Les Balkwell Final Report Published With Foreword Feb 1

STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 9AM MONDAY 30 JANUARY 2012 Mr Lee Balkwell (Deceased)
IPCC Investigation into complaints of Leslie Balkwell regarding Essex Police investigations into the death of Lee Balkwell.
Independent Investigation Final Report IPCC Reference: 2008/000068

PROTECTIVE MARKING
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report FOREWORD On 18 July 2002 Lee Balkwell was found dead at a farm in Upminster, Essex with his head and shoulders wedged between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer. His family was understandably devastated at their loss and expected Essex Police to thoroughly investigate the incident. At an early stage, Lee Balkwells father, Mr. Leslie Balkwell was dissatisfied with the police investigation and made a number of formal complaints. As a result, a review of the police investigation commenced in March 2003. Mr. Balkwell remained unhappy and made further complaints, which led to another review being undertaken by Essex Police Professional Standards Department between July 2006 and December 2009. Early in 2008 the inquest into Lee Balkwells death took place and a verdict of unlawful killing through gross negligence / manslaughter was reached. The matter was referred back to Essex Police to continue any appropriate investigation. Mr Balkwell continued to be extremely dissatisfied with the original investigation into his sons death and the subsequent reviews undertaken by the force and he wrote to the IPCC in December 2007. Essex Police referred his complaints to us in February 2008 and it was decided that an independent IPCC investigation would be undertaken. Mr Balkwell has campaigned tirelessly to find the truth, whilst also enduring the trauma and grief associated with the loss of a son. His persistence and determination have been admirable, but have undoubtedly taken a massive toll on him and his family. Although he has made many complaints, in essence what Mr. Balkwell has been seeking is to: know how and why his son died have anyone responsible for the death brought to justice have any police officers responsible for failing to properly investigate this case to be held to account These demands are unquestionably reasonable and no more than anyone who has lost a loved one in such terrible circumstances should be able to expect. The first issues are not a matter for the IPCC and are beyond the scope of any investigation we could undertake. For this reason, after the initial stages of our enquiries I recommended that Essex Police bring in another force to reinvestigate Lee Balkwells death. The Chief Constable considered this recommendation and Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Page 2 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints
decided he wanted an external force to review the earlier investigations prior to making any decision in relation to re opening the case. West Midlands Police undertook this review and made more than 90 recommendations about further action that should be undertaken. Essex Police accepted all these recommendations and commissioned Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate to carry out this work. The criminal investigation into Lee Balkwells death is still ongoing. Our investigation has looked at allegations relating to: Failure to carry out thorough investigations Interviews of witnesses and suspects Delays/failure in obtaining relevant statements Lack of forensic investigation Issues regarding how the cement mixer was examined and dealt with including complaints that it was deliberately tampered with by officers Issues around CCTV examination Production of inaccurate computer generated images Alleged corrupt practices within Essex Police Failure to consider re-investigation by an outside force Interaction between Essex Police and Mr Balkwell We have found that Mr. Balkwells belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwells death was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outset it was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrial accident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnesses and failed to treat the death with an open mind. Reviews and further investigative work have been undertaken but the all important first hours of this investigation, where vital evidence must be preserved, had been lost. The failure of the investigation at that early stage has left evidential gaps which may never be filled. As a result Mr Balkwell lost all faith in the police service he had a right to rely on to give him the answers he sought. As a consequence he has developed his own theories about how his son died and developed a view there was a conspiracy by the police to cover up the circumstances of his sons death. The IPCC has sought to find some answers for Mr Balkwell about how the police handled his case. He came to us with more than 130 complaints, making this a complex and difficult investigation to handle, especially given the length of time since Lee Balkwells death.
Page 3 of 147
Mr Balkwell made complaints about many police officers, some had already retired by the time the complaints were made, 18 were served with notices, and six have retired during our investigation. The IPCC investigation can be broken into stages and this also helps show the chronology of events: Initial investigation Suspect interviews Forensic examination Quality and standard of Investigations Corruption/Impartiality Communication and quality of service The investigation has found that many of the substantive and serious allegations have been upheld. It is these key failures that have led to the raft of follow-up complaints, the speculation and the complete breakdown in communication between Mr. Balkwell and Essex Police. Of the remaining complaints some are partially substantiated and some unsubstantiated. Whilst our investigation has provided evidence of poor police work, we have found no evidence to support any allegations of corruption or a conspiracy theory. However in the light of Essex Polices prolonged failure to fully address his concerns, it is perhaps understandable how and why Mr. Balkwell reached such conclusions himself. Since the death of his son, Mr. Balkwell, with the full support of his family, has dedicated much of his life to his campaign to find the truth about what happened. I am deeply impressed by both Mr. Balkwells passion and commitment - which few could have sustained and deeply saddened that he has had to go to such lengths to get his valid demands properly addressed. I would like to pay tribute to his endurance and tenacity, but I am also very aware of the cost to him and his family. This situation should never have been allowed to develop to this stage and an inevitable consequence has been that it has prolonged his agony and made it impossible for him to even begin to come to terms with his loss. Tragically Mr. Balkwell may never get the answers to all of his questions, but I very much hope that the IPCC investigation, together with the ongoing criminal investigation being undertaken by the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, will provide at least some of the answers Mr. Balkwell is seeking. It is a testament to his dedication that finally the full circumstances surrounding the death of Lee Balkwell are being examined. Rachel Cerfontyne IPCC Commissioner
Page 4 of 147
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Initial response to incident Mr Balkwell claimed Essex Police had failed to carry out an effective initial investigation at the scene, including a failure to conduct thorough and independent interviews, identify potential witnesses or seize evidence in a timely way. The IPCC concluded that Mr Balkwells complaints were substantiated. The investigation determined that, although Officer A, who was the initial officer on the scene, had complied with Essex Polices policy in relation to unnatural deaths, he had failed to seize evidence promptly and secure it. Further, the investigation found Officer D, who was asked to lead the investigation and arrived on the scene at 8.52am, failed to take statements from potential witnesses. In fact the officer was only present on the scene for 38 minutes, although he did return later in the day when Lee Balkwells body was removed from the cement mixer. Two senior officers Officer C and Officer B were in supervisory roles. Officer C did not attend the scene while Officer B attended for 10 minutes. Neither officer considered the identification of further witnesses or directed others to do so. In addition Officer E failed to ensure all potential witnesses that may have assisted the investigation were identified and appropriate statements taken when he took over the investigation.
Suspect interviews Officer D, who was in charge of the investigation, conducted an interview on 6 August with Simon Bromley, who attended on a voluntary basis under criminal caution. However Officer D made it clear from the outset of that interview that he regarded the matter as a tragic accident. The interview lasted 41 minutes. The IPCC investigation concluded the interview contained no challenging questions and the officer led Simon Bromley in his answers and made assumptions when incomplete or vague answers were given.
Page 5 of 147
The interview was deemed below the standard expected and lacking in both depth and clarity. The IPCC investigation cited this as the officer not approaching the matter with an open mind. This error was compounded according to the IPCC investigation by a failure to reinterview the suspect or other potential witnesses during further investigation by Officer E and reviews of the investigation by Officer F. Mr Balkwells complaints in this area were substantiated.
Forensic Examination Mr Balkwell made complaints in relation to failures he perceived in Essex Polices forensic examination of evidence. These concerned a pair of trainers, grey top and knife from the cement mixer, the preservation of Lee Balkwells clothing and the failure to examine Lee Balkwells belt and the tacograph from the cement mixer. The IPCC investigation concluded photographs taken on 18 July 2002 showed a pair of adidas trainers in the cab of the cement mixer. It is unclear whether these belonged to Lee Balkwell, although Leslie Balkwell believes they did. There is no evidence these trainers were seized and secured by Officer E on 18 July 2002. Therefore this complaint is substantiated. In fact the trainers, grey top and knife were not recovered from the cement mixer until 4 September 2003, more than a year after the incident. However there is no evidence that Officer E or Officer F considered these items of evidential value or suitable for forensic analysis. Officer G did give consideration to forensic analysis of the items during a review in 2007. At this time a decision was taken not to submit the items due to issues with continuity. Officer G kept this matter under review. The complaint in relation to the forensic analysis is substantiated against Officers E and F, but unsubstantiated against Officer G. In addition Mr Balkwell complained that he was not informed about the existence of the trainers by Officer F and that the officer and Officer G misinformed him about forensic tests being conducted. The IPCC found the complaints unsubstantiated
Page 6 of 147
against Officer F. This was because it has never been established whether the trainers belonged to Lee or what evidential value they could be. Therefore there was no obvious reason to advise Mr Balkwell about them. However Officer G did admit he had misinformed Mr Balkwell that a forensic test had taken place. This complaint is substantiated, although it is acknowledged this was a genuine mistake on behalf of the officer. The IPCC investigation found that Lee Balkwells clothing had been destroyed on the instructions of Officer E. Evidence has been found that Lee Balkwells partner agreed to the destruction of the clothing and that Leslie Balkwell was notified. Therefore this complaint is unsubstantiated. Equally a complaint that Lees belt was not forensically examined has been unsubstantiated. The investigation recognises that Mr Balkwell has developed a theory over time about the importance of the belt, but as the initial investigating officers were not looking at the potential for foul play there would have been no reason to conduct the examination. Lees partner requested the return of the belt and this was facilitated by Officer E. The tacograph in the cement mixer was seized by Essex Police on 18 July 2002. However there is no evidence that Officer E undertook any examination of this during his investigation. The IPCC believes this may have been a useful line of enquiry. This complaint is substantiated.
Quality and Standard of investigations and reviews Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints regarding the initial investigation conducted by Officer E, the review conducted by Officer F and the further investigative work conducted by Officer G. These complaints centred on allegations that officers had failed to investigate the alleged criminal background of some of the witnesses to the incident, that there was a failure to consider the incident may be foul play rather than an accident, a failure to interview or obtain statements from individuals at the scene and that evidence was withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Page 7 of 147
In relation to an allegation that Officers E, F and H failed to conduct adequate background checks on witness, the IPCC investigation concluded the complaint was substantiated against Officer E. In relation to allegations that Officers E, F and H failed to analyse statements fully and failed to revisit the crime scene when conducting a review, the investigation found the complaints unsubstantiated. The IPCC investigation also found that an allegation that Officer E failed to consider the possibility of foul play substantiated. It was evident the officer had not conducted key investigative actions or followed all lines of enquiry. Mr Balkwell complained also that Officer E in his initial investigation, and Officers F and I in their review, failed to investigate the positioning of the kango drills which had been used in the gunning out process. The investigation found there was no evidence that the position of the drills was considered or whether the position was consistent with the account of the witness. The complaint has been substantiated against Officers E and F. Mr Balkwell complained that phone records had not been seized as part the initial investigation. The IPCC investigation concluded that it should have been a routine part of the inquiry to apply for the seizure of telephone records to help support or refute accounts given, establish timings or to identify other lines of enquiry. For that reason the complaint against Officer E is substantiated. The complaint was unsubstantiated against Officers F and G as there is evidence they applied for records as part of their reviews. Complaints were also made about how witness evidence from the ambulance and fire service personnel who attended the incident was dealt with. The investigation concluded the complaint that Officer E had failed to take witness statements from ambulance staff was substantiated. The investigation also substantiated complaints against Officer E in relation to how he dealt with CCTV evidence and his failure to investigate the maintenance of the cement mixer.
Page 8 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Allegations of Corruption Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints that related to allegations of corruption or corrupt behaviour by Essex Police officers. All of these complaints were unsubstantiated. With several complaints Mr Balkwell was unable to provide any evidence to support his allegations. With others either the IPCC investigation found no evidence to support the allegation or there was evidence to explain why officers had taken the decisions they had. It is evident the allegations in this section were the result of the lack of trust that Mr Balkwell had developed in Essex Police due to their failures at the initial stage of the investigation. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Communication and Quality of Service Again, this section was made up of allegations which were evidently made as a result of the breakdown in communications between Essex Police and the lack of trust Mr Balkwell had in them. All of the allegations in this section have been unsubstantiated.
Page 9 of 147
Table of contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................ 13 Subjects of Investigation ............................................................................................... 14 Chronology of Essex Police response 18 July 2002 ................................................... 16 Initial response to the incident ..................................................................................... 17 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 19 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................................. 24 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 25 Suspect Interviews ......................................................................................................... 29 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 30 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................................. 34 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 35 Forensic Examination of Evidence ............................................................................... 39 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 42 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................................. 45 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 46 Quality and Standard of Investigations and Reviews conducted by Essex Police .. 51 Lines of Enquiry ........................................................................................................... 53 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 58 Policy and Procedures ................................................................................................. 62 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 63 Witnesses .................................................................................................................... 71 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 74 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................................. 76 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 76 CCTV ........................................................................................................................... 81 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 83 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 85 Cement Mixer .............................................................................................................. 91 Officer Responses ....................................................................................................... 93 IPCC Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 96 Allegations of Corruption ............................................................................................ 102 Communication and Quality of Service ...................................................................... 129
Page 10 of 147
Introduction
1. This report concerns the complaints made by Mr Leslie Balkwell following the death of his son, Lee Balkwell on 18 July 2002. The circumstances of the death of Lee Balkwell were the subject of investigation by Essex Police. 2. Lee Balkwell worked for Simon Bromley at Upminster Concrete based at Baldwins Farm in Upminster, Essex. On 17 July 2002 Lee Balkwell was driving a cement mixer, when a fault occurred causing the concrete that had been in the drum to set and become solid. In order to clear out the drum a process known as gunning out was used. This involved Lee Balkwell and Simon Bromley entering the drum of the cement mixer and used kango drills to break up the hardened concrete. Simon Bromley alleged that this work started during the evening of 17 July and continued into the early hours of the 18 July 2002. 3. At 1.03am on 18 July 2002 a 999 call was made by David Bromley, Simons father, to request an ambulance to attend Upminster Farm. He advised that Lee Balkwell was trapped in the drum of the lorry and was dead. London Ambulance Service arrived and discovered Lee Balkwell trapped between the drum and the chassis of the cement mixer. Lee Balkwell was pronounced dead at 1.23am. Essex Police were contacted at 1.26am and requested to attend the scene. Essex Fire Service was also requested to attend the scene to assist with the removal of Lees body. 4. Officer B was the on call Senior Investigating Officer during the early hours of 18 July 2002 and he maintained responsibility for this case until it was transferred later the same day to ex Officer E. Officer A was sent out to the scene at 1.50am on the 18 July, he attended with PC Oldfield. They spoke to Simon Bromley and obtained his initial account of the incident. 5. On the 19 July 2002 a post mortem examination was carried out by Dr
Page 11 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints Michael Heath who stated that Lee Balkwells death was due to multiple injuries consistent with him being drawn into the moving parts of a cement mixer. 6. On the 6 August 2002, Simon Bromley was interviewed under criminal caution. A file was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service the same day. A decision of no further action due to insufficient evidence was
received from the CPS on 23 August 2002. 7. Following a number of complaints made by Mr Balkwell, a review of the initial investigation began on the 18 March 2003. Whilst this review was still being conducted, intelligence was received in August 2004 as part of a covert investigation which suggested that Lee Balkwell had been murdered by Simon Bromley and a motive was provided. An investigation into the further information, codenamed Operation Guthrie began in January 2005. Both the review and Operation Guthrie were conducted by Officer F. 8. Further complaints were made by Mr Balkwell and following a review of these it was agreed by Assistant Chief Constable Brigginshaw that there would be an investigation into the issues raised by Mr Balkwell. This investigation was conducted by Officer G between July 2006 and December 2009. 9. The inquest into Lee Balkwells death took place between 22 January and 5 February 2008. A verdict of unlawful killing through gross negligence / manslaughter was reached. The matter was referred back to Essex Police to continue any appropriate investigation. 10. Mr Balkwell wrote to the IPCC in December 2007, a referral was made by Essex Police in February 2008 and it was decided that an Independent investigation would be undertaken. 11. In June 2009, IPCC Senior Investigator Amanda Rowe submitted an investigation update report following limited initial consideration of the complaints made by Mr Balkwell. The IPCC Commissioner, Rachel Cerfontyne made a recommendation that Essex Police should consider
Page 12 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints appointing an external independent force to re-investigate Lee Balkwells death. 12. Essex Police considered this recommendation and appointed Mr David Mirfield of West Midlands Police to conduct a review of the Essex Police investigations to identify any good or bad practice and any gaps in the previous investigation which included whether: It conformed to nationally approved standards It had been thorough It had been conducted with integrity and objectivity No investigative opportunities had been overlooked
13.
The review was completed in May 2010. A number of recommendations were made as a result of this review.
14.
In July 2010 Essex Police appointed Detective Chief Superintendent Lee Catling of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate to address the recommendations made by West Midlands Police. This investigation is not yet concluded.
Terms of Reference
15. To fully investigate the police response following the death of Lee Balkwell in line with the complaints as outlined in the matrix. 16. To consider and report on whether any criminal or disciplinary offence may have been committed by any police officer or member of police staff involved, and whether there was compliance with relevant local and national policies/ guidelines. 17. To consider and report on whether there is: Learning for any police officer or member of police staff; or Organisational learning for the police service including;
Page 13 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints Any change in police policy or practice that would help to prevent a recurrence of the event, incident or conduct investigated. Any good practice that should be disseminated.
Subjects of Investigation
18. All serving officers subject of complaint were served with Regulation 9 notices by the IPCC in accordance with the Police [Conduct] Regulations 2004. These regulations have now been superseded by the Police
(Complaints and Misconduct) Amendments Regulations 2008. 19. Some officers subject of complaint had retired before the complaints were made or during the IPCC investigation and were therefore no longer subject to the regulations. For ease of reference, officers who have retired will be referred to using the rank they held at the time and any officers who have changed rank will also be referred to using the rank they held at the time of the incident to which the complaint relates to. 20. Former Officer R was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to complaints regarding decision making and alleged failure to respond to correspondence. 21. Officer T was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to alleged failures to respond to correspondence. 22. Officer S was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 7 July 2009 in relation to a complaint regarding decision making. 23. Former Officer E was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to a number of complaints regarding the investigation he conducted into Lee Balkwells death. 24. Officer F was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 5 December 2008 in relation to a number of complaints regarding his management of the review of the initial investigation into Lee Balkwells death and other
Page 14 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report investigative work he conducted. 25. Officer G was served with Regulation 9 notices on 5 December 2008, 2 July 2009 and 25 May 2011 in relation to his management of the review and further investigative work he conducted into Lee Balkwells death. 26. Officer M was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to complaints regarding communication with Mr Balkwell and supervision of investigations into Lee Balkwells death. 27. Officer B was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 2 July 2009 in relation to his oversight of the initial Essex Police response to the incident on 18 July 2002. 28. Officer H was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to his involvement in the review conducted into the initial investigation. 29. Officer C was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 21 January 2009 in relation to his involvement in the initial Essex Police response to the incident on 18 July 2002. 30. Officer K was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to the conduct of a prison visit in 2005 linked to the investigation into Lee Balkwells death. 31. Officer D was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 3 December 2008 in relation to his involvement in the initial investigation into Lee Balkwells death and his conduct at the inquest. 32. Officer A was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 21 July 2009 in relation to his involvement in the initial Essex Police response to the incident on 18 July 2002. 33. Officer O was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to the production of computer images in preparation for the inquest into Lee Balkwells death. 34. Officer L was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 19 December 2008 in Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Page 15 of 147
relation to his involvement in the review into the initial investigation into Lee Balkwells death and the conduct of a prison visit conducted in 2005. 35. Officer U was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to the alleged inadequate review of CCTV footage. 36. Officer V was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to the alleged inadequate review of CCTV footage. 37. Officer P was served with a Regulation 9 notice on 4 December 2008 in relation to his involvement in the initial investigation into Lee Balkwells death.
Chronology of Essex Police response 18 July 2002

38. Simon Bromley stated that due to a malfunction of the cement mixer he and Lee Balkwell had to remove hardened concrete from the drum commencing in the evening of 17th July. He stated that this continued throughout the evening and resumed after a break for food at approximately 11.30pm. 39. At 1.03am an emergency call was made to request an ambulance. This call was made by David Bromley but Simon Bromley also provided information during the call. Baldwins Farm at 1.20am. 40. Essex Police received a call at 1.26am reporting the incident. The Essex Police incident log, scene log and statements from attending officers detail subsequent events as follows: 1.43am Officer A was made aware of the incident. 1.44am - Duty Inspector Croft was informed of the incident. 1.50am Officer A and PC Oldfield attended the scene to make initial enquiries. 02.05am Offcer A informed the Control Room that initial indications An ambulance was dispatched arriving at
Page 16 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints were that the incident was an industrial accident. A request was made for the attendance of a Scenes of Crime Officer [SOCO] and the Health and Safety Executive. 02.10am - Duty Inspector Croft attended the scene of the incident 02.35am Officer A took possession of the CCTV footage from the security system from Simon Bromleys premises at Baldwins Farm. 02.40am Officer A contacted ex Officer C and advised him of the incident. 03.20am Ex Officer C provided further instructions to Officer A regarding preservation of the scene. 03.40am Ex Officer C advised the on call Senior Investigating Officer, Officer B of the incident and sought further clarification. Officer B took overall responsibility for the investigation of the incident at this point and made a number of policy decisions. 04.48am Coroners Officer, Phillip Sitch arrived at the scene. 05.10am Dr Sadheura arrived at the scene. 05.15am death of Lee Balkwell certified by Dr Sadheura 07.52am Scene of Crime Officer Wojcik attended the scene to take photographs and video footage. 07.54am Officer P attended the scene 08.52am Officer D attended the scene 09.20am Officer B attended the scene 12.00pm Following a briefing at Grays Police Station Senior Investigating Officer responsibility transfers from Officer B to former Officer E. 1.00pm Officer D was appointed as officer in the case. 2.27pm Lee Balkwells body was removed from the cement mixer by Essex Fire and Rescue team.
Initial response to the incident

41. Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints in relation to the initial Essex
Page 17 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Police response to the incident as follows: Complaint 133: That Officer A failed to promptly seize Simon Bromleys t-shirt after seeing blood on it, giving Simon Bromley time to change or attempt to change his clothing. Complaint 56: That Officer B and ex Officer C failed to interview witnesses present at Baldwins Farm or direct other officers to do so. This complaint is also part of the general complaint against ex Officer E that he failed to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation. Complaint 91: That Officer B and Officer D failed to carry out an effective initial investigation when attending the scene on the 18th July 2002. 42. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer A arrived at the scene at 1.50am and did not seize Simon Bromleys clothing until 3.20am. He believed that Officer A failed to promptly seize the clothing after seeing what may have been blood on it and that this allowed Simon Bromley the opportunity to change or attempt to change his clothing. 43. Mr Balkwell alleged that all potential witnesses present at Baldwins Farm at the time of the incident were not identified and interviewed either during the initial attendance at the scene or subsequently during the investigation conducted by ex Officer E. He complained that Officer B and Officer C should have ensured that this important action was carried out promptly, either by themselves or by directing other officers to do so whilst the initial investigation was under their control. The complaint of failing to identify and take statements from appropriate witnesses was also part of the general complaint against ex Officer E that he failed to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation. 44. He further alleged that Officer D under the direction of Officer B did not carry out an effective initial investigation when attending the scene on the 18 July 2002 and this included the failure to identify and interview all Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Page 18 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report potential witnesses. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Officer Responses
45. Officer A provided a written response which was received on 3 May 2011. He confirmed that he was the duty Sergeant on 18 July 2002. He stated there were a number of priorities facing him on arrival at the scene and the need to quickly address these created conflicting demands on the time and resources available to him. He advised it was not possible to conduct all tasks simultaneously with equal urgency and that time was required to collate, assess and consult before acting on any decisions made either by him or senior officers. 46. 47. Officer A went on to detail 14 tasks that required his attention. He stated that it was clear from his original notes that whilst he was talking to Simon Bromley he saw what he believed to be a smear of blood on the t-shirt Simon Bromley was wearing. He said that relevance of this
apparent blood was still unclear whilst enquiries and tasks aimed at establishing the facts were still taking place. 48. Officer A stated that after some of the enquiries were progressed he was able to consult with the duty Inspector and on call Detective Inspector. A number of fast track actions were identified including the seizure of the clothing Simon Bromley had been wearing at the time of the incident. 49. He confirmed that Simon Bromley did change his clothing after his arrival at the farm but gave no grounds to suspect he intended to interfere with or dispose of the clothing. He stated that Simon Bromley was not under arrest and he did not therefore have the power to restrict his movements or actions. 50. Officer A did not believe he failed to promptly seize Simon Bromleys clothing. He stated that the clothing was seized and packaged correctly in a timely fashion, prior to it being washed or when any significant deterioration in forensic evidence could reasonably be expected to have occurred. In addition, he believed the clothing was seized in a manner
Page 19 of 147
designed to secure any forensic or trace evidence; including consideration to appropriate packaging, continuity and secure storage. He considered his actions to be appropriate given the circumstances known at that time and stated his actions did not result in a loss of significant evidence. 51. Officer B was the on call Senior Investigating Officer on 18 July 2002. He provided a written response dated 27 July 2011. 52. In relation to the allegation that he failed to interview witnesses present at Baldwins Farm, Officer B stated that he secured an initial account from Simon Bromley. He then established whether or not Mr Bromley
appeared to have consumed alcohol and secured and preserved his clothing. 53. He stated that house to house enquiries took place on his orders along the track leading up to and beyond Baldwins Farm. 54. Officer B also advised that statements were taken from ambulance and fire crews, although not at the scene as he maintained that they had duties to perform and it would not have been appropriate to take statements at that time. He said that approaches for statements from emergency staff should be made to the appropriate management of those services so as not to interfere with their duties. 55. He went on to state that had the witnesses been civilians for example a passer by, he would have secured a statement at the scene as he recognised a witness may prove difficult to find or unwilling to assist. 56. Officer B focused on the fire and emergency crews in his written response and advised that he had no concern that they would not readily assist the investigation. He does not mention the other potential witnesses who lived at Baldwins Farm such as Simon Bromleys parents David and Linda Bromley, his brother Scott Bromley and his partner Susan Lawrence. 57. In response to the allegation that he failed to conduct an effective initial investigation when attending the scene on 18 July 2002, Officer B maintained that he acted properly and expeditiously with the standard of
Page 20 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints skill and care expected of an officer of his rank and experience. 58. He stated that he made a decision at 3.45am on 18 July 2002 to treat the matter as a homicide as he considered there were gross negligence manslaughter issues to examine. 59. He contended that the scene was properly secured, photographed and video recorded. He referred to his policy decisions, which he said
demonstrated that he was fully aware of what needed to be done to conduct an effective initial investigation. 60. Officer B said that he made a decision not to arrest Simon Bromley at the scene and he did not believe that this prejudiced the subsequent investigation. He also stated that Simon Bromleys clothing was seized and further enquiries were considered appropriate. He stated that he set out fast track actions in a rough book which he believed was handed to Officer D but had now been lost. 61. Ex Officer C provided a written response dated 4 April 2011. He stated that he was the on call Detective Inspector for the Thurrock Division on 18 July 2002. He stated he was first contacted at 2.50am and was performing this role from home. He did not attend the scene at any point. 62. He advised that he was told by Officer A that there were two potential witnesses: Simon Bromley and his father David Bromley. He stated that Officer A told him that David Bromley had stated he was asleep at the time of the incident. Ex Officer C therefore concluded that taking a
witness statement from David Bromley was not an immediate priority and that it could be taken during the course of the investigation as is normal practice. 63. Ex Officer C stated that he was advised that Simon Bromley had provided an initial account to Officer A. He considered whether Simon Bromley should be arrested and stated he discussed this with Officer B. He stated that they agreed that the most appropriate course of action was to preserve the scene with the body in situ to enable a full forensic examination in the morning. They agreed Simon Bromley should not be
Page 21 of 147
arrested at the time but would be interviewed, most probably under caution, when the investigation had established the facts. He therefore stated it was not appropriate to seek any further witness testimony from Simon Bromley. 64. Ex Officer C stated that his involvement in the incident ended at 4.50am on 18 July 2002. 65. Ex Officer E provided a written response on 19 August 2011. In response to the general allegation he failed to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation he stated that he kept an open mind and conducted a search for the truth. He stated that this allegation had
already been investigated as part of an Essex Police investigation under the Police Complaints Authority, there were no findings against him and no further action was taken. 66. Officer D was posted to the CID team based at Grays Police Station. He stated in his written response that he was made aware of the incident at Baldwins Farm during a telephone call from ex Officer C who was his immediate line manager at the time. He was informed that there had been an incident involving a male who had been crushed in a cement mixer lorry and told that he would be responsible for dealing with the investigation. He stated he was also informed that it appeared, on first impression, to be an industrial accident. He was further briefed that
Officer A had attended overnight and that CCTV had been seized. 67. Officer D stated that he arrived at Baldwins Farm sometime on the morning of the 18 July 2002 where he saw a cement mixer which had been cordoned off by police tape. There was also a pile of what he thought was loose and broken cement with kango drills situated either side of the cement lorry. He was aware of the position of Lee Balkwells body but this was screened from his view at the time. 68. Officer D spoke to Simon Bromley, who he was aware had been with Lee Balkwell prior to his death. He formed the opinion that Simon Bromley was distressed and appeared tired. He explained that he would be
Page 22 of 147
investigating the circumstances as to what had happened the previous evening. 69. He stated he had no information or any suspicion that the death was as a result of any criminal activity and stated had that been the case a Major Incident Team would have been assigned from the start. He asserted that he maintained an open mind as to what may have taken place and assessed Simon Bromleys behaviour and reaction to questions. 70. Officer D obtained a brief account of the circumstances of the incident from Simon Bromley. He also asked him about the CCTV system at the farm, and asked to see the camera views on the monitor. He stated that this appeared consistent with Simon Bromleys account. 71. He explained to Simon Bromley that he would more than likely be expected to attend a formal interview. He advised that the seized CCTV footage would be examined. He also explained that there would need to be a forensic examination of the vehicle, a subsequent examination to assess its mechanical state, and that a post mortem would take place. 72. Officer D stated that Simon Bromley did not give him any cause for concern or suspicion that he was either lying or involved in any premeditated crime against Lee Balkwell. However he was also aware that there would be further enquiries required which may assist. 73. Officer D considered that there were potential grounds for suspecting that the death was due to dangerous and negligent practices whilst cleaning out the cement mixer drum and that he should seek advice from the Health and Safety Executive as soon as possible. 74. Officer D also spoke to David Bromley whilst at the farm who confirmed that he had not witnessed the incident and he confirmed that there was no one else present at the time. Officer D stated that he did not consider it lawful or appropriate to search the address and had no grounds for arresting Simon Bromley. He advised if he had any such suspicions he would have discussed with ex Officer C and decisions would have been
Page 23 of 147
made at management level as to the appropriate course of action.
Policies and Procedures

