping a brothel, living off the earnings of prostitution andallowing premises to be used for gaming.

However, it was noted in the police review that the initial investigation failed to make the connection between Person Z10 and Person R16 who had been convicted of assaulting Daniel Mrgan in 1984. He had also been convicted of occasioning him actual bodily harm, and assaulting a police officer in the same incident which arose out of an incident in May 1983 when Daniel Morgan had been attempting to serve an eviction notice on him. Person R16 was given a conditional discharge. However, his criminal record showed that he was a violent man with previous convictions for demanding money with menaces and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, including by stabbing someone in the face with broken glass. The review noted that Person R16 could have been the father of Person Z10 or may have been otherwise related to him.

A witness who gave evidence of the threat allegedly made against Daniel Morgan, before he undertook the trip to Malta, also said that Daniel Morgan had been threatened with a knife two or three years earlier by a man sharing the same surname as Person R16 when he was attempting to serve some legal documents in East Dulwich. The witness said that, at the time, the incident 'really worried' Daniel Morgan.

However, Person R16 was not interviewed.

The review noted that 'The Morgan One Investigation should have identified the link between Person Z10 and a man who was possibly a close relative of his, Person R16, who had been convicted of assaulting Daniel Morgan and who was already the subject of enquiries in connection with the West Yorkshire fraud investigation. They should then have conducted further enquiries'.

An enquiry was made to the Operation Switzerland database which was held by the Brighton police. 14 names were given in the request for information but the request was not completed until 23 February 1988 at which point only 13 of the names were processed. It was noted that there is no explanation for the delay, nor for the fact that no information was provided about one of those about whom a query had been made.

Another lead stemming from the Malta affairrelated to a Croydon massage parlour/brothel. It was heard that Southern Investigations had been involved in surveying the massage parlour which was called Bodyscene, and was at the rear of Austin Motors, London Road in Croydon and that as a result of their investigations the company that owned the building had begun eviction proceedings and that Daniel Morgan and his business partner had been due to attend court on 24 March 1987 to give evidence.

It was heard that Daniel Morgan had posed as a customer whilst his business partner had kept observation outside on people entering and leaving.

It was also heard that there had been a fire at adjoining premises which was also under the control of the owners of Bodyscene which had led to an insurance claim. However, the owner had previous convictions and was of interest to Brighton police although it was not sure if it was in connection with Operation Switzerland or some other matter. The owner was also determined to have been an associate of he man with the connections to the Kray Brothers.

On 14 August 1987 the police recieved information that the owner of Bodyscene had been involved in Daniel Morgan’s murder. THe caller, who was never identified, but who described himself as 'ex-job', ie ex-policeman, said, 'Daniel Morgan was doing some job on his own, away from the firm Southern Investigations and was using a different name. He gained some information about the owner that cost the owner a lot of money. The owner was working with heavy people in Thornton Heath. They went to work Daniel Morgan over but they went too far'.

On 18 August 1987, it was reported that a former Metropolitan Police officer who was now then proprietor of premises adjacent to Bodyscene had told officers from the Morgan One Investigation that he understood that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at 'ZN' (believed to be Croydon CID) were investigating allegations that the owner had submitted forged receipts in connection with the insurance claim made in respect of the fire. He also said that he had spoken with the owner about the activities at Bodyscene and told him that if they did not cease, he would report the matter to the police. He alleged that the owner responded that that 'wouldn’t get him anywhere as he knows someone high up in the police who would help him'. however, there was no evidence that the police looked into that or into who the owner might have been reffering to as 'high-up' in the police that would have helped him.

On 21 October 1987, the detective superintendent took a statement from a representative of the insurance company that had insured the premises in London Road, Croydon. The proposal had been received from the owner's wife and the insurance company representative stated that at no time were there any dealings with her husband. Following the fire, the company had paid out a sum of £43,110 for the damage and an interim payment of £5,000 was agreed for business interruption. However, the latter sum was not paid because of a number of telephone calls and letters received by the official from a man calling himself P Westcott, and describing himself as an enquiry agent but giving no contact details. P Westcott had made reference to the owner’s criminal record and his criminal associates. The official said that P Westcott was clearly aware of the fire and of the fact that the first payout had been made, but was anxious that no further money be paid. The last call he had from him was the week before Daniel Morgan’s murder'.

A police officer, who was the local beat police officer for the Bodyscene area between June 1985 and September 1986, had first notified the owners of the building that a brothel was possibly operating from it. He made a statement to the Morgan One Investigation in October 1987 in which he said that he knew both Daniel Morgan and the owner's wife, and that Daniel Morgan knew the owner's wife and had been seen drinking with her in a wine bar near the brothel. Daniel Morgan had given the police officer his Southern Investigations business card, and when he did so claimed that he was a former Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer from Surrey Police. He said that Daniel Morgan used to approach him 'on a semi-regular basis' in the street and either offer information or ask for checks to be carried out on individuals about whom information was held on the Police National Computer database. The officer knew the owner's wife because he had taken key holder details from her and saw her regularly at Bodyscene.

He was however challenged over his claim that Daniel Morgan had known the owner's wife and told that he must have been mistaken but he made a second statement in which he maintained that he knew both people and had seen them in the wine bar together.

On 25 November 1987, officers from the Morgan One Investigation spoke with the owner's wife, however, she declined to make a statement unless she could do so in the presence of her husband qand when the police spoke to her husband he said that he had been advised by his solicitor not to make a statement because of a forthcoming High Court action relating to the insurance claim in respect of Bodyscene. It was therefore not until 1 April 1988 that they were interviewed together, in the presence of their solicitor at their solicitor’s office. They were not cautioned but were asked questions about Bodyscene, the insurance claim for the fire, and the anonymous allegation made to the Police Constable from Surrey Police. They denied having dealings with Daniel Morgan, his business partner or Southern Investigations. They also denied any knowledge of the murder and denied knowing who had made telephone calls alleging that they should not be paid insurance moneys in respect of the fire at their premises or who had said that they had been involved in the murder of Daniel Morgan.

At the beginning of March 1988, a detective met a prostitute who told him that she had previously worked at Bodyscene who said that she had been controlled by the owner and a woman there. Later that day she telephoned the incident room and said that another woman, who also worked as a prostitute at Bodyscene, had just told her that ‘if anyone was responsible for Daniel Morgan’s death it would probably concern a man who was concerned with the woman who ran Bodyscene in the importation of drugs into the country’.

However, although the dertective soon after went to Brighton to seek information about the woman, returning with an intelligence report on her, it being noted that the Brighton police also had an interest in her, there was no audit trail indicating what prompted it nor any evidence that any other enquiries were made to identify the man she was said to have been concerned with.

THe police review panel also tried to access the West Yorkshire HOLMES database but found that all that remained was on magnetic reel-to-reel tape that they could not access. They also had a similar expereince with the Operation Switzerland database which could not be traced.

The police review concluded that, 'The line of enquiry arising out of the trip to Malta was clearly a very important one and a link to possible drug smuggling would have provided a credible motive for Daniel Morgan’s killing. Given the fact that it involved an organised crime group with links to suspected police corruption, that another police force and a regional crime squad were already carrying out major investigations into the organised crime group, that Daniel Morgan was a witness in one of those investigations, that he was reportedly linked indirectly to several of the suspects in those investigations and that there was also an international aspect to the matter, it demanded a sustained and coordinated approach. Instead, it was dealt with in an incoherent and piecemeal way which did not reflect the possible significance of the issues under investigation'

It also stated, 'Some potential lines of inquiry were not dealt with at all, others were not completed, without explanation or apparent reason being recorded, or were only partially completed and there was inexplicable delay and a lack of consistency and strategy in dealing with the issue as a whole. The inevitable outcome is that the matter remains unresolved and the circumstances surrounding the Malta trip can neither be ruled in nor ruled out as a factor in Daniel Morgan’s murder. This was another serious failing of the Morgan One Investigation'.

Police Corruption Disclosure

Another line of enquiry was information that Daniel Morgan was going to reveal details of police corruption to the newspapers.

It was heard that Daniel Morgan had previously dealt with the Daily Mirror quite a lot but had previoulsy had a row with the contact there split. On 12 March 1987 a journalist at the Daily Mirror said that Daniel Morgan used to deal with the press a great deal through a man there but that they had had an acrimonious spli and that Daniel Morgan had tried to get the Daily Mirror to 'do a dirty' on him and that the man had always swore revenge.

On 21 May 1987 an employee of Southern Investigations said that the man from the Daily Mirror had told him the previous day, 'he had received information from a local police officer that there were Police officers engaged in illegal activities. Daniel Morgan also had the same information and related to him illegal police activities and he was going to the Sunday newspapers with the knowledge and was to obtain a substantial sum of money from the newspaper'. He noted that he also told the office manager about it the same day.

When the man from the Daily Mirror was interviewed on 22 May 1987, he said that, before Christmas 1986, Daniel Morgan had told him that, 'he was going to 'hit the jackpot'', and that 'he had been in contact with a Sunday Newspaper who had offered him a sum in the region of £250,000 for an expose on his business client relationship with regard to how he obtained his information. He didn’t elaborate on this but I drew the inference and I don't think unnaturally that he meant his dealings with Police Officers’. He did not make any reference to learning this information from police officers, he said that no names were mentioned by Daniel Morgan, and that although the facts were correct, 'the whole episode is not that clear in my mind'. In a subsequent message to a detective on 9 June 1987, the man said that Daniel Morgan had sold stories to various papers, 'the content of which would be any 'Tasty' affidavit that he was working on'.

On 28 May 1987, a detective met the journaist and recorded that she had said that although she had never met Daniel Morgan, another journalist with the Daily Mirror newspaper had been contacted by Daniel Morgan around August 1986, and said that he had information which he would supply to the newspaper for payment. However, she said that the newspaper had stated that it had no interest in the information and that it was decided that no further action should be taken in relation to the matter.

However, the police investigation looked into the claim that Daniel Morgan had been attempting to sell a stopry on police corruption for £250,000 and determined that there was no trace whatsoever of anything to support the claim. THey spoke to a reporter wuith the Daily Star and a reporter from the Sunday People who made their own enquiries but found no indication that Daniel Morgan had been trying to sell a story or that anyone had offered him anything like a £250,000 payout.

However, the review later critised the small scope of the enquiry, stating, 'Neither of the journalists contacted by the press officer fitted the description given by the man at the Daily Mirror, as neither of them were working for a Sunday newspaper at the time of the murder. There was a relatively small number of Sunday newspapers operating at the time. The Morgan One Investigation should have contacted the editors of the Sunday newspapers directly, obtaining contact details from press officers, to see whether any of the editors were able to help and clarify if Daniel Morgan had approached journalists working on their newspaper'.

However, it was noted that on 6 August 1987, a detective, a member of the Morgan One Investigation, was returned to other duties and that as he was leaving, he put a message into the Morgan One Investigation reporting that information had been received some months previously from a retired Detective Constable who worked with Southern Investigations that Daniel Morgan had been preparing an expose of police corruption for which he had been offered £250,000, and had been in contact with an 'investigative journalist from a Fleet Street 'Sunday''. The detective notd that the information had not been acted upon, and that given 'the connections between a man and Daniel Morgan's business partner, the suicide of Taffy Holmes and the present investigation with another man, that it might be worth meeting the retired Detective Constable who worked with Southern Investigations.

However, when the retired Detective Constable who worked with Southern Investigations was questioned on 14 December 1987 he said, 'I have been asked about my knowledge concerning Danny MORGAN approaching the press concerning police corruption. I have no knowledge of this whatsoever'.

When the detective that made the allegation about what had been said was asked why the retired detective would later deny the claim, he suggested that he had been threatened as there were a lot of 'tasty' people involved.

When the reporter that Daniel Morgan had previously worked with at the Daily Mirror was questioned on 11 November 1987 he said, 'I am sure he did not say to me that this related to information he obtained from police officers, although I assumed this is what he meant' and doubted that the sum of money that Daniel Morgan had been offered by the press was £250,000, as 'Daniel was always bragging'.

On 29 January 1988, the Deputy Editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper was interviewed and provided a witness statement, stating that Daniel Morgan's business partner around two years earlier and had bought some stories from him which were tittle-tattle, and paying him about £50 'to keep him 'sweet''. He added that Daniel Morgan's business partner had tried to sell him a story about the associate's as 'minder to the stars' for £10,000 and arranged a meeting but he meeting was cancelled and the Daily Star subsequently ran the story. He also said that whilst he didn't know Daniel Morgan well, he had spoken to him on the phone once as he was trying to get through to his business partner and said that Daniel Morgan 'ranted and raved about his business partner stitching him up over various things'.

On 08 February 1988 reporter with the Daily Mirror newspaper said:

  • He knew Daniel Morgan and had met him on a couple of occasions.
  • Daniel Morgan had passed him information which was considered unsuitable for the daily papers.
  • About a month before Daniel Morgan’s death, he had received a call asking him to contact Daniel Morgan urgently, but because he was at the House of Commons covering the forthcoming budget, he did not receive the message until after Daniel Morgan’s death. He said that all of Daniel Morgan’s calls were deemed to be urgent, and so he didn't place too much importance on that particular call. He said that he had never paid Daniel Morgan for any information but said that 'Morgan was always on the make for money and stories' and that in return he would run names through the press cutting library to assist Daniel Morgan in his investigations.

ASs such, the police concluded that there was no evidence to indicate that Daniel Morgan had been trying to sell a story on police corruption for £250,000 and that hte matter had been 'fully investigated'.

The Death of Alan Holmes

The death of Alan Holmes on 28 July 1987 was speculated to have been connected with the murder of Daniel Morgan. Alan Holmes had been a detective constable having joined the Metropolitan Police in 1961 and serving until his death.

An inquest was held, and the Coroner ruled on 14 March 1988 that his death was caused by suicide

At the time of his death, DC Holmes had been a member of the Metropolitan Police Special Operations Task Force and was also a Freemason and the Master of his local Lodge.

His suicide followed allegations of police corruption that began in April 1987. It was heard that a detective had passed on to a Detective Chief Superintendent some information, received from a person whom he had interviewed in the course of his work, alleging corruption on the part of a police Commander and an investigation was carried out. It was heard that when Alan Holmes heard of the investigation he contacted the detective involved and asked to listen to the interview tapes in which the allegations of corruption were made on behalf of the police commander and that as a reult he too became the subject of investigation and was interviewed on 19 and 23 July 1987. Concerns were subsequently raised about whether he had been questioned in an oppressive manner during these interviews, which had been lengthy, and whether that had contributed to his death on 28 July 1987.

Given that his death was alleged to have been related to the death of Daniel Morgan, the police review looked into the papers but were unable to find any evidence to indicate any connection between Daniel Morgan and Alan Holmes, and nothing to indicate any connection between their deaths.

However, it was later noted that a detective had reported that he had been in the Victory public house on 11 March 1988 and heard Daniel Morgan's business partner say that Daniel Morgan had been friendly with Alan Holmes and had met him in a pub in Beulah Hill some days before his death.

On 17 May 1988 Daniel Morgan's brother said that he had met a man that had done some driving for Daniel Morgan's business partner as he had been banned at the time and that the man had told him that Daniel Morgan and Alan Holmes had been good friends.

Later in 1988 Daniel Morgan's business partner made a complaint to the police stating that before his death, Daniel Morgan had met Alan Holmes and had told his wife and others that he was going to sell information on police corruption to the media for £10,000, and that that had not been investigated.

The police review concluded that there was nothing to suggest that the claims by Daniel Morgan's brother or his business partner had been looked into, concluding that it was a failure of the Morgan One investigation.

It was later heard in the Police Complaints Authority Investigation that the friendship between Daniel Morgan and Alan Holmes had started in September 1985 and that when ringing up would identify himself as OMO and that they had once met in Gossips Wine Bar in 1986 and when the bill came around Daniel Morgan had written on it 'Holmes will pay next time'. It was also claimed that Alan Holmes had intended to propose Daniel Morgan as a member of the Freemasons and that Daniel Morgan had told Jonathan Rees that there were lots of police officers and business people in the Croydon Freemasons Lodge, and that that offered the potential for Southern Investigations to obtain lots of business.

On 2 February 1989 a detective said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had told him that some detectives had entered into the investigation information that Alan Holmes, the police commander and the Brinksmat job were all connected with the murder of Daniel Morgan in that Daniel Morgan had gone to Private Eye and another newspaper with the story and wwas hoping to get £10,000 for it. Two other witnesses also provided information to the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation stating that Daniel Morgan's business partner had told them that Daniel Morgan had discovered that there was a connection between a senior Metropolitan Police officer and the Brink’s-Mat robbery naming the officer as the police commander.

However, the review concluded by stating, 'There is no evidence in the papers available that the information described had been inserted into or removed from the Morgan One investigation. There is no mention of Private Eye before Daniel Morgan's business partner raised it on 2 February 1989. The evidence from a number of sources shows that the question of whether the murder of Daniel Morgan and the death by suicide of DC Alan Holmes were linked was examined by both detective superintendents during the Morgan One Investigation, and that no link was established. There was no reference to Daniel Morgan in the police Commander’s investigation. The removal of the two detectives from the Morgan One Investigation was recorded as being due to a reduction in the number of investigative actions at that stage of the investigation. That reduction in investigative activity can be observed from the papers available'.

Further, in the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation, on 7 March 2003, the Senior Investigating Officer reported to the Crown Prosecution Service that: 'There is nothing to link the death of DC Holmes, the activities of the ex-Commander, or the Brinksmat robbery to the Morgan murder'.

On 9 April a former Police Officer said that he believed that Daniel Morgan was going to 'grass up a police officer about a coke deal', although he could not be more precise.

However, on 15 April 2003 the ex-detective that had details some of the earlier claims stated the folliowing:

  1. Daniel Morgan and DC Alan Holmes, who had been working on the Brink’s-Mat Robbery Investigation, were very close.
  2. DC Holmes helped Daniel Morgan with enquiries and Daniel Morgan would 'wine and dine' DC Holmes in return.
  3. DC Holmes had allegedly told Daniel Morgan about a plan to smuggle £100m worth of cocaine into the UK possibly involving serving police officers.
  4. Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes had gone to Private Eye magazine with the story and according to him, Private Eye was not interested in running it. Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes then attended another unnamed newspaper.

Nine years later in June 2016, the ex-detectiveadded the following:

  1. That he recalled speaking to DC Alan Holmes, who had told him that he had a story on police corruption that he intended to sell to the press for £250,000.
  2. That DC Alan Holmes told him that he was working on this story with Daniel Morgan, who was leading the negotiations with the press.
  3. That he possibly gave this information to the Morgan One Investigation, without providing DC Alan Holmes’s name.

However, the police review questioned why the ex-detective had not disclosed that information in 1987 and had waited until 2003 to disclose it. The police then determined to establish whether anyone else could verify that there had been a relationship between Daniel Morgan and Alan Holmes and determined that both Alan Holmes’s widow said that her husband had not known Daniel Morgan and that Daniel Morgan's widow said that she did not know whether her husband had met Alan Holmes. She added that her husband had never mentioned knowledge of police corruption to her, nor had he said that he had any intention of selling such information to the press.

However, in 2017 the man that had gone to Malta with Daniel Morgan came forward to say that in the two-year period prior to his death, Daniel Morgan had spoken frequently of his dealings with DC Holmes, and that in early 1987, he had been present at two meetings between Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes. It was noted that the man had also written a (then yet to be published) book concerning his knowledge of Southern Investigations and the circumstances surrounding Daniel Morgan’s murder. His account of the alleged dealings between Daniel Morgan and Alan Holmes was as follows:

  1. One day towards the end of 1984 or in early 1985, he had visited Daniel Morgan at the latter’s home, and they walked together to the South Norwood Sports Club. Daniel Morgan had asked him if he had heard of the Brinks-Mat robbery. He had not. Daniel Morgan had talked about a reward or 'finder's fee' in respect of it and had told him that he had met a police officer whose 'codename' was 'Omo'. The man said that this had been said in the context of the robbery and it was unusual for Daniel Morgan as, unlike his business partner, he did not have a lot of police contacts. Subsequently, he said, Daniel Morgan mentioned ‘Omo’ on a number of occasions but the man did not take all that much notice, other than that the officer was based at Tottenham Court Road, involved in the investigation of serious crime and 'was difficult to get hold of'.
  2. Towards the end of the summers of 1985 or of 1986, he was unable to remember which, Daniel Morgan had talked to him about conversations he was having at that time with DC Alan Holmes. He said that Daniel Morgan had said that DC Holmes had told him about a senior police officer, (whom he named, and who was not the police Commander), who was apparently 'a supercop', a senior detective with lots of experience, and was DC Holmes's 'guv'nor'.
  3. DC Alan Holmes had spoken to the senior officer about Daniel Morgan and the senior officer had said that he wanted to meet Daniel Morgan, who had initially been pleased about this but, over the next four weeks, his enthusiasm had waned. He had prevaricated about whether or not to meet the senior officer, but had been pressed to do so, to the extent that he thought that if he did not meet with the officer he would be 'picked up' or arrested.
  4. He believed that Daniel Morgan did go to meet the senior officer, although he did not know what transpired at the meeting or subsequently. However, he wondered whether Daniel Morgan may as a result have been 'working undercover or become an informant'.

When he described the two occasions on which he met Alan Holmes, he said:

  1. He had been in the Southern Investigations offices one day, around the time of the trip to Malta in 1987 to recover the Range Rover, when Daniel Morgan had invited him to lunch, saying that they were going to meet DC Holmes at a burger bar. He said that DC Holmes had arrived at the burger bar about ten minutes after they did, and that he and Daniel Morgan had gone to have a private chat. He said that this was unusual, as he was normally able to be present while Daniel Morgan was having conversations. The two men had come back after ten minutes and they had all had lunch, but there had been a change in Daniel Morgan’s demeanour. On the way back to Southern Investigations, Daniel Morgan had been agitated and had wanted to get back and make some phone calls. He had asked what they were about, but Daniel Morgan had not told him.
  2. Shortly after Daniel Morgan and he had returned from Malta in February 1987, they had gone to the Wilton Arms public house in Thornton Heath one Saturday afternoon and had met DC Alan Holmes and a former detective there. While the four men had been at the bar, an individual had come into the public house and had looked at them. Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes had been concerned that the man had seen them together. They had exchanged glances as if to say, 'is this a problem?' He said he had believed that the man was a senior police officer, as Daniel Morgan had said words to that effect. The man had not said anything to them, he had just looked at them and left.

However, it was noted that the man that had gone to Malta with Daniel Mortgan had made ten witness statements over the years and had never before mentioned Alan Alan Holmes at all in any of them.

THe police review concluded the accounts of the ex-detecite and the man that had gone to Malta with Daniel Morgan were not credible. It stated:

  1. They had found evidence that the story of a link between Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes was first told by Daniel Morgan's business partner to several individuals. Daniel Morgan's business partner also made this claim directly to the Metropolitan Police and the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation.
  2. THe ex-detective said repeatedly that he had been told by Daniel Morgan's business partner that Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes knew each other and that they planned to expose police corruption. There is no evidence in the papers available to the Panel that the ex-detective had told any of the investigations that DC Holmes had told him that Daniel Morgan was negotiating the sale of a story for £250,000. He only said that he had been with Daniel Morgan when he had met DC Holmes after he approached the Panel in 2016.
  3. Just before he was to publish a book about Daniel Morgan’s murder, the man informed the Panel that he had been present at two meetings between Daniel Morgan and DC Holmes and that he was aware that the context of the alleged relationship between the two men was the 1983 Brink’s-Mat robbery. The man had not disclosed this information previously, in any of the 13 witness statements he had made over the years to police officers investigating the murder.

The review concluded by stating, 'Having considered all the evidence available, the Panel is not persuaded that the evidence provided by ex-detective and the man that had gone to Malta that Daniel Morgan was working with DC Alan Holmes to reveal police corruption is credible'.

Bookkeeper to Southern Investigations

Another line of enquiry in the investigation was the claim that a bookkeeper that had worked at Southern Investigations had said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had wanted Daniel Morgan killed.

The bookkeeper had been employed by Southern Investigations until January 1987 when he was charged with with serious fraud offences that were unrelated to his position at Southern Investigations. However, when a new accountant joine Southern Investigations he found that there was an outstanding tax liability of £23,400, plus penalties which he informed Daniel Morgan's business partner about on 6 March 1987.

The bookkeeper was later interviewed by the murder squad on 2 April 1987 at which time he told the police that there were no financial problems with the business, but that was later found to be untrue.

Later, in July 1987, a retired Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector stated that the bookkeeper had told him that Daniel Morgan's business partner had asked him to find someone to murder Daniel Morgan.

THe police then arranged for the retired Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector to meet the bookkeeper again whilst wearing a tape recorder to see if he could get him to repeat the allegation, noting that they thought that he would deny it if he was approached directly. The ploy was successful and a recording of the allegations was made. When the bookkeeper was brought in for interview on 21 August 1987 he denied the allegation. However, when he was played a section of the recording he agreed that the information was correct but said that he had given it in confidence. and declined to make a statement.

However, he made two statements in September 1987. He added that he had told the retired Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector before about it but the retired Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector said that he had no recollection of hearing the allegation previously.

He then went on to say that Daniel Morgan was very different to his business partner and that on occasions he had seen Daniel Morgan's business partner lose his temper with Daniel Morgan and go into an absolute rage and shout at Daniel Morgan about things which he hadn’t done that should have attended to. He said that Daniel Morgan's business partner would go on at Daniel Morgan like that for a quarter of an hour or more, shouting and abusing him.

