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 rear 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 fifth 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 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:
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 on 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 acquitted after the trial collapsed, in part because it was heard to have relied 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:
The main suspects in the 1987 arrests were:
The suspects arrested in the 1989 investigation were:
The suspects arrested in the 2008 investigation were:
Southern Investigations had been set up by Daniel Morgan and his business partner who had been an ex-Metropolitan Police officer. As a police officer Daniel Morgan's partner maintained good relations with other existing police officers, including the detective sergeant 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 progress 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 but his business partner left him at about 8.30pm. Daniel Morgan 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 the 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 regarding 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 on 10 March 1987 was roughly as follows:
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 the 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 inform 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:
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 Golden Lion 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 received 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. Amongst 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:
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 have been otherwise busy.
When Daniel Morgan's body was examined, he was found to have had £1,076.47 on him, comprising of two £50 notes, 97 £10 notes and £6.47 in coins. However, his Rolex watch, which he was thought 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:
It was noted that no trace of the briefcase or documents were 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:
The report concluded:
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:
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,
When the detective was later questioned during the review he said that 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 husband, 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 to see Daniel Morgan's business partner agreed with his partners observations, and said:
However, it was noted that although both detectives became suspicious about Daniel Morgan's business partner's behaviour, 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 went 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 should have been fully interviewed, his clothes examined, his house searched, his car searched and his wife interviewed, all of which would have been standard procedure at the time and which didn't happen, and that that was a serious failure of the initial investigation.
The report concluded the detective superintendent, '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 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 superintendent 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:
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 forensic expert when asked why his clothes were not sent off for analysis said:
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:
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 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 eight members of the Catford Crime Squad, including the detective sergeant that had been intending to join Southern Investigations as a partner had been on that initial murder team.
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 sergeant was too closely associated with Daniel Morgan’s business partner.
Excerpts from Daniel Morgan’s business partner’s statement included:
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 evening of 9 March 1987 and would have known 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:
As such, the review concluded that:
However, when the detective sergeant was questioned over the content of the statement, he said that it was never meant to have been a 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:
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
20 March 1987
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 was recorded as:
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:
When enquiries were made into the possibility of blood splashes it was determined that the assailant would not have necessarily 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 enquiry 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:
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 thought 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 unidentified.
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.
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 they 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 that 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 which time Daniel Morgan was dead. However, the review noted that there was no reason to believe 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:
House to house enquiries were also undertaken, but it was noted that two leads in particular were not followed up. They were:
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:
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:
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 the 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:
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 appeared 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 of the Golden Lion and later went 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 conclusively 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 meet the associate to discuss the loan, the associate denied that any meeting was arranged. The issue of who knew that 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 looking 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 Daniel 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. However, 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 interviewed 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:
When the calls 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 was murdered. The calls were:
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 9.04pm and 9.21pm 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 partner was looked into it was determined that they had both been involved with the manager of the estate agents from across the road to Southern Investigations. When 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 began 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 considered 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:
Regarding point 4 it was noted that Daniel Morgan's business 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 and 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 business partner to overhear any other information that the business associate had to impart.
To place Daniel Morgan's business partner’s relationship with the murder team into perspective, one detective said, 'because of the help Daniel Morgan's business 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 business partner and asked whether he could take his annual leave, finishing his duties on 13 March 1987 and he was released to normal duties.
The detective superintendent said:
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 business 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 business 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 was for breach of contract and negligence relating to the loss of monies collected during the auction at which Southern Investigations were providing security and for which Daniel Morgan's business 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:
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 it 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 it, 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:
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:
It was also stated that another 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 receipt 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 received 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:
In a letter dated 27 June 1990 the detective superintendent 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:
The detective superintendent said:
He added in conclusion that out of 200 statements 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 the 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:
In consequence it was determined to arrest the six men and search warrants were obtained. By that time the murder squad had been reorganised with all the existing officers replaced except 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 criticised 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 Investigations. 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 brothers, 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 compromised 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 the arrests the Daily Mirror published a report about the arrests and on 2 November 1987 one of the writers provided a statement to the police 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 receiving 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 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 determined that one of the detectives on the case had brought 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 unnamed 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 bringing 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 brought 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 into the room and it was noted that the ex-detective had 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, was 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 concluded that:
It was noted that the detective superintendent questioned Daniel Morgan's business partner in the police car on the way to the police station. However, the later review stated that he should not having, saying, 'The detective superintendent 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 paying 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 those details were contained within the Southern Investigations accounting system he 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 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 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 Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner 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 the Detective Sergeant 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 told Daniel Morgan, in his presence, that he would speak to someone that day and arranged 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 response 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:
The detective sergeant was arrested at his home at 6.40am on 3 April 1987.