75. This incident concerned a homicide or an unnatural death and should therefore have been investigated in line with the Essex Police policy in relation to homicides and unnatural deaths, supplemented by the Murder Investigation Manual 2000 guidance. 76. Essex Police policy in relation to homicides and unnatural deaths stated A uniformed Inspector will attend the scene of all unnatural deaths. It is the Inspectors responsibility to consider how the person may have met his/her death. The Inspector must consider what police action should be taken. If homicide or corporate manslaughter is suspected a Detective Inspector or Detective Chief Inspector from the Division must attend. 77. The actions that should take place during the initial police response to the report of an unnatural death were contained in the Essex Police policy above. These were to: Make every effort to save life if it is considered possible the person may still be alive. Ensure the scene is preserved. Call Essex Ambulance Service to certify death. Provide support and comfort to the deceased family Obtain details of what any witnesses can say and if appropriate obtain statements. 78. Inform Coroners Officer.
Recovery of physical evidence during attendance at a scene is an absolutely vital part of the investigation process. The Murder Manual 2000 stated at Chapter 5.3.7 that fast track actions in relation to scene forensics are vital to the success of the investigation. A detailed, planned, professional approach will ensure a greater chance of success: THINK recovery of physical evidence. THINK interpretation of physical evidence.
Page 24 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report THINK forensic strategies. 79. The identification of potential witnesses was also a fast track action contained within the Murder Manual 2000 at Chapter 4.1.3 which stated a most important source of evidence will be the identification of witnesses. Focused questioning at the crime scene affords an opportunity to establish the identity of witnesses and secure evidential material and at Chapter 5.5 which stated The identification and interviewing of potential witnesses is crucial to establishing and securing key facts early in the investigation. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
IPCC Findings and Conclusions

80. Although the circumstances of the death were not known at the time of the initial response by Essex Police, it could already be concluded that it was an unnatural death. 81. Officer A complied with Essex Police policy in relation to unnatural deaths in carrying out the actions detailed as part of the initial police response. 82. He arrived at the scene at 1.50am and was faced with a number of tasks. He sought advice from the on call duty Inspector and ex Officer C. 83. Officer A made a series of contemporaneous trigger notes on a piece of paper when he attended the scene. A copy of these notes has been examined by the IPCC investigation team. Below an entry timed at 1.57am are the words [Blood on back t shirt]. It is more likely than not that these words were written at the time the entry was made. 84. Simon Bromleys clothing was seized at 03.20am, an hour and thirty minutes after Officer As arrival. Although it is accepted that Officer A and his colleague PC Oldfield had a number of other tasks to consider, preservation of physical evidence should be considered a priority. Simon Bromley subsequently had time to change his clothing and although there is no evidence to suggest that the correct clothing was not secured, prompt seizure of the clothing would have negated any risk. Officer A was
Page 25 of 147
entitled to request the clothing whether Mr Bromley was a witness or a suspect. Consideration of arrest to enable the seizure would only have been necessary if Simon Bromley refused to comply with a request from Officer A. Evidence shows that the clothing was seized shortly after consultation with ex Officer C. It was appropriate and necessary to seize the clothing and this should have taken place as soon as Officer A was aware of the potential evidence, which on the balance of probabilities was more likely than not to have been at the time he made his notes at 1.57am. 85. The complaint against Officer A in relation to the failure to promptly seize clothing is therefore substantiated. 86. The majority of actions detailed as part of the Essex Police policy initial response to unnatural deaths had been carried out by the officers who initially attended the scene, under the direction of ex Officer C and Officer B. However, the identification of all potential witnesses had not taken place by the time Officer B and Officer D attended the scene. 87. Officer D stated at the inquest into Lee Balkwells death that his role as the Investigating Officer in the case was To deal with the incident, to establish what happened and to decide whether there is any criminal issues that need to be presented to the CPS 88. Officer D arrived at the scene at 8.52am on 18 July 2002 and left at 9.30am. He stated in his written response that he spoke to Simon Bromley and David Bromley. There is no evidence that he took a witness statement from David Bromley or any other person present at Baldwins Farm at the time of the incident including Simon Bromleys mother, brother and partner. Although, on the facts of what was known at the time, Simon Bromley appeared to be the only eye witness to the incident, other witnesses could have provided important information that may have assisted the investigation. This included an account of Simon Bromleys first report of the incident to them, background information about his and Lee Balkwells relationship and information regarding movements during
Page 26 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report the day and evening of 17/18 July 2002. 89. Officer B and ex Officer C performed supervisory roles because they were on call, and provided advice and guidance by telephone contact with officers. Ex Officer C did not attend the scene and would not have been expected to take statements from potential witnesses himself. Officer B did attend the scene but as the Senior Investigating Officer he would not have been expected to interview potential witnesses himself. However both ex Officer C and Officer B should have directed officers to identify all potential witnesses as part of the normal initial response to a homicide or unnatural death as per the Essex Police policy and Murder Manual guidance. 90. Ex Officer C was advised by Officer A that there were two potential witnesses and he did not consider the interview of David Bromley to be a priority at the time of the initial response, expecting the interview to take place subsequently during the investigation. There is no evidence that he considered the identification of any further potential witnesses. 91. Examination of Officer Bs policy book in relation to the decisions he made on 18 July 2002 made reference to notes made in a rough book and states that initial fast track actions are outlined in my rough book. This rough book was not made available to the IPCC investigation. Notes of an interview on 29 September 2003 between Officer F and Officer B during a review of the initial investigation refer to this rough book and state that it could not be found following enquiries at Grays police station. therefore unknown what fast track actions were identified. 92. Officer B made an initial policy decision at 3.45am that a homicide investigation should be carried out and detailed his rationale as it is apparent there are elements to this investigation that indicate the possibility of gross negligence manslaughter that will need to be examined. Presumably this was based on other officers initial assessment of the incident as Officer B did not attend the scene at this time. It is Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Page 27 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report 93. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
A decision was also made at 3.45am that Simon Bromley was not to be arrested. The rationale for this decision stated that Simon Bromleys
clothing had been seized and there was no suggestion he had been drinking and therefore the necessary evidence had been secured. 94. The scene log showed that Officer B entered the scene at 9.20am and exited at 9.30am. He stated in the interview with Officer F on 29
September 2003 that he attended the scene but did not speak to Simon Bromley or any other members of the Bromley family. There is no
evidence that Officer B considered the identification of any further potential witnesses or directed others to do so. 95. The IPCC has found no evidence that witness statements from the Bromley family were subsequently taken during ex Officer Es
investigation. There is no evidence of a witness strategy detailed in his policy book or of any policy decision in relation to the identification of further witnesses. The file sent to CPS for consideration of charges
against Simon Bromley contained only five statements. No statements were present from the following: David, Linda or Scott Bromley who were all present on the night of the incident. Susan Lawrence [partner of Simon Bromley] Lorraine Mitchinson [partner of Lee Balkwell] Other officers who attended the scene on the night of the incident Ambulance/paramedic staff Fire Brigade staff involved in extracting Lee Balkwells body Pathologist who conducted the post mortem Any representative at the examination of the vehicle on 24 th July 2002 or expert on the mechanics of the vehicle 96. Evidence from these witnesses may have been important to the investigation and statements should have been taken during any thorough and comprehensive investigation as per the Murder Manual guidance. 97. This complaint is therefore substantiated in relation to Officer B, ex
Page 28 of 147
Officer C and ex Officer E failing to ensure that all potential witnesses that may have assisted the investigation were identified and appropriate statements taken. 98. Officer D initially attended at the scene for 38 minutes although he returned later that day when Lee Balkwells body was removed from the cement mixer. He clearly took Simon Bromleys account of being the only person present at face value and does not appear to have considered the identification of other potential witnesses who may have proved or disproved Simon Bromleys initial account or provided other
supplementary evidence to assist the investigation.
This had a
detrimental effect on the subsequent investigation under ex Officer Es supervision as there is no evidence that witness statements from other members of the Bromley family were taken or submitted to CPS for consideration. 99. This complaint is therefore substantiated in relation to Officer D failing to indentify all potential witnesses when he initially attended the scene on 18 July 2002.
Suspect Interviews
100. In relation to the suspect interview with Simon Bromley conducted during the Essex Police investigation and consideration of suspect interviews generally Mr Balkwell alleged : Complaint 53: That Officer D failed to conduct a thorough, independent interview of Simon Bromley on 6 August 2002. Complaint 52: That ex Officer E and Officer F failed to re-interview Simon Bromley despite further evidence coming to light following his initial interview. Complaint 70: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G failed to interview David and Scott Bromley under caution. 101. Mr Balkwell contended that Officer D conducted a weak interview as he said at the outset that his view was that he was dealing with a tragic
Page 29 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report accident. Leslie Balkwell Complaints He complained that Officer D used leading questions and
assisted Simon Bromley by suggesting answers to difficult questions. 102. Mr Balkwell complained that ex Officer E and Officer F did not re-interview Simon Bromley despite further evidence coming to light. He stated that the initial account given by Simon Bromley in the interview on 6 August 2002 should have been challenged and this would have assisted the investigations and possibly identified further lines of enquiry. 103. Mr Balkwell alleged that all three Senior Investigating Officers deliberately failed to interview David Bromley or Scott Bromley under caution during their investigations when he felt there was sufficient evidence to do so. He felt that there were inconsistencies in the witness statements from members of the Bromley family and the evidence they gave at the inquest. Mr Balkwell also stated that he was aware of previous criminal convictions in relation to David and Scott Bromley and believed that this should have been taken into consideration when making decisions regarding suspect interviews.
Officer Responses
104. Simon Bromley was interviewed by Officer D and Detective Constable Andrew Jose on 6 August 2002. The interview was conducted on a
voluntary basis under criminal caution and lasted 41 minutes. 105. In his written response received 4 April 2011, Officer D stated that he made arrangements for Simon Bromley to be interviewed on a date prior to 6 August 2002, however his solicitor had been unable to attend. Officer D stated it had been his intention to interview Simon Bromley on a voluntary basis but under caution and that this was compliant with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of practice at the time. 106. He stated that there were grounds to interview Mr Bromley but no justification to arrest him as there had been no direct evidence of any criminal intent on his part. Officer D suspected that there were issues in relation to safe practices in relation to the gunning out technique.
Page 30 of 147
Information had been obtained from the Health and Safety Executive representative that this practice was an unsuitable and dangerous method of removing cement from the drum. 107. Officer D stated that the interview was compliant with the PEACE model, the recognised model for conversational management during interviews. He stated it was his intention to create a rapport with Mr Bromley at an early stage to promote the best opportunity to obtain an account from him. He felt that using a heavy handed approach would have raised issues with Simon Bromleys solicitor and may not have facilitated an account from Mr Bromley. Officer D accepted that the interview may have been perceived by a layman as being too friendly but stated that this was how police interviews should be conducted to ensure: the best opportunity to obtain an account; the integrity of the of the process at any subsequent court hearing; best evidence is obtained from the interview process. 108. Officer D stated that there had been no evidence at the time to indicate that the incident was anything other than a tragic accident, although there were issues surrounding the safe working practices adopted by Simon Bromley. Officer D believed that Mr Balkwell held the same view at the time. He therefore believed that it was appropriate to mention this to Simon Bromley in interview in order to promote rapport and facilitate an account. 109. It was Officer Ds intention to obtain a first account that covered the events at Baldwins Farm. He explained that as there was no evidence of any criminal intent or foul play, he could not challenge Simon Bromley and there was no evidence that contradicted Simon Bromleys account in respect of the operating of the vehicle hydraulic system and drum. It was his intention to submit a file to the CPS to seek their views regarding the potential for a prosecution for manslaughter by gross negligence and what further evidence would be required to support that course of action. 110. Officer D stated that there was no contradictory CCTV footage that required any challenging questions to be put during the interview. He
Page 31 of 147
stated that he was not ill prepared as he had waited for the results of the vehicle examination and the post mortem before undertaking the interview. 111. Officer D stated he was aware of the legal rights of suspects and rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He contended that offering Simon Bromley support during the interview was appropriate and that he may have been criticised for being oppressive if his manner was heavy handed and accusatory. He did not consider that this showed a lack of impartiality or independence. 112. He also did not consider that the interview was short in length given the topic material and lack of contradictory evidence for a clarification and challenge phase. He stated that the question that required addressing was whether the practice of gunning out amounted to gross negligence in conjunction with the condition of the lorry when examined and what safety procedures Simon Bromley had in place in relation to working practices. 113. He reiterated that if he or his line management suspected that it was a suspicious death then the investigation would have been dealt with by another team to investigate the suspected homicide. This was not the
case as there was no information, evidence or any other source information to indicate that the death was as the result of foul play. In relation to the complaint against ex Officer E and Officer F regarding the alleged failure to re interview Simon Bromley, Ex Officer E provided a written response on 19 August 2011. He stated that as far as he could recall no new information came to light before Mr Balkwell made allegations about him that led him to conclude his position as Senior Investigating Officer was untenable. He subsequently referred the case to Essex Police Professional Standards and Officer F. 114. Officer F provided a written response which was received on 9 May 2011. He stated that the strategic approach of his review and Operation Guthrie was that all intelligence and evidence was to be gathered before reinterviewing Mr Bromley, this involved both covert and overt policing
Page 32 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report methods. 115. A date had been arranged where Mr Bromley was to be re-interviewed, however Officer F alleged Mr Balkwell had disclosed some information to the media resulting in Simon Bromleys refusal to be interviewed. It is not clear if Officer F considered the arrest of Simon Bromley in order to obtain evidence by way of interview. 116. Officer F contended that Simon Bromley had been interviewed formally as part of the initial investigation under ex Officer E. He subsequently made a witness statement and gave evidence at the inquest into Lee Balkwells death. 117. In relation to the complaint regarding the alleged failure to interview David or Scott Bromley under caution made against ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G, the following responses have been received: 118. Ex Officer E stated in his written response that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in a crime during his investigation. He said that as far as he could recall accounts had been given by David and Scott Bromley before he took over the investigation from Officer B. He further stated that as far as he could remember witness statements were taken from them during the investigation. 119. Officer F stated in his written response that it was his view, at the commencement of his review, that there was no prima facie evidence to indicate that there had been any act of deliberate homicide. 120. He stated that the strategy adopted was to pursue enquiries leading up to the interview of any persons suspected of a criminal offence. The Leslie Balkwell Complaints
enquiries were undertaken and there was no evidence concerning any member of the Bromley family that supported a contention that deliberate homicide was committed. 121. Officer F stated that during Operation Guthrie, witness accounts were taken from David and Scott Bromley. 122. Officer G made a written response on 26 August 2011. He stated that
Page 33 of 147
both David and Scott Bromley had been interviewed under caution and provided a witness statement together with giving evidence at the inquest. He therefore did not consider it necessary to undertake a further interview. He went on to state that David Bromley was spoken to by officers at his direction during his investigation but he maintained the information in his earlier statement and did not make an additional statement.

123. Officer D referred to the PEACE model in his written response which is the nationally accepted model applied to investigative interviewing. PEACE is a mnemonic for the process of interviewing which should include: Preparation and planning Engage and explain Account, clarification and challenge Closure Evaluation
124. The Murder Manual 2000 refers to the interviews of suspects and witnesses at Chapter 5.5 Interviews should be as accurate and detailed as possible and to this end interviews with witnesses and suspects should follow the PEACE model endorsed by the ACPO Steering Group on Investigative interviewing. 125. At Chapter 7.5 guidance is given regarding interview strategy and it states: The SIO must play an active role and should be influential in developing an interview strategy. This chapter also gives advice about raising actions to check alibis or accounts given in interview, debriefing interviews and consideration of obtaining specialist advice prior to and during interviews. 126. The ACPO Steering Group on Investigative Interviewing gave direction in the Home Office Circular 22/1992 in relation to the seven fundamental principles of investigative interviewing as follows
Page 34 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints The role of investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable information from suspects, witnesses or victims in order to discover the truth about matters under investigation Investigative interviewing should be approached with an open mind. Information obtained from a person who is being interviewed should always be tested against what the interviewing officer already knows or what can reasonably be established. When questioning anyone, a police officer must act fairly in the circumstances of each individual case. A police officer is not bound to accept the first answer given. Questioning is not unfair merely because it is persistent. Even when the right of silence is exercised by a suspect, police will have the right to put questions. When conducting an interview, police officers are free to ask questions in order to establish the truth, except for interviews with child victims of sexual or violent abuse which are to be used in criminal proceedings. They are not constrained by the rules applied to lawyers at Court. Vulnerable people, whether victims or suspects, must be treated with particular consideration at all times.

127. The interview with Simon Bromley was opened by Officer D who informed Mr Bromley that he was being investigated for an offence of involuntary manslaughter, but then went on to say that I prefer to say that we are investigating what I consider to be a tragic accident on the 18 July. This comment does not demonstrate an open mind. The comment is evidence that although Simon Bromley is being interviewed in relation to a very serious offence, Officer D has already decided that the matter was an accident. Officer D refers to the incident as an accident throughout the interview. 128. The offence of involuntary manslaughter includes manslaughter by gross
Page 35 of 147
negligence and is a complex offence with a number of elements that need to be proven: That the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care; That the defendant breached this duty; That the breach caused the death of the deceased; and That the defendants negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment. 129. These elements should have been covered during any interview so that evidence in relation to the potential offence could be assessed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The IPCC has found little evidence of
consideration of these elements beyond superficial questioning regarding the appropriate working environment and suitability of equipment. 130. Officer D stated that he followed the PEACE model. Although the interview followed the basic structure of the model there is no evidence of a challenge phase. At times Simon Bromley is led in his answers and assumptions are made about what he means when giving incomplete or vague answers. 131. Examination of the transcript of the interview demonstrates that Officer D lacked sufficient knowledge of the mechanics of a cement mixer, normal working practices and the gunning out procedure to probe or challenge Simon Bromleys answers. When asking about the gunning out procedure Officer D said Its just this is something that people may ask at a later date that Ive got no knowledge of. 132. Evaluation of the information provided during the interview should take place either during breaks in the interview or at the conclusion to ensure that all points have been addressed. There was no break in the interview in order to evaluate the evidence provided. 133. The IPCC have found no evidence of consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the information provided. Despite Officer
Page 36 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints Ds lack of knowledge of the mechanics of a cement mixer or the gunning out procedure there is also no evidence of consultation with an expert familiar with the operation of cement mixers either prior to or following the interview. 134. Simon Bromley is offered Victim Support Services during the interview. Although it is acknowledged that he should be dealt with fairly and in accordance to his legal rights, this service is normally offered to victims of crime or witnesses to a crime rather than suspects. evidence of lack of independence. 135. Officer D did not conduct a thorough interview. The interview fell below the standard expected and lacked both depth and clarity. The IPCC has found that there is evidence that Officer D did not approach the matter with an open mind and it therefore also lacked independence. 136. The complaint against Officer D in relation to the conduct of the interview is substantiated. 137. In relation to the allegation that he failed to re interview Simon Bromley, Officer E stated that no new information came to light whilst he remained Senior Investigating Officer on the case. 138. He made a policy decision on 24 July 2002 that there would not be a joint interview conducted by police and the Health and Safety Executive. The IPCC can find no recorded rationale for this decision. It may have This is further
benefited the investigation to conduct a joint interview as Health and Safety Executive staff would be presumably be more familiar with Health and Safety law and working practices than Officer D appeared to be. 139. New information was obviously provided during the interview of Simon Bromley on 6 August 2002. It concluded at 3.43pm and a policy decision was made by ex Officer E at 5.00pm to submit the advice file to the Crown Prosecution Service as the enquiry has no information to suggest that the deceased died in circumstances other than as reported/described by suspect. This demonstrated little or no evaluation of the answers given in interview or any testing of the account against other available evidence
Page 37 of 147
before making a decision just over an hour after the interview concluded. There is no evidence of any further lines of enquiry being identified from the account given by Simon Bromley. 140. Consideration of the re-interview of Simon Bromley should have been made by ex Officer E following evaluation of Simon Bromleys account, testing against other evidence and possibly seeking expert advice from an appropriate witness familiar with the mechanics of a cement mixer and general working practices. 141. Officer F refers to Simon Bromley refusing to be interviewed due to an alleged disclosure by Mr Balkwell. He does not state if Mr Bromley was to be interviewed as a suspect or a witness or when this happened. 142. On 16 June 2004 a witness statement was taken from Simon Bromley. This was during the period of the review undertaken by Officer F. 143. However, Officer F made a policy decision on 23 February 2005 that Simon Bromley was a suspect in the Operation Guthrie investigation. There is no evidence of any further policy decision regarding any deviation from that position. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, a further interview of Simon Bromley would have been appropriate. The IPCC has found no evidence that this took place or that Officer F considered the arrest of Simon Bromley when he refused to be interviewed. 144. The complaint that ex Officer E and Officer F failed to re interview Simon Bromley is therefore substantiated. 145. In relation to the allegation that David and Scott Bromley should have been interviewed under caution by ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G: 146. Ex Officer E is mistaken in his assertion that accounts were taken from David and Scott Bromley before he took over the investigation from Officer B. There is no evidence that statements were taken from them during his investigation.
Page 38 of 147
147. Witness statements were taken from David Bromley on 26 July 2004 and from Scott Bromley on 9 November 2004 during the investigation under Officer Fs supervision. 148. Ex Officer G is mistaken when he stated that both David and Scott Bromley had been interviewed under caution although he is correct that they both gave witness statements and gave evidence at inquest. 149. Mr Balkwells complaint is in relation to David and Scott Bromley being interviewed under caution as suspects. In order to interview individuals as a suspect under caution there must be reasonable grounds to suspect they have committed an offence. Previous criminal records do not
constitute reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed another criminal offence. 150. The IPCC has found no evidence to suspect David or Scott Bromley had committed an offence in relation to this incident and therefore it was not appropriate for them to be interviewed under criminal caution as suspects. 151. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated.
Forensic Examination of Evidence