In his statements he made the following allegations:

  1. That Daniel Morgan's business partner had spoken to police officers about getting Daniel Morgan arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, as he thought that this would lead to Daniel Morgan losing his driving licence, which in turn would mean Daniel Morgan would be unable to do his job, and would have to give up his share of Southern Investigations.
  2. That he had been drinking in the Victory public house with Daniel Morgan's business partner and Daniel Morgan on two evenings on which arrangements had been made for Daniel Morgan to be stopped for driving under the influence of alcohol. Daniel Morgan's business partner had commented to him on both evenings that Daniel Morgan would be stopped and breathalysed when he left the public house. He added that the reason the police would give for stopping Daniel Morgan would be a broken rear light on his car. However, he added that ‘nothing happened’ either time.
  3. That at a function in Croydon, Daniel Morgan's business partner had said that he had arranged for the police to stop Daniel Morgan a few days prior to the function. Again, the alleged efforts to have Daniel Morgan breathalysed failed.
  4. That Daniel Morgan's business partner persistently asked him to arrange Daniel Morgan’s murder, but, he said, ‘I told Daniel Morgan's business partner emphatically that there was no way that I would help him find anyone to kill Daniel Morgan, in spite of this he persisted in his request of me and attempted to encourage me to find a person prepared to kill Daniel Morgan’.
  5. That in August or September 1986, Daniel Morgan's business partner had told him: 'I've the perfect solution for Daniel's murder, my mates at Catford Nick are going to arrange it'. He added that Daniel Morgan's business partner had said that his friends at Catford Police Station would #either do it themselves or get someone who they had something over to do the killing and in return be let off whatever they had over them'. He added that Daniel Morgan's business partner stated that the officers would then be in a position to suppress information linking the murder with Daniel Morgan's business partner or themselves. He said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had said that it would cost him £1,000 for Catford police officers to either commit the murder themselves or arrange for someone else to do it'.
  6. That Daniel Morgan's business partner told him that Daniel Morgan had seized a car from a South London criminal, who had then telephoned the Southern Investigations office threatening to break Daniel Morgan’s legs. He said that Jonathan Rees was happy with this development and had explained that after Daniel Morgan was murdered, he would mention these phone calls to the police, thereby giving them a suspect.
  7. That sometime during 1986, Daniel Morgan's business partner told him that after Daniel Morgan was dead, the detective sergeant would take Daniel Morgan’s place in Southern Investigations.
  8. That Daniel Morgan's business partner had told him that he had had similar conversations with two other people about arranging to have Daniel Morgan murdered, and he had provided him with the names of these people. He told the police that he would withhold their names at that stage but would reveal them later. He later revealed the two people as being Daniel Morgan's business partner's wife and Daniel Morgan's business partner's solicitor. However, the solicitor died any knowledge of the allegations.

When the police looked into the claims that the Catford Crime Squad had been used to cover up the murder leads or information coming in they found no evidence to support that other than the actions of the detective sergeant. It was determined that the Catford Crime Squad been assisting in another murder investigation in early March but that role ended on 9 March 1987 leaving them free to assist at the next serious crime to be committed in the Catford Crime Squad area which just happened to be the murder of Daniel Morgan.

It was noted that the Golden Lion public house was in the Catford Crime Squad area, which meant that Catford Crime Squad would probably, but not definitely, be called upon to assist in the event of any serious crime occurring at that location. Had the murder of Daniel Morgan been committed elsewhere, or on a different date, the Catford Crime Squad might not have been involved in the investigation. Had another murder been committed in that area before Daniel Morgan’s murder, the Catford Crime Squad may not have been available to work on Daniel Morgan’s murder.

However, the review found that it was not possible to reach any conclusion on the information available as to whether the murder was committed when and where it was to facilitate the involvement of Catford Crime Squad in the early days of the investigation.

The police later determined to get corroboration of the bookkeepers and arranged for him to be fitted with a covert tape recorder and to meet up with Daniel Morgan's business partner on 26 November 1987. However, Daniel Morgan's business partner didn't make any incriminating statements about Daniel Morgan’s murder. A second attempt was made on 2 December 1987 which similarly failed although it was both said that Daniel Morgan's business partner showed significant interest in the case and that the bookkeeper felt that Daniel Morgan's business partner might have realised he was wearing a tape recorder. It was further noted that Daniel Morgan's business partner soon after the meeting told a former detective that he had just met someone who 'he believed was 'taped up''.

It was noted that the bookkeeper had been reluctant to give evidence to the police and that it was only after he had been confronted by the recording of his allegations that he had agreed to help. The police described his evidence as 'probably the most alarming aspect of the whole case'.

He appeared at the Central Criminal Court in London on 13 June 1988, where he pleaded guilty to various fraud and theft charges although it was noted that he had understood that if the judge hearing the case against him was informed that he had assisted the Morgan One Investigation, then it was possible that his sentence might be reduced. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police wrote to the trial judge recounting the bookkeeper’s assistance to the Morgan One Investigation, by way of written statements, and evidence on 11 April 1988 to the Inquest into the death of Daniel Morgan and he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. However, it was not possible to comment on what impact, if any, the letter from the police to the judge in the case made to the sentence imposed on the bookkeeper.

However, the police review concluded that the bookkeeper's evidence should have formed a major line of enquiry for the Morgan One Investigation, noting that that didn't happen and added that greater attempts should have been made to corroborate his evidence.

Drug Supply Case

THe murder investigation squad recieved four messages an individual who was on bail for credit card offences Daniel Morgan had been engaged by a man from a named company to identify a drug dealer who was supplying drugs to his daughter. He said that Daniel Morgan initially approached a known dealer at the Golden Lion public house to see if he would supply drugs. The dealer was not able to supply the quantity for which Daniel Morgan asked, and in turn, referred the request to two other known drug dealers.

He said that later, on an unknown evening, all three drug dealers, one of whom was being investigated by the detective sergeant, and a bodyguard had been in the Golden Lion public house with Daniel Morgan and that on the night of the murder that one of the three drug dealers had also been in the Golden Lion.

When the police made enquiries they had been unable to find the client although they found a man that matched the description given and who had a duaghrer with the name provided, they were determined to have had no connection with Daniel Morgan. THe three drug dealers were later identified, as was the bodyguard. The bodyguard was interviewed while in custody for an unrelated matter with no useful information being gained whilst the drug dealers were not interviewed. THe police also concluded that the person that had supplied them with the information on the drug supply lead was a drug addict himself and unreliable and no further enquiries were carried out. However, the review later concluded that the matter should have been further investigated by the Morgan One Investigation, which could have interviewed those who had been identified, noting that no explanation has been found as to why there was no further investigation. THe police review noted that the fact that the individual who provided the information was a drug addict and might have been unreliable, did not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the truth.

Daniel Morgan’s alleged relationships

It was alleged that Daniel Morgan had been engaged in a number of extramarital affairs and that was looked into as a line of inquiry. to see if he had been murdered by a jealous or angry partner or spouse.

On 11 March 1987, the day after the murder, information was received which referred to Daniel Morgan’s alleged extramarital affairs from two separate sources, Daniel Morgan's business partnerand the man he went to Malta with.

Daniel Morgan's business partner said, 'Daniel has often confided in me regarding a number of extra-marital sexual relationships. Several times I have been aware that when Daniel has an injunction to serve on an estranged husband, he would make efforts to contact, and discuss the matter with the wife. I believe that this has sometimes led to a sexual relationship. I have been asked if I can name any such women, I can remember four such cases'.

Daniel Morgan's business partner supplied four names, although the first name of one of the women was wrong and slowed down the investigation. However, he didn't mention the estate agent manager.

However, when the police followed each of the women up they found that there was no evidence of anything to link them to Daniel Morgan’s murder. The women’s partners were also investigated, and recorded as eliminated from the enquiries.

The man that Daniel Morgan had gone to Malta with said that Daniel Morgan had told him around mid 1985 that he had been seeing a woman and that the woman’s husband had found out about them and had phoned Daniel Morgan at home and threatened to kill him. He said that Daniel Morgan pointed out the woman's house to him. The man further stated that, although Daniel Morgan did not tell him the name of the person, Daniel Morgan had said to him that if he was ever attacked and hospitalised, then he was to visit him, and that Daniel Morgan would tell him who and where the person was.

It was noted that the police tried to find that house that Daniel Morgan was said to have pointed out to his colleague as being where the woman had lived but could not.

Stolen Car Stereo

THe man that had gone to Malta with Daniel Morgan said on 11 March 1987 that Daniel Morgan had told him that his car had been broken into the previous Christmas and the car stereo had been stolen but that the stereo was been found in the possession of a number of youths, who were then charged. He said that after they were charged Daniel Morgan told him that he had received threats at home which he believed to have come from the youths.

When the men were traced they said that they had been laying flooring at a shop in South Norwood during the evening of 10 March 1987. However, when the owner of the shop was questioned he said that they had come to his shop to lay lino at about 7pmand that apart from an hour-and-a-half period sometime between 8.00pm and 10.00pm, when they left to let some cement dry, they were there until 3.00am the following morning. Their homes were searched but nothing was found and no further action was taken.

However, the police review of the case stated that as the shopkeeper had been unable to say that the suspects were at his premises during the crucial period when Daniel Morgan was murdered, despite making extensive efforts, the Morgan One Investigation would have been unable to eliminate them from the investigation in accordance with required procedure.

Rival Investigator

On 11 March 1987 it was heard that Daniel Morgan had served a writ the previous day and the person that he had served it to said that Daniel Morgan told him that another bailiff, who he named, had threatened to kill him after he had poached an employee. When the police took a statement from the rival investigator he dismissed the suggestion of any antagonism between him and Daniel Morgan and stated that their work was completely different. However, it was noted that he was not asked to account for his movements on the evening of 10 March 1987.

It was further determined that on 17 March 1987 Daniel Morgan's wife made a statement saying, 'I had a telephone call from the same bailiff one day, it was about two years ago. I know there was dispute over what the bailiff was charging for certain jobs and the fees that were laid down. The bailiff said to me on the phone that, 'he'll break Daniel's legs''.

Seven months later, a witness gave a statement which referred to the bailiff and said that he had lost money because Daniel Morgan had given assistance to the Certificated Bailiffs Association in an action against the bailiff.

The police review concluded that the bailiff was not eliminated from the Morgan One Investigation and that he should have been asked to account for his movements on 10 March 1987 to determine whether he could be eliminated.

Matrimonial and Family Related Investigations

Cases that Daniel Morgan had worked on that involved matrimonial and family disputes were looked into, it being noted that some of the cases rned estranged partners and included 'snatch backs' of children taken by separated partners. However, although not fully completed, it was concluded that there was nothing to link them to the murder of Daniel Morgan.

Recent Summons

THe police determined that Daniel Morgan had served a summons on a man the day before his murder, 9 March 1987 and that the man had previous convictions for violent offences. When th epolice went to see the man he said that during the evening of 10 March 1987, he would have been doing the laundry and preparing dinner. His home was searched and nothing was found, but it was noted that there was no evidence that another male who lived at the house was questioned to verify this alibi and th review concluded that the police should have sought to verify the alibi given by the man.

Financial Investigations

It was known that Daniel Morgan had been involved with recovery, fraud investigations, and the service of bankruptcy orders, as part of his bailiff business and that in the course of that business that he might have angered a number of individuals and four serious cases were looked into.

  1. Daniel Morgan had had dealings with the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad in January 1987 regarding a fraudster from Australia who had entered the UK leaving behind a debt of Aus $4,000,000. However, nothing more was determined.
  2. Daniel Morgan was said to have served a bankruptcy notice on a man that was said to have had the money and contacts to kill Daniel Morgan. However, the man was determined to have been in prison at the time of the murder. further, enquiries with the man's solicitor revealed that the man would have had nothing to gain by killing Daniel Morgan at this late stage as most of the Bankruptcy Matters were almost over with.
  3. Daniel Morgan had been involved in a property repossession case that had been listed for 9 and 10 March 1987. however, the property was vacated at the last moment and so they had not had to attend court.
  4. Daniel Morgan had been involved with a repossession of some warehouse units whic hwas problematic. Daniel Morgan had been provided instructions on 28 November 1985, following a man’s non-payment of rent for the units, take back possession of the premises. It was reported that the tenant had in the past made threats of violence, and that Daniel Morgan had encountered considerable difficulties with the man and had been assaulted by him resulting in the police being called to assist. It was further noted that the tenant had later broken back into the premises and that  Daniel Morgan had had to re-attend to re-secure them. However, during the investigation the tennant could not be traced.
  5. In another case Daniel Morgan had served bankruptcy notices on 2 October 1986 on two alleged guarantors, of a company which had gone into rent arrears, who were said to be men of violence. A sum of £20,000 had been recovered. However, the company had again gone into arrears and Daniel Morgan had been engaged to take back possession of the premises. One guarantor said he had never seen Daniel Morgan and never heard of Southern Investigations. The other guarantor stated that Daniel Morgan had served papers on him in October/November 1986 and had repossessed the property and added that he knew that Daniel Morgan drove a BMW car. However, neither individual were asked to account for their movements on 10 March 1987 and no further action was taken. THe police review noted that the the two guarantors should have been asked to account for their whereabouts on 10 March 1987.

Car Repossessions

Southern Investigations and Daniel Morgan had been contracted by finance companies to repossess motor vehicles purchased on finance when purchasers defaulted on payments and it was thought that his murder might have been connected with that.

One company, Eltham, had instructed Daniel Morgan to repossess 18 vehicles and the police made enquiries with them but found that there were no reports of any trouble having occurred with any repossession or attempted repossession. It was found that some vehicles had been repossessed, but in some instances neither the vehicle nor the purchaser could be found. There were no more developments from that line of enquiry.

Other Lines of Enquiry

There were a significant number of other lines of enquiry but the review opted not to list them all, but detailed some to demonstrate the range of other leads.

  1. A man, also called Daniel Morgan, who was born in Wales in 1958, reported that his car had been stolen on 9 March 1987. It was found in Sydenham with fire damage on 11 March 1987. A detective recorded that the man had no connection to the enquiry and no further action was taken. However, the review concluded that the Morgan One Investigation should have considered further whether Daniel Morgan’s death could have been a case of mistaken identity, and whether the other Welsh Daniel Morgan may have been the intended victim.
  2. On 14 March 1987 the detective sergeant, whilst he was on the murder squad, was tasked to research information received that a man known as 'Nutty Tony' had been responsible for the murder of Daniel Morgan. However, he took no action before he lewft the murder squad after which it was taken up by another detective who determined that the man had lived within 350 yards of the Golden Lion public house and had a criminal record. however, no efforts were made to trace him and interview him until January 1989 when the officers from the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation spoke with his mother and ascertained that her son had been in Australia between December 1986 and May 1988. It was only in November 2002 that detectives from the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation spoke to him and confirmed his mother’s statement that he had been overseas at the time of the murder and that stamps in his passport would prove this. However, there was no evidence demonstrating that his passport had in fact seen by police officers.
  3. In August 1987, police were informed by a man that Daniel Morgan had made attempts to identify a man who had raped the girlfriend of a colleague of his. The man was identified as John Steed and it was found that he had been convicted in November 1986 of three rapes and one case of manslaughter. He was reported to have later died by suicide in Full Sutton Prison although he had been in prison at the time of Daniel Morgan's murder. The police concluded that there was no connection between that incident and Daniel Morgan’s death.
  4. Information was received from a prisoner that a man had information about the murder of Daniel Morgan, and that he had 'received information prior to the murder'. When the prisoner was contacted on 5 May 1987 he declined to provide any further information. However, on 6 May 1987 the man’s wife gave a statement that she had told the prisoner that her husband may have been in the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987. However, she went on to say that he came home about 7.30 pm and stayed at home thereafter. She said that she didn't know Daniel Morgan and didn't indicate that she thought he might have been involved in the murder. The man later made a statement on 11 May 1987 stating that he had not been in the Golden Lion public house on 10 March but had been there on 9 and 11 March 1987 and that he did not know Daniel Morgan.
  5. Daniel Morgan had lived for a period in Denmark and the police were aware that he had made several trips there. Enquiries were therefore made in Denmark through Interpol in May 1987 to see whether anything relevant to the investigation of Daniel Morgan’s murder would emerge. Police in Denmark interviewed seven people who all knew Daniel Morgan, who had been employed by one of the witnesses on a farm when he was 17-18 years old, in the early 1970s. The Danish Police supplied a report providing details about what had been said during the interviews, including references to business and social activities but nothing relevant to the investigation was identified.
  6. On 19 June 1987 at 10.55am, a telephonist employed by British Telecom at their Croydon exchange answered an emergency call from a male caller who wanted her to take a message. She stated that she told the caller that she could not take messages, and that she would have to put him through to the fire, police or ambulance service. She stated that the man said that he did not want to be put through to any of them and repeated that he wanted her to take a message about Daniel Morgan's murder. The caller then said that Daniel Morgan's business partner was involved in the Daniel Morgan murder and ended the call. The telephonist then told a Police Constable attached to the Central Command Unit at New Scotland Yard what the man had said and asked whether she should trace the call, but was told not to, as it was probably made from a call box.
  7. On 6 March 1988, Daniel Morgan's brother received information via an anonymous phone call that Daniel Morgan had been asked by a person whose daughter had recently died of a drug overdose, to find her suppliers, that he had investigated this by using 'bugging equipment' and provided information to the Metropolitan Police. The caller asked Daniel Morgan's brother to provide funds for further investigation. The caller had previously made similar calls which had proved to be fraudulent. It was also reported by a detective that information was received by a former Detective Chief Superintendent about Daniel Morgan being supplied with 'bugging equipment' which was delivered to an address in Hampshire. It was established that this information also came from the same caller.
  8. In May 1987, information was received through a police constable, from two sources, that a named individual had killed Daniel Morgan, but that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been the intended victim. In a statement taken six months later on 16 November 1987, by the detective superintendent, the police constable stated that he had been told by the detective superintendent that both sources, whose details he had provided, had denied knowledge of Daniel Morgan’s murder, to which the police constable responded he could only repeat that both men had independently spoken to him about it. The police concluded that there was no connection between the information and Daniel Morgan’s murder, or anything to support the suggestions that the intended target had been Daniel Morgan's business partner.
  9. The Morgan One Investigation was informed that a group of people who had been drinking at the Dolphin public house left suddenly, leaving their drinks, at some point between 8.30pm and 9.30pm on 10 March 1987. A police sergeant was tasked to make enquiries of the bar staff at the Dolphin public house. No statements were obtained, but he questioned bar staff who said that there had been no untoward incidents in the Dolphin public house on 10 March 1987. Eight months later, statements were finally taken from five witnesses who had observed the group leave. One of the witnesses said that these people returned two or three minutes later. Police concluded that there was no cause for further investigation of the matter and no further enquiries were made.
  10. On 11 March 1987, a man contacted the Morgan One Investigation and reported that there had been a burglary at Southern Investigations 'about 3 weeks ago'. This information was investigated. A copy of the crime report in respect of the burglary was obtained. It was confirmed that the building containing Southern Investigations' offices had been burgled, as had the offices of the insurance broker located in the same building. No further action was directed. The stolen items from Southern Investigations were identified as 'a VDU and Keyboard' and a 'Quantity of cash'. The police review stated 'The burglary occurred during the week when Daniel Morgan was away in Malta, and only weeks before the murder. It should have prompted a more robust investigation than just obtaining a copy of the crime report in order to determine whether there were any links'.

Conduct of Police Officers

The police reivew considered the conduct of the police officers during the investigation following the ellegations of corruption.

They interviewed 43 police officers that had served on Catford Police Division regarding meetings they had had with Daniel Morgan's business partner or Daniel Morgan himself. They found that 17 officers had met Daniel Morgan's business partner with the remaining 26 officers saying they had never met Daniel Morgan's business partner. None of them said that they had met Daniel Morgan.

However, one detective in particular who was based in the Norbury Division said that he knew both Daniel Morgan and his business partner, saying that he had met Daniel Morgan's business partner through his solicitor and then Daniel Morgan about 18 month's earlier. He said that Daniel Morgan and he had met socially on many occasions, mostly in the Victory public house in Thornton Heath, when Daniel Morgan would join his business partner and him. It was noted that the detective had been one of the original officers who investigated the robbery of Daniel Morgan's business partner which occurred in 1986 and which led to the Belmont Car Auctions issue.

When the detective was interviewed he had been the night duty Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer on 18 March 1986, when Daniel Morgan's business partner was allegedly robbed of £18,280.62 on his way home from Belmont Car Auctions, and had conducted some of the early investigation into the robbery. He recorded in June 1987 that he felt that 'either Daniel Morgan's business partner was involved or he had been set up by someone knowing his movements'. Despite this view, he repeatedly met Daniel Morgan's business partner on a social basis between the Belmont Car Auctions robbery in March 1986 and the murder of Daniel Morgan in March 1987. A relationship that continued after the murder.

He said that when he met Daniel Morgan's business partner on 21 May 1987 'He told me that he had been arrested and held for thirty hours. He was unhappy at his treatment. He intimated that he would not co-operate with the enquiry any more, and at one stage he stated that he didn’t give a fuck who killed Daniel Morgan. There were things that he could tell the investigation that would point the team in a direction other than in his direction, but he was not going to co-operate'.

On 5 June 1987 the detective superintendent informed the Norbury detective that he was not to meet Daniel Morgan's business partner at any time, however, he continued to do so and the detective superintendent decided to allow him to do so in order that he could get information from him. At the Inquest into Daniel Morgan’s death, the Norbury detective’s role was described by the Coroner as that of a 'double agent'.

However, whilst there was a lot of information on his activities, the meetings achieved nothing more than giving Daniel Morgan's business partner the opportunity to ask how the investigation was going each time they met and of no value to the investigation. Further, the Norbury detective was later convicted on separate matters and sentenced to over eight years in prison for offences including theft, robbery, conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and perverting the course of justice.

It was also determined that a number of detectives would would visit public houses known to be frequented by Daniel Morgan's business partner and the detective sergeant, both of whom had been arrested for the murder and continued to be suspects, and would spend time with one or both of them on a seemingly social basis and that the close association between police officers and one of the main suspects posed serious risks to the investigation, noting that intelligence from the meetings was not thought to have been processed propely and that the presence of alcohol risked the possibility of detectives leaking information.

Second Arrest of Daniel Morgan's business partner

Daniel Morgan's business partner was arrested a second time on 3 March 1988. He had previously been released without charge on 4 April 1987.

Upon his second arrest he was asked to bring his car in and Scenes of Crime officer attend at his office and on 10 March 1988, fibre samples were collected from the seats, front and rear floor mats and boot mat and a number of tapings and control samples were retrieved from the car and submitted for comparison with the fibres found on the axe, but no matching fibres were found.

The review noted that Daniel Morgan's business partner’s car had not been fully forensically examined before this point, a year after the murder, the consequence of that failure being that, even if evidence had been found which linked the car to the murder of Daniel Morgan, there would have been scope for arguments that there was no continuity to any such evidence secured, and that there was a possibility of contamination of such evidence in the year between the date of the murder and the search of the car.

Detective Superintendent's Report

The detective superintendent made a report on 22 January 1988 that drew together all his lines of enquiry and concluded that he had identified motive and unanswered questions but not evidence. He said that the case of Daniel Morgan’s murder revolved around who had known that Daniel Morgan would have been at the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987, that the manner of his death indicated a personal hatred held by his attacker and that the murder was premeditated. His conclusion was that Daniel Morgan's business partner was complicit in the murder of Daniel Morgan and that he considered it possible that Daniel Morgan's business partner was concerned that Daniel Morgan would dissolve their business partnership, thought it apparent that Daniel Morgan's business partner’s dislike for Daniel Morgan had turned to hatred, and suggested this could have been further fuelled by the association both men had with the easte agent manager. the detective superintendent also raised concerns over Daniel Morgan's business partner’s 'over-riding loyalty' to police officers, especially those connected to Belmont Car Auctions, and referred to evidence that Daniel Morgan had threatened to expose police corruption'.

He added that the matters offered 'strong motives for murder' and that 'not one piece of evidence was found that would lead the investigation team away from Daniel Morgan's business partner as the prime suspect'.

However, the detective superintendent noted that it was possible that he too was too close to Daniel Morgan's business partner and noted that he had considered bringing charges against but felt that he needed advice and approached the Crown Prosecution Service. When he referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, he said, 'I must confess that I have seriously considered charging Daniel Morgan's business partner, but it may well be that I am too personally involved for a number of obvious reasons in my attitude towards him. I would welcome Solicitors Department comments on whether or not these papers should be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service'.

However, it was determined to wait for the inquest before making a decision.

Inquest

Key dates relating to the inquest are:

  • 13 March 1987: The Inquest was opened and immediately adjourned.
  • 03 April 1987: Six suspects were arrested in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan.
  • 22 March 1988: Advice was received from the Crown Prosecution Service that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction of those who had been arrested in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan.
  • 11 April to 25 April 1988: Evidence was heard over the course of eight days.
  • 25 April 1988: The jury delivered its verdict that Daniel Morgan had been unlawfully killed.

The axe was considered at the inquest, it being noted that it's handle had been taped with adhesive plasters, and the Coroner gave two possible reasons for that:

  1. To get a greater grip on the axe itself.
  2. It is virtually impossible to take fingerprints from that material.

It was noted that no fingerprints had been found on the axe but that the Coroner had not raise the possibility of DNA testing on the axe handle although the police report noted that DNA testing at that time had been very limited and in its early stages or application.

When the detective superintendent details his theory in the case to the inquest, he said that he thought that the murder was premeditated, that it was linked to the presence of Daniel Morgan in the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, and that identification of those involved hinged upon who knew that Daniel Morgan would be in the premises on the evening of 10 March 1987.

It was claimed that Daniel Morgan's business partner had taken out a £1,000 contract with his CID contacts to murder Daniel Morgan.