He was 40 years 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 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 about 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 should 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 medically 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. When he 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 which was 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 to 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 brother’s criminal records, to a solicitor but when he was shown a hand-written document, he agreed that he had done so although denied providing information on convictions or using the police computer to get that information, 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 sergeant 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 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 auctions, 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 acknowledged receiving a letter from solicitors acting for Belmont Car Auctions but said that although he had written a draft response, he had not responded 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 said 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 sergeant, 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:
Further, the review of the case concluded:
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 and 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 informed 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.
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 was 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:
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 determined 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 2 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 the 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 process-server said 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 was 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 referred to the finance company in the UK for approval.
After getting approval, Daniel Morgan, the process-server and the man that had stored the car 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:
It was also heard that the men had been of interest to detectives in Brighton.
A statement was taken from the 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 received threats linked to his trip to Malta. These references were:
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 the police 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 that 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 researched, 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 determined 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 determined 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 Yorkshire 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 and allowing 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 Morgan 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 was 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 affair related 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 the man with the connections to the Kray Brothers.
On 14 August 1987 the police received 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:
On 18 August 1987, it was reported that a former Metropolitan Police officer who was then proprietor of the 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 knew 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 referring 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 and 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 detective 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 experience 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 previously 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 split 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 journalist 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 story 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 with 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 criticised 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 noted 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 he had met Daniel Morgan's business partner around two years earlier and bought some stories from him which were tittle-tattle, and paid 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 the 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 8 February 1988 a reporter with the Daily Mirror newspaper said:
As 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 the 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 result 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 was 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:
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 following:
Nine years later in June 2016, the ex-detective added the following:
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:
When he described the two occasions on which he met Alan Holmes, he said:
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 Holmes at all in any of them.
The police review concluded the accounts of the ex-detective and the man that had gone to Malta with Daniel Morgan were not credible. It stated:
The review concluded by stating, 'Having considered all the evidence available, the Panel is not persuaded that the evidence provided by the 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 serious fraud offences that were unrelated to his position at Southern Investigations. However, when a new accountant joined 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:
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 had 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 received four messages from an individual who was on bail for credit card offences that 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 daughter 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 had 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 partner and the man he went to Malta with.
Daniel Morgan's business partner said:
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 had 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 7pm and 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 involved 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 the police 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 the 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.
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.
Conduct of Police Officers
The police review considered the conduct of the police officers during the investigation following the allegations 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 months 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 was 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 visited 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 properly 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 that 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 estate 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 him but felt that he needed advice and approached the Crown Prosecution Service. When he referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, he said:
However, it was determined to wait for the inquest before making a decision.
Inquest
Key dates relating to the inquest are:
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:
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 detailed 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 said that Daniel Morgan's business partner had been trying to get other officers from nearby Norbury police station to arrest Daniel Morgan, telling him that they would either commit the murder themselves, or get someone 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 of the £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:
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 business 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. However, 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 the 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 criticism 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' stating 'No stone has been left unturned'. However, the police review noted that whilst 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 into the murder:
Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation - July 1988 to March 1990.
The first review was carried out under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority and 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 started 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 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 caveats 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 should 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 through Operation Two Bridges were:
However, the report concluded by stating that very little came out of the operation other than the fact that Daniel Morgan's business partner and his brother-in-law had appeared concerned 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 associate, who may have been involved in the murder.
The report also stated:
When the 2000 Murder Review was set up three terms of reference were set up:
The 2000 Murder Review was also stated to focus upon the following:
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:
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 damages 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 estate agent, a man and Daniel Morgan's business partner's wife. However, it was noted that the detective sergeant who was initially thought to have been a suspect and who was tried was not on the 2000 Murder Review list of key witnesses or detailed 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 a 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 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 allegiance, have anything additional to add to the murder investigation. It was noted that his statement in the murder investigation had shown 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 other 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 brothers 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 questioned during 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 targeting the brothers with regards 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 partner 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 husband'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’s business partner’s wife, 'undoubtedly holds vital information regarding the movements of her husband on the night of 10 March 1987'.