152. In relation to the forensic examination of evidence by Essex Police Mr Balkwell alleged: Complaint 36: That ex Officer E failed to recover a pair of trainers from the cement mixer. Complaint 108: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to forensically examine the trainers, a grey top and a knife which were present in the cab of the cement mixer at the time of the incident and recovered from the cement mixer at a later date. Complaint 132: That ex Officer E failed to preserve Lee Balkwells
Page 39 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report clothing, allowed it to be destroyed. Complaint 119: That ex Officer E failed to have Lee Balkwells belt forensically examined. Complaint 121: That ex Officer E failed to have the tachograph from the cement mixer forensically examined. 153. In addition to his allegations regarding forensic examinations Mr Balkwell also made allegations in relation to how information regarding the trainers was communicated to him. He alleged : Complaint 81: That Officer F failed to notify Mr Balkwell that Essex Police had a pair of trainers that Mr Balkwell believed to belong to Lee Balkwell and withheld information regarding the trainers. Complaint 79: That Officer F and ex Officer G misinformed Mr Balkwell in relation to the examination of the trainers. 154. In his statement of 21 June 2007 Mr Balkwell stated that photographs taken at the scene of the incident by Essex Police showed a pair of trainers in the cab area of the cement mixer. He stated that these trainers were not recovered from the vehicle during the crime scene examination on 18 July 2002. Mr Balkwell believed that the trainers may have Mr Leslie Balkwell Complaints
contained vital clues that may have assisted the investigation.
Balkwell complained that ex Officer E failed to recover the trainers from the scene of the incident. 155. Mr Balkwell alleged that in addition to the trainers, a grey top and a knife were in the cab of the cement mixer and should have been forensically examined. He believed that these items may have contained forensic evidence that may have assisted the investigations into Lee Balkwells death. Officers. 156. Mr Balkwell was aware of a grey top being found in the lorry, this came to his attention in 2007. He was concerned that he was not asked at the time of the incident in 2002 if this belonged to his son and that it was only He made this allegation against all three Senior Investigating
Page 40 of 147
tested in 2007 by ex Officer G following a request by Mr Balkwell. 157. Mr Balkwell stated that a knife can be seen clearly on scene photographs of the cab area of the cement mixer taken on 18 July 2002. Whilst he was at a reconstruction visit to the lorry in 2007, Mr Balkwell took the knife from this location, as it was still there. He did not tell anyone that he had taken the knife at that time. He alleged that at this point the knife was broken into three parts, and that this was not the case in the photographs taken in 2002. The knife was later given to Officer Q by Mr Balkwell. Mr Balkwell alleged that the knife may have been used to make adjustments to the equipment in the cab. 158. Mr Balkwell made a complaint that ex Officer E had Lee Balkwells clothes destroyed and by doing so could have lost potential evidence. Mr Balkwell stated that he asked ex Officer J for Lees clothing, and was informed that the clothing had been burnt. Mr Balkwell held the view that these clothes should have been retained until after the Coroners inquest. The essence of this complaint had already been investigated as part of the 2004 Essex Police investigation into Mr Balkwells complaints supervised by the Police Complaints Authority and later transferred as a legacy case to the IPCC. 159. However, Mr Balkwell contended in an e mail to the IPCC dated 12 November 2008 that his new complaint regarding the clothing differed from the one dealt with in 2004. He stated that he became aware
following a meeting with ex Officer G that the clothing had been destroyed at the mortuary immediately following the post mortem. He stated that this was new information and had not previously been disclosed. Furthermore, Mr Balkwell believed that Lees partner Lorraine Mitchinson was asked if she consented to the clothing being destroyed many weeks after the clothing had actually been destroyed and therefore he alleged that ex Officer E had covered up this information. 160. Mr Balkwell believed Lee Balkwells belt was significant to the investigation. He stated that the belt may have been used by suspects to
Page 41 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints carry his sons body to the cement mixer and therefore may have contained forensic evidence that could have assisted the investigation. He alleged that ex Officer E arranged for the belt to be cleaned at the mortuary and therefore failed to consider the potential for any forensic evidence or have the belt forensically examined. 161. Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer E failed to have the tachograph from the cement mixer forensically examined following the incident in 2002. He believed that had the tachograph been examined it would have provided information that may have contradicted Simon Bromleys account of what happened. 162. In relation to the allegations regarding communication surrounding the trainers, in a letter to the IPCC dated 23 November 2007 and during interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer F did not inform Mr Balkwell that a pair of trainers had been recovered from the cab of the cement mixer in 2003 by Detective Constable Giles. He alleged that these trainers were the same make as Lee Balkwell wore and that Officer F knew this and withheld this information. Mr Balkwell also alleged that he was misinformed by Officer F that one trainer was found when a pair had been found. 163. Mr Balkwell stated that in a meeting on 17 August 2007 ex Officer G misinformed him that a forensic examination of the trainers had taken place but that no blood had been found on the trainers. Mr Balkwell
alleged that ex Officer G was corrected by ex Officer Q who said that the trainers had not been examined. Mr Balkwell said this was a significant issue and ex Officer G should have been aware of it.
Officer Responses
164. In relation to the complaints regarding the failure to retrieve and forensically examine a pair of trainers, a grey top and knife: 165. In his written response ex Officer E made no comments in relation to the
Page 42 of 147
allegations that he failed to recover the trainers from the cement mixer and have them forensically examined or have a grey top and knife forensically examined as he believed these allegations were dealt with under a previous investigation into Mr Balkwells complaints conducted by Essex Police Professional Standards Department and completed in 2004. 166. However, Mr Balkwell did not include the allegations regarding the trainers, grey top and knife in his original complaints. His original complaint related to the destruction of Lee Balkwells clothing immediately following the post mortem. 167. Officer F stated in his written response that he could not recall the specifics of this but was unaware of any reason or evidence to support any forensic examination of the trainers, grey top or knife as part of his review. 168. In his written response ex Officer G stated that a policy decision was taken not to examine the trainers. This was based on advice sought from Essex Police Scientific Support to ascertain what evidence could be gained by submitting the trainers for examination. There was also a
further complication as the trainers had been left in the cement lorry until 2003 and movements could not be accounted for. 169. He believed that the grey top was examined by the Forensic Science Service although he could not be certain of this. With regards to the knife that had been retrieved from the cement mixer, ex Officer G stated that as far as he was aware the knife had allegedly been found during an examination of the cement mixer but only given to him some weeks later. Therefore due to continuity issues it had not been examined. However, he stated he was aware that the knife had been examined as part of the forensic review. 170. In relation to the destruction of clothing, ex Officer E had already provided a response dated 18 March 2004 in relation to an earlier complaint by Mr Balkwell. He referred back to this earlier response in his response to the current allegations dated 19 August 2011 and stated that the IPCC found
Page 43 of 147
the destruction of the clothing to have been justified. 171. In his response of 18 March 2004 he stated that the condition of the deceased was captured by photographic evidence and there was no evidence from the clothing to suggest any violence other than that by the cement mixers machinery. All of the clothing was removed by being cut off prior to the post mortem taking place. Ex Officer E further stated that due to the condition of Lee Balkwells body the clothing was rendered worthless, as it was massively blood stained and covered in cement dust and debris. As such he stated the clothing represented a hazard and it was bagged and labelled accordingly. 172. Ex Officer E stated that the information he had available to him at that time suggested that there was no benefit in preserving these items for any evidence analysis. He stated Lee Balkwell had been in contact with
members of the Bromley family and the vehicle, therefore these facts were not in dispute. Ex Officer E stated he met with Lees partner, Lorraine Mitchinson who, he said, accepted the justification given for the destruction of the clothing. some of Mr Balkwells anguish. 173. In relation to the allegation that he failed to have Lee Balkwells belt forensically examined, ex Officer E stated in his written response of 19 August 2011 that he was not aware of any likelihood of gathering any forensic evidence from the belt that would have assisted the investigation. He stated that this view was shared by the head of Scenes of Crime and the pathologist. He felt that the belt was the only piece of personal However ex Officer E accepted that in
hindsight he should have retained the clothing as it may have relieved
property that belonged to Lee that he could return to his partner, by way of a comfort to her. He stated had there been any prospect of obtaining any information from the belt then he would have had it examined. 174. Ex Officer E responded stating that as far as he can recall the tachograph was examined and he is aware that due to Mr Balkwells complaints further analysis took place
Page 44 of 147
175. In relation to the communication of information regarding the trainers, Officer F stated in his written response that he believed a pair of trainers was recovered from the drivers cab along with other property but did not recall any specifics in connection with this allegation. 176. In his written response to the allegations ex Officer G stated that he believed that a forensic examination of the trainers had been carried out and that is why he made the comment to Mr Balkwell. He stated this was an innocent mistake.

177. As already established earlier in this report, recovery of physical evidence during attendance at a scene is a key part of the investigation process. The Essex Police policy on homicide and unnatural deaths refers to the responsibilities of the Senior Investigating Officer in relation to the management of the scene and their liaison with Crime Scene Manger to dictate the extent of the crime scene examination. 178. At Chapter 3.1.4 of the Murder Manual 2000 guidance stated The aim of any scene examination is to maximise the collection of relevant evidence and intelligence so that the material recovered becomes an integral part of an investigation. There is usually only one opportunity to recover physical evidence and on occasions examinatory precedence may mean that not all physical evidence is recovered. However the initial Crime Scene
Assessment and an awareness of the potential value of material available at the scene should influence what is recovered and in what order. 179. The setting of an appropriate forensic strategy is one of the basic requirements of a structured investigation. The Murder Manual 2000 stated at Chapter 10.1 The construction of a forensic strategy is a key priority for the Senior Investigating Officer in the early stages of a murder investigation. Although this investigation had not been designated a
murder investigation it was a homicide or unnatural death and the same
Page 45 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report principles applied. 180. As stated earlier in this report the Murder Manual 2000 at Chapter 5.3.7 suggests that fast track actions in relation to scene forensics are vital to the success of the investigation. A detailed, planned, professional Leslie Balkwell Complaints
approach will ensure a greater chance of success: THINK recovery of physical evidence. THINK interpretation of physical evidence. THINK forensic strategies. 181. It is accepted that it may be difficult for the Senior Investigating Officer to predict what will or will not be relevant to the investigation, particularly during the early stages when the exact nature of what has happened is still unclear. Within the Practical Advice on Core investigative Doctrine (2005) it states In the first instance, if in doubt, investigators are advised to err on the side of caution and, where it is legally permissible then gather and retain the material. 182. This enables the investigation team to maximise the potential of any material recovered during the crime scene examination phase. The use of a forensics strategy may also provide the investigation team with information that can be used during the interview stage, to either test the account given or to identify potential further lines of enquiry. 183. Decisions made regarding the collection of physical evidence and forensic considerations should be recorded in the Senior Investigating Officer policy book with a clear rationale for that decision.

184. In relation to the allegation that ex Officer E failed to recover a pair of trainers from the cement mixer cab, photographs taken on 18 July 2002 clearly show a pair of Adidas trainers present in the cab. 185. Examination of ex Officer Es policy book showed it contained no evidence of any documented forensic strategy, any reference to what would be physically recovered from the scene or any considerations regarding forensic examinations. It does refer at Decision 7 dated 18 July 2002 at
Page 46 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints 12.30 that I am to use the services of ECF&R [Essex County Fire and Rescue] to extricate the deceased from the vehicle. Evidence may yet be gathered from the deceased and the vehicle. Preservation of that evidence is paramount balanced by the need to ensure care and consideration for the condition of the deceased. The policy book goes on to record that In consultation with DI Argles CSM everything is to be recorded in situ before recovery beginsto ensure all evidence is preserved or secured prior to disruption This demonstrated that ex Officer E considered the recovery of evidence from the vehicle and arranged for it to be photographically recorded. However, the IPCC has found no further documented policy decisions in relation to forensic examination of any items at the scene, except for the actual cement mixer. 186. It has not been established if these trainers belonged to Lee Balkwell although Mr Balkwell believed they did. Whether these trainers were of any evidential value is questionable. However, the IPCC has found no evidence that recovery took place on 18 July 2002 and as Senior Investigating Officer, ex Officer E was responsible for making decisions in relation to physical recovery of evidence at the scene. Therefore this complaint is substantiated. 187. In relation to the allegation that that all three Senior Investigating Officers failed to forensically examine the trainers, a grey top and a knife: It is clear that these items were not considered for forensic examination when the initial scene recovery on 18 July 2002 took place as they remained in the cab of the vehicle and were not recovered until 4 September 2003. Whether these items were of any evidential value is again questionable, however any potential evidential value should have been considered by ex Officer E and a decision made accordingly. The IPCC investigation has found no policy decision recorded in relation to this and has found no evidence that this consideration took place. 188. The IPCC investigation has not seen any evidence of terms of reference or any documented policy decisions for the review that was conducted by
Page 47 of 147
Officer F. He did not recall specific information about the items above although they were recovered by Detective Constable Giles and Officer L during his review. The IPCC has found no evidence that consideration of forensic examination of these items took place when they were recovered on 4 September 2003. 189. There is evidence that ex Officer G considered the forensic examination of the trainers, grey top and knife in his policy books: On 28 January 2007 ex Officer G considered the forensic examination of the trainers and decided not to conduct this as there were issues as to the continuity of the exhibit and a lack of corroborating evidence. He stated that this decision would be kept under review. On 23 August the blade of the knife was examined for blood and the presumptive test was recorded as negative. There is also evidence that at a meeting with the Forensic Science Service on 6 February 2009 to discuss a forensic review of the evidence, actions were agreed to submit the clothing from the cab and the knife for forensic examination. 190. This complaint is substantiated in relation to failure to consider forensic examination of the items against ex Officer E and Officer F. It is unsubstantiated against ex Officer G 191. In relation to the destruction of Lee Balkwells clothing following the post mortem examination, the actual destruction of the clothing has already been dealt with as part of the Essex Police investigation into Mr Balkwells complaints that was finalised in 2004. This investigation was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority and later transferred as a legacy case to the IPCC. Ex Officer E provided an explanation at the time for the destruction of the clothing and this part of the complaint cannot be reinvestigated by the IPCC. 192. In relation to the other aspect of the allegation concerning the clothing, that it was allegedly destroyed at the mortuary immediately following the post mortem and that ex Officer E asked Lorraine Mitchinson for permission to destroy the clothing after it had already been destroyed:
Page 48 of 147
193. The IPCC viewed a copy of the mortuary records provided by Mr Balkwell. This contained a note of the items of clothing and a comment that they were destroyed. 194. The Family Liaison Log completed by Family Liaison Officer PC Gail Taplin contained evidence of a meeting at 4.30pm on 19 July 2002 with Lorraine Mitchinson and members of her extended family. The note of the meeting stated Clothing Lee was wearing was in a bit of a mess but his belt could be cleaned up. Lorraine confirmed that she wanted the belt but remaining clothing could be destroyed. 195. The Family Liaison Log also contained an entry regarding contact with Mr Balkwell at 5.15pm on 19 July 2002; it stated that he arrived later at the same meeting. The entry stated Advised of post mortem result, personal effects, van etc. Confirmed he did not want Lees clothing. Advised of all we had. 196. As part of the investigation currently being conducted by Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, evidence has been obtained regarding an entry dated 23 July 2002 in the Mortuary Register [2002 diary] which stated a message had been received from Roy Kebbell [former Coroners Officer now retired] who gave permission to dispose of brown bags of clothing related to Lee Balkwell that had been kept in the mortuary freezer. The permission is noted as being provided at 11.40am and the property numbers of the clothing bags were provided. 197. There is evidence that both Lorraine Mitchinson and Mr Balkwell were told about the clothing on 19 July and asked if they wanted it. It is accepted that Mr Balkwell may not recall this conversation as it took place the day after Lee Balkwells death when Mr Balkwell would have been dealing with his shock and grief. 198. There is also evidence that Lorraine Mitchinson provided permission to destroy the clothing on 19 July 2002. This permission was communicated to the mortuary staff on 23 July 2002 by the former Coroners officer. Although there is no evidence or records of exactly when the mortuary
Page 49 of 147
staff disposed of the items of clothing it is more likely than not that this took place shortly after permission was granted on the 23 July 2002. 199. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. 200. In relation to the alleged failure to forensically examine the belt, ex Officer E provided an explanation in his written response of the reasons why he did not have the belt forensically examined. The IPCC investigation found no evidence of a recorded policy decision in relation to a forensic examination of the belt and it would be best policy to do so. It is accepted that Mr Balkwell developed a theory about the belt and what he believed to be its significance to the investigations into his sons death. This theory would not have been known at the time ex Officer E made a decision to return the belt to Lorraine Mitchinson, following her request on 19 July 2002. Had the initial investigation into Lee Balkwells death considered the possibility of deliberate homicide, a different decision regarding any forensic examination of the belt may have been made. 201. It is normal practice for the police and other agencies to clean items of property before returning them to family members, particularly if they are bloodstained, for obvious reasons. There is evidence from the Family Liaison Log of 19 July 2002 that Lorraine Mitchinson was informed that the belt could be cleaned and that she requested its return. 202. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. 203. In relation to the allegation regarding the failure to have the tachograph examined, there is no documented policy decision regarding examination of the tachograph in ex Officer Es policy book. 204. The tachograph was seized by Essex Police on the 18 July 2002. There is evidence that Forensic Scientist Antony Williams conducted an examination of the tachograph on 12 September 2003. A further test was carried out on the vehicle on 12 March 2007 by Dr Richard Lambourn, Principle Consultant in the Transport Research Laboratory. 205. The IPCC has found no evidence that any examination of the tachograph
Page 50 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints took place during ex Officer Es investigation. This may have been a useful line of enquiry to either support or dispute the account of the incident provided by Simon Bromley. substantiated. 206. In relation to the allegations about communication regarding the trainers, it has never been established if these trainers belonged to Lee Balkwell or what evidential value they could have been to any investigation. As this was unknown it is difficult to see why Mr Balkwell should have been informed that a pair of trainers had been recovered in 2003. Mr Balkwell developed a theory about the trainers in 2006 when he became aware they had been found in the cement mixer but this theory would not have been known to Officer F in 2003. Although Mr Balkwell was entitled to be kept updated about the progress of the investigation there was no obligation on Officer F to advise him about each piece of evidence or discuss his decisions regarding forensic examination. 207. The complaints against Officer F are therefore unsubstantiated. 208. Ex Officer G admitted that he misinformed Mr Balkwell as he thought a forensic examination had taken place and this was a genuine mistake. This complaint is substantiated. This complaint is therefore
Quality and Standard of Investigations Reviews conducted by Essex Police
and
209. Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints regarding the quality and standard of the original investigation conducted by ex Officer E, the subsequent review and Operation Guthrie investigation conducted by Officer F and the further investigative work conducted by ex Officer G. These complaints were in relation to general lines of enquiry, and specifically evidence from witnesses, CCTV footage considerations and
Page 51 of 147
investigative work in relation to the cement mixer. 210. In addition to the specific complaints regarding lines of enquiry Mr Balkwell made two additional general complaints about the investigations conducted by Essex Police: Complaint 110: That there was a failure to properly supervise the investigation conducted by Officer F and ex Officer N. Complaint 128: That Officer F failed to conduct a timely investigation. 211. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter to former Officer R dated 4 July 2008 that there was no proper oversight of the investigation conducted by Officer F and Officer N. He stated that both officers must have been reporting to more senior officers who he alleged clearly failed to take effective supervision and action in relation to this desultory investigation which got nowhere. Mr Balkwell stated that he got the impression that Officer F and Officer N were virtually a law unto themselves and no-one was checking what they were up to. 212. Mr Balkwell did not supply any evidence to support his allegation and the letter appears to detail his opinion. The allegation was not specific. 213. Officer F was a Detective Superintendent when the review began. He was later promoted to Chief Superintendent. Whilst he was a Detective Superintendent in 2003, he stated that his line manager was ex Officer Y. 214. The allegation was not put to ex Officer Y nor was he asked for a written response. This was because there was no evidence to support the
allegation and ex Officer Y was already retired by the time the allegation was made. 215. This complaint is unsubstantiated. 216. In his statement dated 20 August 2008, Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer F failed to carry out a timely investigation into Lee Balkwells death. He alleged that he began his investigation in February 2003 and by July 2006 had still not carried out many key interviews and the case was still not
Page 52 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report ready to proceed to inquest. 217. Officer F provided a written response to the allegation that stated his involvement commenced with the review of the initial investigation. He stated that both the review and the subsequent investigation, Operation Guthrie, were progressed in a reasonable, proportionate fashion. He Leslie Balkwell Complaints
refuted any suggestion that he had failed to carry out a timely investigation. 218. Mr Balkwell is aware of Operation Guthrie but not the detail of what was investigated as this was a covert investigation. The initial review began in February 2003 and was impacted by Operation Guthrie which officially began in January 2005 following intelligence supplied in August 2004. Some actions that were appropriate to be carried out as part of the review were conducted during the period of Operation Guthrie. There is evidence that a number of key interviews were carried out between February 2003 and June 2005. Some of those interviews had a joint purpose, to answer questions raised as part of the review and to address investigative actions raised during Operation Guthrie. 219. The IPCC investigation found no evidence that the review and Operation Guthrie were not completed in a timely fashion. However, some sanitised information about the nature of Operation Guthrie would be required to provide information to Mr Balkwell about how the IPCC came to this conclusion. 220. This complaint is unsubstantiated.
Lines of Enquiry
221. In relation to lines of enquiry that Mr Balkwell believed should have been considered he alleged: Complaint 61: That ex Officer E, ex Officer H and Officer F failed to consider the criminal background of the Bromley family. Complaints 72/129: That ex Officer E and Officer F did not conduct an analysis of what Mr Balkwell believed to be
Page 53 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints contradictory statements provided by the Bromley family and that ex Officer G delayed doing so. Complaint 71: That Officer F failed to revisit the crime scene. Complaint 120: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G failed to consider foul play. Complaint 114: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G withheld evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service which pointed in the direction of the incident being foul play rather than an accident. Complaint 117: That ex Officer G failed to answer questions in relation to Lee Balkwells belt. Complaint 124: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer I all failed to investigate the position of kango drills at the scene of the incident. Complaint 38: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G failed to obtain telephone records to assist their investigations. Complaint 134: That ex Officer G failed to allow Mr John Bond to conduct tests on the cement mixer. Complaint 135: That ex Officer G misled Dr Rudland, by failing to point out that a rope hanging in the drum of the cement mixer was put there by police officers and that this affected a report to the Health and Safety Executive. 222. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter to former Officer R dated 4 July 2008 and in an interview with the IPCC on the 26 January 2010 that ex Officer E, ex Officer H and Officer F did not consider any criminal background that members of the Bromley family may have had. He further stated that the police were aware that the Bromley family had connections to illegal drug dealing but they failed to consider whether this had any connection with Lee Balkwells death. 223. In his statement dated 16 October 2003 and in a letter dated 23 November 2007 Mr Balkwell alleged that both ex Officer E and Officer F
Page 54 of 147
failed to analyse the statements that had been provided by all members of the Bromley family. Mr Balkwell believed that the accounts contained
contradictions that should have been explored and he believed this may have assisted the investigation. Mr Balkwell alleged that this analysis only took place in September 2007 following a meeting with ex Officer G in August 2007 and that his analysis should have taken place at an earlier point. 224. In a letter dated 23 November 2007, Mr Balkwell alleged that no visit was made to the crime scene during the second investigation conducted by Officer F, nor was there any search for blood in either of the houses belonging to the Bromley family. Mr Balkwell believed that Lee Balkwell may have been killed at one of the houses and then transported to the cement mixer. In interviews with the IPCC, Mr Balkwell stated that he that he asked Officer F to visit the scene so that he could take into account elements present at the scene such as lighting, and the position of the lorry in relation to the house, as he believed this would contradict Simon Bromleys account of the incident. Mr Balkwell stated he was not aware of any visit being made by Officer F. 225. In a statement provided on 20 August 2008 Mr Balkwell alleged that all three Senior Investigating Officers failed to consider that foul play could have played a part in his sons death. He believed that evidence suggested that Lees death was not as a result of an accident but that of foul play or criminality. He further alleged that all three officers
deliberately failed to consider this as a possibility and that had this been done then the officers may have identified further lines of enquiry that may have assisted their investigations. 226. In an letter to ex Officer R dated 19 July 2008, and in interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that all three Senior Investigating Officers withheld evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service which would have pointed to Lee Balkwells death being linked to foul play rather than being viewed as a tragic accident. He stated that
Page 55 of 147
Officer F admitted in a meeting in September 2005 that he did not think Lee Balkwells death was an accident but did not have proof or evidence of this. Mr Balkwell was concerned that Officer F did not pass this He said that a
information on to the Crown Prosecution Service.
restricted letter from the Crown Prosecution Service to Officer F was posted through his door and this stated that there was no evidence of a crime. He also alleged that the Crown Prosecution Service should have directed the police to make further enquiries if necessary. 227. In an interview with the IPCC on the 23 February 2010, Mr Balkwell stated that he sent a letter to ex Officer G on 31 October 2007 and asked specific questions in relation to Lees belt, in particular regarding who had authorised the cleaning of the belt. He stated he had not received a
response answering who authorised the cleaning. He further stated that he did receive correspondence from ex Officer G dated 17 July 2008 and 7 August 2008, which contained information that ex Officer G had been unable to find any policy decisions regarding the cleaning of the belt and that he had written to ex Officer E for his response. 228. Mr Balkwells alleged in his statement dated 20 August 2008 that ex Officer E, Officer F and Officer I all failed to investigate available lines of enquiry in related to the position of the kango drills at the scene of the incident. Mr Balkwell was suspicious of the position of the drills and the piles of cement which were photographed at the scene. He believed that this showed either that the gunning out had been completed and the drills were placed in the piles of cement or that the scene had been set up to support Simon Bromleys account. Mr Balkwell stated that ex Officer E believed that Lee Balkwell had been inside the drum with the kango drill when the incident happened. Mr Balkwell was adamant that this had not been the case and if it had been, then the scene would have been totally different, showing the drill inside the drum and potentially the wires caught around Lee Balkwells body. 229. Mr Balkwell alleged that he spoke to ex Officer E regarding the position of
Page 56 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report the drills and the cement. Leslie Balkwell Complaints Mr Balkwell further alleged that he also
repeatedly discussed this with Officer F who could not or did not try to offer an explanation for the positioning of the drills and the pile of dried cement and did not follow lines of enquiry suggested by Mr Balkwell. 230. In his statement of 23 July 2007 and during interviews with the IPCC, Mr Balkwell alleged that all three Senior Investigating Officers failed to obtain telephone records that may have assisted their investigations. Mr
Balkwell alleged that this would have provided information that would have demonstrated a cover up by members of the public and allegedly corrupt police officers. 231. In an e mail received from Mr Balkwells representative on 20 April 2011 he alleged that ex Officer G would not allow his appointed representative, Mr John Bond to conduct further tests on the cement mixer. Mr Balkwell believed that this may have assisted in the investigation. Mr Balkwell alleged that this decision was made deliberately to prevent the truth about his sons death emerging. 232. Mr Balkwell said that ex Officer G would not allow Mr Bond to enter the drum to perform various tests in and around the drum. Specifically, he would not allow Mr Bond to carry out a test to see how easy it would be to enter and exit the drum from the inspection hatch. He alleged that ex Officer G refused these requests stating that they were unnecessary and that there were Health and Safety issues. 233. Mr Balkwell alleged in the same e-mail that ex Officer G misled Dr Rudland, who had been appointed by the Health and Safety Executive to examine the cement mixer, by failing to point out that there was a rope hanging within the body of the mixer that had been put there by police officers after the incident on the 18 July 2002. Mr Balkwell alleged that this failure led to incorrect conclusions being made by Dr Rudland in his subsequent report to the Health and Safety Executive.
Page 57 of 147
Officer Responses
234. In relation to the allegation that they failed to consider the criminal background of the Bromley family, ex Officer E provided a written response on 19 August 2011 and Officer F provided a written response on 6 May 2011. 235. Ex Officer E stated that at the time of taking the lead on this investigation he had not heard of the Bromley family, and was unaware of their criminal background and did not know if they had any contact with the police. 236. Officer F stated that he had satisfied himself as to all of the information available to him from police records regarding any key parties involved in the enquiry as was his duty to do so. 237. Ex Officer H retired from the police on the 1 April 2011 and he has not provided a written response to the allegation that he did not consider background information related to the Bromley family. 238. In relation to the allegation regarding the failure to conduct an analysis of allegedly contradictory witness accounts, ex Officer E stated in his written response that he did not recall any specific contradictions in the witness accounts other than what would be usual or expected in such a traumatic event, given peoples experience and how they may perceive things differently. 239. Officer F stated that the statements were analysed as part of his review. This analysis did not reveal any evidence which would seriously undermine the statements made. 240. Ex Officer G stated that he carried out the analysis as and when he considered it appropriate and that this was his decision to make as Senior Investigating Officer. 241. With regards to the allegation that Officer F did not revisit the scene when he started his review, he responded by stating that he took over the investigation in March 2003, some eight months after the incident in July 2002. He stated that the likelihood of further forensic opportunities from
Page 58 of 147
the scene was assessed as negligible and the integrity of any such recoveries was non-existent. He was also of the view that the evidence that had been presented to him throughout the review gave him no grounds for exercising his police powers of evidence recovery. 242. In relation to the allegation that ex Officer E did not consider foul play, he stated in his written response that the from the outset of the investigation he had an open mind and that he held the view that there was a case of gross negligence manslaughter by Simon Bromley. He stated that this view was expressed to the Crown Prosecutor, Mr McCann, when the file was submitted to him. 243. Officer F stated in respect of the same allegation that all enquiries that were undertaken by him during the review and Operation Guthrie were approached with an open mind as it was his professional duty to do so. 244. Ex Officer G stated in his response, that during the course of his review he remained open minded and he conducted the review to the best of his ability. He stated that he had made policy decisions that reflected this. 245. In relation to the allegation that he withheld evidence of foul play from the Crown Prosecution Service, ex Officer E stated in his written response that everything in his possession was included in the file to the Crown Prosecution Service and he never withheld evidence in the investigation. 246. Officer F stated he was not aware of what evidence the allegation referred to. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service received file
submissions from his review and the other investigations. He also said that the Crown Prosecutor was specifically asked to consider whether there was any evidence of deliberate homicide. 247. Ex Officer G stated that nothing was withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service. 248. In relation to the allegation that he did not answer questions regarding Lee Balkwells belt, ex Officer G explained in his written response that he did recall replying to a letter later than he would have done in normal
Page 59 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints He
circumstances because he was located on another investigation.
stated that having received a follow up e mail from Mr Balkwell, he responded immediately and apologised for the delay. 249. In relation to the positioning of the kango drills on the evening of the 18th July 2002, ex Officer E stated in his written response that as far as he was aware the kango drills were in situ and formed part of the preserved scene from where he took over the investigation. He is unaware of whether they had been moved prior to his involvement. Ex Officer E has further
commented that he could not envisage what lines of enquiry related to the position of these drills would lead to demonstrable evidence of the deliberate act of murder. 250. Officer F responded by stating that he had not been involved in the original investigation, however he was aware that the photographic records of the scene show the positioning of the kango drills in daylight as being outside the cement mixer and standing on the ground nearby. 251. Ex Officer I is retired and a written response was not requested from him. He would not have been responsible for considering this line of enquiry in any case as he was not one of the Senior Investigating Officers. 252. In relation to the allegations regarding failure to obtain telephone records, ex Officer E stated in his written response that from memory there was nothing at the time to suggest that mobile phone usage or data would have been of relevance to the investigation and explained why. He stated that Lee Balkwell was involved in a call to his partner at the relevant times and this was established. He could not state how this was established without access to the original file but his assumption was that this was through landline or mobile billing, and that it was covered in a statement obtained from Lee Balkwells partner. 253. In his written response Officer F stated that he explored the option of obtaining mobile phone records during his review of the initial investigation. During Operation Guthrie, this was revisited and telephone records that were accessible were obtained.
Page 60 of 147
254. Ex Officer G stated that he attempted to obtain the telephone records but they were not available. He said that he wrote to Mr Balkwell on 19
December 2007 and advised him that his staff applied for the call data in October 2006 and were informed on the 3 November 2006 that the data was no longer available. 255. In relation to the refusal to allow further examination work to be carried out by Mr Bond, ex Officer G stated that Mr Bond was given an opportunity to examine the cement mixer and he understood this to have happened. Essex Police had received advice from the Forensic Science Service that there should be one examination of the mixer when all the experts would be present. 256. A further request was made by Mr Balkwell for Mr Bond to carry out some additional tests to see how easy it would be for someone to enter and exit the cement mixer through the inspection hatch. advice from the Forensic Science Service. Ex Officer G sought
He later responded to the
request by letter to Mr Bond on 15 August 2011 and stated he did not believe any assessment of the ergonomics could be replied upon and would not withstand scrutiny in the criminal courts nor would it assist the investigation. He further advised the drum was unsafe for anyone to enter unless it was securely constrained and that this would prevent meaningful noise measurements from being taken because the drum would not be rotating. He said that the exact circumstances of the incident could not be replicated and that he did not believe that the results of any noise measurement exercise would take the investigation forward. 257. In relation to the allegation that he misled Dr Rudland, appointed by the Health and Safety Executive to examine the cement mixer, by failing to explain the presence of a rope in the cement mixer drum, ex Officer G provided a written response stating that the rope was first observed during a forensic examination on 28 April 2009. Ex Officer G was not present at the examination but stated that others, including Officer Q, representatives from the Forensic Science Service and Dr Rudland were.
Page 61 of 147
He stated that it was noted that the rope had not been evident at previous examinations or within any of the photographic evidence taken of the mixer. He said there was no knowledge of who placed the rope within the drum but all those present at the examination were informed by ex Officer Q that he had not previously seen the rope. Ex Officer G stated that he had no communication with Dr Rudland so therefore could not have misled him.
Policy and Procedures