An accountant said that he knew that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been planning the murder. He said, 'He told me he wanted to become partners with the detective sergeant at Catford in South London, who planned to leave the police on a medical pension once Morgan was dead'. He said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been trying to get other officers from nearby Norbury police station to arrest Daniel Morgan was astounded. But he told me they would either commit the murder themselves, or get someonee else in return for dropping criminal charges against them'.

The accountant said that they planned for the murder to be committed in Catford because their police officers would be involved in the murder investigation and would be able to suppress evidence.

When the accountant was questioned by the Coroner he added that he had heard Daniel Morgan's business partner confirm his intention to kill Daniel Morgan on 'six or so' separate occasions, adding that he had pleaded with him to reconsider his course of action. He said that he had formed the opinion that Daniel Morgan's business partner was determined to either kill Daniel Morgan or have him killed. He said, 'Daniel Morgan's business partner had decided at this stage that he could no longer work with Daniel in the partnership. He had in his own mind found a replacement for Daniel. It was his objective to get rid of Daniel in order to replace him with this new prospective partner who would be, in his opinion, a much greater asset to the business', noting that he had the detective sergeant in mind.

The inquest also heard that the detective sergeant had in fact become a partner in Southern Investigations following Daniel Morgan's murder. It was also heard that before the murder that he had been one of three policemen that had been helping Daniel Morgan's business partner guard a car auction firm.

Further evidence regarding the Belmont Car Auctions robbery and the theft ofthe £18,000 was also heard with Daniel Morgan's wife saying that two other senior staff in the company had told her that they thought that the business partner had set the robbery up himself.

The inquest heard that there were a number of possibilities for his murder:

  1. Victim of a contract or gangland killing.
  2. Murdered by the underworld.
  3. Jealous husband or boyfriend.
  4. Murder because of some legal or enforcement action he had been involved with via Southern Investigations.
  5. Come across a crime in the car park, possibly someone trying to break into his car with an axe.
  6. Drug related killing.
  7. Mad axeman on the loose in Sydenham.
  8. Random assault.

In February 1989 Daniel Morgan's business partner and the business associate that had been planning to loan the company the money for their court case were arrested and tried for Daniel Morgan's murder, however, they were later acquitted, with the police admitting that the charge against the business associate had been brought without reasonable and probable cause.

It was also later heard that the woman that Daniel Morgan had been seeing had also been seeing Daniel Morgan's business partner although she had added that it had not caused jealousy. She had been the manager of an estate agents that had been opposite the offices of Southern Investigations in Croydon.

It was reported that in 1990 Daniel Morgan's busines partner and the detective sergeant started to work regularly with tabloid newspapers such as the News of the World.

Allegations that the detective superintendent that headed the case from the start had been drunk on the night he attended Daniel Morgan's murder scene were also made at the inquest. It was further claimed that whilst there he had demanded a bottle of whisky from the bar. Howevr, the allegations were concluded as having been unfounded.

It was noted that the Coroner would be assisted by the police in carrying out the inquest, with a police officer fulfilling to role of Coroner’s Officer and that in general the Coroner would be reliant on the Senior Investigating Officer in charge of a police investigation to be briefed on matters relating to the police investigation. However, when it became apparent that there was suspicion of police involvement in the murder or police obstruction in the murder investigation, it made the inquest difficult and a citisism of the inquest was that the Coroner concluded that there had was no evidence of police corruption even though it was later stated that there clearly was.

The Coroner said that the police had 'steadfastly kept up a constant investigation' and that they had produced 'stacks and stacks of statements' with 'No stone has been left unturned'. However, the police review noted that whilst the the Coroner clearly noted that a lot of work had been undertaken by the police, his statement that 'no stone had been left unturned' was not an accurate characterisation of the Morgan One Investigation.

The Coroner also said, 'I have to say here and now that there has been no evidence whatsoever in this inquest to point to any police involvement in this killing, nothing that we have heard during this inquest'. However, the police review stated, 'The Coroner's remarks that there was 'no evidence whatsoever to point to any police involvement in this killing' was not accurate and overstated the evidential position. The accountant confirmed in his testimony at the Inquest what he had said in his statements to the police, he alleged that Daniel Morgan's business partner had told him that his 'mates at Catford' would help him to kill Daniel Morgan. This was hearsay evidence pointing to police involvement. It was not corroborated by other evidence at the Inquest. The Coroner's remarks were later repeated by the Metropolitan Police and others to support the position that there was no police involvement in the murder'.

Reviews

There were a number of reviews into the claims of police corruption and the failure to investigate the murder properly as well as two re-investigations intot he murder:

  1. Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation - July 1988 to March 1990.
  2. Operation Landmark and Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges - 14 April 1999 to 14 December 1999.
  3. The 2000 Murder Review - June 2000 to 14 November 2000.
  4. Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation 14 November 2000 to 8 August 2003.
  5. The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel - 15 June 2021.

Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation - July 1988 to March 1990.

The first review was carried oiut under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authorityand was appointed to look into allegations that Metropolitan Police officers had been involved in Daniel Morgan's murder. However, the review concluded that there was 'no evidence of involvement by any police officer in the murder' and no evidence to support the claims of the accountant who said he had been aware of a plot to murder. The review also stated that there was 'no evidence to suggest any member of the murder investigation team took deliberate action to prevent the murder being properly detected' and no grounds for disciplinary action against any officer that had been found moonlighting for Southern Investigations other than strict admonishment.

Operation Landmark and Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges - 14 April 1999 to 14 December 1999.

Operation Landmark stated in May 1997 and provided the foundation for Operation Nigeria which was later renamed Operation Two Bridges.

However, the operations were primarily focussed on links between corrupt police officers and Southern Investigations which was later renamed Law & Commercial. However, a three page report was published in February 2000 that detailed fresh developments found in Operation Two Bridges that related to Daniel Morgan's murder, see The 2000 Murder Review.

Operation Landmark was set up to as a lifestyle surveillance on the premises of Southern Investigations at which both the detective sergeant and Daniel Morgan's business partner were running the operation as partners. the findings from Operation Landmark were then used to conduct Operation Nigeria which involved placing an intrusive listening device in the office of Southern Investigations. Operation Nigeria was later renamed Operation Two Bridges, on 14 April 1999.

After the listening device was placed in the office in April 1999 the Metropolitan Police had a newspaper article published in the Daily Telegraph in the hope that it would prompt the two business partners into conversation over the murder

However, whatever information was found, a significant development of the operation was to arrest eleven people for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by planting controlled drugs on a person to help with a divorce case they were working on. One of those people arrested was Daniel Morgan's business partner. Daniel Morgan's business partner and two other people were later convicted for perverting the course of justice and Daniel Morgan's business partner was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.

However, no developments were made in the murder case.

The 2000 Murder Review - 26 June 2000 to 14 November 2000.

The 2000 Murder Review was a periodic cold case review into Daniel Morgan's murder. However, there were some caviats to its selection as it was not at that time standard practice to review unsolved murders. In 1998 the Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Committee issued revised guidelines for the review of cold cases stating that they shoudl be periodically reviewed, however, the guidelines only related undetected murders committed since 1997. However, scope was included for cases that were considered exceptional and it was felt that Daniel Morgan's murder fell into that category and so the review was carried out.

The cold case review was completed in October 2000 and was 86 pages long and contained 83 recommendations as well as identifying 22 considerations, or lines of enquiry, that a future investigation could consider.

The four new pieces of intelligence that were highlighted as having been developed throught Operation Two Bridges were:

  1. That conversations were had about a car that had been used to drive Daniel Morgan's murderer away in after the murder. It was heard that a conversation had been heard at the office of Law & Commercial between Daniel Morgan's business partner and and his brother-in-law about the disposal of the car during which an associate of Daniel Morgan's business partner was connected although it was stated that no one was named dierctly as having been responsible for disposing of the car. It was further heard that the information was loosely corroborated by an identified source who told the police that the associate of Daniel Morgan's business partner had driven Daniel Morgan's murderer away in the car and that the car had then stored in a garage by another named person. However, it was further stated that the person that corroborated the information later retracted his statement that the the person who was said to have stored the car in a garage had steadfastly refused comment on the information, it being said tat he had done so out of fear for his personal safety and that of his family.
  2. That information had been received via Surrey Police from someone claiming to have knowledge of Daniel Morgan’s murder but that it had been deemed to be factually incorrect but that when the Metropolitan Police had asked Surrey Police for further information on that intelligence they got no responce.
  3. That an accountant employed by Law & Commercial, made contact with the police, claiming to have information about Daniel Morgan’s murder, but that he had provided nothing of any value, with it being stated that  it was thought that he had been motivated by self-preservation and had wanted in the light of investigations in corrupt and dishonest dealings undertaken by Law and Commercial and had wanted to prevent his own arrest by giving the appearance of an honest and conscientious individual.
  4. That in November 1999, a police officer attached to Streatham Police Station contacted the murder team regarding an assault between two former employees of Southern Investigations in which one was alleged to have said that he had heard that police were reinvestigating the murder of Daniel Morgan and then told the other not to talk to the police or give them any information.

However, the report concluded by stating that very little came out of the operation other then the fact that Daniel Morgan's business partner and and his brother-in-law had appeared conncerned about any mention of the Daniel Morgan Murder in the Media and that the conversation recorded on 13 August 1999 indicated their worries, including the mention of the associte, who may have been involved in the murder.

The report also stated, 'There are very little new leads to assist a Murder investigation. The new advances in the field of Forensic evidence may assist this investigation. It may now be appropriate for consideration to be given, to appointing a Murder Review Team into the Murder of Daniel Morgan'.

When the 2000 Murder Review was set up three terms of reference were set up:

  1. To assess if all reasonable investigative leads have been exhausted.
  2. To establish if new evidence and/or changes in investigative techniques is available.
  3. To evaluate whether events since the original two investigations had led to potential for key witnesses to change allegiances.

The 2000 Murder Review was was also sstated to focus upon the following:

  1. Forensic opportunities.
  2. Locating relevant exhibits and documentation.
  3. Evidential issues.
  4. Key witness – analysis of evidence and whether they have changed allegiance.
  5. Suspect availability.
  6. Whether recent developments in regard to some of the original suspects offers any pro-active opportunities.

It was stated that the largest part of the 2000 Murder Review was the audit of the police computer database to look at all the police ‘messages’, ‘actions’ and other documents generated by the Morgan One Investigation and in all 1,002 messages, 1,737 actions, and 531 other documents were viewed.

The 2000 Murder Review Report concluded by stating that the key lines of enquiry for a focused reinvestigation could be grouped under four broad headings:

  1. The key suspect, Daniel Morgan's business partner.
  2. Key witnesses.
  3. Forensic opportunities.
  4. Intelligence.

The key suspect, Daniel Morgan's business partner.

The report stated that there was only one key suspect, that being Daniel Morgan's business partner. However, in 2019 Daniel Morgan's business partner and another man were awarded damaged of £414,000 after winning a malicious prosecution case against the Metropolitan Police.

Key witnesses.

The key report identified six key witnesses. They included the two brothers, A and B, the easte agent, a man and Daniel Morgan's business partner's wife. However, it was noted that the detective sergeant who was intially thought to have been a suspect and who was tried was not on the 2000 Murder Review list of key witnesses or details as a person of interest.

The 2000 Murder Review stated that with consideration to the key suspect that a reinvestigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan should be announced publicly, and that covert monitoring of Daniel Morgan's business partner should take place to gain intelligence in connection with the murder, it being stated that the focus of a reinvestigation should be in the securing of sufficient evidence against him in order to re‑institute criminal proceedings against him for murder.

The 2000 Murder Review Report noted that key lines of enquiry in respect of Daniel Morgan's business partner could be grouped under four headings: former police contacts, current co-defendants, family connections, and business. However the report noted that unless new, corroborated evidence came to light it would be a futile exercise to re-interview him.

However, the 2000 Murder Review Report also noted that another police enquiry into private detective agencies had identified and man with a very similar name to Daniel Morgan's business partner who worked for a company called Southern Security Services, and stated that if research showed that they were the same person that analysis of financial records could show suspicious money movements around the time of the murder and a recommendation into the other man was was recommended.

With regards to the potential for key witnesses to change allegiances it was noted that a police officer that had given evidence in the Morgan One Investigation and the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation, at which time he had been in the circle of acquaintances of Daniel Morgan and his business partner, had later given evidence against other police officers in the corruption investigation for which he himself was also convicted and sentenced, with regards to whether he might, having changed his allegienced, have anything additional to add to the murder investigation. It was noted that his statement in the murder investigation had show Daniel Morgan in a bad light and that he might have either wittingly or otherwise been used by Daniel Morgan's business partner to muddy the water.

The review also recommended that another detective who had also been close to the detective sergeant and Daniel Morgan's business partner and who had been engaged in surveillance work for Law & Commercial and who had had close conversations with them about Daniel Morgan’s murder.

Another recommendation was the interview of another detective who was said to have been well known to the man that it was suggested had disposed of the getaway car. It was noted that he had also been used by the police inspector in charge of the case at the time to feed Daniel Morgan's business partner with various pieces of information and he had been the night duty Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer when Daniel Morgan's business partner' was allegedly robbed outside his home of the takings from Belmont Car Auctions in 1986.

The review also recommended interviewing a couple of iother police officers who had not been convicted of any offence, but who had connections to Daniel Morgan's business partner.

Of the co-defendants in the case against Daniel Morgan's business partner for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice it was noted that two of them were professional criminals and unlikely to be phased by police attention unless facing a substantial prison term, but that one of them was not considered a career criminal, and that consideration should be given to identifying steps that could be taken to obtain intelligence and evidence from him relating to the murder.

The review also considered family and business connections of Daniel Morgan's business partner, including his wife and the two borthers involved with the Belmont Car Auctions affair.

With regards to the two brothers, it was noted that that it was clear that they were strongly associated with Daniel Morgan's business partner who had employed them to act as security guards at Belmont Car Auctions on previous occasions and that when questione dduring the murder investigation they had made no comment interviews and that as such, due to their strong association with Daniel Morgan's business partner that they held information regarding the events around the murder of Daniel Morgan. It was further noted that recent intelligence had named one of the brothers as the killer of Daniel Morgan. The report added that it would be worth covertly targetting the brothers with regarsd to their current criminal activities and that of their associates, to obtain levers that could be used to gain evidence against Daniel Morgan's killer or killers.

It was also considered worthwhile re-interviewing the estate agent as it was alleged that she had had close relationships with both Daniel Morgan his business parteer and that whilst she had been willing to co-operate with and assist both previous investigation teams, the overriding factor was that, ‘her loyalty was undoubtedly to Daniel Morgan's business partner and she was guarded when questioned in relation to him', and that as such her allegiances might have changed over the years.

Daniel Morgan's business partner's wife was also identified as a person that might be worth interviewing again due to her close connection with her husband and her two brothers, it being noted that her account of her huabd's calls to her on the night of the murder differed from his, with her saying that he only called her once. The report concluded by stating that Daniel Morgan his business parter's wife 'undoubtedly holds vital information regarding the movements of her husband on the night of 10 March 1987'.

The evidenceof the mer bookkeeper who had worked at Southern Investigations was also considered, it being noted that he had said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had asked him to find someone to kill Daniel Morgan, and that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been ‘infatuated’ with the estate agent. however, it was noted that he was man of dubious character, with varying motives for assisting the enquiry teams and that he himself at the time he had given evidence had recently received a suspended sentence for a previous serious fraud offence and that much of his evidence remained uncorroborated.

Forensic opportunities

It was noted that significant problems were identified in relation to exhibits seized during the Morgan One Investigation, in particualr that the Morgan One Investigation Exhibit Books could not be located and that of the exhibits that were retrieved during the 2000 Murder Review, they were by no means complete and that the vast majority of exhibits had been restored to their owners. Further, that of the exhibits that had not bene returned to their owners, a number of them were found to have been in open or unsealed bags or containers, including Daniel Morgan's shoes and jacket.

It was also noted that whilst Daniel Morgan's car and other items had been sent to the Prisoners Property Store, that only the twelve items that had been in it remained.

It was also noted that a further 61 items that were not listed as having been rteturned to their owner could not be found. Items found to be missing included:

  • Interview transcripts and tapes arising from the brother's and Daniel Morgan's business partner's post-arrest interviews.
  • Daniel Morgan’s job book from DJM Investigations (the private investigation company that Daniel Morgan had run before becoming a partner at Southern Investigations).
  • Southern Investigations’ diaries belonging to Daniel Morgan and his business partner.
  • Computer printouts of the car phone bills of Daniel Morgan and his business partner.

It was noted that many items were found to be missing during the 2000 Murder Review, it being noted that of the 349 exhibits produced by the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation that only 129 were retrieved by the 2000 Murder Review and that in particular that the boxes for exhibits 32 to 150 were not located by the 2000 Murder Review.

It was noted that an important dicument produced by the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation was a report on the forensic aspects of the Morgan One Investigationn which stated, 'forensically the case was not handled at all professionally and there was obvious neglect probably through either ignorance or incompetence and fragmented involvement. There was an obvious lack of direction, co-ordination, management and supervision. The initial effort must be described as pathetic'.

The 2000 Murder Review Report stated that a case conference was held with the forensic scientist from the Morgan One Investigation and with a member of the Serious Crimes Section and that six items recovered by the 2000 Murder Review team were then submitted for forensic examination, they being:

  • The bank notes found on Daniel Morgan’s body at the scene of his murder.
  • Daniel Morgan’s shoes, trousers and shirt.
  • The axe used to murder Daniel Morgan.
  • Tapings from the axe.

However, it was noted that a good number of other items seized during the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation, some of which were contaminated by blood, were not ed for forensic examination by the 2000 Murder Review team, nor were they referred to in the 2000 Murder Review Report. It was further noted that the forensic testing was not completed until 2001, after the completion of the 2000 Murder Review Report.

Intelligence

Intelligence included information from the Morgan One and Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority investigations, and additional intelligence gained as a result of Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges.

It was determined that with regards to telephone intelligence, that telephone company records were only retained for seven years and that whilst telephone records had been examined by the Morgan One and Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority investigations, that research undertaken by the 2000 Murder Review that indicated that there may have been a possibility of gaining additional intelligence could not be followed through. The 2000 Murder Review Report stated, 'there is no potential for telephone analysis in this case and the lack of complete records may cause evidential problems during a prosecution'.

When the intelligence derived from the covert listening material by the Complaints Investigation Bureau 3 who had overseen Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges was considered it was concluded that 'no useful evidence has been obtained concerning the murder of Daniel Morgan from that product'. However, it was noted that the material, which comprised 26 tape transcripts, covered the period from April 1999 to August 1999, which twice contained direct reference to the murder of Daniel Morgan, the first being a denial by Daniel Morgan's business partner that he was involved in the murder and the second being comments from who was thought to have been one of the brothers saying, 'we got rid of the car. I mean they... to that car, that car’s not there anymore anyway there’s no, it’s all hearsay...’, which it was stated could be construed as an admission to a part in the murder, or related to an unrelated issue.

The 2000 Murder Review Report concluded with a number of recommendations, stating the following:

  1. It is the assessment that new investigative leads are now available which were not considered or available to the original enquiry.
  2. New evidence is available. Forensic treatments to key exhibits are now available.
  3. Events since the original investigations mean circumstances exist for key witnesses to change allegiance.

The 2000 Murder Review Report also stateed that there were forensic opportunities, that relevant exhibits and documentation had been located, that there were investigative opportunities andre are intelligence opportunities.

The 2000 Murder Review Report also made a total of 83 recommendations, the majority of which were recommended lines of enquiry for a future reinvestigation as well as 22 considerations regarding matters where ‘further work should be considered by a reinvestigation team'.

following the release of the report, the Metropolitan Police decided, as recommended by the Report, to institute a fresh, dedicated reinvestigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan.

Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation 14 November 2000 to 8 August 2003.

Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation constututed two operations acting as one, Abelard One being both covert surveillance and overt investigation and Morgan Two being the overt investigation which were operated jointly and ultimately concurrently, forming a single investigation.

Key events in the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation included:

  • 14 November 2000 Decision made that a re-investigation of Daniel Morgan’s murder was to be conducted.
  • 4 January 2001 Decision that the reinvestigation would comprise a covert side conducted by the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau and an overt side conducted by the Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group.
  • 2 April 2001 The investigation’s Terms of Reference established.
  • April 2001 Lifestyle surveillance of one of the brothers commenced.
  • June 2001 Lifestyle surveillance of Person P9 commenced.
  • August 2001 Lifestyle surveillance of former detective sergeant commenced.
  • October 2001 Lifestyle surveillance of the man thought to be involved in disposing of the car commenced.
  • 26 June 2002 A detective appeared on Crimewatch broadcast.
  • June-July 2002 A detective was placed under surveillance by News of the World journalists.
  • 3 October 2002 Person P9 was arrested.
  • 7 October 2002 The person thought to have disposed of the car was arrested.
  • 10 October 2002 Person P9 was interviewed.
  • 19 October 2002 First brother was arrested.
  • 24 October 2002 Second brother was arrested.
  • 16 December 2002 Daniel Morgan's business partner and another detective were arrested.
  • 17 December 2002 Searches of former former detective sergeant’s premises were carried out.
  • 16-20 December 2002 Third phase of covert surveillance.
  • 17 January 2003 The former detective sergeant was arrested.
  • 7 March 2003 The Senior Investigating Officer submitted his advice file to the Crown Prosecution Service.
  • 8 August 2003 Decision not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.

It was noted that it was originally considered that another police force should carry out the investigation but argued that it was the case then all the progress made by Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges would have been sacrificed and it was eventually decided that the Metropolitan Police would undertake the reinvestigation.

It was further decided at the reinvestigation would comprise a covert side conducted by the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau which was responsible for, among other things, investigating police corruption, and was succeeded by the Directorate of Professional Standards and that it would seek information to be acted on by the overt investigation which would be conducted by the Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group.

From its establishment in April 2001, the covert side of the investigation, Abelard One, involved both covert surveillance and overt investigation.

The structure of the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation was divided into two parts, the first being a covert operation to assess the following:

  • Current lifestyle of subject(s).
  • Gather up to date intelligence.
  • Identify technical opportunities.
  • Identify potential triggers to be utilised and how to implement them.

The second phase consisted of an overt re-investigation headed by a nominal Senior Investigating Officer from the Serious Crime Group in order to disguise Directorate of Professional Standards involvment, which included:

  • A public announcement of the new enquiry involving the Directorate of Public Affairs and the family.
  • Maximum use of 'actions' to produce 'triggers' and or intelligence opportunities.
  • Use of intelligence to develop investigative leads.

It was also noted that the reinvestigation would use the report of the Murder Review Group as the template for the enquiry with any significant departure from this ToR will be sanctioned by a management board.

A significant element of the focus behind the reinvestigation into Daniel Morgan's murder was a statement made on 22 January 1999 by a person known as F11. In his statement he had alledged that Daniel Morgan's business partner had commissioned the murder, that one of the brothers had committed it by striking Daniel Morgan in the head with an axe and that the other known suspect had driven the car away whilst person P9 had stored the car in a garage prior to the car being destroyed. The information was also corroborated by another witness that had claimed that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been involved in arranging the murder of Daniel Morgan.

As such, as per the recomendation of the 2000 Murder Review Report, person F11 was re-interviewed. At the time he was in prison for having solicited the murder of the man that was said to have driven the car and killer away from the Golden Lion public pouse after the murder of Daniel Morgan. However, when the police met him on 20 September 2001 he said that he wanted his statement retracted legally, stating that he had made it under duress and that he feared the alleged getaway driver and would become a target by him if he gave evidence against him.

A risk assessment was then carried out on him, it being noted that his statement and intelligence formed the fundamental basis for Operation Abelard. It was noted that his claim that his statement had been made under duress was disputed by the original debriefing officer and that he had not claimed that the evidence he had given was wrong or inaccurate. When he was again seen in prison on 1 June 2002, it was recorded that he was unwilling to assist due to safety of self and family.

The man was again seen on 25 June 2002, who had by then been released from prison, at a covert location, it being stated that the police had requested the meeting in order to explore a number of issues and conduct a risk assessment in light of the fact that a Crimewatch appeal would be broadcast on Wednesday 26 June 2002.

however, from the meeting it was determined that whilst he was still determiend that he would not get involved, he confirmed that the content of his statement was correct and he added that the brother involved was a dangerous individual and was responsible for the murder. However, he added that no form of incentive would cause him to attend court and give evidence against the suspects, and added that he would would attend court and allege that he was forced to sign the statement, claiming that whilst being de-briefed by a detective that he had tape recorded a conversation with one of the officers alluding to that.

However, it was noted that despite making clear his position in June 2002, person F11 did have further contact with the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation team and on 23 July 2002, he  telephoned a detective and said that person P9 had mentioned that on the night of Daniel Morgan’s murder he was supposed to be having a meal with the getaway driver at a public house but said that when the getaway driver turned up he didn't want to eat anything and looked pale and just wanted to leave the area.

Further, later on 3 October 2002 he told the police that he had had a conversation with person P9 who told him that the car used in the murder had been a green VW Golf. Later still, on 4 October 2002 he told the police that person P9 had told him that many people would support him if he made a statement as the getaway driver was not well liked. He also said that the getaway driver and the brother had each been paid £3,000 by Daniel Morgan's business partner to murder Daniel Morgan.

It was noted that the bookkeeper that had given evidence in 1987 to the effect that Daniel Morgan's business partner had asked him to arrange for Daniel Morgan to be murdered and then later told him that would get police officers from Catford Police Station to arrange or carry out the murder for £1,000, later in April 1988 additionally said that he approached an unnamed man regarding the murder proposition put to him by Daniel Morgan's business partner and that that man recruited another called 'John'. He said then that a meeting was arranged for April, 1986 in a public house between he, the two men and Daniel Morgan's business partner to arrange the murder. He said that it was the intention that Daniel Morgan's business partner would have to supply £3,000 in advance but it was the intention of the men that Daniel Morgan's business partner would be 'ripped off' and that all three of them would receive £1,000 each. However, he said that in any event Daniel Morgan's business partner didn't attend.