The evidence of the 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 had been a 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 particular 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 returned to their owner could not be found. Items found to be missing included:
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 document produced by the Hampshire/Police Complaints Authority Investigation was a report on the forensic aspects of the Morgan One Investigation which stated:
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:
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 submitted 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 someone 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:
The 2000 Murder Review Report also stated that there were forensic opportunities, that relevant exhibits and documentation had been located, that there were investigative opportunities and there were 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.
The Abelard One/Morgan Two Investigation constituted 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:
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:
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 involvement, which included:
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 alleged 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 recommendation 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 house 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 determined 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 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 received 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.
To assist 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 during 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 announce 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 was offered, the police Commander 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 report noted that 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 murder'. The information to be used was to be information that had already been received 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 that 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:
The proposed trigger strategies were then detailed:
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'.
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:
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 head of the investigation 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 Morgan had worked with, and who later 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 weeks 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 and 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 detective 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 he 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 arrested at the time were not involved. He also said that he still telephoned the detective sergeant occasionally for a chat. However, it 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 that 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 man’s car.
It was further noted that none of the information that the detective had provided had resulted in any new 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:
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:
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 immediately 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 conversation. He said that the 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:
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 or the murder.
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 unless 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 then said:
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 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.
It was noted that following the BBC Crimewatch programme on 26 June 2002, that the News of the World started to carry out surveillance on the detective that had appeared on the programme 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 discredit 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 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 affair 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 them whilst the surveillance of the detective 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 involved 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 believed that it had had the effect of 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 there were further attempts made to discredit the detective that had appeared 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 surveillance 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 detective 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:
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 that had been the motive of the actual reporters involved.
However, it was noted that there was no direct evidence that the surveillance 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 November 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:
The surveillance 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 well known to person P9 and that information had been received 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 questioned over 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. He was then released on bail.
Covert surveillance 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 information was also given, that being 49, it being noted that person P9 was 49.
It was noted that the news prompted several significant 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 restaurant 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 comment interview and was released on bail at 2.35pm. After he was released, he made and received several calls, in three of which he was heard to say:
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. They then asked a number of questions about person X8 who had worked with Daniel Morgan's business 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 brothers and a third people 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 brother’s daughters read out a newspaper article which said that the two men who had been arrested had been released and 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 happening’ with me ex-fucking brother-in-law [Daniel Morgan's business 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 asking 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 Younger Brother and the Elder Brother's Wife had a conversation during which the Younger 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 Younger 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 Younger 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 Younger 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 Younger 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 stated that the Younger Brother openly discussed the murder with the Elder Brothe'rs Wife 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 7.30pm and 8pm and left at about 10pm to 10.15pm'.
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 an alibi for the Builder on 16 December 2002. Person D28 gave no comment responses 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 and 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:
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 Business 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 Business 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:
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 Business Partner, and that they believed Daniel Morgan and his Business 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 was no evidence to support or refute that in the material available.
However, it was noted that some of the liabilities of Southern Investigations and of Daniel Morgan and his Business Partner on 10 March 1987 were indicated by the fact that:
Psychological Profile
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.
Forensics
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 it 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 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, and in 2020, the Metropolitan Police told the Panel that a review was conducted by an 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 developments were made there. However, it was noted that clothing belonging to Daniel Morgan's Business 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 further opportunity to test it.
Certain intelligence was also reviewed, in particular, information was received by the Metropolitan Police alleging that ‘Daniel Morgan's Business 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 that 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 Business Partner, Younger Brother and the Builder with a Conspiracy to Murder Daniel Morgan’.
Possible motives for the murder as described by the file were:
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 Business 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 Business Partner’s affair with the Estate Agent, Daniel Morgan’s withdrawal of cash from the business, and his Business Partner’s general hatred of Daniel Morgan, all contributed towards a strong motive for Daniel Morgan's Business 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 Business 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 Business Partner had been with former the Detective Sergeant on either 7 or 8 March 1987, and that on 8 March 1987, the Business 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 Business 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 Business 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 Business 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:
Regarding the events immediately after the murder the file noted that 'here are a number of inconsistencies surrounding Daniel Morgan's Business 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 Business 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 detailed the three periods of surveillance, concluding that they produced no new evidence.