258. Chapter 7.1.1 of the Murder Investigation Manual 2000 guidance provided advice regarding the planned method of investigation which rests with the Senior Investigating Officer. dynamic ongoing activity. It stated Planning the investigation is a During the course of an investigation
circumstances and information will constantly force the SIO to review decisions previously made. One validated piece of information can cause the SIO to review whether to pursue further, not to pursue or instigate new lines of enquiry. SIOs should never adopt an entrenched position
regarding a possible hypothesis. 259. It also stated that Investigations should remain focused and be based on a number of considerations including: 260. At what facts have been established what other relevant information need to be considered the need to avoid assumptions relevant intelligence available resources budget investigative priorities risk assessment logical decision making Chapter 7.1.5 guidance is provided regarding investigations plans
which should consider, and if appropriate reflect, the following
Page 62 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report investigative strategies: Forensic strategy Search strategy Arrest strategy Interview strategy Identification strategy Communication/Media strategy Family Liaison Further investigative considerations Leslie Balkwell Complaints
261. Dependent on the circumstances of the case the list of strategies can be amended but a number of core strategies are common to most homicide investigations. 262. Decisions on what lines of enquiry to follow and reasons why some lines of enquiry are either not useful or not proportionate are the responsibility of the Senior Investigating Officer, based on their review of the evidence that comes into the investigation. These decisions should be recorded in the Senior Investigating Officers policy book. 263. In relation to making decisions regarding suspects, Chapter 7.4 deals with the arrest strategy in more detail and recommends the following intelligence considerations when deciding on an approach: Source information Antecedents Lifestyle Associates Previous Convictions

264. In relation to the allegation that officers failed to consider the criminal background of the Bromley family, it should be emphasised that any previous criminal history would not, of itself, be grounds to arrest, interview under criminal caution or affect the Senior Investigating Officers
Page 63 of 147
designation of a person as a suspect or a witness. However, routine background checks of the Police National Computer and intelligence databases into suspects and witnesses if appropriate, in an investigation are expected and a key part of gathering information in order to make decisions. 265. Officer F acknowledged that it was his duty to avail himself of all the information from police records in relation to key parties involved in the investigation. There is further evidence to support this account in relation to checks made regarding Simon Bromley as an offender profile report for Simon Bromley was created by an analyst tasked by the investigation team. 266. In contrast, ex Officer E stated that he was not aware of the Bromley family or any criminal background and did not know if they had any previous contact with police. Simon Bromley was designated as a suspect in his investigation and background checks should have been conducted as part of the decision making around his potential arrest for criminal offences as per the guidance at Chapter 7.4 of the Murder Manual guidance. It would also be surprising if no background checks were made into other members of the family as part of his investigation but the IPCC investigation has found no evidence to prove or disprove this. 267. Ex Officer H did not provide a written response and the IPCC has not found evidence to demonstrate if he considered the criminal background of the Bromley family or not. It would not be his responsibility to do so however as he was working under the supervision of Officer F. 268. The complaint against ex Officer E is substantiated. The same
complaint against Officer F and ex Officer H is unsubstantiated. 269. With regard to the allegation that ex Officer E and Officer F did not analyse the statements provided by the Bromley family members, the IPCC investigation has found no evidence that statements were taken from members of the Bromley family during the investigation conducted by ex Officer E. He stated in his written response that he could not recall any
Page 64 of 147
contradictions in the witness accounts. The evidence file submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in August 2002 contained only five witness statements and none of these were from Bromley family members. Although it has already been commented that statements should have been taken from Bromley family members, any analysis of alleged contradictions, if it was appropriate, could only have taken place once these statements had been considered. 270. There is evidence that statements were taken from all members of the Bromley family during the investigation conducted by Officer F. Analysis of all statements was later carried out by an analyst. The analyst provided a statement to the IPCC investigation dated 6 April 2009. In it he stated: from my notes, dated 16 March 2005 and 31 March 2005, I can see that I researched all nominal records linked to Lee Balkwell and Simon Bromley, all categories cross referenced to them, all documents linked to these records and categories, and every statement and report that had been recorded on the database. Throughout this, I do not recall identifying any information that was at odds with, or made significant additions to, the original briefing and material that I was given by Officer F 271. This supports the account provided by Officer F in his written response.
272. Ex Officer G carried out an analysis and it is accepted that the timing of this is his decision as Senior Investigating Officer. He agreed to do so after representations made by Mr Balkwell in August 2007 273. The complaint against ex Officer E and Officer F in relation to them failing to analyse the statements from the Bromley family is unsubstantiated. The complaint against ex Officer G for delaying doing so is unsubstantiated. 274. With regard to the allegation that Officer F failed to revisit the crime scene when he began his review, the IPCC investigation found no evidence of any policy decision in relation to the consideration of a scene visit. No policy book in relation to the review conducted by Officer F has been provided to the IPCC. He stated in his written response that there was
Page 65 of 147
unlikely to be any forensic opportunities as he commenced the investigation eight months after the incident. 275. It is accepted that Mr Balkwell had a number of theories regarding the death of his son and how it may have occurred. He expected Officer F to consider these theories and visit the crime scene in order to fully understand his belief that Simon Bromleys account of the incident could not be correct and to inform future decisions. Officer F did not think this was necessary for the reasons he gave in his written response. 276. It would have been best practice for Officer F to record decisions and his rationale regarding further forensic opportunities in relation to the scene, including whether he intended to accede to Mr Balkwells request for him to visit the scene. However, it is not a misconduct offence for Officer F not to visit the scene if he did not perceive it was necessary. He was in possession of video and photographic footage of the scene and has provided an explanation of why he felt it was not necessary. 277. This complaint against Officer F is therefore unsubstantiated. 278. In relation to the allegation that ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G failed to consider that Lee Balkwells death was a result of foul play: 279. Ex Officer E stated in his written response that he had an open mind and was of the view that there was a case of gross negligence manslaughter by Simon Bromley. This statement in itself is evidence that he did not have an open mind but had a fixed view about how Lee Balkwell came to his death. There is no evidence from any policy decisions or identified lines of enquiry that he considered the possibility of deliberate homicide. A number of key investigative actions were not carried out as part of his investigation, and all available lines of enquiry were not identified, including the testing of Simon Bromleys account provided in interview. This, coupled with the extremely swift conclusion of the investigation and the provision of an evidence file to the Crown Prosecution Service that did not contain all the evidence that would be expected in a thorough and comprehensive investigation tends to suggest that he did not consider
Page 66 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report foul play or other criminality. 280. It is accepted that the IPCC viewed the investigation conducted by ex Officer E with the benefit of hindsight. However, although there may have no evidence that pointed to foul play or criminality other than gross negligence manslaughter, proper consideration of the available evidence and inconsistencies at the scene may have identified further lines of enquiry that may have produced such evidence. 281. There is evidence that Officer F considered the possibility of foul play as Operation Guthrie investigated a suggested motive for Lee Balkwells murder following intelligence received. This investigation investigated all available lines of enquiry appropriately. As this was a covert investigation, the details of its purpose were not revealed to Mr Balkwell and he may have therefore formed the opinion that foul play or criminality was not considered. 282. There is also evidence that during his review, Officer F followed up some lines of enquiry that were not conducted during ex Officer Es investigation. 283. Consideration of the policy decisions made by ex Officer G demonstrated evidence that he had an open mind and that he considered the possibility that Lee Balkwells death may have been as the result of foul play or criminality. There is also evidence that he identified appropriate further lines of enquiry and conducted a forensic review in order to identify possible additional evidence. There is also evidence that he discussed Mr Balkwells theories about what he believed to have occurred with him and, where appropriate, conducted further investigative actions. 284. Therefore the complaint is substantiated in relation to ex Officer E and unsubstantiated in relation to Officer F and ex Officer G. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
285. In relation to the further allegation that all three Senior Investigating Officers withheld evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service that
Page 67 of 147
pointed in the direction of the incident being foul play rather than an accident: 286. The evidence that was forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service from all the Essex Police investigations was examined by the IPCC investigation. There is no evidence that any evidence of foul play was withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service at any stage. The evidence bundle prepared during ex Officer Es investigation was extremely scant and did not contain all the evidence that would be expected to be provided to the Crown Prosecution Service in order that a balanced decision could be made. However, the flaw was that this evidence was not obtained rather than obtained and not provided. 287. The IPCC investigation found no evidence that ex Officer E, Officer F or ex Officer G obtained any evidence of foul play and failed to provide this to the Crown Prosecution Service. 288. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. 289. Regarding the allegation that he failed to answer questions about Lee Balkwells belt, ex Officer G has explained that the initial letters were not replied to as he had moved onto another investigation. Evidence shows that Mr Balkwell wrote to ex Officer G on 31 October 2007 and he responded on 19 November 2007 advising he would seek answers. He responded on 15 July 2008 to an e mail dated 5 July 2008 from Mr Bennett chasing answers to the questions and provided partial answers. An e mail requesting information from ex Officer E to answer the final question regarding who authorised the cleaning of the belt was sent on 15 July 2008. Ex Officer E responded on 3 August 2008 and stated that he would not answer the question due to the conduct of Mr Balkwell and because he did not know if he was to be subject of an IPCC investigation. This information was disclosed to Mr Balkwell in a letter dated 7 August 2008. Ex Officer G provided an apology and gave an explanation as to ex Officer Es stated position. 290. There is evidence that a response to Mr Balkwells questions regarding
Page 68 of 147
the belt was delayed, but when he did respond ex Officer G provided as much information as possible. He was reliant on ex Officer E for the answer to the outstanding question and therefore could not be held accountable for failing to provide an answer to Mr Balkwell. 291. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. 292. In relation to the allegation that ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer I all failed to investigate the positioning of the kango drills, there is no evidence that consideration of the position of the drills and whether this was consistent with the account provided by Simon Bromley took place during the initial investigation or subsequent review. Mr Balkwell developed a theory about the position of the drills which he stated was not consistent with Simon Bromleys account. Simon Bromley later gave an explanation at the Inquest for the position of the drills but this would not have been known at the point that ex Officer Es investigation and Officer Fs review took place. 293. The position of the drills formed part of the initial scene considerations and, had the alleged significance been identified, it may have been appropriate to put questions to Simon Bromley in interview. It would have been difficult to identify any alleged significance without a detailed knowledge of the gunning out procedure and it has already been established that this knowledge was lacking by any officer working on the investigations. It is also questionable as to whether this would have assisted any investigation or identified further lines of enquiry. However, as stated earlier in this report, Simon Bromleys account in interview should have been tested against all other evidence including video and photographic evidence at the scene. The IPCC has found no evidence that this took place during ex Officer Es investigation or during the subsequent review conducted by Officer F. 294. Therefore the allegation against both ex Officer E and Officer F is substantiated. It is unsubstantiated against ex Officer I. 295. In relation to the allegation of failing to obtain telephone records, Mr
Page 69 of 147
Balkwell alleged that mobile telephone records for a number of members of the public and allegedly corrupt officers should have been obtained. This would not be possible. The acquisition of telephone data is strictly controlled under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It is allowed in certain circumstances in investigations where it is necessary, proportionate and for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. There must be grounds for an application to obtain data, speculation or a theory unsupported by evidence would not be sufficient grounds. Telephone
records are only retained by mobile and landline telephone provider companies for set periods which vary. 296. However, the IPCC has found no evidence that any telephone records were applied for or obtained during ex Officer Es investigation. He stated in his written response that he did not consider it relevant to his investigation but it would have assisted him to obtain telephone records for Lee Balkwell as the victim, Simon Bromley as the designated suspect and other identified witnesses to support or refute accounts provided or to identify other lines of enquiry or to establish timings of the sequence of events. This is a routine line of enquiry that was not carried out. 297. Officer F stated that he explored the option several times during his review and there is evidence that he applied for and obtained some telephone records during Operation Guthrie. 298. There is also evidence that applications for call data were made during ex Officer Gs investigation but the team were informed by the providers that the data was no longer available. 299. Therefore the complaint in relation to ex Officer E is substantiated and in relation to Officer F and ex Officer G is unsubstantiated. 300. In relation to the refusal for Mr Balkwells representative Mr Bond to undertake further tests on the cement mixer, ex Officer G has provided a clear explanation as to why Mr Bond was refused access to the cement mixer in order to conduct various checks from within the drum. He sought advice as to whether these tests should be progressed and considered
Page 70 of 147
whether they would assist the investigation. His decision also took the health and safety issues into consideration. He has provided appropriate rationale for his decision and it is accepted that he is entitled to make reasonable decisions as the Senior Investigating Officer. It is not a
misconduct offence to make such a decision and there is evidence that the decision and the rationale was provided to Mr Bond. 301. The complaint against Officer G refusing to allow Mr Bond to conduct further enquiries is unsubstantiated. 302. In relation to the alleged failure of ex Officer G to point out that a rope was present in the drum of the mixer at a forensic examination, it has not been established evidentially when this rope was put there. Mr Balkwell,
through his representative Mr Bennett, stated that they had been advised that the rope had been put there by a member of ex Officer Gs team and that the failure to point this out led to Dr Rudland, an expert witness appointed by the Health and Safety Executive, being misled. 303. Ex Officer G stated that he was not present at the forensic examination on 28 April 2009 when Dr Rudland examined the cement mixer. It is accepted that ex Officer G would not therefore have been responsible for advising Dr Rudland about the rope. He further stated that ex Officer Q did advise those present that he had not previously seen the rope. 304. It is unfortunate that no record was kept of when the rope had been placed there as it led to an assumption by Dr Rudland that it was present when the incident occurred on 18 July 2002. Photographic and video evidence do not demonstrate the presence of a rope at the time of the incident. 305. However, the IPCC Investigation has found no evidence to suggest that ex Officer G intended to mislead Dr Rudland. 306. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated.
Witnesses
307. Mr Balkwell made the following complaints in relation to how witness
Page 71 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report evidence was dealt with: Complaint 60: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer H all failed to obtain statements from ambulance staff. This is part of the general complaint of failing to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation against ex Officer E. Complaint 118: That Officer F delayed obtaining statements from fire service staff who attended the incident. Complaint 69: That there was a significant delay in interviewing witnesses by Officer F and Officer H during Officer Fs investigation, in particular the interviewing of who attended the incident. Complaint 39: That Officer F failed to interview a potential witness regarding Lee Balkwells belt. Complaint 82: That ex Officer G delayed interviewing a potential witness that Mr Balkwell believed to have significant evidence. the paramedics Leslie Balkwell Complaints
308. In a statement provided by Mr Balkwell to Essex Police on 21 June 2007, he stated that he believed that the ambulance service staff who attended the incident on 18 July 2002 may have had information that would have assisted the investigation. Mr Balkwell obtained a copy of a Patient
Report Form relating to the incident on 18 July 2002 from the London Ambulance Service on 5 March 2003. Handwritten comments on the form refer to foul play? and crime scene. Mr Balkwell believed that these comments were significant and may have been written by ambulance service personnel who held a particular view about what happened to Lee. He also believed that the time of recognition of death noted on the form as 1.23am was suspicious because he believed that his son must have been dead for a longer period of time in order to be declared dead by ambulance staff shortly after they arrived. He therefore believed that
witness statements should have been taken from ambulance service staff during the initial investigation conducted by ex Officer E or during the subsequent review carried out by Officer F. He alleged that ex Officer E,
Page 72 of 147
Officer F and ex Officer H all failed to obtain statements from the ambulance service staff that attended Baldwins Farm on the evening of the 18 July 2002. 309. He later alleged in a letter dated 23 November 2007 that no significant witnesses were interviewed until as late as possible during the investigation conducted by Officer F. 310. Mr Balkwell alleged in his statement of 21 June 2007 that he had been advised by a member of the fire service that fire service staff who attended the incident on 18 July 2002 had suspicions about the scene and about how long Lee Balkwell had been dead. He therefore believed that statements should have been taken from fire service staff both during the initial investigation and subsequently during the review conducted by Officer F. He alleged that Officer F delayed obtaining witness statements from the fire service staff that attended the scene. 311. Mr Balkwell further alleged in the same statement that he and his family had raised concerns about the significance of a belt that Lee Balkwell was wearing on the 18 July 2002. They believed that this belt may have held evidence that would have assisted the investigation. Mr Balkwell alleged that he became aware through Witness X, the brother of Witness Y who was an associate of the Bromley family, that Witness Y was allegedly concerned about Mr Balkwells interest in the belt. Mr Balkwell believed that Witness Y may also have been present at Baldwins Farm on the 18 July 2002 and may have held some information about the course of events that night and this was the reason for him being concerned about questions being asked about the belt. He stated that he therefore specifically asked Officer F to interview Witness X about Witness Ys concerns about the belt. 312. Mr Balkwell said he asked Officer F if Witness X had been interviewed and was told he had been but that there was no significant information. However, Mr Balkwell stated that Witness X told him that although he was interviewed he was not asked any questions with regard to the belt.
Page 73 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report 313. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
In a letter dated 23 November 2007 and during an interview with the IPCC on the 23 February 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer G delayed an interview with Witness Z. He stated that he received
information from Witness Z in September 2006 that contradicted Witness Zs previous statements to police. Mr Balkwell alleged that a statement was not taken from Witness Z until over six months later. He said that he questioned why it took so long to interview Witness Z and alleged he was told by ex Officer Q that they did not see the significance of the information provided by Witness Z at the time. 314. Mr Balkwell also alleged that he had been approached several times by Witness Z who suggested they had information to assist the investigation. Mr Balkwell said that ex Officer G failed to deal with this appropriately.
Officer Responses
315. In his written response to the three complaints regarding witness evidence from ambulance staff, Fire Service staff and paramedics, Officer F stated that he commenced his review some eight months after the incident. He said that efforts were made to take statements from the fire and ambulance service personnel that attended Baldwins Farm on the 18 July 2002. Officer F said statements were obtained but that they revealed very little of evidential value. 316. As stated previously, Officer H has retired from Essex Police and has not provided a written response. 317. As stated earlier in this report ex Officer E responded to the general allegation he failed to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation. He contended that this allegation had already been investigated as part of an Essex Police investigation under the Police Complaints Authority and later transferred to the IPCC. He stated there were no findings against him and no further action was taken. 318. In relation to the allegation that he failed to appropriately interview Witness X about Lees belt, Officer F stated that from his recollection, he
Page 74 of 147
did not believe Witness X was an eyewitness to the events that led to the death of Lee Balkwell. He stated that nevertheless a witness statement was taken from Witness X which he believed was of negligible evidential value. Officer F could not recall if specific questions were asked of
Witness X regarding the belt nor was he aware of what relevance the belt had. 319. In response to the allegation that he delayed interviewing Witness Z, ex Officer G stated in his written response that he had been made aware of a drunken phone call from Witness Z to Mr Balkwell. He was made aware of this information either by Mr Balkwell or his solicitor and they requested a meeting to discuss this. Ex Officer G stated he attended a meeting at which he was informed that Witness Z had informed Mr Balkwell that Lee Balkwell had been murdered. 320. An agreement was reached that ex Officer G would make contact with Witness Z and he stated that he immediately carried out this task. However, despite attempts to make contact with Witness Z, he was unable to do so and stated that this was not due to any failure on his part but simply due to Witness Z not being available. He stated that Mr
Balkwell was kept up to date as to the progress of the attempts to contact Witness Z. 321. He stated that contact was made with Witness Z and a meeting was scheduled. This initial meeting was cancelled by Witness Z but a further meeting with ex Officer G and ex Officer Q took place. At this meeting Witness Z provided a witness statement that stated a third party had provided information to Witness Z and that everyone was commenting that Lee had been murdered. 322. Ex Officer G stated that Witness Z was questioned regarding an alleged specific comment to Mr Balkwell that contradicted earlier evidence provided to Essex Police. Witness Z denied making such a comment to Mr Balkwell. Ex Officer G stated he made further enquiries to try and establish the whereabouts of the third party referred to in Witness Zs
Page 75 of 147
witness statement, and an address for the third party was requested but never provided.