However, it was noted that his statements could not be corroborated.

It was further noted in the 2000 Murder Review Report in September 1987 that the bookkeeper must have appreciated that if he gave useful information to the investigation team that he might be offered a 'text' at his forthcoming trial, a text being information provided by police to a judge stating that a defendant had assisted them in a police investigation. It was noted that that was done and that he had recieved a reduced sentence.

When he was interviewed on 28 June 2002 he said that he stood by what he had said earlier and that he was still willing to go to court and give evidence.

On 17 February 2003 he was asked to identify the two people that he was planning to go with to meet up with Daniel Morgan's business partner at the public house, but he didn't disclose their identities.

As a result, the report stated that he didn't come across as a particularly credible witness and that he appeared to be guarded with his answers to their questions, being both vague and evasive.

When he was asked again to reveal the identity of the two men on 7 May 2003, he said that although he knew their identities, he would not name them and that he would not make a statement about the issue.

THe Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation noted that the 2000 Murder Review Report had identified the need to investigate further the two brothers, P9, the builder, and the detective sergeant and on 4 April 2001 it was decided to undertake a covert proactive operation to identify lifestyles, associates and current criminal activity of them.It was noted that the 2000 Murder Review Report had identified Daniel Morgan's business partner as the 'key suspect'. and recommended he should be placed under covert monitoring, however, it was noted that as he was in prison for perverting the course of justice in December 1999 surveillance could not be undertaken.

The asssit with that assessments were made of telephone bills, financial enquiries were made, checks were carried out on the Police National Computer and Aerial photographs were also taken of the home addresses.

Lifestyle surveillance was also carried out, recording of the movements, contacts and activities, and where required, further and often more intrusive covert surveillance.

It was noted in an October 2001 report that the Detective Sergeant considered himself to be one of the investigations teams most wanted subjects and to be under constant monitoring and that he had knowledge of anti-surveillance techniques and that it was known that he had utilised that knowledge whilst under surveillance.

It was noted that surveillance equipment was installed in most of the suspects home, but that because of the Detective Sergeants awareness of surveillance techniques and his suspicion that such techniques might be used against him, nothing was put in his home.

It was noted that durign the long period of lifestyle surveillance, that 'triggers' were set up that might prompt the key targets to discuss matters or make defensive moves.

At a meeting on 5 June 2001 to discuss triggers, it was proposed to announcement on the BBC’s Crimewatch programme a £50,000 reward for information about the murder and that if that proved to be unsuccessful, a further trigger in the form of reporting a breakthrough regarding fingerprint evidence. It was further noted that, in the light of the allegations of corruption and wrongdoing that had dogged the case, that the offering of the £50,000 reward would demonstrate their commitment to solving the crime, However, the application for a £50,000 reward was rejected by the police Commander and instead £10,000, stating, 'whilst I am naturally anxious to assist this enquiry, the absence of any more compelling reason other than 'staleness' of the offence and family dissatisfaction with the investigation does not merit a sum exceeding £10,000 in this case'.

However, it was noted that in the light of the suggestion of corruption, that the issue could be further discussed, and at a meeting on 23 April 2002, the police commander authorised a reward of £25,000 and following further representations, it was increased to £50,000.

It was then agreed that the main trigger event would be the BBC Crimewatch programme scheduled to be broadcast on Wednesday 26 June 2002.

A meeting was then held, following the formation of the Gold Group, to discuss the importance of providing a sufficient trigger or triggers during the programme to generate discussion among the suspects as well as gaining information from the general public. It was further noted that it was agreed that the triggers devised should comply with legal and ethical requirements of the BBC and the Metropolitan Police and should not mislead Crimewatch or its viewers.

It was then agreed to announce the reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those concerned in the murder of Daniel Morgan and to then follow that on with the introduction of a 'mythical' informant whose introduction, it was hoped, would provoke a reaction from one or more of the suspects.

The reported noted tha the legal implications of such a ruse were considered, including the argument that that conduct was an abuse of process, in that the introduction of a mythical informant would involve a manipulation or misuse of the court process so as to deprive a defendant of a protection provided by law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality. It was also agreed that the Crimewatch programme should be informed of the ruse.

On 17 May 2022, the Gold Group approved the proposal 'for a telephone call to be made into Crimewatch, purporting to represent a witness or an informant wishing to pass on new information concerning the murde'. The information to be used was to be information that had alredy been recieved in 1999, that being the information regarding a vehicle used during the murder, and it was agreed that the head of the investigation would as a result overtly lead the re-investigation and appear on the Crimewatch programme. It was also noted that the Crimewatch appeal would be preceded by ‘a release in the local press announcing a re-investigation of the murder and publicising a Crimewatch programme'.

As such, it was stated tht it was hoped that the appeal, would generate activity and discussion involving the suspected individuals.

It was also noted that it was agreed that the controversial background to the case, the allegations of corruption, could be acknowledged during the programme.

On 29 May 2002 at a meeting of the Gold Group, the following decisions were made:

  1. The trigger strategies were agreed subject to written approval by the Crown Prosecution Service.
  2. The Crimewatch script was agreed the script shown to the Crown Prosecution Service.
  3. Newspaper articles would publicise the forthcoming Crimewatch appeal and the existence of the £50,000 reward.
  4. The Gold Group asked for necessary risk assessments. These were subsequently completed

The proposed trigger strategies were then details:

  • The programme would include a reconstruction and a personal appeal from the family of Daniel Morgan.
  • Publicity about the forthcoming Crimewatch programme would be provided beforehand in the media to ensure the suspects had knowledge of the programme and possibly be the cause of conversation.
  • During the BBC follow-up programme, which always occurred later in the evening after the initial Crimewatch appeal, there should be an announcement by the head of the investigation, that ‘some calls have been received and that they have received some information that he is particularly interested in concerning a possible get-away vehicle’.

The report later stated, 'With surveillance of the key suspects in place, the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation and the supporting Gold Group developed a wholly appropriate series of ‘triggers’, or ‘prompts’, including the announcement of a £50,000 reward, a high‑profile televised appeal for information preceded by newspaper articles advertising the television appeal, and statements indicating that intelligence was coming in suggesting that the police were making evidential progress. It was hoped that these might prompt the suspects to reveal any information they may have had in relation to the murder of Daniel Morgan, or that witnesses might come forward'.

THe report also noted, 'The Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation and the supporting Gold Group also took every care to ensure that the prosecution authorities accepted the surveillance/trigger strategy which had been devised to generate new evidence which might enable a prosecution or prosecutions to be brought, so that evidence would not be compromised and would be admissible at any resulting criminal trial. This matter was handled well. Members of Danie'.

Then, on 25 June 2002, articles appeared in the Evening Standard and South London Press newspapers, publicising the reinvestigation, the availability of the £50,000 reward and the fact that the case would be featured the next day on Crimewatch.

The Crimewatch programme was broadcast as scheduled on 26 June 2002 at 9.00 pm and the Crimewatch update programme was broadcast at 10.35 pm the same evening.

The programme comprised a filmed reconstruction of events at the Golden Lion public house on the evening of 10 March 1987. During depictions of Daniel Morgan having a drink with his business partner and the discovery of his body in the car park behind the Golden Lion public house, there was a filmed voice-over appeal from his mother, for members of the public to come forward with information. Before and after the filmed reconstruction the Crimewatch co-presenter set the scene regarding the investigation of Daniel Morgan’s murder, and, in conversation with the head of the investigation, the existence of the £50,000 reward was stressed. It was stated that police needed to learn more about a getaway car, which was shown leaving the car park in the film reconstruction.

Then, during the Crimewatch update programme, the other Crimewatch co‑presenter, stated:

‘We’re getting some very good information […] a number of people […] who have very good leads [...] We’ll be following those up straight away'.

Following that, the head of the investigation said that he was pleased with the responses which had been received. He said that some callers had mentioned the ‘same person’, and that ‘the good thing is some people have given contact numbers for us to get back to them, so there is the possibility of some witnesses there’. THe hea d of the invetigation was then asked about some information which had been received about a car, to which he responded that there was a ‘particularly good piece of information about the car that was possibly involved in this and what’s happened to it and it’s put a big smile on my face’.

It was noted that in addition that responses were received from a number of viewers who contacted the BBC claiming to have new information relating to Daniel Morgan’s murder. They were then investigated. However, some information received as a result of the Crimewatch programme was found to lack substance, for example, information received from a caller with psychic insights, and nothing of benefit to the investigation was identified as a consequence of the calls.

One of the callers had mentioned a man that Daniel Morganhad worked with, and who llater went to Malta  with who said that whilst having tea with the man and his father and Daniel Morgan, that the man had said to his father, 'it is all arranged, it is going to happen in a couple of weeks', and that it was apparent that Daniel Morgan didn't know what he was talking about. He said that a couple of weks later that Daniel Morgan was murdered. The man said that he later challenged the man's father over the incident and said that the man's father told him that he had already challenged his son over it and said that he told him that he had had nothing to do with his murder. THe caller said that he lived in fear of the man's father, noting that he was a very violent person. However, the police said that nothing emerged from the enquiries.

Three calls mentioned Daniel Morgan's business partner.

One of them said that someone close to Daniel Morgan's business partner's family had told them that he was the murderer. When the police questioned the caller, he said that he used to work with an individual who was close to him and that the individual had told him that he thought that Daniel Morgan's business partner was the murderer. He said that he later asked Daniel Morgan's business partner if he was the murderer, and said that he laughed and replied, 'thank goodness for dustbin bags'. He said that two other people heard the exchange, but only one was traced adn he had no recollection of the conversation.

Another caller said that one of the policemen that had been convicted with Daniel Morgan's business partner for perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to plant Class A drugs had admitted being responsible to him, although it wasn't clear what that meant. however, when they spoke to the policeman in prison he denied having ever spoke to or met Daniel Morgan's business partner, even though he had been Daniel Morgan's business partner's co-defendant when he was prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

THe report noted that the public response to the Crimewatch appeal was modest. although it was noted that it had been 15 years since the murder.

A detctive that had been one of the first officers to arrive at the scene of Daniel Morgan’s murder called to say that the investigation had been cocked up by the initial head of investigation and asked to speak to the current investigation.

When he did, he said that he had seen Daniel Morgan's body lying on the floor and that a cursory glance showed the motive wasn’t robbery as he had had a big wad of money in his pockets. However, it was noted that the money was hidden in his pocket and could not have been seen with a cursory glance and further that it had only been found after an extensive examination of his body.

He said that when he had turned up that he had called for a superintendent, but that when he had arrived he had been pissed and that he then ordered a bottle of Scotch from the bar. He said that he had had words with him about it and had been told to 'piss off the enquiry'. However, the report stated that the matter had been looked into and that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

He also claimed that the axe was never dusted for fingerprints, however, it was found that the Morgan One Investigation did examined the axe for fingerprints.

He also asked whether Daniel Morgan had been wearing a watch, stating that h was sure that he was. However, it was noted that his evidence on the watch had changed over time.

It was shown that he had made four previous statements previously, 27 May 1987, 22 June 1988, 4 October 1988 and 19 April 1989 and that in the first three statements he had made no mention of a watch on Daniel Morgan’s body and in the 19 April 1989 statement he had said that he was unable to say. However, in a fifth statement made on 6 August 2002 to the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation he said that he had seen a bracelet watchstrap on Daniel Morgan’s left hand.

He also said that the detective sergeant and two other officers that were arrestedat the time were not involved. He also said that he still telehoned the detective sergeant occasionally for a chat. however, irt was said that the fact that he still called the detective sergeant for a chat called into question the integrity of his statement.

The detective had also said that another detective had brought home a man that Daniel Morgan had worked with, and who he had gone to Malta with, and that whilst talking near the man's car that he had opened the boot and that he saw three axes inside. including an axe that was identical to the axe used in Daniel Morgan’s murder with identical sticky plaster around the handle. He noted that he had informed the Morgan One Investigation of the matter, although it was said tha t it had been some nine or ten months after the alleged incident. However, the man denied that he had ever had any axes in his car, and when the detectives son, who had been there, was asked about the matter he said that he never saw any axes in the boot of the mans car.

It was further noted that none of the information that the detective had provided had resulted in any ew lines of enquiry.

Regarding the effect of the triggers in the Crimewatch programme on the five individuals under surveillance it was found from the surveillance tapes and the transcripts that they were clearly interested in the BBC Crimewatch appeal. However, they talked in only general terms about the programme and the murder and no person admitted carrying out the murder or gave any specific details relating to the murder.

However, it was noted that after the in the press that the programme appeal was to be made, but before it was broadcast, that one of the brothers had said in his kitchen to his wife:

'‘“I know I wouldn’t get life or twenty years d’ya know what I’m saying?' Unreadable. 'About one and a half d’ya know what I mean?' Unreadable. 'I’ve lost a lot of money ain’t I?' Unreadable. 'D’ya know what I mean?' Unreadable. 'You know I’m not a fucking muppet don’t ya'.

It was also found that in the audio probe in one of the detectives cars on 25 June 2002, that the detective being monitored had said to an unknown male:

'They have to fucking stand in the dock and fucking point the finger ain’t they. Pause. They can’t do us by just a little bit of verbal, they’ve got to go in sit in that dock [...] they are hoping someone’s going to come out of the woodwork and be willing to sit, be willing to sit in the dock and point the finger because (inaudible) that’s how they’re bloody going to get their money, you know what I mean, they don’t give you the money on a 'Oh yeah well it’s him see you later, can I have me fucking money', they’re gonna have to (inaudible) they’re gonna have to fucking relocate them somewhere ain’t they, ‘cos they’ll only put (inaudible) they put the other one away and there’s one out ain’t there, you know what I mean'.

THe police described the conversation as significant. They interpreted his reference to ‘the possibility of a witness coming forward’ as relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan, and they believed it demonstrated that he was ‘clearly acknowledging his involvement in the subject matter’. The phrase, ‘they put the other one away’, was construed by the police as a reference to Daniel Morgan's business partner, who at the time was serving his sentence for perverting the course of justice, and the reference to, ‘there’s one out ain’t there’, as a reference to one of the brothers. However, while the conversation was regarded as suspicious, it didn't provide any investigative opportunities.

It was further noted that on the immediatly following the Crimewatch broadcast, 26 June 2002, at 9.37pm, the detective left his home in his car. However, the monitoring officer had had their recording facility switched at the time to save battery life. However, the officer made a note of the conveersation. He said that he detective made a telephone call to unidentified person in which he said, 'Fifty grand', 'one was a copper who now works there', 'they are going to need proper evidence'. Another officer said that he heard the detective say, 'Fifty grand', 'one of the coppers is a partner', and 'they’re going to need proper evidence'. however, it was noted that there were no contemporaneous notes of the recording.

It was noted that there was no recording of any relevant comment by any of the suspects on Thursday, 27 June 2002, the day after the Crimewatch broadcast, however, one of the brothers had the following exchange with a woman on 28 June 2002:

Brother: 'I wouldn’t do anything ... about the motor ... he ain’t gonna talk about the motor .... Working together ... the cunt ... I done damage to it ... I done about £500 worth of damage to it ... may well have had the hump about how much ... I don’t know I really don’t know ... before ....he would’ve told ya ... that’s why he fucking .... d’ya know what I’m saying ... I don’t know .... I don’t know why .... I ain’t got a clue ... hoping that he would’ve got off ... but what it is ... you see ... me ...don’t ya ... all the fucking ... but he’s left in peace all the time ... you know what I’m saying ... the detective... the detectivemakes me wanna fucking do in ....'.

Woman: 'Calm .... darlin'.

Brother: 'Look baby ... he’s paid to ditch the other fucking motor ... I would’ve done ... out ... at least fucking put someone in to do a proper ... I don’t know ... maybe someone dropped ... into a pond or sold the motor I don’t know ... fucking ...'.

Woman: '“..... just don’t say nothing now'.

Brother: 'Say ... he paid me I don’t know ... I hope not ... fucking garage ... fucking ... know what I mean.... ..knock on the door ... you know what I’m saying ... I told ’em that anyway ... these people ... knock on the door ... fuck all ... last week ... fucking playing at ... know what I mean ... What do you think I’m going to do, go down ... all down…'.

Woman: 'Distant and unreadable fading in and out. “He… surely ... what did he'.

Brother: 'The robbery see ... got about 30 for my .... I was the ... and I never got fucking paid ... I know I’m right that’s what I’m saying….'.

Woman: 'Don’t you dare….'.

Brother: 'No I know what I’m saying but I don’t know what it was for, I know what I’m saying…. Conversation continues but quietens and is largely inaudible and appears distant'.

However, it was said that it was not known what robbery they were referring to, noting that it could not be assumed that it related to either the Belmont Car Auctions robbery.

It was further accepted that the brother had an interest in the murder as he had been arrested for it in 1987, and that even if entirely innocent, it would be natural that he would discuss the new investigation, although at the same time it was felt that his conversation went beyond that interest, and suggested that he had knowledge that indicated involvement.

It was further noted that the brother later had a 20-minute conference telephone call with Daniel Morgan's business partner on 29 June, but only the brother's side was recorded and the audio was of poor quality.

On 1 July 2002, a trigger call was made by a woman to the builder saying that she knew who had been involved in the murder and that she was going to inform the police of that in order to claim the reward money uless he paid her £50,000, but the builder told her that he didn't care. The woman gave him two days to contact her with his decision and gave him a telephone number to call, in the hope that that would lead the builder to contact identified associates and enable the investigation to monitor the conversations covertly. However, although enquiries into the telephone number were supplied, no further information of use to the investigation was found.

In a call to his solicitor, he was heard to say:

'he can’t do anything about it.... Why not?.... You can’t do nothing (inaudible).... I’ve got the same powers as police officers got they make their notes straight away (inaudible)sign it.... you sign it.... Time and date it (inaudible). Finally I’ve spoken to him.... he said calm down I said I can’t fucking calm down.... I’ve fucking got people trying (inaudible).... You can’t do anything about it he said (inaudible).... Say nothing.... (inaudible).... You know what I mean (inaudible) I give them the fifty grand or they’re fucking going to tell a pack of lies.... (inaudible).... they could get arrested (inaudible).... Before you’ve had a fucking chance to prove your innocence do you know what I mean.... They phone me up 15 years ago I said to make (inaudible....)'.

He then said:

'Fucking North London.... fucking South London.... know what I mean. He better not do it in Norbury, Carshalton or Wallington, South Mitcham or anything like that.... ’cos I’m fucking.... I’m red hot.... My face is like a burnt [sic] bit of toast, do you know what I mean'.

He then said that he had got a tape recorder and attempted to telephone the woman who had called him, but there was no response.

It was noted that no other evidence was gathered from the covert surveillance as a result of the offer of a reward, or as a result of the Crimewatch programme.

It was noted that person F11 had alleged in January 1999 that, prior to the getaway car used in Daniel Morgan’s murder being destroyed, that person P9 had stored the car in a garage, and so on 4 July 2002, two police officers visited person P9 and left him a message to contact the incident room, it being explained that a there was a reinvestigation into Daniel Morgan's murder underway, with the intention of stimulating conversation with his household.

He was later heard having the following conversation with an unknown person.

'…………other people have already got nicked……….
(U/I) [Unintelligible]...........five grand (U/I)....... five grand.
………….they nicked him.......... (U/I).
.........that’s the fella that’s done this.......... (U/I).
The old bill know who it is........fifteen years ago....... (U/I) I used to hang around with this fella.........
You had a garage, you had a car...... (U/I).
……….and I know and I know they steamed round..... (U/I)'.

It was noted that following the BBC Crimewatch programe on 26 June 2002, that the News of the World started to carry out seurveillance on the detective that had appeared on the porgrame and headed up the appeal.

It was later claimed that the detective sergeant that had later replaced Daniel Morgan and was then working with Law & Commercial was working with a News of the World journalist to discedit the detective.

On 4 July 2002, payroll officer at Surrey Police received a suspicious phone call, purporting to be from the Inland Revenue and relating to the tax affairs of the detective that had appeared on the Crimewatch programme. However, the called was found to be bogus and the call made from an unobtainable number.

On 10 July 2002 the detective noticed a discreetly parked vehicle, which had a clear view of his home which was later determined to be a vehicle leased to News International, the owners of News of the World. The vehicle, plus another one were there again the following day, and it was concluded that the detective that had appeared on the Crimewatch programme was himself under surveillance. when the detective left his home, the vehicles followed him. The police then undertook counter surveillance.

It was noted that one of the vehicles had a broken tail light and on 12 July 2002, the vehicle was stopped by by traffic police and the occupants were found to be News of the World photojournalists. The detective's wife also reported that someone was taking photos of their house from a van. His wife had been a co-presenter on the Crimewatch programme. when the photographers were later questioned, they said that they believed that they were following a legitimate story, that being that the detective was having an affiar with the co-presenter on the Crimewatch programme, who was in fact his wife. It was noted that the fact that they were married should have been relatively easy to check, since the co-presenter was a public figure.

On 8 August 2002, the detective found that his credit card statements, which were in an locked external mailbox, had been opened, crudely resealed and put back in the letterbox.

It was later determined that a journalist with the News of the World, was at the time in contact with the detective sergeant that had replaced Daniel Morgan, and phone records showed multiple telephone calls between whilst the surveillance of the detecive was going on. At the same time Daniel Morgan's business partner was in prison and the detective sergeant was noted to have visited him. It was further noted that for a considerable period since the murder of Daniel Morgan, Southern Investigations (and later Law & Commercial), had derived a substantial proportion of its income from providing information to, among others, the News of the World.

It was further noted that Daniel Morgan's business partner and the News of the World reporter had had a longstanding relationship that nvolved the passing of sensitive and confidential information to the media for financial gain.

The police report later noted that the surveillance, and other unlawful activity had caused the detectives family considerable distress and it was later stated that it was beleived that it had had the effectof making the detective obsessed with solving the murder of Daniel Morgan and bringing down the detective sergeant that had replaced Daniel Morgan.

It was noted that three were further attempts made to discredit the detective that had paeerared on Crimewatch in 2006 and 2007.

The matter was later brought up in several other inquiries in 2003, 2012 and 2020, including the Leveson Inquiry.

An investigation into the surviellance was carried out in 2011 and advice was sought on whether there were grounds to prosecute anyone for the surveillance, but no action was taken as it was not thought that it could be concluded that the intent had been to disrupt the investigation and that the fact that the co-presenter of Crimewatch might have been having an affair with the detecive carrying out the Daniel Morgan investigation, who was a public figure and was in fact married to the detective would be attractive to the News of the World in its own right.

The investigation found that:

  1. The detective sergeant that replaced Daniel Morgan had regular contact with the Newsof the World reporter over the relvent periods.
  2. Daniel Morgan's business partner had made a number of large payments to the reporter over the years.
  3. Within a few days of the broadcast of Crimewatch, an effort was made to discover the detective’s home address. The technique used was that known as ‘blagging’ and involved a man purporting to be from the Inland Revenue ringing the Surrey Police asking for his details. 
  4. THe detectives details were found in a reporter's notebook who had been employed by the News of the World on a freelance basis, and who engaged in both phone-hacking and ‘blagging’ on the newspaper’s behalf and who had provable links to the reporter used by Daniel Morgan's business partner, who had tasked him on many occasions.
  5. A few days after the attempt was made to obtain the detective’s home address, the suspicious blue van was seen near his home whih was found to be leased to News International Limited.
  6. Two days later that the blue van and a white Vauxhall Astra were seen outside his home which were manned by News of the World staff.
  7. That the individuals had told police that they had been tasked by the News of the World to obtain photos of a police officer and the Crimewatch presenter. They had been told that they were having an affair.
  8. That the News of the World that had worked with Daniel Morgan's business partner over the years was the journalist 'investigating' the affair.
  9. The Advice from the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that, although there was no direct evidence, a jury would be entitled to infer that the tip-off about the ‘affair’ was likely to have come from Southern Investigations, on the grounds that Southern Investigations were a firm of private investigators, and as such were likely to seek out or otherwise become aware of gossip and rumour, that they had links with the News of the World, that the timing could not possibly be a coincidence and that the tip-off must have come from a source which the News of the World journalists trusted to the extent that they would not question it, given that a very brief investigation would have revealed that this was not a story at all.

As such, it was claimed that it was reasonable to infer that if the tip-off was from Southern Investigations, the target would have been the detective that appeared on the Crime Watch programme and that the motive of Daniel Morgan's business partner and the detective sergeant would have been to attempt to disrupt the police investigation, but added that it did not think that it could be inferred that htat had been the motive of the actual reporters involved.

However, it was noted that there was no direct evidence that the surviellance had been instigated by Daniel Morgan's business partner or the detective sergeant.

The 2002 initiative also involved investigation into a number of other people, but all without any major developments. the other people included police detectives, friends of the main suspects and other associates.

Between 30 September and 16 Novermber 2002, there was a second period of covert surveillance under the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation. The investigation made a large number of visits to persons close to the key suspects with a view to prompting conversations by and between the key suspects and resulted in four arrests. They were:

  1. Person P9, 3 October 2002.
  2. The builder, 7 October 2002.
  3. The older brother, 19 October 2002.
  4. The younger brother, 24 October 2002.

The surveilence had included the detective that had been used to 'befriend' Daniel Morgan's business partner and report back

It was noted that the detective was likely to have been sympathetic to Daniel Morgan's business partner's case, that he had been the night duty Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer when Daniel Morgan's business partner had allegedly been robbed near his home of the monies from Belmont Car Auctions, that he was apparently was well known to person P9 and that information had been recieved from person F11 on 25 June 2002 suggesting that he had been involved in the murder and had telephoned Daniel Morgan on 10 March 1987 in order to arrange his meeting at the Golden Lion public house.