The Advice File also detailed witnesses and their relevant evidence and its reliability, including:
The Advice File also detailed the evidence against Daniel Morgan's Business Partner, the Builder and the Younger Brother.
Against Daniel Morgan's Business Partner:
The file concluded that the evidence indicated that there had been ongoing dislike and distrust of Daniel Morgan by his Business 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:
However, the Advice File noted that there was no evidence other than that of the Bookkeeper to link Daniel Morgan's Business Partner to the murder.
Regarding the evidence against the Builder, the Advice File noted:
Regarding the evidence against the Younger Brother, the Advice File noted:
Regarding the evidence against the Detective Sergeant, the Advice File noted:
In summary on the evidence, the Advice File stated:
The Advice File was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service on 07 March 2003 for consideration as to whether 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 response, 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 Business 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 brought 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 Business Partner was aware of this, and, even if he was, murdering him would not have resolved the situation.
It was further noted that his Business 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 Business 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 Business 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:
and
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 Daniel Morgan's Businesss Partner 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 Business 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 response, although they dealt mainly with police procedures such as the reliance on findings from the first investigation in the second investigation as 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 Business 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 was 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:
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:
From the outset of the investigation on 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 Business Partner arranged the murder, that the Builder drove the getaway car, which was stored and subsequently destroyed by Person P9, and that the Business 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 Builder’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 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which it was noted was a lengthy and complex process.
With regards to that, the Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance provided that:
The Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance also provided that the Assisting Offender must:
It was further noted that the debriefing process, which was 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:
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.
The 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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
However, it was noted that the 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, which was suitable for mitochondrial DNA analysis and a profile was obtained. However, it was determined to have not been a match for anyone.
The two packets of crisps, 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 became 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 Brother’s 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 Brother is 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 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 Business Partner, saying, 'He bats for both sides of the fence the Business 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 Business 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 Business 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 the Prisoner's Wife were arrested, and their house searched in relation to the laundering of large amounts of cash believed to be the proceeds of drugs trafficking. Daniel Morgan's Business 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 Business 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:
However, he didn't answer the questions and said that he didn't know Daniel Morgan's Business 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 the 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 noted 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 his 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 Business Partner wanted it done. Who paid? The Business 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 the Detective Sergeant. 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 he 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 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 had 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 the 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:
During the debrief, the police met with a barrister over the value of the Prisoner as a witness, who said:
However, it was decided that the debriefing process should continue.
The Prisoner went on to make three statements detailing what he knew and the debrief 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 5 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 and the amount of realisable assets that could be seized from him in full or part satisfaction of the amount determined in calculation, and on 22 November 2006, it was calculated that the Prisoner 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:
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 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 them 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 Morgan, 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 he 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:
He later added:
Later, whilst with his solicitor, he gave the police a handwritten note that read:
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:
On 14 September 2006, he added:
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:
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:
By May 2007 he had 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 borne by the Abelard Two Investigation and that it meant that they were 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 about 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:
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 the resident informant, the Prisoner and that the investigation:
The result was that the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that sufficient evidence existed to charge Daniel Morgan's Business 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 was 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 developments 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:
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, 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 Business 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.
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 it was 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:
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 firsthand 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. In particular, 15-17 crates of materials about the Prisoner had been made available to the investigation in June 2007, but it had not been received until November 2009, whilst another was not received 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 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 again 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 over three months during which time they failed to schedule 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 defendants.
The general conclusions of the Panel review into the failed trial stated:
Damages
Following the failed trial, the two brothers and Daniel Morgan's Business Partner sued the Metropolitan Police for malicious prosecution in July 2019, with the Business Partner and the Younger Brother receiving £155,000 each and the Elder Brother receiving £140,000.
Daniel Morgan's family also sued the Metropolitan Police, winning admissions of failings and an out of court financial settlement.
The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel - 15 June 2021.
Following the failed trial 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 experience of Daniel Morgan's family over the years, and lessons for future panels.
The Panel itself heavily criticised the Metropolitan Police for obstructing access to documents for its review.
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
see Unsolved 1987