323. The policy and procedures for the identification of witnesses has already been discussed earlier in this report. The identification of potential
witnesses was a fast track action contained within the Murder Manual 2000 at Chapter 4.1.3 and in further detail at Chapter 5.5 which stated that identification and interviewing of potential witnesses is crucial to establishing key facts early in the investigation. 324. Chapter 5.5 also details the responsibility of the Senior Investigating Officer in taking an active role in the process of dealing with witnesses and identifying what evidence they are able to provide. Interviewing officers should be identified to deal with witnesses and they should be fully briefed by the Senior Investigating Officer to make them aware of what is required, depending on the circumstances of the case. Interviews with witnesses should be planned by the interviewing officer so that all points that need to be covered are discussed in the interview. 325. It is also normal practice in any thorough investigation to obtain witness statements from members of staff from emergency services who attended at the scene of an incident.

326. Mr Balkwells three complaints regarding witness evidence from ambulance staff, fire service staff and paramedics are interlinked. 327. The IPCC investigation into the three complaints regarding the failure to obtain statements from emergency services staff found no evidence of any statements being taken from ambulance staff, fire service staff or paramedics during the initial investigation conducted by ex Officer E. There is evidence that this was considered in a memo dated 16 August 2002, from Officer D to ex Officer E. This memo outlined the file to be
Page 76 of 147
presented to the Crown Prosecution Service and stated that if a charge of manslaughter was to go ahead statements would be required from emergency services staff. The Crown Prosecution Service response to the initial file was that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. It is accepted that this suggestion to obtain statements if a charge was preferred may have been to save resources. However as only five peripheral statements and a transcript of interview with Simon Bromley were provided in the file to the Crown Prosecution Service it is difficult to understand how the Crown Prosecution Service were able to make a balanced decision based on the paucity of evidence provided. 328. Mr Balkwell alleged that the emergency services witnesses may have held views about the incident that may have led to other lines of enquiry. Any evidence that may have assisted the investigation would not have been known to ex Officer E as these witness interviews did not take place. Equally, evidence may have supported accounts provided by other witnesses and negated the need for lines of enquiry. The IPCC consider that statements from ambulance staff, fire service staff and paramedics should have been taken during ex Officer Es investigation. 329. Mr Balkwell referred to a general delay in interviewing witnesses during Officer Fs review but refers to paramedics in particular. There is evidence that during Officer Fs review, statements were taken from five ambulance staff who attended the incident including two paramedics. Both London and Essex Ambulance Service staff provided statements. These statements were taken between seven and twelve weeks from the commencement of the review which is not considered a significant delay. 330. Examination of documentation from the review shows that statements from other witnesses were taken between February 2003 and June 2005. This may have led to a perception by Mr Balkwell that the statements had been delayed. Mr Balkwell was unaware of the impact of Operation Guthrie and Essex Police were unable to disclose information during Operation Guthrie due to the nature of the investigation. This may have
Page 77 of 147
led to a perception by Mr Balkwell that the review went on for longer than it did. 331. In relation to the complaint that Officer F delayed obtaining statements from fire service staff, the IPCC investigation has found evidence that statements were taken from fire service staff and other information provided between April 2003 and August 2003. 332. A statement from Fire Officer Barry Monaghan was taken on 25 April 2003 and a statement from Fire Officer Robert Coombe was taken on 13 June 2003. 333. A pro forma letter was sent out to all other Essex Fire Service staff that attended the incident to be distributed through a single point of contact. The date this letter was sent is unknown. A reply to the letter dated 22 August 2003 from Station Officer Dave Barritt contained an apology for the delay in providing a response and loss of the original responses from officers. Mr Barritt provided an account of the incident in his letter.
Attached to the letter are six responses from fire service staff who attended the incident. Each response stated that the officer had no
comment to make. Enquiries were completed within four months of the commencement of the review and therefore the IPCC has found no evidence of a significant delay. 334. Ex Officer H was working under the supervision of Officer F. He was not the Senior Investigating Officer and did not have overall responsibility in relation to obtaining witness evidence. He did have had responsibility for some actions related to witness evidence from emergency service staff and evidence showed that these actions were carried out. 335. The complaint in relation to the failure to obtain witness statements from ambulance service staff is substantiated in relation to ex Officer E. It is unsubstantiated in relation to Officer F and ex Officer H. 336. The complaint in relation to delay in obtaining statements from fire service staff against Officer F is unsubstantiated.
Page 78 of 147
337. The complaint in relation to the significant delay in interviewing witnesses, including paramedics in relation to Officer F and ex Officer H is unsubstantiated. 338. In relation to the allegation that Officer F failed to interview Witness X regarding Lee Balkwells belt, Officer F stated that he was unaware of the significance of the belt. Evidence from a report (R13D) written by
Detective Constable Giles showed he was tasked with obtaining a statement from Witness X. The report stated Witness X stated that the only thing that he could tell me was that he had a conversation with his brother, Witness Y one or two days after Lee had died at the farm about 10pm. He stated this conversation took place on 29 April 2003 when Witness X declined to make a statement. When Witness X did make a statement on 2 June 2005 he made no comment regarding the belt. 339. The IPCC investigation was unable to find any evidence as to whether Witness X was not asked about the belt or did not comment on the belt. Mr Balkwell alleged that Witness X told him he was not asked about the belt 340. It is accepted that Mr Balkwell believed that the belt was significant and that his theory had evidential value. Although he also believed that Witness Y was concerned about his interest in the belt this was second hand information from Witness X. The IPCC investigation has found no evidence to support Mr Balkwells theory about the belt. It is not known if Witness Y was concerned about the belt. As Witness X is now deceased the IPCC were unable to ascertain if he was actually asked about the belt when he provided a witness statement about other matters or if the information he provided to Mr Balkwell about Witness Ys alleged concern about the belt was correct. 341. The IPCC investigation was unable to find evidence to support the complaint and it is therefore unsubstantiated. 342. With regards to the delay in interviewing Witness Z, Mr Balkwell originally referred to his disclosure of contact with Witness Z on 9 September 2006
Page 79 of 147
and stated that the witness was not spoken to until 31 March 2007. He believed that contact with Witness Z should have taken place sooner. 343. The IPCC investigation has been unable to identify any evidence regarding the timing of the statement taken from Witness Z or any explanation regarding any alleged delay. 344. Witness Z has also contacted Mr Balkwell on other occasions between October 2007 and December 2008. This information was passed to ex Officer G by Mr Balkwell. Although his written response does not refer to the dates of the incidences that he dealt with Witness Z, it is more likely than not that he refers to the more recent incidences in December 2008 rather than the alleged delay in 2007. 345. The IPCC investigation has seen evidence of e-mails that support ex Officer Gs written response. There is evidence that he was trying to set up meetings with Witness Z and that these meetings were either cancelled or had to be rearranged at the request of Witness Z. Mr Balkwell and the IPCC were kept updated as to the progress of the contact with Witness Z. 346. It appears from the evidence provided by Mr Balkwell and ex Officer G that Witness Z has provided differing information to people with whom they spoke. No relevant information has been provided in an evidential format to ex Officer G by Witness Z. 347. The IPCC investigation has been unable to ascertain the reason why the initial interview with Witness Z took place in March 2007 following Mr Balkwells disclosure of the alleged conversation with Witness Z in September 2006. Mr Balkwell alleged that he was told it was because the significance of the information was not recognised but this cannot be corroborated. There is evidence that ex Officer G dealt with witness Z appropriately following further alleged disclosures of information to Mr Balkwell in 2008. Witness Z does not appear to have co-operated with ex Officer Gs investigation team or repeated the information allegedly passed to Mr Balkwell.
Page 80 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report 348. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
CCTV
349. Mr Balkwell had a number of concerns about how the CCTV evidence seized at Baldwins Farm on 18 July 2002 was subsequently dealt with by Essex Police. He alleged: Complaint 125: That ex Officer E and Officer F failed to maintain the integrity of the original CCTV tape when it was seized as evidence in the case. Complaint 78: That Officer F and Officer H failed to provide Mr Balkwell with a full copy of the CCTV evidence when requested. Complaint 35: That the CCTV tape had been edited by corrupt Essex Police officers. Complaint 126: That Officer F, Officer U and Officer V all failed to adequately examine the CCTV and consider alleged evidence of criminality. Complaint 76: That Officer F supplied a copy of the CCTV tape to the Bromleys improperly without a proper reason.
350. In a statement dated 20 August 2008 Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer E and Officer F failed to maintain the integrity of the original CCTV tape. Mr Balkwell stated that he did not obtain a copy of the CCTV footage until the middle of 2003. 351. He further stated in an interview with the IPCC on 26 January 2010 that he was aware that there were four or five cameras at Baldwins Farm, however Mr Balkwell felt that none of the Senior Investigating Officers have had the tapes properly analysed to ensure that all the CCTV evidence was obtained. 352. In a statement provided by Mr Balkwell on the 21 June 2007 he alleged that he was provided with a copy of the CCTV footage on two video tapes by Officer H. He complained that part of the footage had been edited out
Page 81 of 147
as it did not contain footage at the start of the tape that he had previously viewed at Grays Police Station. He was subsequently provided with a second copy of the footage on one tape which did contain the footage at the start he had previously viewed. He also alleged that there was a gap of 54 minutes in the middle of the tape. Mr Balkwell said he was
suspicious as to why the first tapes did not contain the footage and therefore had the CCTV analysed by his own expert. Mr Balkwell stated that the expert told him verbally that a minimum of three cameras were working but Mr Balkwell believed that there were five cameras at the farm. Mr Balkwell believed that footage from these other cameras may have been edited by corrupt officers. 353. Mr Balkwell also felt that the presentation of the copies provided to him was unprofessional. He stated that they were marked with a handwritten scrappy note and he would have expected the tapes to be properly labelled as an official police video. 354. Mr Balkwell further alleged that under the direction of Officer F, both Officer U and Officer V did not adequately examine the CCTV obtained. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer U and Officer V were introduced as drugs officers and they were to view the CCTV tape for evidence of drug dealing. Mr Balkwell believed that the CCTV did contain evidence of drug dealing and that therefore this should have been identified by officers and appropriate lines of enquiry identified to ascertain if this activity was linked in any way to his sons death. 355. Mr Balkwell stated that he had been provided with copies of statements from Officer U and Officer V. He said that the statements contained
information that the officers viewed the CCTV between the hours of 10 am and 11.15 am. Mr Balkwell was concerned about the length of time taken to view the footage as he was aware that there was over seven hours of footage. He was also concerned about the briefing that the officers
received from Officer F. 356. In his statement of 20 August 2008 and during interviews with the IPCC
Page 82 of 147
on 26 January 2010, Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer F supplied a copy of the CCTV footage to the Bromley family improperly. He stated that as the criminal investigation was still ongoing he believed that a copy should not have been provided. He alleged that Officer F provided a bogus reason for supplying the footage to the Bromley family in that he stated it was in connection with a civil case. Mr Balkwell alleged that this action released vital evidence to those whom the police should have had good reason to suspect of involvement in the death of Lee Balkwell.
Officer Responses
357. In his written response to the allegation that he had failed to maintain the integrity of the original CCTV tape, ex Officer E stated that this complaint was dealt with during the previous Essex Police investigation under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. He stated that as far as he could recall the tape from the CCTV was seized, properly sealed and secured. He said that Officer A dealt with the initial seizure of evidence and frontline control of the scene. He stated that Officer As dealings with the CCTV tape and the continuity of that exhibit were complete and within Essex Police policy and guidelines. 358. Officer F responded to the allegation of not providing a full unedited copy of the CCTV to Mr Balkwell in his written response. He confirmed that a copy of the CCTV evidence was provided to Mr Balkwell. He stated that the original tape provided had not been copied properly in error and Mr Balkwell was then provided with a further copy. 359. He stated that there was no police editing of the CCTV footage. He
commissioned Network Forensics to undertake an independent analysis of the original tape to evidentially ensure that there had been no tampering of the footage. 360. He relied on the same answer as his response to the allegation that he failed to maintain the integrity of the original CCTV tape. This is a different
Page 83 of 147
allegation however, and the answer regarding the provision of a copy cannot provide an explanation as to the allegation regarding the integrity of the original CCTV tape. 361. With regards to the allegation that the CCTV footage was not adequately examined by Officer F, Officer U and Officer V: 362. In his written response Officer F relied on the answer he provided in relation to the allegation that he failed to provide a full unedited copy of the footage. He added he and other officers viewed the CCTV footage and it was concluded that it revealed no evidence that significantly conflicted with the accounts initially provided to officers at the scene or engaged in initial enquiries. 363. Officer U provided a written response to the allegation dated 29 April 2009. She stated that she was asked by Officer V to view a CCTV tape with him about an incident which had occurred at Baldwins Farm where a person had been found in a cement mixer. 364. She further stated that she could not recall details of any briefing that was given by Officer V or where they viewed the tapes. She said that any notes that were taken would have been passed to Officer V together with any statement provided. She has also stated that she only recalled
dealing with Officer V and did not recall any discussions with Officer F. 365. Officer V provided a written response to the allegation dated 27 February 2009. He stated that he was requested to view the footage as an
independent observer by ex Officer H. He stated that the instructions given to him were very basic in nature. I assume this was to promote a sterile and unbiased forum to view the material. He was given the
instructions to view the footage in order to establish if he could detect any evidence of foul play. He said this instruction followed a scant briefing from Officer F which he assumed was for the same reason. He stated that the briefing was simply that an investigation was in progress relative to the tragic death of Mr Lee Balkwell and that he was directed as a wholly independent observer to view the material in order to confirm or
Page 84 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report negate any evidence of foul play. 366. Officer V stated that the viewing of the CCTV footage took place at Gray Police Station in order to take advantage of the considerable facilities available within their tape library, provide himself with an uninterrupted, sterile environment and to enlist the assistance of Officer U who worked at the station. He stated there were long instances of inactivity on the tape and he therefore fast forwarded these elements of the tape. No records were made of the visual inspection. At the end of the viewing the tapes were resealed into a new evidence bag and handed back to ex Officer H. Officer V also verbally informed Officer H that he had not seen any evidence of foul play. He also remembered mentioning that it was unlikely that any criminal would commit crime in full view of their own CCTV which would afford the police an advantage should they seize the CCTV material. He added that this view came from his experience of working within the serious and organised crime environment. 367. He later provided a statement to Officer H detailing his actions. 368. In relation to the allegation that Officer F supplied a copy of the CCTV to the Bromley family, he stated in his written response that he cannot recall this and he had not had access to any papers that would assist in his recollection. Officer F stated he did not recall that a tape was supplied to the Bromley family, however he commented that it should be remembered that the CCTV video was originally their tape. He stated he did not recall giving or being required to give any explanation to Mr Balkwell. 369. Officer H has not provided a written response to the allegations against him and has now retired from Essex Police. Leslie Balkwell Complaints

370. With regard to the allegation that Officer E and Officer F failed to maintain the integrity of the original CCTV exhibit, the IPCC investigation examined the available continuity evidence in relation to the original CCTV tape.
Page 85 of 147
Records show that the CCTV tape was seized and secured on the 18 July 2002 at 2.35 am. This was marked as an exhibit by Officer A under his reference MFH/1. The exhibit was appropriately sealed in an evidence bag. Officer A handed the sealed bag to PC Davies at 2.50 am on 18 July 2002. 371. On 17 March 2004 exhibit MFH/1 was handed to Officer V but it was now in a different sealed bag. The IPCC investigation has been unable to find any record of the movements of exhibit MFH/1 between 18 July 2002 and 17 March 2004. The exhibit MFH/1 was copied at least twice in order to provide Mr Balkwell with a copy of the footage. Mr Balkwell stated that this was provided to him in 2003 but the IPCC investigation has not found any record of the date the footage was copied and provided to Mr Balkwell. 372. Each movement of an exhibit should be properly recorded, dated and signed. If an exhibit is sealed under a different seal number or numbered evidence bag this should also be recorded. If records exist in relation to the movements of MFH/1 they have not been provided to the IPCC. 373. The IPCC investigation has been unable to establish the continuity of exhibit MFH/1 and cannot therefore establish the integrity of that evidence. 374. This complaint is therefore substantiated. 375. In relation to the allegation that Officer F and Officer H failed to provide Mr Balkwell with a full copy of the CCTV evidence, Officer F has admitted in his written response that the initial tape provided to Mr Balkwell was copied incorrectly and that therefore he was provided with another copy. 376. The IPCC investigation could not find any records or audit trail of when Mr Balkwell was provided with a copy of the footage, how that copy footage was recorded or who made the recording. The IPCC were provided with a copy of exhibit MFH/1and the original was retained by Essex Police. 377. Mr Balkwell provided the copy tapes supplied to him by Essex Police to
Page 86 of 147
the IPCC and these are marked as exhibits LWB/1, LWB/2 and LWB/3. LWB/1 and LWB/2 are the original copy tapes provided to Mr Balkwell in which he alleged there was missing footage. LWB/3 is the copy tape subsequently provided after Mr Balkwell complained about the missing footage. 378. Examination of LWB/1 showed it started at 18.40.46 hours and stopped at 21.44.06 hours. LWB/2 started at 22.44.36 and stopped at 01.52.36 hours. Therefore an hour and 30 seconds of the CCTV footage was
missing between LWB/1 and LWB/2. 379. LWB/3 contained footage at the beginning of images of children playing which are missing from LWB/1. This may be test images as the footage is untimed. It then runs from 18.40.46 to 02.34.04. This means that a further 42 minutes and 32 seconds were missing from LWB/1 and LWB/2. LWB/3 appears to be a full copy of all the CCTV footage contained in Essex Police exhibit MFH/1 which ran from 18.40.46 to 02.34.04. 380. There is evidence to that an incomplete copy of the CCTV footage was initially provided to Mr Balkwell. The IPCC investigation has found no explanation or audit trail in relation to this. The second copy provided by Essex Police appears to contain all the footage and therefore the situation was remedied. 381. However, Mr Balkwell was initially provided with an incomplete copy of the CCTV and therefore this complaint is substantiated. 382. In relation to the allegation that the CCTV footage had been edited by corrupt officers, Mr Balkwell believed that footage was edited because he understood there to be five cameras at Baldwins Farm and he was therefore concerned that footage from these cameras was not recorded on the footage. He alleged that this footage may have been edited. 383. There is evidence regarding the number of cameras at Baldwins Farm from the statement of Lewis Colley dated 27 May 2005, taken during the review conducted by Officer F. Mr Colley is a self employed security
system installer. He stated that he installed three security cameras at the
Page 87 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report premises during the summer of 2002. Leslie Balkwell Complaints He said that this work began
approximately two weeks before the 18 July 2002. He stated that one camera was installed to the rear of Simon Bromleys house with a view of the rear garden, the second to the front of the house to view the main gates and a hard standing area where the cement lorries were parked overnight and the third to the stable next to Simon Bromleys house with a view from the main gates up the lane to show persons and vehicles approaching. He stated that these cameras were linked to a single monitor and video recorder. The recorder was set up to record for a 24 hour period and was capable of either recording one camera at a time or the three cameras simultaneously on a time lapse loop. 384. Other evidence showed that Mr Colley was working at Baldwins farm on 17 July 2002. 385. During the review conducted by Officer F, he commissioned Mark Buxton, a Senior Consultant in the Video Laboratory at Network Forensics to examine the CCTV tape MFH/1 and conduct an independent analysis of the contents to consider any evidence of tampering. Mr Buxton provided a statement dated 12 July 2005 and stated the recorded images are from a three camera switcher system. He said that the first section of images consisted of images from three CCTV cameras, which were selected in a way that indicates a switcher type multiplexer system was in use. These images were not timed or dated and he stated that this indicated that the system was being operated or worked on, probably by the installation engineer. This section of images consisted of five seconds of time lapse recording which equated to 46 seconds of real time followed by ten seconds of blank material. 386. The second section of images was timed between 18.40.46 and 02.34.04 and consisted of a single camera view which had been recorded. 387. Mr Buxton stated in my opinion the main section of the tape itself is a genuine record of images gathered from the approach roadway camera. The recording has not been tampered with, interfered with or edited. Two
Page 88 of 147
of the three cameras have been excluded from the recording either because the system work was incomplete, an operator error was made or they were not recorded intentionally. 388. There is evidence that three cameras were installed at Baldwins Farm. An independent analysis of the footage has concluded that it was not tampered with or edited. It is accepted that the way that the copy CCTV tapes provided to Mr Balkwell were dealt with led to a suspicion that the tapes had been deliberately edited. The IPCC investigation has found no evidence that the tapes have been edited by any officers. 389. This complaint is unsubstantiated. 390. In relation to the alleged failure to adequately examine the CCTV, this allegation was made because Mr Balkwell believed that the CCTV footage contained evidence of criminality. He alleged that it demonstrated
evidence of drug dealing and stated that this should have been identified by officers viewing the footage. Whilst it is accepted that Mr Balkwell has developed a theory about what he believes the footage shows, this is supposition and does not, of itself, provide evidence of criminality to support any investigation. 391. The IPCC investigation has examined the CCTV footage. There is footage of various members of the public visiting the farm and at one point there is footage of what appears to be yellow packages being examined. These packages appear to have been taken from the type of boxes that normally contain drills or tools. This does not, in itself, constitute evidence of criminality or drug dealing and the footage could be interpreted in a number of different ways. 392. Officer V stated that he received a scant briefing from Officer F and presumed this was so that he was not influenced in any way and could view the footage as an independent observer. There are no records of the content of this briefing. 393. Officer V and Officer U were tasked to identify evidence of foul play. This was presumably because Officer V had some experience of investigation
Page 89 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report of serious and organised crime. Leslie Balkwell Complaints He confirmed that there were long
periods of inactivity so he fast forwarded the tape in places. No notes were taken at the time as he had not been asked to do so. It was the officers view that the CCTV footage did not contain evidence of suspicious activity related to the death of Lee Balkwell. 394. Mr Balkwell was also concerned that the footage was examined in 75 minutes when it contained seven hours of footage. Evidence from the statement of Mark Buxton of Network Forensics dated 12 July 2005 showed that he examined the original CCTV tape. 395. He explained that the recording was made in 24 hour time lapse mode, therefore the original recording covered approximately seven hours of footage but the tape was only 52 minutes and 35 seconds long. 396. The footage has been viewed by the IPCC and apart from the initial movements of various people in the first couple of hours of the tape, which would be about ten minutes in viewing time, nothing of particular note happens until Lee Balkwell leaves to obtain some food. 397. It is therefore concluded by the IPCC investigation that 75 minutes was sufficient time to view the footage in time lapse mode. The IPCC
investigation has found no evidence that the CCTV was not adequately examined. There is evidence that Officer F requested that the footage be examined by officers not connected to the investigation so that it could be independently assessed. The footage of activity by members of the public could be interpreted in a number of different ways, including the theory put forward by Mr Balkwell, but it does not constitute evidence of criminality. Therefore Officer V and Officer U came to a reasonable conclusion. 398. The complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. 399. In relation to the allegation that Officer F supplied CCTV footage to Simon Bromley, the IPCC investigation found evidence of a letter dated 26 October 2005 from Greenwoods Solicitors who were acting on behalf of Simon Bromley. The letter requested documentation, videos and
Page 90 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report photographs required for civil proceedings. 400. Officer F could not recall providing the tape or any explanation. The IPCC investigation has been unable to identify any record of the tape being provided. However, if it is accepted that a copy was provided then there was no legitimate reason for Essex Police not to comply with the request. The original footage belonged to Simon Bromley. In February 2005 Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Simon Bromley was designated a suspect as part of Operation Guthrie, and there is no record of a subsequent change of status to that of a witness. Had he been interviewed or charged with any offence then this footage would have been required to be disclosed to him under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 either at interview or prior to any trial. Had his status been that of a witness then there would also be no reason why a copy of the CCTV footage should not have been provided. 401. Therefore this allegation is unsubstantiated.
Cement Mixer
402. In relation to lines of enquiry concerning the cement mixer Mr Balkwell alleged: Complaint 97: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to investigate the maintenance of the cement mixer and to establish if the cab controls were working at the time of the incident. Complaint 30: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to obtain sufficient independent evidence from experts familiar with the operation of the cement mixer. Complaint 73: That Officer F failed to allow Mr Balkwell or his legal representative to attend at the reconstruction events involving the cement mixer on 15 May 2003 and 24 October 2003. Complaint 74: That Officer F provided a biased briefing to experts
Page 91 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints taking part in the reconstruction event on 24 October 2003. Complaint 112: That Officer F failed to give a fair and unbiased briefing to Dr Andrew Morris of Loughborough University Vehicle Safety Research Centre.
403. Mr Balkwell alleged in an e mail to Officer R dated 16 March 2008 and during interviews with the IPCC on 27 January 2010 that ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to investigate the maintenance of the cement mixer and failed to establish whether the cab controls were working on the 18 July 2002. 404. Mr Balkwell stated that he asked all Senior investigating Officers to check the history of the cement mixer as he was aware that there would be records maintained regarding any work undertaken on the vehicle. He alleged that this was an important line of enquiry that was missed by all three senior officers. Mr Balkwell believed that the issue of the broken connecting rod was particularly important as he did not accept that it was broken at the time of the incident but at some point later by allegedly corrupt officers. He alleged that the issue of the broken connecting rod was not investigated appropriately by all three Senior Investigating Officers. 405. In his statement of 15 February 2003 and during interviews with the IPCC on 26 January 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer E, Officer F and ex-Officer G failed to obtain sufficient or independent evidence from experts that would have been familiar with the operation of the concrete mixers. Mr Balkwell believed that had this taken place then the
investigation team would have been able to dispute some of what Simon Bromley stated in interview. Mr Balkwell stated that a reconstruction took place during Officer Fs review however, a different cement mixer was used, and he was not allowed to attend. He stated that once he had highlighted this to the police, they then used the correct type of cement mixer at another reconstruction
Page 92 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints 406. A further allegation was made in Mr Balkwells letter of 23 November 2007 and during interviews with the IPCC In January 2010 that Officer F failed to allow Mr Balkwells legal representative to take part in the reconstructions involving the cement mixer. Mr Balkwell stated that he was not allowed at the site as Officer F felt it would be too distressing for him as they would be using a dummy to demonstrate what had happened. He alleged that the second reconstruction took place without him being informed until after it had been completed. 407. Mr Balkwell made further allegations in his letter of 23 November 2007 and during interviews with the IPCC that Officer F provided a biased briefing to the experts present on the reconstruction involving the cement mixer that took place on 24 October 2003. He alleged that Officer F simply rehearsed Simon Bromleys account of the incident and presented it as fact, that he did not point out various inconsistencies at the scene that Mr Balkwell felt were particularly important, or ask the experts to consider if the incident may not have been an accident but a deliberate act. 408. It is also alleged by Mr Balkwell in an e mail to former Officer R dated 11 July 2008 and during interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 that Officer F failed to give a fair and unbiased briefing to Dr Andrew Morris from Loughborough Vehicle and Research Centre. He alleged that Officer F failed to ask Dr Morris to comment on whether the evidence was consistent with his son being placed in the cement mixer whilst still alive and then having the drum switched on. He also alleged that Dr Morris was not told that Lee Balkwell was wearing a thick fleece. 409. Mr Balkwell also stated that Dr Morris was not a suitable expert to comment on the issues as he believed Dr Morris usually dealt with road traffic accidents and did not have any expertise in relation to cement mixers.
Officer Responses
410. With regards to the allegation that all Senior Officers failed to investigate
Page 93 of 147
the maintenance of the cement mixer, ex Officer E stated in his written response that as far as he can remember a suitably qualified person was identified by the Health and Safety Executive and they undertook an examination of the vehicle. He referred back to comments made during the Essex Police investigation which was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority and later transferred to the IPCC. A letter from the IPCC dated 8 December 2004 contained comments that his actions did not fall below the required standard. 411. Officer F stated in his written response to the same allegation that he believed that the issue regarding the cab controls was explored at the reconstruction examination undertaken by the experts. He stated that the cab controls were scrutinised as part of this exercise. 412. Ex Officer G stated in his written response to the allegation that a statement had been taken from the company that had serviced the cement mixer. He said here was no service requirement in relation to the cab controls. He also stated that the fire service was spoken to in order to ascertain whether or not they had used the cab controls during the retrieval of Lee Balkwells body. He advised that Martin Crane from the fire service stated he did enter the cab of the lorry and used the drum controls to try and move the drum of the lorry in the hope that it would assist in freeing the body. I can recall that I use the control lever which had the black ball handle on it, I can recall that having used this control, that nothing happened and there was no movement of the drum, I then returned this lever to the position I found it in. 413. In his written response relating to obtaining sufficient or independent evidence from experts Officer E has stated that due to the passage of time and that fact that there were no contemporaneous documents disclosed to him, he has been unable to provide a specific response to this allegation. However, he did state that at all times he acted professionally and with honesty and integrity. 414. Officer F has stated in response to the same allegation that the review
Page 94 of 147
that was conducted by him was informed significantly by consultations with expert witnesses. He stated that during the course of his review there were two independent examinations, both of which were video recorded. Officer F said he was present during the second examination alongside representatives from IVECO, Health and Safety Executive representatives and a university based team that dealt with accident reconstruction. Officer F felt that this was a detailed piece of work which informed the progress of the review and ultimately the resubmission of a file to the Crown Prosecution Service for further consideration. 415. Ex Officer G stated in his response to the allegation that an examination of the cement mixer was originally conducted on the 24 October 2003 with representatives from Iveco, Hymix, Saur Danfoss, the Health and Safety Executive and the Vehicle Safety Research Centre being present. A
report was completed that concluded that there was no direct link between the vehicle faults and the fatal incident. 416. He stated the Forensic Science Service also examined the lorry on 28 April 2009 in Essex, as part of the forensic review under his instructions. He said that the issues concerning the cement mixer were also considered in great detail during the inquest into Lee Balkwells death. Ex Officer G stated that Mr Balkwell also instructed his own expert, Mr Bond. 417. In view of the previous expert evidence and as the issue was addressed at the inquest, ex Officer G was of the view that it was disproportionate to instruct further experts. He did not accept that he had failed to obtain independent expert evidence or that this alleged failure resulted in Simon Bromleys account of the incident being accepted. 418. Officer F stated in his written response to the allegation that he failed to allow Mr Balkwells legal representative to be present during a reconstruction, that he did not recall refusing the attendance of Mr Balkwells legal representative. He further stated that he would have welcomed the presence of Mr Balkwells solicitor. 419. In response to the allegation that he provided a biased briefing to experts
Page 95 of 147
involved in the cement mixer reconstruction, Officer F stated that the briefing given to experts was a matter of record and could be found in the papers relating to the investigation. He said he did not have access to this material and had not seen it for many years. He said that the experts were tasked to examine the vehicle in a search for the truth and had their own duties to the Court in this regard. 420. Officer F stated in his written response to the allegation that he gave an unfair and biased briefing to Dr Andrew Morris that he had no interest in reaching any pre-determined conclusion from this or any other expert witness. He stated this would be contrary to his duty to investigate in the interests of fairness and justice. He asserted Dr Morris was given an unbiased briefing.