However, the investigation of the detective found that he led an extremely routine lifestyle.

When person P9 was arrested it was stated that it was hoped that it would stimulate conversations between the other suspects. His premises were searched and when he was qquestionedover having looked after the getaway vehicle he said that he had looked after several vehicles for the builder. It was noted that whilst being interviewed that he had a toilet break during which he told a detective that he had met the builder at a restaurant on the night of the murder and that he had told him that he had seen Daniel Morgan's body whilst the axe was in his head and had told him that his body had been 'gurgling'. He also said that the vehicle used on the night was a pale green Volkswagen Polo. However, he said that he would not say that on tape and the detective simply made a note of it. Hewas then released on bail.

Covert surveillence found that when he got home, he said to his wife, 'I told them everything', to which she replied, 'I bloody hope so'.

On 4 October 2002, it was decided to release information about the colour and make of the alleged getaway vehicle, the pale green Volkswagen Polo, to the press, which it was considered would act as a useful trigger. It was noted that the age of the person that had provided the infrmation was also given, that being 49, it being noted that person P9 was 49.

It was noted that the news prompted several significatnt calls between the suspects and associates.

One conversation took place in the builders car as he took two childhood friends out to dinner. It went:

Person D29: Anyway we ain’t got to know about that.
Builder: No.
Person D29: All we know is (Person D28 and Person D29 in unison) that you was round our house one night, many nights (inaudible). But that particular night, why I remember it, was because you came round in the day after and said I’m glad I was over here last night. Why? Cos last night my, a friend of a friend got killed, and I remember him telling me.
Person D28: But you ain’t got to say 'I’m glad I was round here' cos why would he say that.
Person D29: Oh right.
Person D28: Why would they, why would he be involved. No it’s just that he said, 'how about that then, last night, a friend of a friend erm'.
Person D29: Did you know him actually yourself then?
Builder: Yeah.
Person D29: Oh right, it was somebody you knew.
Person D28: And they got fucking, they got murdered.
Person D29: No you only knew his  (inaudible) (talking to Builder still).
Person D28 They got killed, got murdered and all we know is that it was the night, the night it happened was the night he was round our place.
Person D29: It’s a funny thing.
Person D28: We know no fucking date, and how long ago was this.
Builder:15 year.
Person D28: 15 year! As if you wouldn’t remember fuck all would you? But you would know, that you come round the day after.
Person D29: That’s what I remember.
Person D28: Cos you was round our place the night it happened, cos he came round the day after.

Then on the return journey, the following conversation was recorded:

Female: Just like the fucking last (murder?) you know, it goes over but when it comes up again.
Male: Inaudible
Female: That fucking (cunt?) don’t matter what they say (pause) you can depend on us to say the right things (inaudible).
Male (Builder?): We don’t know no [sic] dates about me. All we know is that when it happened.
Female: The day after it happened.
Male (Builder?): The day after it happened.
Female: You came round my house (inaudible) I knew him, he was a friend of a friend you know (inaudible). I know when it happened he was round my house.
Male (Builder?): Is that enough, or.
Female Swear to God (inaudible).
Male: He was round our house that night.
Female: Inaudible.
Female: He might be a little bit, you know, but he’s nothing like that, he’s not going to start that game, he’s a different type of person.
Male: You don’t fucking give them any information, we don’t know fuck all, all we know is you [Builder] was round our house that night and he left, it was gone ten when he left, you don’t feed them any fucking thing.

It was then noted that, knowing that the Builder was elsewhere, that they went round to his house on 4 October 2002, ostensibly looking to arrest him, but in reality in order to provoke further reaction from him and that when they did so they spoke to his wife.

Then, after the visit, the Builder was seen to drive from his place of work to the home address of his two friends that he had gone out to the reastuarnt with, and it was thought that he had done so in order to reinforce his alibi..

On 5 October 2002, he was recorded having the following conversation with an unidentified person:

'I think [sic] was [Person P9], yeah. I think so (inaudible) I think what he’s saying he’s just fucking saying things, just bollocks you know what I mean, I said to her if they could, if they put a contract out on me, the only other way now is to fucking (inaudible) their only way to do that is by either putting me up or fucking fitting me up on a moody fucking charge, or fucking planting something on me really, that’s the next thing innit, I would be driving along and find something in me fucking car you know what I mean (inaudible).’

He later attended Wandsworth Police Station by appointment on 7 October 2002 where he was arrested.

He was asked about his recovery work for Southern Investigations which, it had been claimed, was the reason for a telephone conversation between him and Daniel Morgan's Business Partner on 8 March 1987 for which examination of Southern Investigations’ financial records had provided no information. However, he made a no commetn interview and was relaesded on bail at 2.35pm. After he was released, he made and recieved several calls, in three of which he was heard to say:

  1. Oh just people who said it had something to do with me.
  2. Must be offering someone. (Inaudible) To talk to them.
  3. It’s all bollocks as far as I am concerned.

On 8 October 2002, the Builder was heard to say to someone:

'Our problem' inaudible 'Tuesday night' – “The Older Brother [sic] know'... Inaudible 'Every one of them who knows about' Inaudible. 'Drug dealing' Inaudible 'Why after 15 years' Inaudible 'Fucking why is it after 15 years' Inaudible.

Then on 10 October 2002, in order to prompt further discussions, the police visited the mother of the two brothers. wh they asked a number of questions about person X8 who had worked with Daniel Morgan's businesss partner on a part-time basis since November 1988 but who had since been convicted of killing a woman during an aggravated burglary and was in prison.

A conversation between the two broithers and a third p[eople was heard, during which, in apparent reference to Person P9, the older brother said, 'come out in the end do you know what I mean, I know [Person P9] would never say nothing but'. the brother then referred to person X8, who had only recently been sentenced and was in poor health, and said, 'Even though he’s got like fifteen, he’s dying, he don’t want to die in there, you never know what he’s coming up with, you know a deal eh?’. It was noted that the bother's mother had previously been with Person X8, but at the time was no longer with him.

It was noted that the two brothers then discussed the £50,000 reward:

Younger Brother: No one’s ever gonna claim that reward.

Older Brother: Yeah that’s right who’s ever gonna fucking.... that....

Younger Brother: Never, ever, ever, spend that fifty grand, never.

On 12 October one of the younger bother's daughters read out a newspaper article which said that the two men who had been arrested had been released anf the younger brother explained what the murder was about to his daughter. He also said, ‘There’s more in there than there is anywhere, (inaudible) fucking tell me (shouting/agitated) (inaudible) might as well cut me throat (?)’.

He then said, 'I’m (inaudible) interested in what’s happenin’ with me ex-fucking brother-in-law [Daniel Morgan's businesss partner, who by then was separated from the younger brother’s sister] and I know everybody that’s involved.’ He later said, ‘The police officer in the murder (inaudible) in the first place now his partner. THe Detective Sergeant.

Then on 15 October 2002 the younger brother visited The Surprise public house where he met with two other males, one of whom the police thought was a major drug dealer, linked to a well-known London-based organised crime group where a conversation took place about the purchase of guns, stun grenades and phosphorous bombs. As a result, the police raised the 'risk assessment' surrounding a number of individuals who had been approached by the investigation team as potential witnesses.

The police then visited the brother-in-law of the younger brother in the hope of triggering further conversation within his household. They also visited him the following day at his place of work.

This prompted some conversation between the Younger Brother and his wife who told him that the police had visited his brother-in-law and talked about the builder, the getaway car and him and his brother, including:

Younger Brothers Wife: You’re both going away for a long long time.

Younger Brother: They can’t you fucking idiot. It’ll never happen.

During the conversation the Younger Brothers Wife asked him twice why he was shaking.

Later an unknown female said:

Female: I’m not being funny but has he [sic] actually got anything to do [sic] What? No?

Younger Brother: Don’t talk about it, talking about it won’t do anything. Don’t ask you.

Female: Alright.

Younger Brother: Cos it’s, you just don’t know who’s gonna open their mouth.

Female: ---?

Younger Brother: You’ve only got to be in here and you’re charged with me as well.

On 18 October 2002 the police visited the Younger Brothers bother-in-law again at work which resulted in the Younger Brother asky his wife why they had pulled him, police corruption and the 'Drug Squad'.

The following day he was heard speculating with his brother about whether the police were occupying the vacant house next door.

It was noted that authority had been given for the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation team to purchase the property next door to the Younger Brother’s house on 5 July 2002. A risk assessment from a later investigation stated that the property had been covertly purchased on 23 August 2002 'for the express purpose of covertly gathering evidence in relation to the murder of Daniel Morgan, and specifically to investigate the alleged role of the Younger Brother, the occupier of [the house next door], within the circumstances surrounding the murder’.

The Elder Brother was then arrested on 19 October 2002 and his girlfriend’s house was searched as a result of police becoming aware that he might have possession of a firearm. however, no firearm was found.

Between 11.55am and 12.15pm on 20 October 2002 the Younger brother had several conversations in which he said:

'Person P9’s walking around and telling everybody he knows whose [sic] done it, so, he’s a fucking mind reader, he done it himself, right or someone told him he knows who’s done it, so, I don’t know, I really don’t know, because the man’s an absolute fucking bullshitter […] he thinks everything’s funny till they pull in him and he was joking about it, and he said “yeah I know who it is”. He said I know who it is, I’m thinking about putting my brother-in-law up in for it, you know what I mean. Two days later they’ve marched in my brother-in-law'.

'…then they said did you get rid of the car for them, like for me and my brother [sic], they’re dangerous, they said we were prime suspects and did you get rid of the car for them. A car that was used in the job (burps) fuck me, I think they said a green Volkswagen or something green Polo, I don’t know, I think it was a green Volkswagen but yeah, that’s what’s supposed to have happened, yeah, it was a green Volkswagen because my brother‑in-law used to have a green Golf, yeah but that’s fucking 5 years ago…’

Whilst he was talking about police corruption he said:

‘…don’t even trust their own, they can’t even take you to a London nick, you know what I mean, they’ve got to go to Hendon where they’re all new recruits because they can’t trust anybody that’s been in the force for a year cause you’re bound to be fucking bent.’

He then went on to say, ‘I’d like my day in court. What you got on me – forensics, much, you prick'.

During the late evening on 21 October 2002 the Youger Brother and the Elder Brother's Wifehad a conversation during which the Youger Brother was heard to say, 'that was their excuse for pulling in four of them cos tomorrow morning he says we kidnap and torture, (inaudible)', and then later, 'that’s why we’ve got to be careful about what we do to him'.

As a result of that conversation, it was decided that 24-hour armed surveillance should be carried out on the Youger Brother, it being thought that he might attempt to interrogate those whom they suspected of talking to the investigation team.

On 22 October 2002 the Youger Brother was heard in a telephone conversation to say, 'he’s probably the only one who’s tried to claim the money', and then, 'you either do him properly right, like fucking fifteen year ago [inaudible] fucking done it'.

Then on 23 October 2002, with the Crown Prosecution Service’s agreement, a trigger telephone call was made to the Youger Brother by a female police officer. She told him that she was aware of who was involved in the murder and that she would inform the police of that in order to claim the reward money being offered. However, she told him that if he paid her £50,000, she would not do so and gave him a BT telephone kiosk number and asked him to contact her with his decision two days later at a specific time.

The Youger Brother then had a conversation about the call with the Elder Brothe'rs Wife, describing the call as 'blackmailing'. He also had a number of conversations about the call with his own wife, however, nothing of evidential value was generated and the tactic was not pursued further by the police.

The Younger Brother was arrested in connection with Daniel Morgan’s murder and his house searched for firearms or anything else connected with Daniel Morgan’s murder, but nothing was found. He was taken to the police station, but declined to answer any questions.

The police also made two more attempts to interview Person X8 in prison. On 5 November 2002 he 'stated that he was reluctant to assist Police at this time as, Morgan, deserved all that he had coming to him', and later in August 2003 he said, 'you can stick the £50,000'. It was noted that Person X8 was later interviewed in 2008 during the Abelard Two Investigation at which time he provided extensive information.

It was noted that there was also a third period of covert surveillance from 16 to 20 December 2002 for which a detective tated that the Younger Brother openly discussed the murder with the Elder Brothe'rs Wife and and that it was clear that she had knowledge.

The Builder was also arrested on 16 December 2002 on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by manufacturing a false alibi with Person D28 and Person D29. However, he gave ‘no comment’ answers throughout.

The police then also interviewed Person D28 and Person D29 over them having fabricated an alibi for the builder when he took them for dinner on 3 October 2002. However, they declined to give statements, saying that they would only do so in the presence of their solicitor, who was also the Builder's solicitor. After their solicitor arrived, they both gave statements.

Person D28 said, 'I can remember during one of these visits the Builder stated that a friend of a friend had been murdered the previous night. I was taken aback at this statement. I said, 'who was it, a close friend'. He said, 'no, I [sic] friend of a friend'. I didn’t ask any more about the murder. I can however state that the previous evening the Builder had been with myself and [Person D29] at our home address. I can definitely recall that the Builder arrived at our house between 7.30 pm and 8 pm and left at about 10 pm to 10.15 pm'.

Person D29 made a statement in which she claimed that when the Builder told her of the murder she responded ‘well you’ve got no worries have you, because you were here', and the Builder replied, 'I’m not worried'.

However, Person D28 and Person D29 were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by providing for the Builder on 16 December 2002. Person D28 gave no comment reponces during interview on the grounds of ill health whilst Person D29 maintained her story was true.

It was noted that the Detective Sergeant had not been in the 2000 Murder Review as either a key witness or suspect and due to recommendations the Morgan One Investigation it was decided to investigate him.

Following surveillance, on 13 December 2002 a warrant was obtained to search former the Detective Sergeant’s home address and the offices of Law & Commercial, the material sought being a 'file or documents relating to the Belmont Car Auctions' and ‘[a]ny other information either hard copy or contained within other electronic/computer systems that relate to the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan between 1987 and the present day’. On 17 December 2002, the Detective Sergeant’s home address, the offices of Law & Commercial and a boat called 'Matatu', in Southampton, in which he had a part-share, were searched.

Then on 17 January 2003, the Detective Sergeant was arrested at the offices of Law & Commercial for offences unrelated to the murder of Daniel Morgan and was charged and appeared in May 2003 before Bow Street Magistrates Court. After entering a plea of guilty, he received a non-custodial sentence on 24 October 2003. At the same time, he was also arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan.

In one of his interviews, he said, 'I understand that I am to be questioned in relation to an allegation of malfeasance. This relates to matters that happened nearly 16 years ago. It would not be fair to myself to try to recall exact details after that length of time. I have been questioned previously at length about this matter. I rely on that which I said in 1987, a copy of which I have been shown. I reiterate that I did not ask the Southern Investigations’ Office Manager for the Belmont Auction File on Wednesday 11 March 1987 or at any other time. He did not hand this to me and I did not take possession of this file at any stage, indeed I have no recollection of ever seeing this file. I did not tamper with or remove documents or papers from this file as is being suggested. I would be interested to know which documents, papers or items I am alleged to have removed from the file'.

He was then shown a copy of the exhibit book from the Morgan One Investigation and directed to 11 entries which the investigating officer suggested were the exhibits removed during a search of Southern Investigations offices on 11 March 1987, at which former he was present, and replied, 'First of all I have no control over what went in this book, ft’s [sic] not my writing, I have no control over it at all so I can’t adopt this book. Secondly, I’d say this, that I’m very. I did not allocate numbers, anything on this book. Secondly, I’m very suspicious of the neatness of the writing in this book, and I would put it to anybody that this is a re‑written book, this is re-written. It’s far too neat and tidy. You know as well as I do that a murder room, on the first day after the murder is chaotic and there’s bits and pieces coming in everywhere. This writing is just far too neat, it’s too neat to be believable. Finally, I am aware and I make no adverse comment about the young man concerned, but I am aware that the Detective Officer who was Exhibits Officer in the case was disciplined because of the nature of his work'.

When he was asked whether he recognised the 11 exhibits listed in the Exhibits Book as being the exhibits which he retrieved from the offices of Southern Investigations on 11 March 1987. He replied, 'Right bearing in mind that these matters were 16 years ago […and] on the advice of my solicitor I now fall back on my written statement and the verbal comments I’ve just made with regard to this book and I make no further comment'.

It was noted that there were three issues noted against the Detective Sergeant:

  1. Possible existence of partnership insurance that might have afforded a motive in the murder.
  2. Investigation in to a certain person whom it was suggested had been the murderer who had since gone to Australia.
  3. Documents and items missing from the Morgan One Investigation.

The first issue related to the Detective Sergeant, while working for the Morgan One Investigation, having been tasked to investigate whether Southern Investigations had 'Partnership' insurance, and to obtain relevant papers and statements. It was noted that had such insurance existed, it might have provided a motive for the murder of Daniel Morgan.However, the Detective Sergeant reported that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had said that no such insurance existed for which the Detective Sergeant had not taken any statement to confirm it.

However, it was noted that the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation established that Daniel Morgan and his Businesss Partner had had no partnership insurance, although they had been considering a partnership insurance policy for £50,000 but were only in the consultation stage at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder.

The second issue involved a direction to research an individual with a distinctive nickname who lived in Sydenham, and who, it had been suggested, was the person responsible for the murder. The person who provided that information was never identified, but the enquiry officer recorded his feeling that the information was genuine. The following day, 15 March 1987, the Detective Sergeant came on duty at 12.00 noon. It was his last day on the Morgan One Investigation, and the matter was reallocated on 16 March 1987 to a Detective Constable and returned with basic details of a named individual. It was subsequently decided that no further action was required.

However, subsequently the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation established that the individual in question was in Australia between December 1986 and May 1988. He had no convictions for violent crime. The Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation did not take the matter any further.

However, later still, in November 2002, the individual was interviewed. He said that as far as he was aware, he had never been referred to by the nickname which had been provided to the police. He did not know anyone else who had lived in the road who might have had the same first name and was unable to assist the enquiry.

The third issue related to documents and items missing from the Morgan One Investigation. The 2000 Murder Review Report had noted that some 32 documents generated by the Morgan One Investigation were missing from the investigation file of documents and had recommended that 'efforts are made to obtain again all documents found to be missing from the system'. The 2000 Murder Review Report recorded that some of the missing documents might be of significance in the context of the Detective Sergeant or the Belmont Car Auctions matter. Documents and items identified as missing from the Morgan One Investigation included the following:

  1. A document entitled ‘Southern Investigations Bill to Belmont Car Auctions'.
  2. Significant information had been received by the Morgan One Investigation which included an allegation that a man and an unnamed Police Sergeant had been present when the murder of Daniel Morgan had been discussed and that a tape-recording of that meeting existed which was 'with a legal man near Gatwick'. A Police Gazette Special Notice had been issued regarding the murder of Daniel Morgan, which had contained an appeal for any officers with knowledge of tjhe man to contact the incident room. Despite extensive investigation of this matter, the Morgan One Investigation had been unable to find the man or a copy of the tape which he had said existed. It was further noted also that the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation team, despite making further enquiries, were unable to find the man or the tape which he had alleged existed.
  3. A numbered document from the Morgan One Investigation which could not be found and was believed by the Murder Review Group to have been created in error in the system. It was later established that this document did in fact exist and it was a letter and affidavit from a firm of solicitors.
  4. A document entitled 'Notes of the Detective Sergeant’s relationship with a man' and numbered D470. The document was cross-referenced However, it was later noted that the real title of the document had been, 'Notes of the Detective Sergeant’s relationship with Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner', and that the intial document had been a reference with a typing error with the letter 'Y' added.

However, the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation also carried out an inventory of all the filing cabinets, including the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation filing cabinet found after the 2000 Murder Review had been completed and ultimately, all the missing documents were found.

The Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation also interviewed former members of the Morgan One Investigation team, with 19 officers in total identified for interview. However, no new lines of enquiry emerged.

Southern Investigations’ finances were also examined, with particular regards to claims that Daniel Morgan had embezzled £12,000, but there was no evidence of that. However, the financial profile report stated that there were 12 bank accounts relating to either Daniel Morgan or his Businesss Partner, and that they believed Daniel Morgan and his Businesss Partner had at least another bank account each, for which the police had no records.

The conclusion of the financial examination was that extensive forensic investigation did not reveal any such embezzlement. Further concluding that the financial profile painted a picture of a chaotic situation, in which both partners may have had suspicions that the other was drawing more than he should have done, but that there is no evidence to support or refute that in the material available.

However, it was noted that some of the liabilities liabilities of Southern Investigations and of Daniel Morgan and his Businesss Partner on 10 March 1987 were indicated by the fact that:

  1. The Southern Investigations bank account was in debit to the sum of £7,212.28 on 10 March 1987.
  2. VAT in the sum of £8,200.98 was overdue.
  3. Unpaid tax had been calculated at £24,400 plus possible interest and penalties.
  4. Partnership net trading liabilities amounted to £14,825 as at March 1987.
  5. The Belmont Car Auctions legal action was for £18,280.62 plus interest and costs. The judge had directed on 5 March 1987 that £10,000 was to be paid into court within 21 days.

It was noted that attempts were made to secure a psychological profile of the murderer. On 22 October 2001, a Detective Constable recorded that he had spoken to the National Crime Faculty and had been told that as motives had been identified and suspects had already been prosecuted, the National Crime Faculty was unable to assist and the Detective Constable was advised to refer the matter to a pathologist and nothing further was done. However, it was noted that in fact, no suspects had been prosecuted by October 2001.

Forensic issues were also covered in the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation.

It was noted that the murder weapon and some items of Daniel Morgan’s clothing had been found at Eltham Police Station which had previously been stored in another location, but that as there was no documentary continuity to the exhibits meant that it would have been extremely difficult to present any new evidence which might have emerged from them in any subsequent prosecution.

However, it was added that whilst the fact that the axe had not been properly stored as an exhibit meant any evidence emerging from any later forensic examination of the axe for the purpose of a trial would have been open to challenge on the grounds that the chain of custody of the axe could not be established, that in 2020, the Metropolitan Police told the Panel that a review was conducted by Operational Forensic Manager, in August 2009, in which he stated that 'although the continuity of the axe has possibly been lost from the seizure of the item at the Post Mortem examination, the integrity of the item is still believed to be maintained as it had been located in sealed packaging'. However, it was noted that it remained a very distinct probability that the integrity of the axe would be challenged at any future proceedings.

On 1 June 2002 an Exhibits Officer was instructed to identify and transfer exhibits and papers from all previous investigations into Daniel Morgan’s murder and on 10 June 2002, he handed over 21 original exhibits concerning forensic evidence from the Morgan One Investigation to an officer which  formed the first 21 items in the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation Exhibit Book.

The Elastoplast tape that was stuck to the handle of the axe, which had already been examined for DNA using the SGN plus with negative results was subjected to further DNA testing, but again without further results.

It was noted partial fingerprints had been found on the axe which had been compared to a number of people, but without result.

Hairs and fibres found when the axe was first examined were also addressed, it being noted that some hairs that were said to have been recovered from the packaging of the axe, and from the head of the axe itself  could not be found and it was thought that they would not be recovered. Additionally, Sellotape tapings with adhering hairs and fibres found when the axe was first examined, which were present, were stated to have been unsuitable for Low Copy Number DNA testing.

Daniel Morgan’s jacket and trousers were also considered, but no new results were found, it being noted that tests for saliva, that might have come from his killer, were carried out on Daniel Morgan’s jacket in 2006 during the Abelard Two Investigation, but with no developments.

Forensic opportunities were also considered with regards to clothing from the suspects, but no further developements were made there. However, it was noted that clothing belonging to Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, which had previously been examined, had been handed back to him, it being noted that among other items, one red jumper belonging to him had had a tiny stain at the right cuff was identified as being ‘blood of human origin’, however it had not been possible to group the blood, and as it had been handed back to him on 6 July 1989, there was no futher opportunity to test it.

Certain intelligence was also reviewed, in particular, information was received by the Metropolitan Police alleging that ‘Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner’s [sic] wife’s brother was responsible for the murder of Daniel Morgan at the Golden Lion PH in Sydenham’. However, the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation followed up on that and tried to ascertain the source of this information, but nothing useful was obtained from that line of enquiry.

On 7 March 2003 an Advice File was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The file, which comprised 129 pages, contained a detailed description of the conduct and methodology of the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation, including where and when covert probes had been placed, how this was combined with conventional surveillance, and how triggers were employed in the hope that it would provoke the key suspects to discuss Daniel Morgan’s murder, possibly incriminating themselves. It included some analysis of the post mortem and the previous investigations of Daniel Morgan’s murder, before concluding with a review of the evidence against the key suspects.

The file concluded that ‘the investigation team [were] of the firm belief that there [was] sufficient evidence to charge Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, Younger Brother and the Builder with a Conspiracy to Murder Daniel Morgan’.

Possible motives for the murder as described by the file were:

  1. The ill-feeling brought about by the Belmont Car Auctions civil action.
  2. The Disgruntled Client.
  3. Robbery.
  4. Financial embezzlement by Daniel Morgan.
  5. Daniel MORGAN’s affair with the Estate Agent.
  6. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner's hatred of Daniel Morgan.
  7. That the murder of Daniel Morgan was linked to the suicide of the detective.

Each of the motives was examined in some depth, but the file concluded by stating  that, 'although a number of motives have been examined, it is the investigation team’s view that a combination of motives resulted in Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner conspiring to have Daniel Morgan murdered. It is believed that the ill-feeling between the partners surrounding the Belmont Car Auctions civil action, his Businesss Partner’ affair with the Estate Agent, Daniel Morgan’s withdrawal of cash from the business, and his Businesss Partner’ general hatred of Daniel Morgan, all contributed towards a strong motive for Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner.