421. In relation the allegation that ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to investigate the maintenance of the cement mixer and to establish if the cab controls were working at the time of the incident: 422. A statement from David Scammell of Scammell Commercial Limited was taken on 18 July 2002 during the investigation conducted by ex Officer E. This statement dealt with the circumstances of the repair to the cement mixer on 17 July 2002. It did not refer to the maintenance of the vehicle or the broken connecting rod which would have affected the cab controls. 423. Photographic evidence of the broken connecting rod was obtained on 24 July 2002 during the initial examination of the lorry. The IPCC
investigation has been unable to find any evidence that this line of enquiry was investigated further during the investigation conducted by ex Officer E. There is also no evidence that the potential significance of the broken connecting rod was identified. 424. A second statement from David Scammell was taken on 27 August 2003 during the review conducted by Officer F. This statement dealt with the routine servicing of the cement mixer. It also stated that Mr Scammell
Page 96 of 147
was asked if he knew the cab controls for the mixer drum operation had been disconnected and he stated that he did not know this. 425. There is also evidence from the video recording of the reconstruction event that took place on 24 October 2003 that the issue of the cab controls was identified for consideration by the experts during the initial briefing provided by Officer F. 426. During the investigation conducted by ex Officer G, there is evidence that a further statement was taken from David Scammell on 12 November 2008. This statement clarified evidence he provided at the inquest into Lee Balkwell's death regarding the cab controls. 427. There is also evidence from minutes of a meeting with the Forensic Science Service on 6 February 2009 in relation to the ongoing forensic review that a number of investigative actions were raised in relation to the cab controls and the broken connecting rod. A further examination of the cement mixer led by the Forensic Science Service took place on 28 April 2009. This also involved specific examination of the connecting rod. 428. Statements were also taken during ex Officer Gs investigation from fire service staff Martin Crane on 9 April 2009 and David Barritt on 7 May 2009. These statements dealt with evidence relating to the cab controls. 429. The complaint is substantiated in relation to ex Officer E. unsubstantiated in relation to Officer F and ex Officer G. 430. In relation to the allegation that all three Senior Investigating Officers failed to obtain sufficient or any independent evidence from experts familiar with the operation of cement mixers and that as a result of this the account of the incident provided by Simon Bromley was accepted: 431. Evidence demonstrated that Ex Officer E arranged for the vehicle to be examined by John Felstead, Principal Specialist Inspector of the Health and Safety Executive on 24 July 2002. Also present were Andrew It is
Saunders from the Health and Safety Executive, David Taylor from Hymix Limited, Andrew Whiteford from Saur Danfoss, Officer D and Officer P.
Page 97 of 147
Mr Felstead produced a brief report in which he admits to having little or no knowledge of the workings of a cement mixer. He stated that the vehicle was in good condition for its age and there were no relevant defects on the vehicle in respect of the incident. He also noted that the control cable for the cab was disconnected. 432. The report produced by Mr Felstead was very brief and was submitted on an e mail. Officer E does not appear to have commissioned any further advice or evidence in relation to the workings of a cement mixer involved in the incident or given any further consideration to the relevance of the disconnected cable. Given his consideration of the offence of gross
negligence manslaughter by Simon Bromley, it would have been expected that any investigation would have involved the use of such an expert to consider the credibility of the account offered by Simon Bromley. 433. There is insufficient evidence from expert witnesses familiar with the use of cement mixers and the IPCC investigation could find no evidence of any consultation with experts following the account provided by Simon Bromley at interview during the investigation conducted by ex Officer E. 434. With regard to Officer F, there is evidence that during the course of his review he instigated two consultations with appropriate expert witnesses in the form of reconstruction events on 15 May 2003 and 24 October 2003 which were video recorded. 435. There is also evidence that in December 2003 a report was commissioned from Dr Andrew Morris who was a Principle Consultant for the Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute at the Vehicle Safety Research Centre at Loughborough University. 436. In relation to the same complaint against ex Officer G, there is evidence that he considered the findings following the examination that took place on 24 October 2003 with a number of experts present. There is also evidence that ex Officer G has commissioned other reports and advice from experts as part of the investigative actions identified as part of his forensic review in consultation with the Forensic Science Service. He also
Page 98 of 147
arranged an examination of the cement mixer attended by representatives of the Forensic Science Service and other experts including Mr Bond, Mr Balkwells own expert, on 28 April 2009. Ex Officer G stated that it would have been disproportionate to instruct further experts and this was his decision as the Senior Investigating Officer. 437. The complaint against ex Officer E is substantiated. The complaint against Officer F and ex Officer G is unsubstantiated. 438. With regard to the complaint against Officer F that he allegedly provided a biased briefing to the experts during a reconstruction event, the IPCC investigation has examined the DVD recording of the briefing provided on 24 October 2003 and considered the points raised by Mr Balkwell during interviews with the IPCC in January 2010. 439. There is evidence of the purpose of the reconstruction in a letter from Detective Constable Dunion to Mr Andrew Whiteford of Saur Danfoss. This stated It is hoped that during the meeting those present will be able to demonstrate and comment upon the following points: The precise operating process of the actual vehicle including: The means by which the vehicle and drum are started The workings of the vehicle and the drum How the speed of the drum can be adjusted What happens if the drum mechanism is in gear when the drum is started? Certain movement traces are shown on the tachograph disc and it is planned to replicate these traces and establish what activity would have caused them The efficiency of the stop mechanism within the cab of the lorry. 440. There was no suggestion that the cause of Lee Balkwells death would form part of the deliberations, and there is no evidence that the experts were asked to reach a conclusion if the incident was an accident or a deliberate act. This would be a matter for Officer F to consider following
Page 99 of 147
consideration of the reports or evidence from the assembled experts. 441. Officer F provided a briefing for background information. Some of his comments or answers to questions demonstrated he may have had a lack of detailed understanding of the scene of the incident. He refers
throughout the briefing to events or provides descriptions in reference to how he or Essex Police understood the position rather than as fact. He may also have had a lack of knowledge of the detailed workings of a cement mixer and certain technical procedures. However the reason
experts were consulted was in order to provide that experiential advice and evidence. 442. The IPCC investigation has found no evidence that Officer F deliberately misled the experts during his briefing or provided a deliberately biased briefing. 443. It is observed however that the presence of Mr Balkwell at the reconstruction may have assisted the experts in understanding certain aspects of the incident, perceived inconsistencies and any concerns he had due to his very detailed knowledge. It may also have afforded Mr Balkwell the opportunity to air his views and provided reassurance as to the deliberations by the experts and the content of the briefing provided. 444. This complaint is unsubstantiated. 445. In relation to the complaints against Officer F regarding the alleged refusal to allow Mr Balkwell or his representative to be present at the reconstructions on 15 May 2003 and 24 October 2003, Officer F explained that he did not recall refusing the attendance at the reconstruction and indeed he would have welcomed this. 446. The IPCC investigation has been unable to identify any record of this refusal and any policy decision regarding it. There is evidence that Mr Balkwells brother Ray Balkwell attended at the reconstruction on 15 May 2003. Mr Balkwell stated in interviews with the IPCC that he was not allowed to attend as it was thought it would be too distressing for him.
Page 100 of 147
447. There is no requirement in law or policy or guidance that would direct the Senior Investigating Officer to allow family members or representatives to attend such a demonstration, unless there was a specific investigative requirement. In the absence of any records it is difficult to come to a conclusion about what happened but there appears to have been a breakdown in communication between Mr Balkwell and Officer F. It may have assisted to address Mr Balkwells concerns and allowed him the opportunity to provide his views if he had been invited to attend on 24 October 2003. 448. However, the IPCC investigation has found no evidence of any deliberate attempt to prevent Mr Balkwell or his representative from attendance at either reconstruction event. 449. This complaint is unsubstantiated. 450. With regards to the allegation that Officer F failed to give an unbiased briefing to Dr Andrew Morris of Loughborough University Vehicle Safety Research Centre: 451. The IPCC investigation examined the report prepared by Dr Morris and Martyn Chambers-Smith. Dr Morris also provided a copy of the
introductory report and covering letter from Officer F dated 27 August 2008. Appropriate documents and copies of video and photographic
evidence of the scene were provided with the introductory report. Officer F stated in the report that The exact whereabouts of Lee Balkwell at the time of the drum commencing its revolution are not clearly reported on by Simon Bromley and from the point of view of the enquiry team it cannot be definitively ascertained whether Lee Balkwell was: Entirely within the drum Partially in the drum in the process of exiting Partially in the drum through leaning in or being in the process of entering Entirely outside the drum
Page 101 of 147
452. Officer F further stated that the enquiry team seeks your assistance in determining, having regard for all the information available, the sequence of events whereby the body of Lee Balkwell came to rest in the position as indicated on the attached papers, trapped between the lorrys drum and chassis. 453. There is no evidence that the written briefing provided was unfair or biased. Dr Morris would have been aware of Lee Balkwells clothing from the video and photographic evidence provided and he was asked to come to a conclusion based on all the information available in an open way. 454. This complaint is unsubstantiated.
Allegations of Corruption
455. Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints that related to allegations of corruption or corrupt behaviour by Essex Police officers. He alleged: Complaint 28: That ex Officer W, Officer D and Officer C carried out certain actions because they were involved with corrupt officers linked to the Bromley family. 456. Mr Balkwell did not provide any specific evidence to support his complaint, other than to allege that he suspected that the officers were corrupt and involved with other unidentified officers in covering up his sons death. The allegation was put to Officer D and Officer C and they provided written responses to the allegation. 457. Officer D stated that he wholly denied the allegation. He said he had never met any member of the Bromley family prior to the events at Baldwins Farm on 18 July 2002 nor had he ever heard of them. He also said he was unaware of any issues involving allegations of corrupt officers and had he been he would have reported this to either his line manager or the force Professional Standards Department. He stated that he was
certainly not involved in any form of corrupt practice during the
Page 102 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints investigation into Lee Balkwells death or at any time in his service. 458. Ex Officer C stated that all of his decisions were made with the integrity of the investigation in mind and he was not affected by any other influences. 459. Officer W had retired from Essex Police and as there was no evidence of criminality he was not interviewed or asked to provide a written response. 460. This complaint was not able to be investigated further during the IPCC investigation due to the lack of evidence to support the allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. 461. Mr Balkwell made further general allegations of corruption: Complaint 42: That evidence of telephone contact between Simon Bromley and a number of other individuals that Mr Balkwell believed to be corrupt was suppressed by Essex Police. Complaint 43: That intelligence linking members of the public and a former Essex Police officer to Lee Balkwells death was suppressed by former Essex Police officers. Complaint 50: That the investigation into Lee Balkwells death was suppressed due to intelligence being passed by Simon Bromley and Witness Y. Complaint 98: That there was a network of former and serving Essex Police officers involved in corrupt practices including ex Officer E. Complaint 93: That there was general corruption amongst Essex Police officers Complaint 94: That there was misconduct occurring at Grays Police Station. 462. In his statement of 21 June 2007 made to Essex Police, Mr Balkwell said that he received information from two Undercover Intelligence Officers named Geoff and John who he met some time after the 3 April 2003. He stated that they provided information to him regarding an Essex Police covert investigation into allegedly corrupt officers. Mr Balkwell said they
Page 103 of 147
told him that details of telephone calls between Simon Bromley and a number of allegedly corrupt individuals were in the intelligence system. They allegedly told Mr Balkwell that if they exposed the fact that this intelligence existed then the covert investigation would be exposed to the corrupt officers. Therefore the intelligence was suppressed as the police wanted to catch the corrupt officers. 463. Call data for Simon Bromleys mobile phone at the time of the incident was not available when applied for by officers conducting Operation Guthrie due to the time lapsed since the incident. This cannot therefore be examined for any evidence to support or refute the allegation. 464. The IPCC has found no other available evidence to support this allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. 465. Mr Balkwell alleged that information was gathered during an investigation codenamed Operation Fairway that identified links between a number of members of the public that Mr Balkwell alleged to be corrupt, a former Essex police officer and Simon Bromley. He alleged that this intelligence was suppressed by two former Essex police officers. 466. Although it is not disputed that this was Mr Balkwells belief, he did not supply any evidence to support this allegation. unsubstantiated. 467. Mr Balkwell also alleged that the investigation into his sons death was suppressed due to Simon Bromley and Witness Y providing information to the police regarding other matters. 468. The IPCC has found no evidence that the investigation into Lee Balkwells death was suppressed. Mr Balkwell did not supply any evidence to support this allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. 469. Mr Balkwell believed that a number of Essex Police officers were involved in a corrupt network. He alleged that a number of drug supply/importation and murder investigations were not carried out appropriately due to the involvement of corrupt Essex police officers. Mr Balkwell did not provide It is therefore
Page 104 of 147
any evidence to support this allegation other than his theory regarding the investigation of a number of cases with links to allegedly corrupt police officers. 470. The allegation was put to ex Officer E. He denied that he was part of a network of corrupt officers in his written response of 19 August 2011. He stated that he did not know of any corrupt or illegal practices and had he done so he would have reported then to the Professional Standards Department immediately. 471. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation. therefore unsubstantiated. 472. In a letter to the IPCC dated 23 November 2007 Mr Balkwell alleged that Lee Balkwell found out shortly before his death that Simon Bromley was regularly dealing in drugs from Baldwins Farm. He alleged that Lee It is
Balkwell told him that Simon Bromley had told Lee he had access to allegedly corrupt officers at Grays police station and that they tipped him off when they were planning a raid. This alleged conversation cannot be corroborated. Mr Balkwell was unable to supply any further evidence to support the allegations of general corruption amongst Essex Police and misconduct occurring at Grays police station. 473. These complaints are therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 29: That ex Officer E and ex Officer W did not deal with an allegation made by Mr Balkwell of misconduct or corruption in the correct manner. 474. In his statement of 21 June 2007 and during interviews with the IPCC in 2010 Mr Balkwell stated that he contacted ex Officer E by telephone at some point in either later November or early December 2002. During this call Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer E had corrupt officers working on his investigation and that they were attempting to cover up the truth of what had happened to Lee Balkwell. 475. A meeting was suggested and ex Officer J rang Mr Balkwell to make
Page 105 of 147
arrangements. He suggested a public house or a lay by. Mr Balkwell said he was surprised as ex Officer J was one of the officers that he was making an allegation against. Mr Balkwell said he objected to the
suggestion of where to meet and stated that he was not an informant or a criminal. station. 476. Mr Balkwell stated then when the meeting took place at Rayleigh police station at 8pm that evening, he and his daughter were taken into a side room in the station through a side entrance and were not booked in at the front desk as he would have expected to be normal procedure. Mr Arrangements were later made to meet at Rayleigh police
Balkwell stated the room looked like it was not in proper use and he was suspicious as to why the meeting took place there. During the meeting Mr Balkwells concerns regarding the investigation were discussed. 477. Mr Balkwell stated that three or four weeks passed after the meeting and he wanted some answers to the conflicting accounts he had received from officers. He then contacted ex Officer E and another meeting was arranged. Mr Balkwells brother and a friend called Gary Severn attended at this meeting. Mr Balkwell stated the meeting again took place in a side room and they were not booked in via the station front desk. Mr Balkwells concerns were raised and discussed. 478. Examination of ex Officer Es policy book recorded the date of these meetings as 20 January and 29 January 2003. 479. In his undated written response to Regulation 9 notices served on 9 December 2003 in relation to earlier complaints by Mr Balkwell, ex Officer E stated that he had decided that Family Liaison Officer Gail Taplin would be the most appropriate person to obtain detailed statements regarding the allegations from Mr Balkwell. This was because Mr Balkwell had
made allegations that included ex Officer J. 480. However, ex Officer E stated that on his return from a period of leave he found that he was also the subject of corruption allegations from Mr Balkwell. He therefore felt his position as Senior Investigating Officer was
Page 106 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints untenable and passed the matter to Officer F and the Professional Standards Department. 481. In his written response to the Regulation 9 notice served in December 2009 as part of the IPCC investigation, ex Officer E stated that when meetings were held outside of police stations this was at the behest or convenience of Mr Balkwell and not because he was trying to hide anything. He then reiterated the comments made in his earlier written response regarding referring the matter due to allegations against him. 482. The allegation that a venue outside of a police station for a meeting was suggested to Mr Balkwell and his daughter does not constitute evidence or either misconduct or criminal conduct. It is accepted that the
suggestion may have caused Mr Balkwell to perceive it was not being dealt with in a professional or appropriate manner. In relation to the meetings that took place on 20 and 29 January 2003, whilst it may not be best practice in relation to security procedures, failing to book Mr Balkwell and other attendees in through the front desk in the normal manner also does not constitute evidence of misconduct or criminal conduct. 483. The issues raised at the meetings are recorded in ex Officer Es policy book and there is evidence that he intended to deal with the issues raised by asking an officer to take a detailed statement from Mr Balkwell. The matter was then referred to Essex Police Professional Standards Department due to allegations against ex Officer E himself. 484. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the complaint of a failure to deal with Mr Balkwells allegations regarding possible corruption in the correct manner. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 40: That Officer K and Officer L briefed Simon Bromley and Witness Y in relation to the investigation into Lee Balkwells death whilst they were remanded to prison in relation to another matter. 485. Mr Balkwell alleged in his statement of 21 June 2007 and during interviews with IPCC in January 2010 that he had information that Simon
Page 107 of 147
Bromley and Witness Y were visited in Belmarsh prison in approximately May or June 2005 by police officers and legal staff. He stated that they were both then briefed about what to say to officers from Officer Fs enquiry. 486. Simon Bromley and Witness Y were remanded into custody at HMP Belmarsh following their arrest in relation to drug and firearm offences following the Operation Portwing investigation conducted by Essex Police. 487. Mr Balkwell stated that this information came from a third party who had allegedly been told this by someone who was in prison at the same time as Simon Bromley and Witness Y. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer K and Officer L had carried out the visits to reassure Simon Bromley and Witness Y that there was no evidence against them in relation to Lee Balkwells death and that they should keep calm and remain silent. He alleged that both Simon Bromley and Witness Y met jointly in an interview room with Officer K and Officer L despite strict prison rules that they should be kept apart. He alleged that Witness Y said to another prisoner remanded at the same time that the officers were from the heavy mob and had come to mark his card and to tell him that they had little evidence despite Mr Balkwell making a lot of noise and that they should keep quiet. Witness Y allegedly said they met together in an interview room and were then taken for separate interviews. 488. Mr Balkwell stated that Witness Y also allegedly said that Simon Bromleys solicitor turned up at the same time that Officer K and Officer L were there to see both Simon Bromley and Y. He stated that he expected the officers to pass the incident off as a coincidence when they were spoken to by the IPCC. 489. Officer K provided a written response which was received on 11 April 2011. He stated that he and Officer L were making enquiries as part of Officer Fs investigation. He stated that he could not recall that dates of the visits due to the passage of time but that his recollection was that on one occasion he and Officer L went to Belmarsh for a pre arranged visit
Page 108 of 147
with Witness Y and that they took a statement from him. 490. He said that he also attended Belmarsh prison for a prearranged visit with Simon Bromley which was to be held in the presence of his legal representative. His recollection was however that when he entered the prison Simon Bromleys legal representative informed them that Mr Bromley had changed his mind and was not prepared to see them. Therefore no visit took place. Balkwell in their entirety. 491. Officer L also submitted a written response on 21 April 2011. He stated that he could recall that the visits to Simon Bromley and Witness Y took place on separate occasions and were made in accordance with the main lines of enquiry on Operation Guthrie. He stated that Witness Y was He refuted the allegations made by Mr
visited first and that HMP Belmarsh should have a record of the visit. He was in company with another officer but could not recall who this was. 492. Officer L recalled that Simon Bromley was the last person to be seen. Arrangements were made for Mr Bromleys solicitor to attend HMP Belmarsh for the interview. He stated that he attended with Officer K, however after a consultation between Mr Bromley and his solicitor they were informed that Mr Bromley did not want to speak to them. He stated that no visit took place and no disclosures were ever made. 493. Examination of the HMP Belmarsh prisoner visit records showed that Officer L and Officer K visited Witness Y on 24 and 25 May 2005. There is no record of a visit to Simon Bromley on the same days. 494. Officer Ks rough book contained notes in relation to the visit to Witness Y. It recorded a visit to take a statement on 24 May 2005 and a visit to have the statement read and signed by Witness Y on 25 May 2005. A copy of a statement from Witness Y dated 25 May 2005 is contained in the Essex Police Holmes database. 495. Examination of the HMP Belmarsh prisoner visit records showed that Officer L and Officer K applied to visit Simon Bromley on 14 October 2005. A report completed by Officer L in relation to Operation Guthrie
Page 109 of 147
stated that this visit did not take place as Simon Bromley declined stating he had no further information he could add. This followed an article in the Romford Gazette on 7 October 2005 suggesting that Lee Balkwell was murdered. There is no record of a visit to Witness Y on 14 October 2005. 496. The IPCC has found no evidence to suggest that Officer L and Officer K ever visited Simon Bromley and Witness Y at HMP Belmarsh on the same day. Documentary evidence supports their accounts of the visits to
Witness Y and Simon Bromley. 497. The IPCC has found no other evidence to support the allegation other than a verbal report from a third party to Mr Balkwell which cannot be corroborated. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 45: That a retired officer, Officer I investigated a murder that Mr Balkwell believed was linked to a member of the public and an allegedly corrupt former Essex Police officer and was therefore not impartial. 498. Mr Balkwell said in his statement of 21 June 2007 that Officer I was involved in the investigation of the murder of a man called Kevin Whittaker. He believed that an allegedly corrupt officer was connected to the murder and that therefore this raised questions about ex Officer Is position on the review into Lee Balkwells death. 499. Mr Balkwell has not provided any evidence or specific information to support this allegation and it is therefore incapable of being investigated further. 500. The complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 51: That Essex Police gave inaccurate information to the IPCC in respect of the investigation carried out under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. 501. Essex Police carried out an investigation under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. This case was then transferred to the IPCC as a legacy case. A letter detailing the findings of that investigation was
Page 110 of 147
sent to Mr Balkwell by IPCC casework manager, Tom Moody on 8 December 2004. Mr Balkwell alleged that he told Tom Moody that three Essex Police officers had been suspended and that there were links to his sons case. He stated that Tom Moody advised that Officer N had told him that none of the officers he named were linked to any enquiry involving the death of Lee Balkwell. Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer N denied it was him who told the IPCC that there was no link between any of the officers and the Lee Balkwell case. 502. Mr Balkwell did not provide any evidence of the alleged links between the officers and the investigation into his sons death. 503. Ex Officer N is retired and as the allegation did not contain any evidence of a criminal offence being committed it was not proportionate to investigate this matter any further. 504. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 87: That retired officers ex Officer M and ex Officer N prevented the truth regarding Lee Balkwells death from being revealed. 505. Mr Balkwell alleged that the above former officers were aware of links between allegedly corrupt officers and the incident that led to his sons death. He alleged that they therefore limited the scope of the investigation conducted by ex Officer G to prevent the truth being revealed about his sons death. He did not supply any evidence to support this allegation. 506. As ex Officer M was a serving officer and the Head of Essex Police Professional Standards Department at the time the allegation was made, despite his retirement he was asked to provide a written response. He did so on the 22 August 2011. 507. Ex Officer M stated that the allegation was not true and that he acted with honesty and integrity in the performance of his duties and deliverance of his role. He said that the Professional Standards Department had specific responsibility for the investigation of corruption and if he had any
Page 111 of 147
information or intelligence that related to corrupt officers he would have reported this to the Deputy Chief Constable and initiated an investigation. He stated that the scope of ex Officer Gs investigation, which was a review and not a reinvestigation, was decided by Officer T. Officer T
reviewed and monitored the investigation. He further stated that he had no wish or motive for preventing the truth regarding the incident from coming out. 508. Officer N was already retired at the time the allegations were made. It was not proportionate to request a written response as there was no evidence of any criminal offence. 509. There is no evidence to support the allegation. unsubstantiated. Complaints 63/80: That Officer O produced inaccurate computer images and, in doing so, attempted to mislead the Coroners Court dealing with the inquest into Lee Balkwells death. Complaint 109: That Officer F and ex Officer G directed Officer O to produce inaccurate computer images. 510. Mr Balkwell believed that inaccurate computer images were produced for the purposes of inquest in an attempt to mislead the Coroners Court. Specifically, he alleged that the computer images differed from the actual scene photographs in a number of ways. 511. Officer O provided a written response to his Regulation 9 notice on 6 April 2009. He stated that he was tasked in late 2006 by Detective Sergeant Andy Harvey to produce computer generated graphics to assist the Coroner during the inquest. Officer O stated that he was not approached by Officer F and did not discuss or personally show him his work. All contact was through Detective Sergeant Andy Harvey and to a lesser extent Officer Q. Officer O stated that to the best of his knowledge the work was always for the Coroner. 512. He stated he received very open instruction to give an idea of what could It is therefore
Page 112 of 147