The file also analysed the events leading up to the murder, starting off with the fact that ‘[i]t is clear that Daniel Morgan was upset by the Belmont Car Auctions affair and in particular that Southern Investigations had to submit £10,000 with the Court’. He also noted that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner’s ‘police associates were likely to be placed in jeopardy, as it would be alleged during any civil proceedings that they were moonlighting as security guards’. It was further noted that Daniel Morgan had been depressed and worried about the civil action.

The file went on to detail evidence that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had been with former the Detective Sergeant on either 7 or 8 March 1987, and that on 8 March 1987, the Businesss Partner contacted the Builder from his car phone, a matter of which the Morgan One Investigation became aware, but ‘[h]is significance was not appreciated at that time and the inquiry was not followed to conclusion’.

The file also described the visit by Daniel Morgan and his Businesss Partner to the Dolphin public house and the Golden Lion public house on 9 March 1987, commenting that it was ‘unusual for them to be drinking in the Sydenham area’.

It also noted that various individuals had described Daniel Morgan as being loud and argumentative on the evening of 9 March 1987, and that he and the Detective Sergeant had had an argument in the Golden Lion public house, which the Detective Sergeant later acknowledged in Autumn 2020 to the Panel, stating that he and Daniel Morgan had had a ‘heated discussion’ on the evening of 9 March 1987 but that ‘it all ended amicably’.

The Advice File then summarised the events on the day of the murder, as identified by the Morgan One and Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority investigations. It described those who had been identified as being in the Golden Lion public house, noting that there was ‘little direct evidence as to the presence of Daniel Morgan and his Businesss Partner in the pub, and no evidence of the conversation they were involved in’ on 10 March 1987.

The file added that in considering the choice of the Golden Lion public house for the meeting that evening, that it was a strange choice, given that it was not a regular venue for any of them and that didn't appear to be particularly convenient for any of them. The file then stated, 'whatever the reason for choosing the Golden Lion very few people other than Daniel Morgan, his Businesss Partner and his killer/s were aware of the location of the meeting. Presumably, if anyone had a personal grudge against Daniel Morgan they would have more chance of finding him in the Thornton Heath area where he worked and socialised'.

The file detailed the discovery of Daniel Morgan’s body by a witness and noted that there had been 'no deflected or defence wounds on Daniel Morgan's body. The handle of the axe had been taped with two rings of plaster, which may have aided the attackers grip. All of these factors suggest that the attack was premeditated and well planned'.

The Advice File went on to described the car park of the Golden Lion public house as being a ‘poorly lit, enclosed area’, that ‘few properties overlook the car park and views from them are extremely restricted' and that 'it is highly improbable that pedestrians using the pub would go to the unnecessary lengths of using the rear entrance'. THe Advice File then went on to conclude:

'it is therefore reasonable to assume that anyone secreted in the car park would be undisturbed other than by headlights of a vehicle using the bumpy alleyway leading to the car park, or by the additional light reflected from the public house when a customer left via the rear entrance to walk to the car park' and 'The attacker would have the advantage of being in complete control of an enclosed area and be aware of others that might be in the vicinity'.

Regarding the events immediately after the murder ithe file noted that 'here are a number of inconsistencies surrounding Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner's account of his movements following his departure from the pub', adding that 'there is no direct evidence to suggest that the Detective Sergeant was involved in the murder, however, he cannot be excluded from the planning phase, or frustrating the initial investigation'.

When detailing the original Metropolitan Police investigation, the Advice File noted the police conclusion in a detective superintendent's final report to the Coroner after the Morgan One Investigation had been concluded that 'whilst he suspected Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner of committing or commissioning the murder there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges’, and that ‘there was no evidence against the two brothers or the police officers'.

The Advice File also details the three periods of surveilance, concluding that they produced no new evidence.

The Advice File also detailed witnesses and their relevent evidence and its reliability, including:

  1. Bookkeeper: described as an important witness but who had a serious conviction for dishonesty but who had been approached by a third party and informed that it would be dangerous for him to say any more to the police.
  2. Person P9: It was noted that he had been investigated for conspiracy to murder the Builder, for which Person F11 was convicted, but that he was a potential key witness in the case against the Builder, with 'His impact would depend on whether the CPS and Treasury Counsel see a role for him in the chain of evidence'.
  3. Person F11: He was convicted for soliciting the murder of the Builder. It was noted that , 'although he will not be called to give evidence, the situation may one day arise where disclosure rules may dictate the service of his statement'. As with Person P9, it was noted that any evidence he gave would probably be discredited.

The Advice File also detailed the evidence against Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, the Builder and the Younger Brother.

Against Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner:

  • The evidence provided by the Bookkeeper to the previous investigations ‘is seen as a key part of any case against the Businesss Partner.
  • Evidential statements and telephone data analysis ‘indicate that an affair had commenced between the Estate Agent and Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner prior to Daniel Morgan’s murder.
  • The financial situation at Southern Investigations and the fact that Daniel Morgan was setting up another company to reduce the benefit which his Businesss Partner would receive from the bailiff side of the business, ‘taken together with the ill-feeling surrounding the Belmont Car Auction civil action and the Businesss Partner’s hatred of Daniel Morgan, all contribute to a strong motive for the Businesss Partner’.

The file concluded that the evidence indicated that there had been ongoing dislike and distrust of Daniel Morgan by his Businesss Partner.

The file further concluded that there were inconsistencies in the accounts provided by him which although did not ‘directly implicate him in the murder, they raise questions about his explanation of events'. Stating:

  1. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had ‘denied having a conversation that morning with Office Manager about Daniel Morgan upsetting a number of people the previous evening and that he didn’t want to take Daniel Morgan to another meeting planned for that night’.
  2. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner ‘claimed that he couldn’t recall the content of the telephone conversation with the Detective Sergeant at 11.05hrs [on the day of the murder]. Yet the Detective Sergeant informed him that he had been taken off his current murder investigation therefore leaving him available to investigate any new murder in the Catford area’.
  3. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had said that the meeting at the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987 was ‘arranged in the morning between Daniel Morgan, Detective Constable A and Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner.’ Detective Constable A had told the Morgan One Investigation that he had been at the Southern Investigations office that morning. however, others stated that Detective Constable A had not been at the offices that day’.
  4. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had told police that the purpose of the meeting with Detective Constable A ‘was to discuss a loan of £10,000 from a third party’. However, the Detective Constable A denied that any meeting had been arranged.
  5. Both the Businesss Partner's Ex-Wife and Detective Constable A had contradicted the Businesss Partner’s account of telephone calls which the Businesss Partner had made after he left the Golden Lion public house on the evening of 10 March 1987.
  6. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had been heard during surveillance making significant comments to the Detective Sergeant and the Younger Brother about the murder.
  7. At significant times during the Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation there had been contact between Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and the Younger Brother, and the Younger Brother had visited the Businesss Partner when he was imprisoned in HMP Ford.
  8. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had said that he only knew that Daniel Morgan had been meeting the Estate Agent on the evening of 10 March 1987 when the police told him after Daniel Morgan’s murder. In fact, the Businesss Partner had told his solicitor before the murder occurred that Daniel Morgan was meeting the Estate Agent.

However, the Advice File noted that there was no evidence other than that of the Bookkeeper to link Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner to the murder.

Regarding the evidence against the Builder, the Advice File noted:

  1. On 02 July 1999 Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had ‘made concerted efforts to contact the Builder upon the publication of the article in The Telegraph newspaper that referred to the use of a getaway vehicle in the murder’.
  2. The Builder had met with Person D28 and Person D29 in order to arrange a false alibi after the arrest of Person P9, with the file stating ‘this is seen as a significant event as the Builder was probably anticipating a visit from the investigation team’.
  3. Person P9 'is seen as a potential key witness in the case against the Builder. His impact would depend on whether the CPS and Treasury Counsel see a role for him in the chain of evidence’.
  4. The evidence showed that the Builder had met Person D28 and Person D29 to arrange an alibi. The only other evidence against the Builder was provided by two witnesses. One of those witnesses, Person F11, had been convicted on 8 July 1999, and sentenced to a total of seven years’ imprisonment for nine offences, including conspiracy to murder the Builder and supply of controlled drugs. Although Person F11 had signed his witness statement providing evidence against the Builder, he later stated it was made under duress.The other witness, Person P9, had also been implicated in the conspiracy to murder.

Regarding the evidence against the Younger Brother, the Advice File noted:

  1. The Younger Brother attended the hearing in the Belmont Car Auctions civil action on 5 March 1987 with Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, and they had subsequently told their legal executive that they were going to the Golden Lion public house for a drink.
  2. During Operation Nigeria/Two Bridges, the Younger Brother had been ‘party to a significant conversation with Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner on 13 August 1999 when they discussed the disposal of the getaway vehicle’ and that ‘during the recent covert investigation the Younger Brother makes a number of significant comments about the Daniel Morgan murder investigation.
  3. On 17 July the Younger Brother and his wife visit Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner at HMP Ford. This is seen as significant as there appears to be no other visits within at least the previous twelve months.’
  4. There was probe material from 19 October 2002 in which ‘The Younger Brother and the Elder Brother discuss the use of a firearm on a person unknown and there appears to be the sound of the breach movement and dry firing of a firearm’.

Regarding the evidence against the Detective Sergeant, the Advice File noted:

  1. ‘The Morgan family believes that the Detective Sergeant was involved in the planning and cover up of the murder and it has also been suggested that Freemasonry may have played a part.’
  2. The Detective Sergeant had been involved in the Belmont Car Auctions matter and had ‘had some form of argument with Daniel Morgan in the Golden Lion pub on Monday 9 March’.
  3. On 10 March 1987, Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had contacted the Detective Sergeant and ‘they discussed that the Detective Sergeant and his team had been taken off their current murder investigation’.
  4. The Detective Sergeant ‘took a bland background statement from Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and attended the offices of Southern Investigations where it is alleged that the Detective Sergeant took possession of the Belmont Car Auction file’.
  5. Daniel Morgan's brother had given evidence that, on 12 March 1987, he had attended the police station and had spoken with the Detective Sergeant and told him that he believed that the death of his brother may have had something to do with the Belmont Car Auction affair, and that the Detective Sergeant had dismissed that assertion.
  6. The file also commented that the Detective Sergeant had been medically retired from the police in March 1988 and had joined Southern Investigations in February 1989.
  7. On 4 October 2002, ‘The Younger Brother talked about the Detective Sergeant and 'walkie-talkies' whilst discussing the arrest of a 46 year old man for the murder’. The file added, 'it is not known to what he was referring', but stated earlier in the report that 'in light of this it is not possible to preclude the Detective Sergeant from the planning phase of the murder'.

In summary on the evidence, the Advice File stated:

  1. 'In respect of the Detective Sergeant, there is no direct evidence to suggest that he was involved in the murder, however, he cannot be excluded from the planning phase or frustrating the initial investigation'.
  2. 'The spectre of Freemasonry is well immersed in the circumstances surrounding the murder and attempts to frustrate the investigation however, there is no real, if any evidence to substantiate this'.
  3. 'In summary, the investigation team are of the firm belief that there is sufficient evidence to charge Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, the Younger Brother and the Builder with  Conspiracy to Murder Daniel Morgan.’

The Advice File was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service on 07 March 2003 for consideration as to whetther any charges should be made, however, on 8 August 2003 they said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any of the named people, or any other person, for murder or ancillary offences.

In their responce, the CPS prepared an Advice Paper.

Prior to addressing the issues relating to the three murder suspects, the Advice Paper addressed the physical attack, stating that the ‘pathological evidence paints a clear picture of a surprise attack from behind by one individual using an axe’, and that there was ‘no evidence that more than one assailant was involved’.

The advice noted that, as part of his investigation, a detective had conducted experiments in the car park of the Golden Lion public house in order to establish whether it was possible for an attacker to approach someone standing where Daniel Morgan’s body was found without being noticed. The detective had concluded that this was ‘very unlikely’. It was suggested that Daniel Morgan, therefore, may have known his assailant. However, it was noted that that conclusion would depend on a ‘range of variables’, including, for example, how anxious Daniel Morgan, who had been drinking, would have been to identify anyone he noticed approaching him. The Advice Paper however concluded that, in their opinion, the work carried out by the detective was insufficient to exclude the possibility that Daniel Morgan did not know his attacker.

In considering motives for the attack, the Advice Paper stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Daniel Morgan was killed as a result of any particular event, such as an argument or confrontation, which occurred sometime before or on the day of his death. There were a number of factors, additionally, which suggested that 'the motive for the attack was unlikely to be robbery', notably, the nature and violence of the attack shown by the pathological evidence, that an axe was an unlikely instrument to be wielded by a robber, that over £1,000 in cash remained on the person of Daniel Morgan, the evidence that Daniel Morgan was still wearing his Rolex after the attack, and that a Parker pen and a note written with the pen were the only other items that appeared to have gone missing.

In conclusion, regarding the circumstances of his murder, the Advice Paper stated, 'taken as a whole, the bare facts surrounding the killing of Daniel Morgan indicate that he was attacked from behind by a single assailant wielding an axe. It is probable, though not certain, that this was a planned attack by or on behalf of someone who knew that Morgan was at the Golden Lion that evening and wanted to kill him'.

With regards to the submitted motives, the Advice Paper noted that there was a significant body of evidence that suggested that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner may have had one or more reasons for wanting to kill Daniel Morgan, the more plausible of them being his hatred of Daniel Morgan, his anxiety that Daniel Morgan was going to enter into a business partnership with others, and a desire to get rid of Daniel Morgan to allow the Detective Sergeant to become his new business partner.

However, the Advice Paper rejected some of the other motives listed, including the their relationships with the Estate Agent and the issue that police officers would be caught for moonlighting for Southern Investigations. However, it was noted that there was no evidence that Daniel Morgan had been having a sexual relationship with the Estate Agent at the time of his murder, and additionally that it would have been more likely that murdering Daniel Morgan would have brouht more attention towards the police officers moonlighting.

Regarding the claim that Daniel Morgan had been drawing more than his entitlement from the Southern Investigation bank account, it was noted that there was no credible evidence that his Businesss Partner was aware of this, and, even if he was, murdering him would not have resolved the situation.

it was further noted that his Businesss Partner was not the only person that might have had a motive to murder him,  stating, 'the evidence showing that other people may have had a motive for harming Morgan has the effect of lessening the significance of the evidence of motive in respect of the Businesss Partner. Obviously, there is a clear difference between a case where the evidence establishes that only one person has a clear motive for killing someone, and a case where a number of people do. It is, in our view, not insignificant that if Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner did plot Morgan’s demise, he did so in a manner that ensured he was with Morgan a short time before he died, thereby attracting suspicion'.

The Advice Paper also covered a number of other reasons regarding the evidence as to why the decision to prosecute was rejected.

In conclusion it stated:

'Although the decision not to prosecute anyone for the murder of Daniel Morgan disappointed the family of Daniel Morgan, it was realistic in the circumstances. Counsel’s duty was to analyse the additional evidence that had been obtained since the case was last considered and point out any weaknesses contained within it. There were overwhelming weaknesses. While the police had thought firm, incriminating evidence might arise from the use of the probes (both in 1999 and 2002), no such evidence was secured against the main suspects'.

and

'Counsel correctly highlighted the fact that no jury would have the benefit of the information provided to the police by Person P9 and Person F11, information which had enabled the police to place the evidence gathered through use of the probes in an apparently incriminating context. Furthermore, both potential witnesses had discredited themselves since Person F11 had been convicted of the conspiracy to murder the Builder and Person P9 had been implicated in the conspiracy to murder'.

The 2006 Report

In 2006 there was a report from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service to the Metropolitan Police Authority detailing the investigations and review of the murder of Daniel Morgan. In conclusion, the report stated:

'During the 2002 investigation the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] were open to the suggestion that the role-played [sic] by the Detective Sergeant may have been significant, either in the murder or the events after it. However, no evidence was obtained that would prove or more importantly disprove any belief'.

and

'There was a significant resolve by the initial investigation to arrest and charge those responsible for Daniel Morgan’s murder. It would be unfair to use the hindsight tool as to what could or should have been done by way of identifying weakness in the capability of the then murder squad'.

The report continued:

'They could have adopted many different lines of enquiry, but in essence having removed an obstacle to success they quickly identified Rees as the prime suspect and arrested him, along with his brothers in law and the Detective Sergeant'.

'Viewing it from what we now know, the Detective Superintendent was not far from the truth. Sadly to prove their suspicions they needed evidence but the initial weakness in the investigation had probably led to that being destroyed and no longer available'.

'That weakness was the presence of the Detective Sergeant on the murder investigation and his corrupt relationship with the prime suspect, Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner'.

The report concluded with:

'It was beyond any reasonable comprehension, then, as it would be now, despite having measures in place, to think that a Police Officer could have been involved and working against the direction of the enquiry and the interests of the family by destroying evidence or giving the suspects an advantage through informing them of intended police action. However, it would be foolhardy to suggest that such a set of circumstances could not be replicated today'.

Following the 2006 Report several other reports were written in responce, although they dealt mainly with police procedures such as the reliance on findings from the first investigation in the second investigationas well as the extent to which the terms of reference of the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority investigation were changed whereby its focus was shifted away from its original purpose of investigating police involvement in the deceased’s murder.

The Abelard Two Investigation

The Abelard Two Investigation began after a Prisoner contacted the Metropolitan Police in December 2004. THe investigation formally started in March 2006. The investigation led to several arrests and charges in 2008 and went to trial in late 2010, but the Builder was formally acquitted of the murder of Daniel Morgan whilst no evidence was offered against the others, Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and the two Brothers. The Detective Sergeant was charged with perverting the course of justice but later discharged.

The Prisoner had been on remand charged with serious crimes in December 2004 when he came forward, however, over the following year he was able to provide what as described as credible new evidence and on 13 January 2006 it was decided that he should be debriefed under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which was new legislation. It was noted that whilst there were some draw backs, including his potential credibility as a witness, the following conclusions were made:

  1. 'During the 2002 investigation it was stated we were not far from reaching a stage where he would consider prosecuting this case but what he needed was something substantial to hang everything else we have off of'.
  2. This person not only provides us with the potential of doing that but also allows us, in line with this, to develop and introduce a new investigative strategy to gather evidence not in corroboration of what he could say, but in support of [sic] he could give. By this I mean a new technical attach [sic] on existing premises etc'.
  3. This would be supported by the ongoing forensic review and the development of a new media strategy'.
  4. This would be an excellent case for the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] to make use of the new powers granted that now exist within the SOCA [Serious Organised Crime Agency] Bill that come into Force on the 1st of April. This legislation is retrospective and, subject to the agreement of the CPS , would allow the MPS to make ground breaking headway in this difficult case using legislation designed for this purpose'.

The Abelard Two Investigation was stated to be 'the reinvestigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan, who was killed with an axe in the car park of The Golden Lion public house, in Sydenham Road SE26, on 10/03/1987’. The HOLMES computer account for the investigation was opened on 31 March 2006.

It was noted that new evidence would be required to enable any prosecution, and that the new investigation would include:

  1. The separate process of debriefing Assisting Offenders as witnesses using the procedures prescribed in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
  2. Following up lines of enquiry revealed during that process.
  3. A review of forensic evidence and the commissioning of further forensic testing.
  4. Examination of previous lines of enquiry (it was not until 20 April 2006 that, security locks having been fitted to the investigation’s rooms to ensure no unauthorised entry, they were able to start opening the boxes of material from previous investigations) and subsequent investigation with a view to securing further evidence.
  5. The deployment of covert listening equipment.
  6. The generation of a media strategy to encourage new witnesses.

From the outset of the invetigationon 22 March 2006, it was recorded that the primary objective of the Abelard Two Investigation would be ‘to implicate or eliminate’ the Younger Brother as the person said to have attacked and killed Daniel Morgan. It was also recorded that there was evidence that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner arranged the murder, that the Builder drove the getaway car, which was stored and subsequently destroyed by Person P9, and that the Businesss Partner ‘was apparently assisted by the Detective Sergeant in disrupting the investigation if not in the planning and execution’.

As a first action the police contacted the Biulder's solicitor saying that he firmly believed that James Cook had ‘intimate knowledge of the events leading up to the murder and of the murder itself' and advised that, 'the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 may provide a mechanism by which the Builder may wish to come forward and detail both the role he played, if any and assist us in bringing this matter to a conclusion both for the benefit of the family and all those concerned’ and asked the solicitor to advise whether the Builder wished to enter into discussion on these matters. However, the Builder’s solicitor responded saying, ‘I have taken instructions from the Builder. Unfortunately, he is unable to assist the enquiry'.

The Builder was soon after arrested on 4 August 2006 and bailed.

After that the Prisoner was debriefed under the under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which it was noted was a was a lengthy and complex process.

With regards to that, the Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance provided that:

  1. No notice or undertaking can be issued on the basis that the Assisting Offender will only divulge information after immunity, or an undertaking has been given.
  2. Assisting Offenders must be debriefed. There is an initial scoping interview to determine what they can assist with and what unprosecuted criminal activity needs to be addressed. There is a full debrief following the agreement of a Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 contract between the prosecution and the witness.
  3. The judge may take into account the extent and nature of assistance but does not have to. The judge has discretion on a case-by-case basis.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance also provided that the Assisting Offender must:

  1. Fully admit their own criminality.
  2. Provide the investigators with all information available to them regarding the matters under investigation and those involved.
  3. Agree to maintain continuous and complete co-operation throughout the investigation and until the conclusion of any criminal or other proceedings arising from the said investigation, including giving evidence in court where appropriate.

It was further noted that the debriefing process, which is conducted by a separate debriefing team, required complete separation, referred to as a ‘sterile corridor’ between the debriefing processes and any staff working on the relevant investigation, so that no contact could occur between witnesses being debriefed and any murder investigation team. The purpose being to ensure that there could be no allegations that there had been any attempt to influence or interfere with the evidence which was given by the witnesses.

The debriefing of the Prisoner started on 22 May 2006 and ended on 12 December 2006.

A second proposed witness was also debriefed.

A review of pre-existing lines of enquiry was then made.

This included a review of witnesses from the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987 and was later expanded to identify details of the staff at the Dolphin public house which was across the road from the Golden Lion public house. Following the review, the following issues were identified:

  1. Neither Daniel Morgan nor his Businesss Partner regularly used the Golden Lion public house, and few would have known they would be there.
  2. Both had been there, however, the previous evening.
  3. Their appearance there on that occasion might be suspicious but could be explained, according to the Businesss Partner, Daniel Morgan chose the venue to meet the Detective Constable A, who had denied all knowledge of this meeting.
  4. Numerous associates of Daniel Morgan were surprised that he parked ‘his (coveted) BMW’ in a dark car park.
  5. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner stated that Daniel Morgan had been writing on a piece of paper, but no pen or pencil had been found in Daniel Morgan’s possession, and no personal diary or notebook, which he normally carried, had been found in Daniel Morgan’s possession or his business premises.
  6. On the day of his death, 10 March 1987, Daniel Morgan had worn a newly dry-cleaned suit. The right trouser pocket had been severely torn, and ‘suggestions to explain this have been proffered’. The Detective Constable suggested forensic examination of the pocket area inside and out for DNA.
  7. There were inconsistencies in phone calls made by Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, as previously identified.

A review of forensic evidence and consequential forensic work was then carried out. This included a review of all the existing evidence and identification of new opportunities, as well as a reconstruction of the murder scene with a dummy in order to identify areas possibly touched by the killer and the subsequent submission of cellular material from the areas identified.

Tthe Builder and the Younger Brother were arrested and interviewed on 4 August 2006 whilst the Elder Brother was arrested from prison on 5 September 2006 after which their DNA was taken and they were asked whether they had ever touched the axe that was used to kill Daniel Morgan, to which they all said no.

The reconstruction took place at the Peel Centre, Hendon on 6 September 2006. It was noted that the doctor that had carried out the post mortem had stated, 'there was a tear down the upper third outer seam of the right leg, which also involved the right pocket', and in a later statement, 'tearing of the seam around the right pocket could have been caused whilst the deceased was attempting to defend himself and remove his hand rapidly from his right pocket'.

It was noted that the purpose of the reconstruction was to attempt to establish:

  1. The direction of the attack.
  2. The cause of damage to the trousers.
  3. Any potential forensic opportunities from the victim’s clothes or the axe.
  4. Any further information which could assist the investigation.

Two pairs of trousers were used in the experiment, although they were not the exact size as Daniel Morgan's trousers.

The victim was played by a man who was 5’6” tall, and weighed 9 stone 10lbs, using the two pairs of trousers of a similar style and fabric to those worn by Daniel Morgan on 10 March 1987.

Four experiments were conducted as follows:

  1. The victim was lying facing upwards on the ground. The attacker was to the left of the victim. The attacker pulled the right pocket with his right hand.
  2. The victim was lying facing upwards on the ground. The attacker was astride the victim and the attacker ripped the left pocket with his right hand.
  3. The victim was lying facing upwards on the ground. The attacker was to the right of the victim. The attacker’s left hand grabbed the back of the right pocket, and his right hand grabbed the front of the right pocket, pulling in opposite directions.
  4. The victim was standing and resisting, while the attacker pulled the left pocket.

Different scenarios were enacted to test three hypotheses and thereby to identify possible areas for forensic analysis. The hypotheses related to the causes of the damage to the trousers. They were as follows:

  1. The victim’s body could have been fitting whilst someone was trying to get something out of the pocket.
  2. The trousers could have been ripped to make the attack look like a robbery (assailant may have been unaware that there was money in the other trouser pocket).
  3. The pocket may have been ripped whilst trying to get something out of the pocket in a panic, it was stated that when a person is under stress/adrenalin rush they are unable to carry out delicate movements and therefore tend to be heavy handed.

The possibility of a transfer of saliva from the attacker to Daniel Morgan’s clothing was also considered. However, it was noted that a pathologist who was consulted said that the mouth can dry up in times of increased stress, reducing the likelihood of finding the attacker’s saliva on the suit.

A forensic scientist described the damage to Daniel Morgan’s trousers in a statement of 16 May 2007, noting that: 'there was no evidence of cuts to the garment. There were no dirty marks or scuff marks that may indicate that Daniel Morgan was dragged, knelt down or was involved in a struggle whilst on the ground'.

He also said, 'a large tear to the right outside leg which extended from the waistband to approximately halfway down the leg. The front right belt holder had partially come away from the waistband, along with some of the trouser fabric below the front right region of the waistband. Some loose threads were still present within the stitch holes along the right side seam and waistband. The white fabric pocket lining was partially torn along the side seam. A small tear was also present in the fabric to the right of the back right pocket'.

The forensic scientist also recorded the following observations:

  1. If the 'victim' was stood upright and a forceful tug or pull was applied to his left or right side trouser pocket, then the 'victim' would be pulled in the direction of the tug/pull and little or no damage would be produced in the trousers, unless a force in the opposite direction to the tug/pull was applied. The opposite force could be as a result of the 'victim' being restrained from behind or the 'victim' pulling himself in the opposite direction to the tug/pull. If, however, the 'victim' was lying on the ground, the weight of the 'victim' would most likely be sufficient force to enable the 'assailant' to tug/pull in the opposite direction and produce a tear in the trousers.
  2. When the 'victim' was stood upright, the lower front of his jacket would largely obscure the openings to his left and right side pockets, making it more difficult for the 'assailant' to grab the pocket in order to tear it open.
  3. More than one forceful tug/pull was required to tear the trousers to the extent that Daniel Morgan’s trousers were torn.

As such, reflecting on the reconstruction exercises, the forensic scientist concluded that the findings suggested that the damage to Daniel Morgan’s trousers was unlikely to be accidental and more likely to be the result of a deliberate attempt to tear open the pocket.

It was also noted that the pocket could have been torn in a deliberate attempt to move his body by tugging at the pocket.

The minutes of the reconstruction exercise also recorded the following:

  1. The absence of defence wounds indicated that Daniel Morgan was attacked from behind, but that this could not be said with any certainty.
  2. The group of three wounds to the top back of the head, and the two wounds to the right cheek or side of the face, were of similar orientation and were most likely to have been caused in close succession.
  3. It was not possible to determine the precise order of the blows, but the last injury inflicted with the axe was that to the cheek.
  4. Both the pathologist and a biomechanics expert agreed that it was not unusual for a person having been struck from behind to be lying face upwards. The Pathologist noted that head injuries could cause a person to fit, and therefore Daniel Morgan’s body may have moved into this position at some point after the final blow was delivered.
  5. The Pathologist could not determine whether the attacker was left or right-handed, nor was it possible to determine the possible height range of the assailant.

The pathologist further added:

'In my opinion the appearance and distribution of blood staining on or around Daniel Morgan’s body indicate that at some point after receiving his injuries, including the blow which left the axe embedded in his face, Mr Morgan has had his face turned to the left, and has expirated blood. One way in which blood could have been expirated is through Mr Morgan continuing to breathe, but I cannot rule out other causes such as compression to his chest. In my opinion the appearance and distribution of the blood staining neither supports nor refutes the assertion that he was lying on his left side after receiving his injuries. If he had lain on his left side, then in my opinion this could only have been for a brief time before there was a significant accumulation of blood on the ground'.

As a result of the reconstruction and analysis, the following areas of Daniel Morgan’s clothing were identified for touch DNA sampling:

  1. The upper outside surface, and inside bottom half, of Daniel Morgan’s jacket.
  2. The upper, outside surface of Daniel Morgan’s trousers, the thigh region.
  3. The lower, outside surface of Daniel Morgan’s shirt covering the abdomen.

However, it was noted that the only only DNA (STR) profile identified during this process was that of Daniel Morgan and that minor DNA components secured did not match any of the 31 individuals profiled in the case.

Over 299 hairs were recovered. Three hairs from the axe tapings, which included one light brown hair, approximately one centimetre in length, found under the adhesive tape, was suitable for mitochondrial DNA analysis and a profile was obtained. However, it was determiend to have not been  match for anyone.

The two packets of srisps, a letter and an envelope and the banknotes found on Daniel Morgan were also analysed, but with no new DNA results.

It was noted that the investigation was hampered by the fact that many exhibits had gone missing, as well as the inadequacy of previous investigations extending right back to the crime scene.

Further covert surveillance was also carried out, however, it was noted that as the surveillance went on it becamse apparent that some of the suspects were suspicious and continually guarded in what they said.

In a conversation recorded on 23 June 2006, the Elder Brothe'rs Wife was recorded saying, 'she has rung. The Builder has turned Supergrass, if he thinks he knows everything, tell them'.

As in the previous surveillance, trigger events were created to prompt discussion. On 12 July 2006, an article was published in The Sun newspaper, at the request of the Metropolitan Police, regarding the creation of a ‘SECRET police 'ghost squad'' to conduct an investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan. However, nothing of note was recorded.

However, on 31 July 2006, the Younger Brother found a microphone at his house. He had begun to cut back ivy covering a fence at the back of his property, and in doing so he discovered a microphone which had been planted by the Abelard Two Investigation team. There is nothing in the police files to suggest that his discovery of the microphone was anything other than fortuitous on his part, and there was certainly no evidence that he had been 'tipped-off' that he would find something if he were to cut the ivy back. Indeed, it was noted that discussions captured on the probes after he found the microphone suggested genuine surprise and anger that the police had been listening to them, and they even speculated that the microphone may have been in place since 2004, when the two brothers had been arrested for conspiracy to supply drugs.

However, it was noted that the discovery of the microphone prompted substantial conversation, with the Younger Brother and the Elder Brothe'rs Wife speculating again that the people visiting the adjacent property were police officers. It was also discussed between the Younger Brother and his nephew, a serving soldier, who confirmed that what he had found was a ‘bug’ and offered to take it to someone for verification.

On 1 August 2006 the Younger Brother was recorded talking about a letter he had received inviting him to attend a police station for interview about Daniel Morgan’s murder. He speculated that the police wanted to obtain a sample of his DNA, and that the likely outcome of him attending the police station would be that he would be arrested and charged with the murder. He denied that he had had any involvement in the murder and talked about only having met the Builder, whom they thought had turned into a 'Supergrass', 'on ten to twelve occasions'.

The Younger Brother was also recorded saying, 'It’s only immaterial. Right. For it to be material ....(?)…. I would have had to Fucked up, big time. Trust me. Unless someone puts my DNA there which I don’t think they are too clever for .......... (?) ..... I don’t know it’s as simple as that'.

The police interpreted that in the following way, stating, 'The Younger Brotheris clearly discussing the murder of Daniel Morgan and the subject of DNA. It is highly significant that he states, 'For it.' (he is talking about his DNA) 'to be material ......... (?) ........... I would have had to had fucked up big time'. If as the evidence suggests, the The Younger Brother is the killer then he would know the precautions taken, the tape around the axe, whether gloves were worn etc', adding that his comments were 'tantamount to admitting involvement whilst remaining confident he has not left any traces behind'.

The Younger Brother was also heard speaking about Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, saying, 'He bats for both sides of the fence the Businesss Partner, he mixed with bent old bill', as well as his fear of, 'taking the blame for, because they can’t get who they want for it the Businesss Partner or whatever'.

The Prisoner whose information enabled the Abelard Two Investigation to take place had a long history of involvement with organised crime.

He had previously provided information to the police, which resulted in substantial reductions in sentence and quashing of fines imposed on him.

He had also made serious allegations about police corruption to officers of the Metropolitan Police in 1996, with an authorised recorded meeting with him having taken place on 30 January 1996 at which he had spoken about giving £50,000 to a police officer.

In October 1999, police had received information from another bookkeeper, who had become Southern Investigations’ bookkeeper after the first bookkeeper had been imprisoned, in which he alleged that the Prisoner had said that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had paid for the murder and that a man, whom the police later construed to be the Builder, was the driver of the 'get away' car.

On 4 November 1999, the Prisoner and his wife the Prisoner's Wife had been arrested, and their house had been searched in relation to the laundering of large amounts of cash believed to be the proceeds of drugs trafficking. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, the Detective Sergeant, and some other people, including a bank manager for Southern Investigations were also arrested on suspicion of money laundering. The arrests occurred because the Prisoner's Wife had visited Law & Commercial and handed over cash in the sum of approximately £500,000. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, the Detective Sergeant and others had paid that money into their business account and from there into the Prisoner's Wife’s account in an accountancy firm which acted for Law & Commercial. The Prisoner's Wife was bailed repeatedly, and the investigation continued until 2005. Inquiries were made in South Africa, Swaziland, Spain, Gibraltar and Germany and through Interpol.

Following his arrest on 4 November 1999, because of other information, the Prisoner was asked the following questions:

  1. Who ordered the killing of Daniel Morgan?
  2. Who killed Daniel Morgan?
  3. Who paid for the killing of Daniel Morgan?
  4. Where did the money come from?

However, he didn't asnwer the questions and said that he didn't know Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, the Builder or the Detective Sergeant. However, he said that he did know the Elder Brother who had done some driving for him and his wife.

He later stated that he had not answered the questions he was asked on 4 November 1999 because the reward to be gained at the time did not warrant the risk attached to providing information about the murder. He also said he was not interested in the further monetary reward offered in 2002.

On 10 July 2002, the Replacement Bookkeeper had made a statement to police in which he said that the Prisoner had told him that Solicitor, the Builder and one other (whom he did not name) had been involved in the murder. On 1 October 2002, police had met the Prisoner at his solicitor’s office, where he denied having said that which was attributed to him by the Solicitor but admitted that a conversation had taken place between them.

The Prisoner didn't contact the police again in relation to Daniel Morgan’s murder, until, having been arrested in August 2004 with the Elder Brother in connection with serious crime, including money laundering (Operation Bedingham), and remanded in custody, he contacted police through his solicitor in December 2004, saying he wished to discuss the murder. This request was considered by the Metropolitan Police in January 2005, and he was taken for interview on 2 February 2005.

The Prisoner note that he had been scared that something would happen to his wife, saying that when he had been released on 4 November 1999, he had gone straight to the Elder Brother’s house. He said:

'I put it on them that the Replacement Bookkeeper, the wife’s accountant, had told the people that my wife gave this info. I took her (Wife) to South Kensington to a hotel and went back to the people. Would I have killed them? Yes because of the danger to my wife. The Elder Brother knows I know this because he told me. I don’t know what he knows'.

He expressed his concerns about being a witness from the beginning of the interview, saying, 'I have concerns about leaks. I have tried to pass on information before, nothing happened', adding that he had concerns that giving evidence might result in 'someone’s death, my wife, son, grandchildren', and that it would not be worth it.

He was told that 'there are no guarantees or promises, but you won’t be lied to'. The issue of a Restraining Order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which had been made in respect of James Ward’s assets, was also raised, with the police saying 'the financial on you, if we find it we’ll clear you out'.

When they then spoke about the murder, the police said, 'Tell me what you know. I’ll give you a head start. It was the Younger Brother with the axe, the Elder Brother was there and the Builder with the car. Over the car auction'.

The Prisoner then responded, saying: 'One part was confirmed by the Elder Brother. Some of this is correct and some incorrect'. He then said:

The motive is wrong as far as you describe it. To break the case I can tell you, it’s distasteful you might not want to do it. The people involved at the time were the Younger Brother with the axe and the Builder driving the car. It was purposely done. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner wanted it done. Who paid? The Businesss Partner. Why did he get it done? It’s to do with a bird that worked there in the office at the time'.

He also added that the Elder Brother had not been present during the murder, and that 'his role was to keep everyone in line'.

He also said that it was referred to by the Younger Brother as the 'Golden Wonder murder' (a reference to the crisps held by Daniel Morgan when he was murdered), and also, by some, as the 'HP murder', because it was paid for over a period of time.

Regarding the Golden Lion public house, he said, 'That pub was under the Detective Sergeant and another guy, he is ex police and served with Sid. Did 24 years and then got slung out', adding, 'It was chosen as it was the place they paid off their own police officers. The Detective Sergeant was there, just to well, not sure if he knew about it but he was used to hamper the enquiry'.

It was noted that the Prisoner also said during the interview that, in relation to another crime, the Elder Brother's former wife, had said that ‘if they charge him with this, I’ll tell them everything about the murder. You want to solve it, arrest her. She will tell you everything'. Later he said, 'She said she’d do anything to put the Elder Brother inside with his gangster friends'. He went on to say, ‘she hates him (the Elder Brother) more and more every week'. Referring to Person X8, the Prisoner said Person X8 'used to go out with the Elder Brother’s mum. The Elder Brother said 'don’t talk to him [Person X8] cos he's ill and in for 15'. I never have. The Elder Brother thinks if he’s offered parole or £50k or anything, [Person X8] would roll over'.

On 5 June 2005 the police provided information to the judge who was about to sentence the Prisoner for conspiracy to supply Class A and C drugs after which was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment on 27 July 2005.

After that he didn't provide further information to assist the prosecution in 2005. However, he continued to discuss with police whether he was prepared to give evidence in relation to the murder of Daniel Morgan and on 8 August 2005 he contacted them to discuss his sentence. During that conversation, he said that a known criminal family was being protected by a detective, and the information was submitted to the Directorate of Professional Standards.

Then on 28 October 2005 his wife contacted the police to pass on information about the murder of a woman in Croydon on 25 September 2005 which was passed on to the relevant murder investigation team.

Then on 22 December 2005, the Prisoner recorded a voicemail on the detective’s mobile telephone, saying that his wife was ill, she was on bail, and was under stress, and he wanted to talk about what could be done to alleviate her position, and the fact that he would like to be a witness in the Daniel Morgan case.

However, the detective noted that the decision to not to take any further action against his wife had already been made, as there was insufficient evidence, and told him so. Then on 12 January 2006 the police met with the Prisoner to discuss the possibility of his providing evidence under the terms of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and he agreed to provide evidence against those people he knew to be responsible for the murder of Daniel Morgan and identify other criminality he has been engaged in.

On 24 January 2006, police began steps to confiscate assets from the Prisoner under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of assets acquired as a consequence of the drugs offences to which he had pleaded guilty. Then in February 2006, the money laundering investigation of the Prisoner and others allegedly involved in this criminal activity was discontinued and the case was closed that month and nobody was prosecuted.

On 23 February 2006, the Prisoner’s sentence of 17 years for drug offences was reduced to 15 years after an appeal.

The Prisoner then contacted the police again on 3 March 2006 to discuss his situation and was told he should consult his solicitor and then on 5 April 2006 he began negotiating the terms upon which he would be debriefed under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. He was then interviewed in the presence of his solicitor and the debrief process under the Act was explained to him, during which he was told that the Crown Prosecution Service would need to know about all his criminality before deciding whether they could use him as a witness. He was taken out of prison, where he was serving his sentence for an unrelated matter, in order for his debrief to be conducted, it being noted that he Prison Service rules were still applied during his debrief.

He was then debriefed between 22 May 2006 and 12 December 2006.

During the debrief, he:

  1. Informed officers that he had no knowledge of the murder of Daniel Morgan other than that which he had received from other people.
  2. Said that he had known the Elder Brother since 1982 and had been involved in crime with him for years. He described him as being a friend and business associate since 1991. He said that he had never known the Elder Brother to tell a lie. During his trial in 2005 he had described himself as being a father figure to the Elder Brother and said that the Elder Brother would come to him for advice.
  3. Described the first occasion on which he had spoken to the Elder Brother about Daniel Morgan’s murder, which he believed was in 1990/1991, when he and another man were being followed by what he believed were police cars. He had wanted to find out if police were following them and if so why. He met the Elder Brother because he knew his brother-in-law was Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, a private investigator, 'who had numerous full time or part time police officers working in or around him' and said that the Elder Brother had explained to him that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner could help because he owed him a favour in relation to Daniel Morgan’s murder.
  4. Provided information about a number of incidents and about police corruption more generally.
  5. Explained that he had been in prison at the time of the murder.
  6. Said that the murder of Daniel Morgan was, in part, motivated by police corruption, which took the form of 'moonlighting policemen who were using police resources to interfere with a private investigation, passing on different information from police computers and just general sort of police knowledge and tracing people, sabotaging trials'.

During the debrief, the police met with barrister over the value of the Prisoner as a witness, who said:

'no-one should be under any illusion about the problems often encountered when seeking to rely on this category of evidence, especially where there is little or no independent supporting evidence. In my experience, the problems often revolve around the antecedent history of the witness and the motives that lead the witness to approach the police. Whatever pressures there may be to prosecute someone for the killing of Daniel Morgan, it is vital that investigating officers play devil’s advocate, and seek to investigate the witness’s credibility as rigorously as circumstances allow. It would be disastrous were we to launch a prosecution based predominantly on the witness’s evidence for it to flounder because of a failure to identify any fundamental flaws'.

However, it was descided that the debriefing process should continue.

The Prisoner went on to make three statements detailing what he knew and the debrif process ended on 12 December 2006.

At trial he pleaded guilty to 13 drugs offences and initially received a four-year sentence, reduced on 17 July 2007 to three years, and the sentence he was currently serving (imposed on 27 July 2005) which had previously been reduced on appeal from 17 to 15 years, was reduced again from 15 to five years on 9 March 2007, and he was released from prison on 24 December 2007.

It was noted that following Operation Bedingham that there was an investigation into how much the Prisoner had benefited from his criminal conduct the amount of realisable assets which can be seized from him in full or part satisfaction of the amount determined in calculation, and on 22 November 2006, it was calculated that James Ward had received a benefit from his criminal activity of £3,752,703.15, but that his available property was valued at only £1,428,743.68. However, the Prisoner challenged the figures and it was suggested that the manner in which he confessed to his crimes during the debriefing process necessarily entailed him being open and honest 'so that potentially he can be put before the court as a cleansed individual'. As this level of truthfulness 'was seen as an essential component of the defendant’s integrity', it was argued that his submissions on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 issues be accepted, wholly, and without the usual need to provide any supporting evidence. Therefore, according to James Ward’s formal response, the benefit received should be calculated as £1,551,904.90 and his 'available property' as £621,494.84.

It was noted that the judge sitting in the High Court referred to this suggestion as a 'none-to-subtle plea for favourable treatment because of the co-operation which he had given to the murder inquiry'.

The final total figure for his available assets was then agreed at £999,229.17 but was later renegotiated down to £632,965.40, which was close to the previous figure.

In conclusion, it was noted that in effect, the Prisoner had been in a strong position because the Abelard Two Investigation had wanted to keep him as a witness, resulting in him gaining both a financial settlement which was in his interest, and a reduced prison sentence. Further, as a result of the eventual withdrawal of the prosecution, he didn't even have to give evidence as a witness at the trial in 2010.

The other person debriefed was Person F11, who within his statements, said:

  1. In 1989 or 1990 the Builder confided in me that he and a man, the Younger Brother, had committed a murder.
  2. The man who was murdered was either a serving or ex-policeman and had been a partner in a private investigation firm in Thornton Heath.
  3. The other partners in the firm had had an argument with the man who was killed and the builder and the Younger Brother had been paid by Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner to commit the murder.
  4. The Builder was the driver and the Younger Brother had committed the murder by striking the victim in the head with the axe. Basically, the Builder had driven the Younger Brother to meet the victim. I know the victim had been found in a car park but I did not know if this was where he was murdered.
  5. The car that the Builder drove when taking the Younger Brother to kill the victim was hidden in a garage in Cheam after the murder, a man named Person P9 used the garage. It was stored there and covered with a tarpaulin, when things had died down they had collected the car and destroyed it.
  6. Person F11 described where the garage was and to whom it belonged.
  7. 'Person P9 did not know that the car had been involved in a murder. At that time the Builder was involved in stealing and ringing cars and Person P9 thought that it was another stolen car that the Builder wanted him to store.
  8. The Builder regretted telling me about the murder because he and the Younger Brother later threatened me that if ever I said anything the Younger Brother would kill me, my children and my family.
  9. Sometime in 1994 or 1995 the Builder threatened me and told me to kill Person P9. Person P9 had become aware that the car that he had looked after in the garage had been used in a murder. The builder gave me fourteen days to kill Person P9 or he said I would be killed. I took the threat very seriously but I told him I wouldn’t kill Person P9 and said 'you’ll have to do what you’ve got to do then'.
  10. About six months to a year later the Builder and the Younger Brother both told me that if I ever repeated anything to anyone about the murder then they would kill me.

On 8 July 1999, Person F11 was convicted of conspiracy to murder the Builder and other offences and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. However, the sentence was later reduced by the court to five years because he had provided information to the police about the murder of Daniel Morgan and other investigations.

however, he afterwards claimed that his statement had been written under duress, adding that he wanted 'to make sure that this statement is never produced before anybody as my life and families life would be in danger'. However, neither he nor his solicitor had previously alleged that the statement was made under duress.

Further, having secured a reduction in his sentence, Person F11 then refused to assist any further. He was again asked on 1 June 2002 whether he would give evidence of the content of his previous statement, but he had immediately declined, fearing for his safety and that of his family.

Later, on 25 June 2002, in advance of the Crimewatch appeal being aired, the police visited Person F11 to inform him of the reinvestigation into Daniel Morgan’s murder and Person F11 confirmed that the content of his statement was true, but he said that he would never give evidence against them through fear, and if he was ever called to give evidence he would claim that he signed his statement under duress.

On 26 June 2002, after the Crimewatch programme, a man contacted the Metropolitan Police and confirmed that Person F11 had told him that the Builder and the Younger Brother were involved in Daniel Morgan’s murder and that Person P9 had disposed of the vehicle.

On 3 October 2002, Person F11 told police that the car used by the Builder and the Younger Brother for the murder of Daniel Morgan had been a a green VW Golf.

On 19 April 2007, the police received intelligence that Person F11 was again planning to kill someone, and on 30 April 2007, the police attended Person F11’s solicitor’s office, and in the presence of his solicitor the police told Person F11 that they had received this information and gave a warning about the matter. Person F11 however assured tehm that he had no intention of harming the third party.

On 12 September 2007, the police produced a report on the chronology of events, from 1998 to 2007, surrounding the arrest and debrief of Person F11, and the evidence supplied by him in 1999 regarding the murder of Daniel Morga, and in conclusion it was noted that 'the most important fact remains, despite all [Person F11]'s protestations he has never claimed that he is not telling the truth'.

However, on 10 December 2010, a reasoned decision not to use Person F11 as a witness was finally made, which took into account his current activities, the fact that he had been convicted of conspiracy to murder the builder, against whom he was a critical witness, that he was hostile to the builder and that information had again recently been received that Person F11 had intended to kill someone. Therefore, Person F11 had a motive to lie when giving evidence. He had also stated that he had given the evidence under duress.

A third man was also debriefed, however, he was said to have had mental health issues and to have been abusive to police officers and was overall difficult to handle.

He had approached the Sun Newspaper on 2 July 2006 after reading an article in it about the case.

He had said that hr had been a long-term criminal associate of the Builder, carried out work for Southern Investigations, and was an associate of those who worked at Southern Investigations.

He had had convictions for offences dating from 1981 to 2006, which were listed as including offences against the person, fraud, theft, offences relating to law enforcement, drugs offences, and miscellaneous offences.

In his initial evidence, he said:

  1. The Builder was there.
  2. The Detective Sergeant set it up.
  3. He had been asked to do the job himself and was offered ‘Fifty grand cash’. He refused outright. The money was to come from ‘the Detective Sergeant’s side’ through the builder.
  4. The Builder had told him ‘that the Detective Sergeant wanted the job done'.
  5. Daniel Morgan was murdered because 'he got wind of the other’s dealings. The Detective Sergeant and the Businesss Partner had a lot of other things going on in the partnership.
  6. He did not think that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner 'had any involvement in the actual murder. He was well aware of it. He did have involvement in that side of it. I’m ninety nine per cent sure he did.’ Later he said ‘see Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, I won’t mention him because he doesn’t really come into it does he?’ He said on two occasions at this first meeting that he did not think the Businesss Partner had a role in the murder.
  7. He did not know who committed the murder.

He later added:

  1. He had been at the murder scene.
  2. He knew that the Builder was the driver.
  3. He saw the Builder driving away from the murder scene.

Later, whilst with his solicitor, he gave the police a handwritten note that read:

'It is the 5th September 2006, the time is 11.57am. With regard to the murder enquiry I wish to disclose that 'the brothers' are involved. I do not wish today to go into any more details as I feel very unwell and traumatised. I will need further reassurance with regard to the safety of my family & those I love. I understand that my solicitor will hand this signed statement which is the truth, to Tony Moore. I do not feel fit enough to be interviewed on tape about this today'.

However, it was noted that he had not mentioned the brothers before and thought that the timing of the note was suspicious.

On 12 September 2006, he expanded on the account he had given in his statement, by introducing the following information:

  1. He had been asked to go the Golden Lion public house by James Cook with another individual for a meeting in the pub on 10 March 1987.
  2. A man whose name he could not remember had asked him to have a quick chat in the toilet of the Golden Lion public house. He did so. Later that day he identified this person as one of ‘the brothers’. He did not name the brothers.
  3. He was then asked to go out to the car park to have a quick chat with the Builder.
  4. In the car park he saw the Builder in a car with another man. He did not indicate that he knew the other man. He also saw Daniel Morgan’s body with an axe in his head.
  5. The man who had asked him to go outside then got into the car and they all drove off.