be produced using the software. The purpose was to produce a realistic representation of the cement mixer and the body in a way that could be used at the inquest, to reduce the need to refer to photographs of the scene which may have proved too distressing. The work was never intended to replace scene photographs but to assist the inquest in understanding the body position without the graphical nature of the photographs. He answered Mr Balkwells specific allegations as follows: The images showed Lee Balkwells coat much lower down his back: Officer O stated there was no specific reason for this and it could have been amended. The images were considered a work in progress and he was not aware of which specific points were pertinent. They gave the impression that more of Lees body was trapped under the drum than actually was: He did not have specific measurements to work from and the goal of the images was to create something representative rather than replacing something that could be proved by an already existing photograph. Some images suggested his body and head were trapped inside the drum rather than below it: Officer O stated this could have been due to the angles he used and the positioning of the inspection hatch over Lees head and shoulders. However, any element could have been changed on instruction. The images did not give any indication of other wounds on Lees back: He stated the intention was not to replicate body details but give an illustration or overview. He was not aware of any controversy as he was not involved in the investigation and stated that how the injuries occurred would be a matter for the pathologist or Coroner. The images did not show where the blood lines were on the drum: The task was not to create photo realism as that detail is available on the scene photographs and therefore there is no true life texturing other than the contact detail of the cab doors The images did not show the position of the Kango drills: The objective was to recreate the cement mixer and body and not to
Page 113 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints recreate an entire scene. Therefore ancillary equipment was not included. Officer O stated he would have put in more or less detail as the Coroner required, depending on the guidance given to him. The images did not show the position of the light bulb said to have been used to assist in the gunning out process: He stated that there were many mechanical details left as he was not aware of what was relevant and what was not and could not speculate on what a jury may pay attention to. They did not show a dark mark on Lee Balkwells back which Mr Balkwell believed to be blood: Officer O repeated his answer regarding the alleged wounds above, he was not tasked to recreate a photo but to provide an illustration or overview of the cement mixer and body. The images purported to show a black belt and Mr Balkwell believed that he may not have been wearing the belt when some of the photographs were taken. Officer O stated that some of the photographs provided to him were of the post mortem and Lee Balkwell is clearly wearing a black belt. He therefore included it in one of the computer generated images, but could have removed it had he been asked. He was not aware of Mr Balkwells view regarding the belt. They gave the impression that Lee could have fallen down or out of the inspection hatch when Mr Balkwell stated that realistically this could not have happened: Officer O stated that he could not say realistically what could have happened or not. They were not drawn to scale: Officer O said that he did not state the images were exactly to scale as he did not measure the scene. He researched the mixer on the internet and included some plans of vehicles he believed to have been comparable in size and scale. He highlighted on his notes to accompany the presentation that without more reference photographs or measurements some of the scale may be a bit off.
Page 114 of 147
513. Officer O said he did not know under what circumstances the images he created were given to Mr Balkwell and is therefore unsure if the purpose of them or the fact that they were a work in progress was explained to Mr Balkwell. After the initial submission of the images for review he did not hear anything further and expected either that the presentation in its original format was accepted and used or simply not used. 514. Officer F stated in his written response that he did not recall giving any instructions to Officer O, and in any event did not believe that he was the lead officer at the time of the inquest. 515. Ex Officer G stated in his written response that images were produced for a pre inquest meeting with the Coroner. This was because the Coroner was concerned that the photos would be too graphic to show a jury. Ex Officer G suggested computerised images and this was accepted by all those at the meeting. 516. Ex Officer G tasked Officer Q to make the arrangements and photographs were provided to Officer O to produce the images. He stated he did not speak to or meet Officer O and he refuted that he did anything deliberately. Ultimately, the original scene photographs were used at
inquest and not the computer generated images. 517. The IPCC has found no evidence that the Coroners court was misled as the images were not used at Inquest. Mr Balkwell contended that this was due to objections made via his legal representatives. It is accepted that there is a degree of inaccuracy and simplification of the scene in the computer generated images and that they are not a reconstruction of the actual scene photographs. Officer O has given a full explanation for this and stated that the images were a work in progress and he awaited further instructions as to whether they were acceptable in the format he suggested. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation that inaccurate images were deliberately produced or that Officer O was directed to do so in an attempt to mislead the Coroners court.
Page 115 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report 518. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 90: That ex Officer Q appointed an officer to his investigation that had links to a previous Essex Police investigation and was therefore not impartial. 519. Mr Balkwell alleged that he was told that the team who would be involved in the investigation conducted by Officer G would be independent of the other investigations/reviews into his sons death previously conducted by Essex Police. He alleged that an officer that was appointed to the team was not impartial because he had links to other former Essex Police officers who Mr Balkwell alleged were corrupt and links to other officers who had previously worked on the earlier investigations/reviews. These alleged links were either through social activities or through previous working relationships. 520. In his written response, ex Officer G stated that Mr Balkwell was advised that no officer involved in the original investigation team would be appointed to his review team. He said that as far as he was aware the officer he appointed was not part of the original investigation team. The officer confirmed to ex Officer G that he had not worked on the original investigation. 521. He said that the basis of Mr Balkwells allegation was that the officer knew other officers involved in the original investigation. He commented that it was highly likely that the majority of officers within a force will know one another and that to provide assurance that no officer who was aware of an officer involved in the original investigation team would be appointed would have been wholly unrealistic. He also stated that he had Leslie Balkwell Complaints
discounted other officers who had involvement in the original investigation, however minor. 522. The IPCC has found no evidence that the officer was directly involved in the original investigation. Mr Balkwell did not provide any evidence of any links to allegedly corrupt officers. It is accepted that the officer may have known or worked with other officers who were involved in the original
Page 116 of 147
investigation, this is likely in a smaller force such as Essex. Due to the resource capacity of the force it would have been impractical to put together a team of experienced officers with the necessary skills and knowledge who had no knowledge of or any former working relationship with any officer who had worked on the previous investigations/reviews. 523. The IPCC has found no evidence of any misconduct or criminal offence in relation to this allegation. It is unsubstantiated. Complaint 111: That an officer who was assisting the enquiry into Lee Balkwells death was deliberately removed from the enquiry 524. Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer X was deliberately removed from the enquiry because he was assisting Mr Balkwell by taking an interest in the allegations he was making about his sons belt and its alleged significance in the investigation. Mr Balkwell stated that he later met ex Officer X who told him that he had been well and truly rogered in relation to having to move. Enquiries at Essex Police Professional Standards Department
showed that ex Officer X transferred from the Professional Standards Department to work as a response Sergeant at Chelmsford. This was a routine transfer and there is no record of any conduct history. Ex Officer X later transferred to the Domestic Violence and Hate Crime team and retired from there on 24 August 2006. 525. Mr Balkwell did not make the allegation against any specific officers although he alleged that it happened as a consequence of Officer F and Officer N finding out about ex Officer Xs interest or assistance. Whilst it is accepted this may be Mr Balkwells belief he did not provide any supporting evidence and there is no other evidence to support the allegation or to suggest that ex Officer X transferred in anything other than routine circumstances. 526. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 92: That Officer D deliberately failed to produce his notebook at the inquest into Lee Balkwells death.
Page 117 of 147
527. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer D failed to ensure his pocket notebook was available when he gave evidence at the inquest into Lee Balkwells death. He alleged this was done in an in an attempt to evade questions about a conversation he had with Simon Bromley at around 8.52am on the morning following Lee Balkwells death and what he observed at that time. 528. On 11 February 2009 Officer D sent an e mail to IPCC Senior Investigator Amanda Rowe regarding his pocket notebook. In it he stated that he initially assumed that he had returned the pocket notebook to Essex Police upon his transfer to the Metropolitan Police. However, he advised he found the notebook over the weekend of 7/8 February in an old laptop bag at home. He stated that it did not contain any notes that related to the investigation into Lee Balkwells death due to a change in Essex Police policy, in that day to day duties were no longer recorded in pocket notebooks. 529. The pocket notebook was obtained from Officer D by the IPCC on 10 April 2009. It has been examined and does not contain any notes in relation to the investigation into the death of Lee Balkwell. 530. Officer D stated in his written response of 4 April 2011 in relation to the allegation that as far as he could recall he was not asked to produce his pocket notebook at the inquest. He repeated the information provided in his e mail of 11 February 2009 regarding finding his notebook at home and providing this to the IPCC. He stated that there was no attempt made by him to evade questions during the inquest and he answered all questions put to him by the solicitor acting for Mr Balkwell, his own solicitor and the Coroner. 531. Whilst it may be best practice to have all contemporaneous notes available when giving evidence during proceedings, it is not a misconduct or criminal offence not to do so. There is no evidence that Officer D deliberately failed to produce his notebook. He voluntarily identified the fact that he was mistaken in his belief that the notebook was retained by Essex Police and that it had been found at home. In any case, as the
Page 118 of 147
pocket notebook did not contain any notes of the incident it would not have assisted Officer D to have it with him. 532. This complaint is unsubstantiated Complaint 85: That Officer D or Officer P tampered with Lee Balkwells body by removing and replacing a belt he was wearing, and that ex Officer E allowed this to happen. 533. Mr Balkwell alleged that Lee Balkwells belt was used by the Bromleys to carry his dead or dying body into the concrete mixer. He alleged that when the Essex Scenes of Crime officers photographed the body at approximately 8am, the belt was not present. He believed the reason for this was because officers had removed the belt to clean it to assist the cover up of Lee Balkwells death. Mr Balkwell alleged Officer D or Officer P later replaced the belt in a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigation. He alleged that these officers had access to Lee Balkwells body at the relevant times. 534. The scene photographs have been examined. Due to the position of Lee Balkwells body whilst still in situ in the cement mixer and the movement of clothing due to this position, in some of the photographs the presence of the belt cannot be clearly seen. Mr Balkwell has interpreted the
photographs as showing that the belt is not in place in these photographs but this cannot be established as a fact. 535. Although it is accepted that Mr Balkwell believed that the belt was removed due to its significance in the death of his son, he has not provided any evidence to support the allegation against Officer D, Officer P or ex Officer E. 536. In his written response, ex Officer E stated that the allegation is not true. He said that from the time he took over the investigation, he was present and the scene was preserved. He stated he was advised that the scene had been secured before Officer B arrived at the scene. He said that Scenes of Crime officers operated under his direction and it was made clear to then to record in photograph and video any action that was taken
Page 119 of 147
to extricate the body from the vehicle. He stated that in order to remove Lee Balkwells body his clothing may have been disturbed but nothing was taken or removed or replaced as far as he was aware. 537. Officer D stated in his written response that he considered this to be a serious and disgraceful accusation against him which he completely denied. He said he did not have any contact with the body of Lee Balkwell or see it as it was within the inner cordon and he was fully aware of the risk of scene contamination. He stated that he did not remove or replace a belt on the body or clothing at any time. He said that when Essex Fire and Rescue team made efforts to remove Lee Balkwells body they had to utilise a hydraulic jack or similar to lift up the drum of the cement mixer and that this was a difficult task that may account for any disturbance to the body at the scene. 538. Officer D said that he was not present at the post mortem and had no contact with any clothing removed from Lee Balkwell. He said he had no intention to mislead the investigation and considered his integrity and honesty to be the most important aspect of his police work and would never interfere with any investigation or its evidence for any reason. 539. Officer P provided a written response dated 1 April 2011. He stated that he did not at any time remove and/or replace a belt on the body of Lee Balkwell. He added that the removal of Lee Balkwells body was carried out by Fire Brigade Officers under the guidance of Crime Scene Manager Inspector Richard Argles and was video recorded by Detective Constable Mark Wojcik. He stated he was not aware if a belt was present at this time but he did not remove or replace it. 540. Examination of the scene log shows it to be a handwritten document commenced at 3.00am on 18 July 2002. It does not record the
parameters of cordons either inner or outer. It records officers and other personnel arriving at the scene and entering and leaving the cordon area but does not provide evidence of which officers entered the area containing Lee Balkwells body. It documents Officer P entering the scene
Page 120 of 147
and cordon area at 07.54am, Officer D entering the scene at 08.52am and the cordon area at 09.00am. It records both officers leaving the scene at 09.30am. It documents both officers and ex Officer E arrived at the scene at 12.07pm and entering the cordon area at 12.15pm. 541. It cannot be established whether the belt was removed at any time. It is more likely than not that the belt was in place at all times. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation against Officer D or Officer P that he removed the belt or that ex Officer E allowed them to do so. 542. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 86: That Officer D and Officer P tampered with the cement mixer on or about 24 July 2002 whilst it was being stored by Essex Police and deliberately broke the connecting rod of the vehicle and that ex Officer E allowed this to happen. 543. Mr Balkwell alleged that the cement mixer cab controls were in good working order on 17/18 July 2002. He alleged that Simon Bromley
claimed the cab controls were not working to account for his actions that night and that police officers tampered with the connecting rod to support Simon Bromleys version of events. The connecting rod connected the controls in the cab to the mixer drum to enable it to be turned and stopped whilst a person was in the cab. Mr Balkwell alleged that there is evidence that the cab controls were working on 18 July 2002 and were used by the Fire Brigade when they removed Lee Balkwells body due to a comment on the scene log and verbal evidence from Fire Brigade officers. 544. When photographs of the vehicle were taken on the 24 th July by Officer P in company with Officer D the connecting rod is shown to be broken. Mr Balkwell therefore alleged that Officer P and Officer D deliberately broke the connecting rod as the vehicle was under the control of Essex Police at all times between 18 and 24 July 2002. He alleged that ex Officer E allowed this to happen as he was in overall charge of the investigation. 545. Mr Balkwell submitted a report he commissioned from a Mr Phillip IveyRay who examined the connecting rod on Mr Balkwells behalf and stated
Page 121 of 147
that it had been deliberately broken and gave his view as to how that had occurred. 546. Mr Balkwell alleged that the person who was responsible for servicing and repairing the vehicle, David Scammell, stated at the inquest that when he repaired the cement mixer on 17 August 2002 the connecting rod was likely to have been working. 547. Handwritten notes attached to the scene log headed notes on fire service actions were completed by PC Slade. These make reference at 12.45 hrs lever in cab used to lock drum and at 12.54 hrs attempts made to rotate drum [lever in cab moved] to rotate access hole to body. 548. A statement was taken by the IPCC from Mr David Barritt who was the Incident Commander for Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 18 July 2002. He stated that he recalled a female police officer was present during the removal of Lee Balkwells body and recorded their actions on a scene log. He stated that he would advise the officer what they were doing and she would record it. In relation to the comment lever in cab used to lock drum Mr Barritt said he did not go into the cab so could not say what lever this referred to. However, he understood it to be a lever to lock the drum in place. There was some movement in the drum and the lever was used to lock the drum in place so that rams could be used. Mr Barritt stated that the second comment attempts made to rotate drum [lever in cab moved] to rotate access hole to body referred to an attempt to rotate the inspection hatch to allow sufficient clearance to either push or pull the deceased out. He said that the lever was moved from the locked position that it had been placed in when rams were used as they required the drum to be able to be moved. 549. Mr Barritt said that he was certain the engine of the cement mixer was not switched on and the mechanics were not used. This was because the police had asked them to remove the deceased with as little disruption as possible whilst maintaining the mechanical integrity of the vehicle. 550. Mr Scammell made a statement to Essex Police on 12 November 2008 in
Page 122 of 147
which he stated that his answer at Inquest was an educated guess and that he could not remember if the cab controls were working. 551. In his written response Officer P denied tampering with the cement mixer or breaking the connecting rod. He stated that his recollection was that when he arrived at the storage premises to take photographs of the vehicle Officer D was already there with an officer from the Health and Safety executive and an examination of the vehicle had already taken place. He asserts that he did not have any contact with the vehicle other than to take photographs as directed by Officer D. 552. Officer D stated in his written response that he recalled attending an examination of the vehicle but could not recall the exact date. He said it would have been within approximately a week of the incident and that he had to arrange attendance by representatives from Heath and Safety, an independent expert on the particular make of lorry and a Scenes of Crime officer for any forensic or photographic requirements. He could not recall their names. He said that the expert identified that the remote lever for operating the drum from within the cab was not working and that the engine had to be stalled to stop the hydraulic operating system that was responsible for the rotation of the drum. He confirmed that he had
requested photographs to be taken. He stated that he did not interfere with the vehicle in any way or interfere with the mechanics on or about 24 July 2002 or at any other time. He denied breaking the connecting rod and was not aware what this was. He said he was not left alone with the vehicle at any time and had no reason to deliberately tamper with evidence to support any subsequent account given by Simon Bromley. 553. Ex Officer E stated in his written response that as far as he could recall Officer P was not involved in the enquiry until long after he had referred the matter to the Professional Standards Department due to Mr Balkwells allegations. He stated that Officer D was involved but to his knowledge had no direct involvement with the vehicle. He stated that the allegation was not true.
Page 123 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints 554. It cannot be established if the cab controls were working on the 18 th July 2002. It is accepted that the engine would need to be switched on for the levers in the cab to move the drum mechanically. Evidence shows the Essex Fire and Rescue team did not use the levers in the cab to mechanically move the drum as the engine was never switched on. Examination of the DVD MDW/1 of the recovery of Lee Balkwells body supports the account the drum was not mechanically rotated but rotated manually using equipment. 555. There is evidence that a number of people were present at the vehicle examination on 24 July 2002 in addition to Officer D and Officer P. This included two representatives from the Health and Safety Executive, a representative from Saur Danfoss and a representative from Hymix Limited. It was identified during the examination that the connecting rod was broken and a photograph was taken. 556. Mr Balkwell did not supply any evidence to support his allegation that Officer P and Officer D broke the connecting rod. He alleged it must have been those officers as they had access to the vehicle on 24 July 2002 or other unknown officers. The IPCC investigation has found no other evidence to support the allegation against Officer P, Officer D or ex Officer E. 557. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaints 65/66: That Officer L tampered with the vehicle and lied about the reasons for visits to the lorry to cover this up. Complaints 59/88: That Officer F and ex Officer E allowed the cement mixer to be interfered with by officers. 558. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer L may have tampered with the vehicle by damaging the ignition during visits to the lorry. He alleged that when he attended a visit to the lorry on 12 March 2007 there was a fitter from Scammell Commercials present to jump start the lorry. The fitter noticed damage to the ignition and pointed this out to Mr Balkwell who wondered who could have done this. He suspected Officer L as he had visited the
Page 124 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report lorry previously. 559. The lorry was being stored at that time in a secure compound within the Central Property Store at Wethersfield. Visits to these premises are Leslie Balkwell Complaints
logged. Mr Balkwell requested a copy of the logs of all the visits made from ex Officer G. 560. Officer L completed a report dated 3 September 2007 in which he detailed visits to the lorry on 21 March 2005 and 25 January 2006. In the visit of 21 March 2005 he stated the purpose was to conduct a search of the vehicle. He stated that the visit on 25 January 2006 was to find out if the vehicle could be started to assess its condition and safety. He said he was accompanied by Mr Rose of Scammell Commercial. He stated that a third visit was arranged for 9 February 2006 involving Mr Balkwell and Scammell Commercial Ltd but that this was cancelled. 561. In a report dated 26 September 2007 Officer L clarified that he examined his duty log and did attend at the Central Property Store on 9 February 2006 as he took the opportunity to deal with property on another case. 562. Records examined by the IPCC show Officer L attended the Central Property Store on the three occasions above including 9 February 2006. Records show one entry for Mr David Scammell from Scammell Commercials and two entries for Officer L are noted in the visitors book on 9 February 2006. A statement was taken from Mr David Chard, a former Property Officer at the Central Property Store in relation to the entries in the visitors book on 9 February 2006. He said he could not recall if Mr Scammell attended on that day but as his name was entered in the visitors book and initialled he believed he would have done so. He could not state why there were two entries for Officer L but stated he would surmise that he left the site before returning later for a different purpose. 563. Officer Q report dated 26 September 2007 stated that Scammell Commercial Ltd were not able to provide evidence that one of their employees visited the central property store on 9 February 2006 as
Page 125 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report detailed in the visitors book. 564. In his written response dated 21 April 2011 Officer L confirmed that he attended the property facility on at least two occasions. He provided the reasons for two undated visits that were the same as his explanation given for the visits on 21 March 2005 and 25 January 2006 in his report dated 3 September 2007. 565. He stated that he recalled on his second visit that the engineer from Scammell Commercial Ltd connected new batteries but it failed to start the engine of the vehicle. The engineer therefore examined the wiring from the ignition to the engine and found that some of the leads had corroded and some had been damaged, possibly by rodents. He stated that the engineer informed him it may be possible to start the vehicle by hot wiring it. He said that this procedure was carried out by the use of a screwdriver and the vehicle started. 566. Officer L stated that the central property facility at Wethersfield is a Ministry of Defence establishment which has security officers at all entrance and exit points, and a booking in system for visitors. He said this would have made it impossible for him to hide his attendance at the facility and that he only attended for the purpose of his work on Operation Guthrie. 567. Evidence shows that Officer L attended the vehicle on two occasions on 21 March 2005 and 25 January 2006. He has provided a credible Leslie Balkwell Complaints
explanation and reason for these visits. It cannot be established that he visited the vehicle on 9 February 2006 although records show that he visited the central property facility on that date. The records may be
inaccurate as they also show that David Scammell attended the premises on that date but this cannot be confirmed. 568. In any case, the IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation that Officer L tampered with the vehicle during any visit or that he lied about visits to the central property facility to cover this up. complaints are unsubstantiated. These
Page 126 of 147
569. Mr Balkwell did not supply any evidence to support the allegation that Officer F and ex Officer E allowed officers to interfere with the cement mixer. This investigation has been unable to find any evidence that
officers did tamper with or interfere with the vehicle. 570. However, the allegation was put to Officer F and ex Officer E. 571. In Officer Fs written response he stated that he was not aware of any alleged interference with the cement mixer. He confirmed that the vehicle was originally stored at the On Time garage and then taken to the Ministry of Defence establishment at Wethersfield. He stated that he was aware the vehicle had work done on it but this was solely for the purpose of making it available for operation during tests conducted to further the enquiry. 572. Ex Officer E stated that as far as he was aware Officer L was not involved in the investigation until after he had ceased to be the Senior Investigating Officer and referred the matter to the Professional Standards Department. He stated that the allegation was not true. 573. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation made. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 106: That there was a corrupt relationship between a former Home Office pathologist Dr Heath and Essex Police. 574. Mr Balkwell alleged that Dr Heath was not the on call Home Office pathologist for the post mortem of Lee Balkwell and that it was arranged for him to carry out the post mortem due to an allegedly corrupt relationship between him and Essex Police. 575. As part of the ongoing investigation conducted by Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate enquiries were made as to the on call system for Home Office Pathologists in July 2002. 576. Ex Detective Chief Inspector Harper provided information to that investigation. He is now retired but still works in the crime scene
examination environment.
Page 127 of 147
577. He was asked how Dr Heath was called for the post mortem examination of Lee Balkwell. He stated that Essex Police only used either Dr Heath or Dr Rouse at the time as they covered the whole of Essex. It was the task of the duty Crime Scene Investigator at the time to call a pathologist and whichever one of the pathologists answered and was available would have come out. He had no other information to add in respect of the investigation as he played no active part. 578. Mr Balkwell did not provide any evidence to support his allegation although it is accepted this is his belief. The IPCC has found no evidence to dispute the account given by ex Detective Chief Inspector Harper or to suggest that any corrupt relationship existed. 579. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 127: That Officer Q deliberately omitted key facts from Mr Les Balkwells statement in June 2007. 580. Mr Balkwell alleged in his statement to the IPCC on 20 August 2008 that ex Officer Q deliberately left out key facts from a statement taken by him from Mr Balkwell dated 21 June 2007. Mr Balkwell identified some points were missing and provided a further statement to Officer Q dated 23 July 2007. Mr Balkwell believed this was done deliberately as he said he
would not have missed out these important facts when he was interviewed in order to provide the statement. 581. It is not disputed that Mr Balkwell identified that points were missing from his original statement dated 21 June 2007. He advised Officer Q and provided a further statement dated 23 July 2007 which covered the missing information he wished to add. 582. The statement dated 21 June 2007 was complex and totalled 42 pages. When Mr Balkwell identified information that he felt was missing this was addressed by a further statement a month later. The IPCC has found no evidence that omissions were made deliberately and Mr Balkwell did not provide evidence to support his allegation that this was done deliberately.
Page 128 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report 583. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Communication and Quality of Service