On 14 September 2006, he added:

  1. Still could not remember the brothers’ names, although he said he would recognise them. He provided descriptions of their appearance.
  2. Said that the Builder had been in the driving seat of the car in the Golden Lion car park on 10 March 1987, and that both brothers were in the car.
  3. Could not identify the make of the car. He said it was a four-door car, not a hatchback.
  4. Said that he did not like the colour of the car, saying, 'there was something about green'.

It was noted that during the debriefing that the Senior Investigating Officer breached the sterile corridor a number of times by contacting the third man debriefed on numerous occasions, and it was in part because of that that the case failed at trial. It was later submitted that he had in fact coached the Third Man Debriefed in order to make the case stronger, which was a large part of what the sterile corridor was designed to prevent.

It was also noted that his contact with the Third Man Debriefed had been identified and that he should have been replaced at that time, but was not, it being noted that he was in fact nearing retirement and had already been offered a job at the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

On 20 September 2006 he added:

  1. The Detective Sergeant was not in the Golden Lion public house on the night of the murder.
  2. ‘Brother 1’ walked in front of him into the car park to the car. The Builder was in the driving seat. ‘Brother 2’ was in the passenger seat and Brother 1 ‘got into the rear offside passenger door’.
  3. He saw Daniel Morgan lying at right angles to the car with his head adjacent to the rear offside wheel.
  4. The Detective Sergeant orchestrated the murder.
  5. The contract emanated from Eire because of the threat posed by Morgan’s knowledge. The Detective Sergeant managed the contracted and would facilitate payment.
  6. The Builder had told him that Daniel Morgan had discovered Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner’s involvement in drugs, and it was thought that he would probably alert the authorities. He described in some further detail the criminal organisation involved in the importation of drugs from Ireland. He also alleged that the Detective Sergeant provided information on police and HM Customs and Excise activity that might threaten the operation. He said that he and the Builder used two police officers to get information and ensure that ‘persons or premises were not being looked at’.
  7. That quite soon after the murder, the Builder told him that the Detective Sergeant wanted to see him, that they drove to a public house and that the Detective Sergeant had told him that he had seen what had happened and that the same could happen to him or his family if he did not keep his mouth shut.

On 15 November 2006, The Third Man Briefed was taken to visit the Golden Lion public house. He was asked to describe the scene in the car park on the night of the murder and was video-recorded doing so. He later drew a plan of the car park showing his account of where things happened there on the night of 10 March 1987. That plan was inconsistent with the plan drawn by a police officer on the night of the murder in which the position of cars was identified. He indicated that his car had been parked in a space which, previous plans had shown, had been occupied by another identified car on that night.

On 20 April 2007, he made a formal statement recording the following:

  1. Around January 1987 the Builder asked me if I was interested in disposing of Daniel Morgan. I refused. I was told it would pay £50,000.
  2. The Builder said that the Detective Sergeant would be involved in paying the money on behalf of someone else, therefore guaranteeing the payment. This didn’t surprise me as much as it should have, as by then I knew the Detective Sergeant was a corrupt officer.
  3. The Builder asked to meet him and his friend in the Golden Lion public house on 10 March 1987 (the day of Daniel Morgan’s murder). He assumed the meeting was to discuss a potential theft. He was inconsistent in his description of his own precise seating position in the Golden Lion. He drew a plan of the bar on 27 November 2006 indicating where Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and Daniel Morgan were standing and where his friend and he were sitting. He had previously drawn a plan on 3 October 2006, but said it was not accurate.
  4. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner was in the bar at the Golden Lion public house with a woman, whom he thought was his wife or his mistress, when he arrived with his friend. Daniel Morgan arrived a short time later and joined his Businesss Partner and the woman. The Builder then arrived and spoke briefly to Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and Daniel Morgan. The Businesss Partner subsequently left the bar twice, returning on the second occasion with a man, whom he had not seen previously, but who, he thought, was a police officer. He said that he had seen him twice since Daniel Morgan’s murder and on each occasion, he was with the Detective Sergeant. He said that the Builder then left the bar, having said that he would talk to them in a few minutes. He did not return to the bar while he was there.
  5. A man tapped me on the shoulder and asked me if we could have a quick chat in the toilets. He said that the man had a brother. When He went into the toilet, the man said that the Builder wished to speak to him in the car park.
  6. By this stage Daniel Morgan had left the bar. His Businesss Partner was still there with the woman.
  7. He followed the man out of the front door of the Golden Lion public house, and they went together around to the car park at the back. When he got to the car park, he saw the Builder was in the driving seat of a large car, a Ford Granada or Ford Consul. The car’s engine was running but the lights were off. He described the car as being of ‘dark’ colour. The ‘other brother’ was in the passenger seat. Daniel Morgan’s body was lying with an axe embedded in his head, close to the car.
  8. The Builder winked at him and drove off. There was another car in the car park in which a driver was sitting. He marked the location of all three cars on a diagram of the car park which he had previously drawn, and which he appended to his statement.
  9. He was shocked and that he drove his car out of the car park and left the engine running, while he went back into the Golden Lion and told his friend they were leaving. He then drove his friend back home.
  10. He thought James Cook did this to implicate him should he want to give evidence about their earlier conversation, when James Cook had asked him to carry out the murder, and as a warning of what could happen to him or his family if he thought of giving evidence.
  11. From 1986, he had been involved in drug trafficking with the Builder, the Detective Sergeant and Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner. He stated that the drugs were sourced in Ireland and distributed through the Builder; that the Detective Sergeant protected the parcels in transit by checking police and customs indices. He  believed that the Businesss Partner was assisting to launder the proceeds.
  12. He stated that, ‘about three or four months before the murder, the Builder told me that Daniel Morgan had found out about the drugs and the involvement of his Businesss Partner and Southern Investigations’, and the Builder became involved in plans to kill Daniel Morgan. He stated that ‘the Builder said that the Detective Sergeant would be involved in paying the money on behalf of someone else, therefore guaranteeing the payment’. He said that ‘I believe that the Irish boys organised the murder of Daniel Morgan because he knew about the drugs importation’.
  13. He stated that 'after the murder there was a rumour put out that it was over an affair, that was rubbish, a smokescreen. I don’t know who started this rumour, but it was to cover up the true reason, him finding out about the drugs'.
  14. He was threatened by the Detective Sergeant afterwards to keep quiet about the murder, or ‘I might get the same or my family might get the same’. He did not state that the Detective Sergeant was present at Daniel Morgan’s murder.
  15. The Detective Sergeant issued this threat because he was higher in the chain of command than Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and the Builder in their dealings with people he called ‘the Irish Boys’.

By May 2007 Hehad confessed to having committed 52 offences, and on 4 May 2007, he was charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to murder.

He also made a number of other additional and varied statements, both about the murder as well as other criminality.

This included a conspiracy to murder charge after he stated that he had been offered £50,000 to kill a woman's former husband. He said that the woman had agreed to pay £1,500 up front for background work and that he had bought a gun. However, he said that he later changed his mind and had cleaned the gun and thrown it, the magazine and the ammunition, in the paper wrapping, over the Battersea side of Chelsea Bridge, into the River Thames.

The investigation into the conspiracy was called Operation Haglight. It was noted that the cost of the investigation was bourne by the Abelard Two Investigation and that it meant that they weer then as such engaged in two murder investigations with associated costs.

On 31 January 2007, five members of a police underwater search team searched the area of the River Thames off the Chelsea bridge over a period of five days looking for the gun which he had said he had thrown into the river. Nothing relevant to the enquiry was found. A gun was recovered, however, but it didn't match the description given by the man.

The man was charged with conspiracy to murder on 4 May 2007. however, he didn't plead guilty, instead stating that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy to murder when he threw the gun into the River Thames, and his plea was accepted.

However, as he had admitted to a range of criminality during the debrief process, he was sentenced for them on 17 October. the judge stated that the crimes committed by him would have warranted a sentence of 28 years, but the fact that he had volunteered information, made statements and pleaded guilty meant that this sentence was reduced to 14 years, and that the 14-year sentence was reduced by 75 per cent in the light of the assistance given by him under section 73 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, bringing his sentence down to three-and-a-half years. The judge then reduced that sentence further to three years in recognition of the time which he had spent in protective custody.

Another witness, Person S15, came forward after an appeal in the Sun for information Daniel Morgan’s car, a 1957 Austin Healey on 27 October 2006. The car had been removed shortly after Daniel Morgan’s murder from the garage in which he had left it.

The car was found on 7 September 2006 having been registered on 14 October 1991 by a man who had bought the vehicle in good faith in about 1988/1989 from a scrap dealer and had spent several thousand pounds restoring it.

Person S15 saw the article and came forward to offer to provide information in relation to the murder of Daniel Morgan. He was living overseas and had no previous convictions.

He said that he had been a close friend of the Elder Brother’s since 1983/1984, that their wives had known each other since childhood, and that the two families had socialised together. He also said that he had known the Builder and a drug dealer, noting that he had known the Builder since 1983/1984.

Regarding the murder, he said:

  1. The Elder Brother had said that the Builder had been at the murder, but he ‘was only involved as the driver,’ and that because the Builder was under investigation for drugs offences Elder Brother and his wife ‘were worried that he may say something, that he would implicate himself as being the driver but that he would get consideration for going Queen’s Evidence’.
  2. Daniel Morgan was murdered because he was looking into the Elder Brother and others dealing drugs. Morgan knew too much'.
  3. Daniel Morgan was looking into the Elder Brother and his friends as a Private Investigator and that was the reason that he was murdered.

On 13 June 2007, the Abelard Two Investigation submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service seeking advice as to whether five suspects should face criminal charges in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan.

The report stated that the catalyst for reopening the enquiry was the prospect of new evidence from resident informant the Prisoner and that the investigation :

'has uncovered new and compelling evidence some of which places a different emphasis on previously known facts. The new evidence is broadly consistent with the findings on the previous phases of the investigation, it provides a strong motive not previously identified and clarifies the roles each of the suspects undertook. The motives previously submitted as precursor to this crime are still perfectly valid, particularly in respect of Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, they become a secondary, 'welcome by-product' to the main motive'.

The result was that the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that sufficient evidence existed to charge Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner, The Builder, and the two brothers with the murder of Daniel Morgan but that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Detective Sergeant was involved in the murder of Daniel Morgan despite the fact that he effectively took his place as partner at Southern Investigations.

It was stated that the decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the Detective Sergeant with an offence of perverting the course of justice was finely balanced, with the clearest evidence of such an offence contained in the statement from the Third Man Briefed that related to the threat that the Detective Sergeant made in the presence of the Builder, adding 'For reasons outlined above, I think that a jury could conclude that the Third Man Briefed was telling the truth about the main events linked to the murder and therefore, on balance, there are grounds for charging the Detective Sergeant with an offence of perverting the course of justice in connection with the threat'.

Following that another witness was Briefed, Person J5.

She had initially been told of the deelopes whilst answering bail and informed that she would probably be called as a witness. When she was later interviewed on 19 June 2009 she said:

  1. The Builder had police contacts who provided him with information.
  2. Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner ‘used to take a lot of drugs from 'bent old Bill' which were ‘siphoned off from police drug raids’.
  3. The Builder was allegedly responsible for placing a pig’s head on the doorstep of former the Detective Sergeant’s public house in Norfolk to warn him to keep quiet about things.
  4. The Builder had told her that he, the two brothers and Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner had gone to the Golden Lion public house merely to ‘rough him [Daniel Morgan] up’. She stated that ‘it was over a woman as well as 'the deals'. The Builder had told her that the Younger Brother had ‘all of a sudden pulled out an axe and hit Daniel Morgan in the head with it’ to which the Builder then said to the Younger Brother, 'What the fuck did you do that for?'.
  5. The Builder told her that he took Daniel Morgan’s watch and something else, which she thought may have been money.

She also said that she would give information, but she would not give evidence in court, explaining that she was too afraid to do so because of her knowledge about the Builder’s violence, and that of those associated with him.

However, on 26 June 2009, Person J5 alleged that sometime between 7.30 am and 8.00 am, she was walking her dog, when she was violently assaulted by two men, one of whom told her ‘keep your mouth shut, don’t say anything, if you do next time it will be worse’. Following that assault, one of the men said ‘Don’t say anything. Keep your mouth shut.’ She said that she returned home and reported the attack to police a few hours later. The local ambulance service was called by the police and she was taken to hospital. She gave names which she said she thought were the names of the people who attacked her but in a subsequent interview, she stated that she did not know them and would not recognise them again.

However, the police investigated the attack and found one of the people she had mentioned but found that they had had an alibi. Further, when they examined her phone they found a draft text dated 26 June 2009 at 2.29.33 on her phone describing the attack before it happened. However, no action over her credibility as a witness was taken.

Person J5 also provided evidence which was not related to the murder of Daniel Morgan but on alleged corrupt practices between Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner and the News of the World, and between him and some police officers.

On 2 July 2009, she was taken into the care of the Witness Protection Unit.

Person J5 entered the debriefing process on 12 August 2009, after which there were 85 debriefing sessions which were completed on 26 October 2009.

her evidence was also used in support of a prosecution for an armed robbery at an Asda store that occurred in 1998 for which Person J5 provided accurate ‘fine-grain detail’.

However, it was later decided not to use Person J5 as a Prosecution witness in the Daniel Morgan murder case was made.

It was noted that by 9 October 2009, Person J5 had provided information of at least 51 past offences allegedly committed by the Builder. These included involvement in some 36 murders, offences of theft, possession of controlled drugs, possession of a prohibited weapon, arson, corrupting of police officers, burglaries, robberies, handling stolen goods, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, a public order offence, money laundering, assault and attempted murder, forgery and dishonest handling, drug importation, grievous bodily harm, and other crimes including disposal of bodies, disposal of crime-related items and buying disguises to commit crimes.

It was noted that Person J5 had also admitted firing a gun into the body of a person who had just been shot dead and had offered to show the police where bodies were buried, however, despite searches, no bodies were found, and further noted that the Metropolitan Police expended significant resources attempting to corroborate the evidence provided by her.

In a further statement dated 14 October 2009, Person J5 said the following:

  1. Although she had previously said that ‘the Businesss Partner wanted Danny warned off a woman and Danny to be out of the business and also he had spoken to the two brothers as he wanted something doing about it,’ she stated in her new statement that ‘the Builder actually told me that Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner met up with the brothers and the Builder and told them he wanted Danny to disappear, which the Builder said meant killed'.
  2. Although she had previously said, ‘the Builder was not expecting the axe’, she stated in the new statement, ‘the Builder actually said that the plan was to bundle him into a car and take him away somewhere quiet where he would be got rid of. The Builder told me he was trying to bundle Danny into the car, he had grabbed Danny and opened the car door, there was big struggle, the Builder continued and told me then the crazy brother of the two, that I had just met in the pub, pulled out an axe and hit Danny straight over the head with this axe. He then pulled the axe out of his head and hit him again in the head. He said the axe was sticking out of his head; he was lying on the floor with the axe sticking out of his head'.
  3. Although she had previously said that the Builder did not know about the plan to murder Danny,  this was totally untrue'.
  4. Although she had said that the Rolex watch was taken and that someone had kept it, ‘the Builder told me that it was him that actually stole this watch and later smashed it up'.

It was then decided on 5 January 2010 that Person J5's debrief should continue as further information was required from her.

Further checks found that the names of alleged victims provided by Person J5, revealed that they were contained on a missing person’s website, suggesting that the names may have been taken from there, rather than representing information known personally to Person J5. A detective said, 'already been asked about her usage of computer aids, be it laptop, mobile phones or any other means onto the internet, plus, whether she has carried out any research using other mediums to bolster her testimony. She has emphatically denied the use of any aids, other than recall'.

It was then reported that there was suspicion that not all of her assertions were of a first hand nature and the police decided to retrieve a Metropolitan Police laptop which had been supplied to her and her partner, ‘to carry out covert checks to establish whether she has been viewing, particularly, 'missing person sites', whilst supplying results as alleged victims in her interview transcripts.

Further, as a consequence of the rising concerns about the credibility of Person J5 as a witness, the police met two psychologists. The psychologists had previously been supplied with material related to Person J5 and concluded that she ‘probably had Borderline Personality Disorder’, which, they said, meant that she had a tendency to want to please her debriefers and this was possibly what had occurred.

The psychologists said that they believed that Person J5 had been telling the truth, in respect of the information she had supplied in 2006 and in her statement in July 2009 (concerning the murder of Daniel Morgan), because there had not been time for a bond to form and the information had remained consistent.A detective said that the view of the psychologists on this was reinforced by the offer of the Builder to plead guilty to a lesser charge than murder, after Person J5’s statement was disclosed in 2009.

On 07 July 2010, Person J5 wrote a letter to the detectives dealing with her, in which she expressed her regret for assisting the police and her distrust for the Crown Prosecution Service. In her letter, she expressed anger at the suggestion that she had not been telling the truth saying:

‘I did NOT want to open up these deeply disturbing memories, you insisted I told you everything I knew. For you to dare to imply I have lied in any way is a disgrace. What is my motive? What benefit do I receive for information that causes me a great deal of upset? I have a contract on my life, if my information was not correct then why would that be so? The veracity of the Statements made and all information I have given concerning crimes, is 100% accurate within the constraints of my memory'.

She also explained that she had been harassed for three years by the police into giving evidence.

On 22 October 2010, the police made a decision that the Abelard Two Investigation should not continue to investigate the allegations made by Person J5, saying:

‘[Person J5]’s account falls into two main phases, account before formal debrief and account during formal debrief. Her account before de-brief is broadly corroborated whereas her account during debrief is less so. Her actual role, if any, in the offences she describes during formal debrief is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty. Internet searches, purportedly made by her partner prior to her disclosure of the information found serves to exacerbate the concern. [Person J5] has also been evaluated by a forensic psychiatrist, on behalf of Prosecution Counsel. The forensic psychiatrist concluded that Person J5 had no severe mental health issues, it is therefore understood that for whatever her reasons, Person J5 consciously took the decision to provide the debrief team with the information she did. Person J5 has given information about numerous murders, that she either claims knowledge of, or that she witnessed directly. Most involved Abelard II defendant, the Builder. The Detective Chief Superintendent had directed that SCD1 Team 16 would take primacy for the investigation of these murders, so the decision as to the future progress of these matters will be referred to him. The actions 'referred' by this decision relate to seeking corroboration as to persons described in debrief, locations described and other background information. Balancing potential expenditure in terms of resources and cost to the public purse against potential benefit to this investigation clearly indicates it would be an inefficient use of such resources to continue with these lines of enquiry. Material generated by the investigation to date has been disclosed to prosecution and defence legal teams. Person J5 is not to be called as a witness, but it remains open to defence to carry out such further investigation as they deem necessary.’

Before the trial, it was noted that there was a huge disclosure problem as it was found that 18 crates of documents had not been processed properly, it being noted that the disclosure required that the defence have access. Inparticular, 15-17 crates of materials about the Prisoner had been made available to the investigation in June 2007, but it had not been recieved until November 2009, whilst another was not recieved until 10 February 2010, and none of the crates contents had been disclosed. Further, eighty-one pages of documents relating to Person F11 were not received by the Abelard Two Investigation in November 2009.

On 22 February 2010, the solicitor representing the Younger Brother who had gone to inspect papers which had previously been disclosed, discovered a detective’s email to another detective of 20 November 2009 among the papers which had been disclosed, which was the first time they had become aware of the existence of the 18 crates and, as the judge noted on 26 February 2010, 'if she had not discovered it then, then this hearing, like the last hearing, would have gone off in ignorance of all of this'.

It was then further found out in March 2010 that the Prisoner had been known by several pseudonym's and that several files actually related to him.

Then later, on 4 March 2011, police realised they also had in the Abelard Two Exhibits Room three crates of still unscheduled material, the existence of which had also not been disclosed. That fact was brought up at the trial on 7 March 2011, as it was in progress.

It was noted that the situation contributed to the later decision to offer no evidence against the remaining defendants at the trial.

At the hearing of 18 November 2010, the prosecution stated that they were offering no new evidence against the the Builder, it being noted that the evidence of Person J5, a key witness against him, had been withdrawn due to her unreliability on 18 October 2010 and that the only remaining evidence implicating him in the murder of Daniel Morgan was the witness statement of Person F11 obtained in 1999 but that because he had subsequently claimed that this statement was ‘taken from him under duress', the prosecution offered no evidence against him and the judge directed a verdict of not guilty against him.

Following that, the issue of the disclosure of the crates was against considered as the Defence argued that the police had attempted to conceal the fact that there was disclosable material in the 18 crates, and that the police had deliberately contrived to mislead Prosecution Counsel and the court about the relevance of the material in the crates, so that the Defendants would remain incarcerated in December 2009.

The court heard that the police had in fact had the crates for for over three months during which time they failed to scedule and disclose the contents because they were busy and that in fact, officers that had carried out the disclose had not had sufficient training to conclusively recognise documents which might undermine the Prosecution or assist the Defence and that when they had begun amending the schedules of documents contained in the 18 crates, one officer had amended the entries in the schedules to read, 'not relevant to Abelard. Does not impact on the case', even though he had not reviewed the documents.

In an exchange between the judge and the officer, it was heard:

Judge: All right it could have been changed, but you were putting down 'does not impact on the case' before you had looked at the documents themselves?

Officer: I was standardising the entry. That’s all I was doing.

Judge: Why not just leave it blank: 'I haven’t looked at these documents. I just can’t express an opinion one way or the other.' Why put down something that you were simply not able properly to put down?

Officer: Because it hadn’t been through the disclosure review. I think.

Judge: All right, exactly. 'I’m sorry, I’m overwhelmed. I’ve got no time.' If I may say so, purely personally I would have had every sympathy with that. 'I just haven’t had time. I’m not able to express an opinion one way or the other. Let’s wait and see.' Instead of which you have actually put down something which is just not right, and about documents that you hadn’t inspected?’

On January 2011 a detective was informed that two crates of material relating to the Prisoner, under a pseudonym, had been found in a disused police station. In one of the documents there was an indication that the Prisoner had ‘ordered an associate to kill another person, (person A). Person A was not killed]’, but the information stated that ‘the Prisoner threatened the same associate with death if he carried on business with person A.’ However it was noted that throughout his debrief the Prisoner had maintained that he was not a violent person.

It was said that the discovery of that material seriously undermined the credibility of the Prisoner and that as a consequence of these matters and the failure to identify the two other names used by police to refer to the Prisoner, the Prosecution finally decided that they could no longer rely on his evidence and he was abandoned as a witness on 24 January 2011. The judge then asserted that that meant that by early 2011 the Prosecution had lost the Second Debriefed person, Person J5, the Prisoner and Person F11 as witnesses, leaving the case ‘very finely balanced’.

On 11 March 2011, after the 7 March adjournment following the discovery of the three unscheduled crates, the prosecution stated that they would offer no evidence against each Defendant.

When the judge summed the issues up, he said:

The time has come when the prosecution no longer feel that we are able to satisfy the terms of paragraph 3.5 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors to which I referred earlier. It seems to us that that is now the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the combination of matters that I have outlined. In addition, any jury’s assessment of the available evidence would in our judgment inevitably and rightly be affected by the knowledge that the prosecution accept that we cannot be confident that the defence in this particular case necessarily have all of the material to which they are entitled. In those circumstances it seems to the prosecution that the prospects of conviction are also significantly affected to the point that it can no longer be said that the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is satisfied. Police, Crown Prosecution Service and counsel are all of this view.’

The judge then entered not guilty verdicts against all the remaining defendents.

The general conclusions of the Panel review into the failed trial stated:

  1. The primary evidence against the four Defendants accused of the murder of Daniel Morgan came from witnesses whose evidence was successfully excluded on applications made by the Defence. While it was correct for the Metropolitan Police to seek new witnesses after the submission of the Advice File to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2007, the early warnings by Counsel and others about possible contamination of two of the three main witnesses, particularly by contact with the lead detective, should have led to much swifter action. The absence of any proper functioning oversight process during the period from 2008 to 2011 by another leading detective was unacceptable.
  2. Although he denied any wrongful conduct, the leading detective was partially responsible for the exclusion of the Third Man Debriefed’s evidence by the judge, because of his unauthorised contacts with him. In subsequent years, a High Court Judge, and then the Court of Appeal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the behaviour reported by another detective formed part of a broader pattern of criminal activity by DCS Cook designed to influence and even fabricate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Abelard Two.
  3. The Abelard Two Investigation did not deliver a proper process for those charged in connection with the murder of Daniel Morgan, or for the Detective Sergeant, as the success of the civil proceedings brought by former DS Fillery and by Jonathan Rees and Glenn Vian demonstrated. Ultimately, the criminal proceedings against the Defendants charged with the murder of Daniel Morgan were withdrawn because of multiple failures in disclosure and because there were questions about the credibility of at least three of the witnesses, and credible allegations that the Senior Investigating Officer, had coached at least one of the witnesses.

Damages

Following failed trial, the two brothers and Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner sued the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution in July 2019, with Businesss Partner and the Younger Brother recieving £155,000 each and the Elder Brother recieving £140,000.

Daniel Morgan's family also sued the Metroplitan Police, winingadmissions of failings and an out of court financial settlement.

The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel - 15 June 2021.

Following the failed an independent panel was set up to examine the case from start to finish, the results of which were published on 15 June 2021.

The report covered the police investigations as well as police corruption, the expereince of Daniel Morgan's family over the years, and lessons for future panels.

The Panel itself heavily critisecd the Metropolitan Police for obstructing access to documents for its review.


*map pointers are rough estimates based on known location details as per Place field above.

see en.wikipedia.org

see Court News UK

see Stewart Tendler Crime Reporter. "Policemen quizzed on death of detective." Times [London, England] 4 Apr. 1987: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 28 Aug. 2012.

see BBC

see You Tube

see Daily Mirror - Thursday 12 March 1987

see Daily Mirror - Tuesday 12 April 1988