584. Mr Balkwell made a number of complaints in relation to the quality and content of verbal or written communication with Essex Police and the quality of service he felt he was provided as the relative of a victim of crime and as Lee Balkwells father. Mr Balkwell alleged: Complaint 95: That Officer R refused to investigate Lee Balkwells death any further or to appoint an external force to do so. This allegation was subsequently also made against Officer S Complaint 96: That Officer R failed to commission or receive a proper report on the case. This allegation was subsequently also made against Officer S. Complaint 99: That Officer R did not respond to Mr Balkwells request contained in a letter dated 8th February 2008 to preserve all available evidence in relation to the investigations. Complaint 100: That Officer T failed to respond to
correspondence from Mr Balkwell.
585. Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer R should have appointed an external force to reinvestigate his sons death and that he did not commission a report on the cases in order to inform any decision. He made a request for evidence in the investigation to be preserved in a letter dated 8 February 2008 and stated that ex Officer R did not respond to this request. He also alleged that Officer T failed to respond to
correspondence and specifically that he also failed to respond to the request to preserve evidence contained in the letter of 8 February. 586. In response to the Regulation 9 notice served on him, ex Officer R provided a written response dated 20 February 2009. He explained his
Page 129 of 147
role was at a strategic level and that it precluded him being involved in individual cases that are being investigated or are subject to complaint. 587. In relation to the investigations into Lee Balkwells death and subsequent complaints made by Mr Balkwell, he stated that Officer T had oversight of the complaints being handled by the Professional Standards Department and Officer S chaired a Gold Group that had responsibility for considering matters such as the appointment of an outside force. He stated that he was not involved in the criminal investigation, Gold Group decision making or the handling of any complaints and he did not consider it appropriate for him to be involved. He also did not receive or personally respond to the letter from Mr Balkwell on 8 February 2008 nor did he consider it appropriate for him to do so. Ex Officer R had delegated his authority in relation to these matters to Officer S and Officer T. The letter from Mr Balkwell dated 8th February 2008 was passed to Officer T for a response. 588. Mr Balkwell was made aware of ex Officer Rs written response to the allegations and subsequently made the same allegations against Officer S. 589. Officer S provided a written response to the allegations dated 12 November 2009. He confirmed that he took on the role of the Chair of the Gold Group. He stated that in a Gold Group meeting of 9 April 2008 he requested details of any ACPO, national or force guidance in relation to the referral of investigations to an external force. He was subsequently informed that no such guidance existed. Officer S provided minutes of the meeting which detailed his request. 590. He stated a Gold Group meeting on 15 May 2008 considered the request for an outside force to investigate Lee Balkwells death. After considering the views of Mr Balkwell, ex Officer G and others, Officer S made a decision that the investigation should not, at that stage be referred to an outside force. Evidence of the rationale for this decision is contained in the Gold Group meeting minutes which were provided by Officer S. 591. Officer T provided a written response dated 20 February 2009. In it he
Page 130 of 147
explained his role and the responsibilities he had in relation to oversight of the complaints being made by Mr Balkwell. He provided evidence of the sequence of correspondence from Mr Balkwell via Mr Bennett and his subsequent responses. Officer T was responsible for matters related to the complaints and not the criminal investigation. Any letters he received in relation to criminal investigation matters, including the preservation of evidence were passed to either Officer S or ex Officer G to deal with as appropriate. 592. Officer T responded by letter dated 22 February 2008 to two letters from Mr Balkwell dated 8 February and 15 February 2008 and dealt with the issues raised. He explained in the letter that Officer S was responsible for the decision regarding referral of the investigation to an outside force. He also dealt with various correspondence in a letter dated 19 March 2008. He provided evidence that he passed the issue of preservation of evidence to Officer S and ex Officer G to respond to as it related to further criminal investigation. Ex Officer G responded to the issue of preservation of evidence in a letter to Mr Bennett dated 20 March 2008. 593. It is clear that ex Officer R was not responsible for decision making or responding to correspondence in relation to the Lee Balkwell investigation and had delegated responsibility for this. 594. The IPCC has found evidence that Officer S considered the appointment of an external force to reinvestigate the death of Lee Balkwell. He chose not to do so and has provided his rationale for that decision. He also had oversight, through his role of Chair of the Gold Group of the ongoing investigation being conducted by ex Officer G. He would therefore have expected a report at the conclusion of this investigation. He responded formally to Mr Balkwells representative, Mr Tony Bennett in a letter dated 19 May 2008. This letter detailed his decision and the matters he had considered before making the decision. 595. Evidence showed that Officer T did respond to correspondence appropriately either answering the points which related to his
Page 131 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report responsibilities or forwarding on responsibility. 596. The complaints above are unsubstantiated. Complaint 55: That ex Officer E made threats to Mr Balkwell that allegations he made about the Bromley family would be revealed to them. 597. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter to Officer R dated 4 July 2008 that ex Officer E gave a clear hint that if he pursued his suspicions about the Bromleys being involved in his sons death by means of foul play there would likely be serious repercussions. Mr Balkwell felt this comment was unprofessional. In interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer E said during a phone call to him words to the effect that if they followed up his complaints they would have to pull the Bromleys in and asked Mr Balkwell how he felt about that. Mr Balkwell said he took the comment to be a veiled threat. 598. Ex Officer E categorically denied the allegation in his written response. He stated that prior to his investigation he had not heard of the Bromley family and did not know whether they had any contact with the police. He stated he was also unaware of the criminal background of the Bromley family. 599. There is insufficient evidence to either support or refute this allegation. Mr Balkwell stated that he interpreted the alleged conversation as a threat and ex Officer E denied the conversation took place or that he had any previous knowledge of the Bromley family. It would be surprising if ex Officer E had no knowledge of any convictions or contact with the police with members of the Bromley family as it would have been normal practice to make background checks into suspects and witnesses during an investigation. However, the IPCC has found insufficient evidence to Leslie Balkwell Complaints matters for which others held
establish if the conversation took place or if the alleged conversation could have been interpreted as a threat. unsubstantiated Therefore this complaint is
Page 132 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints Complaint 115: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G all failed to provide proper family liaison services to Mr Balkwell and his family. 600. Mr Balkwell alleged that he and his family did not receive a proper family liaison service and were not referred to Victim Support Services. 601. In his written response ex Officer E stated that Mr Balkwell and his family were assigned two Family Liaison Officers at the outset of his investigation who undertook the role with dedication and professionalism. He said that this was supported by a glowing testament from Lee Balkwells partner and family. He later became aware that Mr Balkwell became unhappy with ex Officer J and made general allegations that he was corrupt. 602. Officer F stated in his response that due to the overtones of corruption alleged by Mr Balkwell he chose to take on the family liaison role himself and felt he conducted this reasonably efficiently with very regular contact and personal meetings. 603. Ex Officer G stated that he attended a number of regular meetings with Mr Balkwell and provided his mobile telephone number should it be required. He maintained that he attempted to provide as much welfare support as he possibly could and that this was illustrated by the significant communication between him and Mr Balkwell and also via Mr Bennett. Ex Officer G also stated that he advised the Health and Safety Executive that he had no objection to them making their own family liaison arrangements. 604. The IPCC has found evidence that Mr Balkwell was assigned two Family Liaison Officers during investigation under ex Officer Es supervision. These were Police Constable Gail Taplin and ex Officer W. Examination of the family liaison logs completed by those officers showed evidence that discussion regarding referral to Victim Support Services took place with Mr Balkwell and his family on 19 and 23 July 2002 and it was indicated that this was not required or wanted at that time. 605. It was appropriate that Mr Balkwell was assigned Family Liaison Officers
Page 133 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report during the initial investigation. Leslie Balkwell Complaints However there was no requirement for
these officers to stay in place during the subsequent reviews and investigations into Mr Balkwells complaints by Essex Police. In the case of ex Officer J, as he was subject to complaint he would have been removed from that duty. Regular communication took place with Mr Balkwell and his representative during the investigations/reviews
conducted by ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G but this communication was difficult at times for a number of reasons. It may have been beneficial for the Senior Investigating Officers to have assigned a separate point of contact that could carry out a family liaison role but as they carried out this role themselves there was no requirement to do so. 606. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 103: That ex Officer E, Officer F and ex Officer G incorrectly retained primacy over the Health and Safety Executive investigation. 607. In a letter dated 8 April 2008 and during interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 Mr Balkwell alleged that Essex Police incorrectly retained primacy over the Health and Safety Executive investigation. He alleged this was done to prevent the incident being investigated properly and thus denied the Health and Safety Executive the opportunity of considering further action against Simon Bromley for breaches of Health and Safety and other regulations. . 608. Ex Officer E stated in his written response that this was not correct and that he agreed with Mr Saunders of the Health and Safety Executive that primacy would remain with the police in accordance with the ACPO/HSE protocol. 609. In his response Officer F stated that the Health and Safety Executive were engaged from the outset and involved throughout. He said that as
enquiries under his direction reached a stage where there were no further useful lines of enquiry that would have supported a criminal prosecution steps were taken to relinquish primacy to Health and Safety Executive.
Page 134 of 147
He said that allegations made by Mr Balkwell revived the requirement for the police to readopt primacy to enable them to conduct further investigation. 610. Ex Officer G stated in his response that it was the Health and Safety Executive protocol that they will not consider an investigation until the Crown Prosecution Service has made a final decision. He said that he challenged this but received an e mail from the Health and Safety Executive dated 17 September 2008 which reaffirmed that they would not be in a position to consider proceedings until the Crown Prosecution Service had completed their review. He denied that he withheld any
information from the Health and Safety Executive. 611. The Health and Safety Executive have a protocol with a number of agencies including the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. This protocol states that investigation should
generally be jointly conducted with one of the parties taking the lead, or primacy, as appropriate. An investigation may also require liaison with the enforcing authority that may have an interest and may include liaison with CPS. The protocol states that communication must be maintained to
monitor the progress of the investigation. 612. Investigation of a potential criminal offence will take primacy over Health and Safety offences investigation. The IPCC has found evidence that regular communication and liaison between all three Senior Investigating Officers and Health and Safety Executive took place throughout the investigations and reviews. 613. The IPCC has found no evidence that primacy was incorrectly maintained by Essex Police to prevent an investigation. unsubstantiated. Complaint 33: That Officer F gave inconsistent information to the Balkwell family regarding covert operations. 614. In his statement of 21 June 2007 Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer F gave inconsistent information to him regarding covert operations. He stated This complaint is
Page 135 of 147
that he was in contact with the Centre for Corporate Accountability and was advised by his Caseworker, Bethan Rigby that she had a conversation with Officer F. She allegedly told Mr Balkwell that Officer F had told her there was a covert operation to investigate intelligence that had pointed to a wilful act having been committed against Lee. Mr
Balkwell said that he was never told by Officer F that a covert operation was being conducted. Mr Balkwell also stated that he had a tape
recording of Officer F admitting that if an operation was covert he would not tell Mr Balkwell of its existence. 615. Officer F stated in his written response that he did not disclose any information regarding covert operations as his professional obligations dictate he should not. He stated that Mr Balkwell regularly asked him about covert operations and also disclosed information to the media despite being warned that it may be detrimental to the ongoing investigation. 616. Covert investigations are confidential as they use covert law enforcement methods that may not be known to the general public. The existence of any covert investigation should not have been disclosed to Mr Balkwell. The alleged conversation between Bethan Rigby and Officer F cannot be corroborated further. Mr Balkwell stated that he was not told of the
existence of any covert investigation and stated that Officer F told him he would not provide that information. This was the correct course of action by Officer F. 617. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaints 46/77: That Officer F lied to members of the Balkwell family 618. In his statement of 23 July 2007 Mr Balkwell said that he thought Officer F had lied and been deceitful to him and his family in relation to the Bromley family. Mr Balkwell alleged that Officer F told him and his family and the Centre for Corporate Accountability that there were no connections between the Bromley family and the criminal fraternity. Mr Balkwell said
Page 136 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints that he told Officer F that the Bromley family and Baldwins Farm should be viewed with more suspicion due to alleged drug and gun dealing. 619. In his written response Officer F stated that he did not and would not disclose any information regarding the criminal backgrounds, records of convictions or intelligence to any member of the public and would be subject to criticism if this information was disclosed. He said that the Balkwell family may have asked him questions but his responses would have remained non committal. 620. Minutes of a meeting on 15 June 2004 between the Balkwell family, Officer F and others contains a comment from Mr Balkwells solicitor at the time, who said that minutes of a meeting held 19 May 2003 stated that the Bromley family were not known to police. The note stated that Officer F said he has to observe limitations regarding speaking about enquiries into other peoples pasts and felt what he said had been recorded incorrectly. 621. Officer F may have been aware of information and intelligence regarding the Bromley family. Members of the family were later arrested in April 2005 as part of Operation Portwing, a covert investigation into drug and gun supply. However, had he been aware of intelligence or information regarding their criminal backgrounds, it would not have been appropriate to disclose this to Mr Balkwell and his family due to data protection legislation. 622. It is understood that this may have been interpreted as lying by Mr Balkwell but there is no evidence that Officer F had information that was appropriate to disclose and deliberately lied about it. 623. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 67: That Officer F failed to inform HM Coroner or Mr Balkwell of the extradition of David Bromley. 624. In a letter dated 23 November 2007 Mr Balkwell stated that Officer F must have been informed of the movements of David Bromley. He believed he would have been informed of the date that David Bromley was released
Page 137 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints from prison because he alleged David Bromley had been a paid police informer. Mr Balkwell said that Officer F would have known about the extradition of David Bromley on 17 September 2007 in relation to other offences in Germany and failed to inform him and the Coroner which led to a further delay in the Inquest. Mr Balkwell did not supply any evidence to support this allegation. 625. Officer F stated in his written response that he was not involved in any leadership capacity in relation to the arrangements for the inquest. 626. The IPCC investigation has found no evidence to demonstrate if Officer F was or was not aware of the planned extradition of David Bromley. Had he been aware of the extradition, he would not have been expected to liaise with the Coroner regarding availability of potential witnesses as he was not involved in making arrangements for the inquest. Any issues regarding delays in proceeding with the inquest or non availability of witnesses should have been communicated to Mr Balkwell by the Coroner or one of the Coroners Officers. Officer F would not have been
responsible for providing this information to Mr Balkwell and was under no obligation to do so, even if he had been aware of it. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 68: That Officer F failed to inform Mr Balkwell of the release of David Bromley from prison. 627. Mr Balkwell alleged in his letter of 23 November 2007 that he was made aware through a third party that David Bromley was due to be released from prison and was expected to return to his home in November 2007. He stated that he was not informed of David Bromleys release by Essex Police despite alleged threats from David Bromley in 2003. He stated that extra security measures were put in place in at his home by Essex Police following this threat Mr Balkwell said he believed this was a dereliction of duty as Essex Police were aware he was under threat and that this threat may have been heightened as the inquest approached. 628. Officer F stated that he was not involved in any leadership capacity at this
Page 138 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report stage of the investigation. 629. The IPCC has found evidence that the threat against Mr Balkwell by David Bromley was considered following an incident on 1 May 2003 when there was an alleged telephone exchange between the two men. On 3 May 2003 Officer F sent a memo which outlined this incident and stated that a risk assessment had been carried out by Inspector Andy Masson at Mr Balkwells request. The memo stated that there was no specific Leslie Balkwell Complaints
intelligence at that time to support the view that the situation would worsen or that there would be violent acts. It said that no specific threats of
violence had been made. Mr Balkwell was instructed not to have any contact with the Bromley family. 630. The IPCC investigation has found no evidence to establish whether Officer F was or was not aware of the date of release of David Bromley from prison. In any case, as he was not the Senior Investigating Officer in November 2007, he would not have been responsible for either informing Mr Balkwell of the date of David Bromleys release from prison [if it was appropriate to do so] or to assess any ongoing threat against Mr Balkwell as a result of this. 631. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 123: That Officer F failed to answer questions from Mr Balkwell regarding mobile phone records. 632. Mr Balkwell alleged in his statement of 20 August 2008 and during his interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 that he wrote to Officer F regarding mobile phone records and did not receive any genuine information. 633. In his written response Officer F stated that he explored the option of obtaining mobile phone records during his review of the initial investigation. During Operation Guthrie, this was revisited and telephone records that were accessible were obtained. Officer F maintained that he repeatedly explained this to both the Balkwell and Mitchinson families at the time. He stated that Mr Balkwell was repeatedly advised that
Page 139 of 147
evidence was required to substantiate any assertions he made. 634. It is clear that Mr Balkwell felt he received insufficient information regarding the phone records. Officer F felt that he repeatedly explained this. Although there may have been a breakdown in communication or misunderstanding on both sides, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute this allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 75: That Officer F lied about a witness being untraceable. 635. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter dated 23 November 2007 that he asked Officer F to interview Witness Y and was told that Witness Y was untraceable. Mr Balkwell stated that he supplied Witness Ys address and some time later Witness Y was interviewed. Mr Balkwell said he discovered later that Witness Y was under regular surveillance as part of Operation Portwing, an Essex Police covert investigation into illegal drug and arms supply and therefore he felt that Officer F had lied to him. 636. In his written response Officer F stated that he did not recall this. He stated that he did not and could not discuss sensitive or covert aspects of enquiries with Mr Balkwell. He felt that Mr Balkwell had proved himself to be unreliable and lacking in discretion at this time and stated that Mr Balkwell was not lied to but as a necessity was not at all times treated with openness in relation to police enquiries. 637. The IPCC investigation has found evidence that an action was raised on 26 March 2003 during Officer Fs review to interview Witness Y and this statement was eventually taken on 25 May 2005. There is no explanation for why this was delayed. 638. Officer F cannot recall making the comment to Mr Balkwell. He has given an explanation about why he would not disclose information he may or may not have been aware of in relation to covert investigations. It would not have been appropriate for him to disclose information regarding Witness Y and any alleged surveillance. Witness Y was prosecuted as
Page 140 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report part of Operation Portwing in 2005. 639. The IPCC has found no evidence to support the allegation that Officer F lied and there is insufficient information to either support or refute Mr Balkwells allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaints 64/89: That ex Officer M misled Mr Balkwell by telling him a full investigation would be conducted, and that he and ex Officer G gave the impression that there would be a reinvestigation into Lee Balkwells death. 640. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter dated 23 November 2007 that ex Officer M and ex Officer G gave him the impression in July 2006 that there was going to be a genuine re-investigation into his sons death. He stated he was then informed on 17 August 2007 by ex Officer G that his investigation was limited to 22 matters identified by former Assistant Chief Constable Brigginshaw and ex Officer M. 641. In his written response ex Officer M stated that the allegation was untrue and that he recalled he drafted various documents to brief the Deputy Chief Constable in preparation for the decisions taken. He stated that he knew ex Officer G was to conduct a review and not a reinvestigation. He said there would be no benefit in misleading Mr Balkwell, if he misunderstood or was confused by what had been agreed that he regretted this but it was not his intention. He said he did not wilfully Leslie Balkwell Complaints
provide incorrect information and would not have knowingly informed a complainant of information which he knew not to be true. 642. Ex Officer G stated that he did not, in July 2006 or any other date, give the impression there was to be a reinvestigation into the death of Lee Balkwell. He stated he recalled that his first meeting with Mr Balkwell was 8 August 2006 and that he clearly informed Mr Balkwell of his position and the terms of reference for the review. He stated he sent Mr Balkwell a letter in October 2007 in response to this allegation which contained the following paragraph my briefing from Mr Brigginshaw was to reinvestigate the matters that you had discussed with Officer M. I thought
Page 141 of 147
this was made clear to you on our first meeting as I read through those 22 points and asked you to expand on them 643. It is accepted that Mr Balkwell may have been under the impression that ex Officer G was to conduct a reinvestigation, and this may have been what he hoped was to happen. However, the IPCC investigation has
found no evidence to support the allegation that either ex Officer M or ex Officer G deliberately misled Mr Balkwell. unsubstantiated. Complaint 83: That Officer Q told a potential witness that the investigation was a farce. 644. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter dated 23 November 2007 that when Officer Q went to interview a potential witness X, he said that the investigation was a farce, it was going nowhere and he was only there to interview him because Mr Balkwell had asked him to. 645. Officer Q was not asked for a written response as he had retired before the complaint was recorded and the allegation did not concern a criminal offence. 646. The alleged conversation cannot be corroborated further as Witness X is now deceased. 647. There is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the allegation. It is therefore unsubstantiated. Complaint 131: That Officer G told Mr Balkwell that he did not know the identity of two officers who Mr Balkwell alleged visited the father of a potential witness. 648. Mr Balkwell alleged that two police officers visited the father of a man who Simon Bromley allegedly stayed with immediately after the death of Lee Balkwell. Mr Balkwell refused to name the man who Simon Bromley This complaint is
allegedly stayed with or his father during interviews with the IPCC. However he alleged that the father told him that firstly that an officer came to see him and wanted to speak to his son. By the description Mr Balkwell
Page 142 of 147
assumed it was Officer Q. Mr Balkwell stated that the father told him that two other officers had been to see him and told him that they wanted to see his son as Mr Balkwell had told them he had information about the death of Lee Balkwell. Mr Balkwell said this was total lies and that he was then threatened because of the alleged disclosure by the two officers. 649. Mr Balkwell said he spoke to ex Officer G about this. He stated that ex Officer G asked him who the potential witness was but Mr Balkwell refused to name him. He stated that ex Officer G told him he did not know who the officers were. Mr Balkwell alleged that ex Officer G knew who he was talking about and who the officers were and was being evasive. He stated that ex Officer G told him he would find out who the officers were but never got back to him. 650. As Mr Balkwell refused to name the person he was talking about this complaint could not be properly put to ex Officer G as he could not be expected to respond to whether he knew who the officers who allegedly conducted the visit were without being aware of who was the subject of the alleged visit. The complaint cannot be investigated any further by the IPCC as the person who was allegedly visited is unknown. In any case there is no evidence to suggest that ex Officer G deliberately withheld information or was being evasive. 651. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaints 101/102/104: That ex Officer G and Officer Q failed to give a balanced and fair report to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and also failed to disclose a copy of the report to Mr Balkwell. Mr Balkwell alleged in a letter dated 8 April 2008 that a report sent to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was not fair or balanced because it failed to disclose that Lee Balkwell could have died as a result of a criminal act. He also alleged it stated that the cement mixer had been regularly serviced. Mr Balkwell stated that his representative Mr Bennett was advised during a telephone call to the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Page 143 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints Authority that the police view following the inquest was that it was merely an accident. Mr Balkwell further alleged he was not provided with a copy of the report and that it should have been disclosed to him. 652. In his response ex Officer G stated that the original report was prepared by Officer Q. He said following a letter from Mr Balkwell he ensured the report was amended and resubmitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. services. He stated the term regularly serviced was
subjective and there was no evidence available that there was a lack of He said that on receipt of a letter outlining Mr Balkwells
concerns a letter to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was amended and forwarded to Mr Balkwell. 653. No response was requested from Officer Q for the reasons outlined earlier above. 654. Examination of documentation provided evidence that a report was sent to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on 2 January 2008 by Officer Q. This report was updated on 6 March 2008 following the inquest. On 30 December 2008, following a request from Mr Balkwell, Officer Q sent the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority a statement from Mr David Scammell [who was the person who had carried out servicing of the vehicle], a copy of the vehicle service records and a transcript of the evidence Mr Scammell gave at the inquest. 655. When Mr Balkwell identified his concerns, steps were taken to provide the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority with all additional information they required to inform their decision making. There is no evidence that any perceived gaps in the information previously provided were deliberate. A copy of the report was disclosed to Mr Balkwell following his request for it and whilst it may have been beneficial to provide him with a copy of the report when it was first sent to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, no misconduct offence was committed. 656. These complaints are unsubstantiated. Complaint 105: That ex Officer G held private discussions with
Page 144 of 147
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report the Health and Safety Executive. 657. Mr Balkwell alleged that he attended a meeting on the 24 April 2008 where Mr Scoggins and Mr Baker of the Health and Safety Executive and ex Officer G were also present. He stated in a letter dated 23 May 2008 and during interviews with the IPCC in January 2010 that he felt that Mr Scoggins, Mr Baker and ex Officer G may have met earlier to get their stories straight. Mr Balkwell alleged that the visitors book showed that ex Officer G arrived at 9.45am for an 11.00 am meetings and that he also remained behind after Mr Balkwell left. 658. In his written response ex Officer G stated that a number of meetings took place and he recalled one where Mr Bennett left the meeting because he was unhappy with comments being made. He did not recall not allowing Mr Balkwell to attend discussions with the Health and Safety Executive. He advised that minutes of the meetings were available and Mr Balkwell also had a direct link into the Health and Safety Executive. 659. Mr Balkwell did not supply any other evidence to support his allegation. The IPCC has found insufficient evidence to establish if private meetings took place. However, it would not be a misconduct offence for ex Officer G to have held private discussions if he needed to do so. 660. This complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 122: That Officer Q failed to disclose information regarding the tachograph to the Coroner during the inquest. 661. This allegation concerns evidence that was presented during the inquest regarding the tachograph from the cement mixer. Mr Balkwell had instructed Mr Berry who he stated was an expert in the field. Mr Balkwell said that Mr Berry became confused during the inquest due to the Barristers questioning. There were questions raised regarding Mr Berrys examination of the tachograph and whether he had seen the original or a photocopy. 662. Mr Balkwell alleged in his statement dated 20 August 2008 and during his Leslie Balkwell Complaints
Page 145 of 147
interviews with the IPCC that Officer Q failed to advise the Coroner during the inquest that he was aware that Mr Berry had examined the original tachograph. He alleged this failure led to Mr Berry being dismissed as a witness and his evidence being disregarded. 663. A written response was not requested for the reasons discussed earlier in this report. 664. Examination of the transcripts of the inquest contains evidence that on 30 January 2008 a discussion regarding Mr Berrys evidence took place between the Coroner and Barristers, without the jury present. It is
recorded that Officer Q told the Coroner that Mr Berry had seen the original tachograph and that he had provided this to Mr Berry. 665. Therefore this complaint is unsubstantiated. Complaint 98: That ex Officer G failed to visit Mr Balkwell to discuss information he provided in relation to serious crimes. 666. Mr Balkwell stated that he provided information regarding other serious alleged crimes both before and after the inquest and that this information was never followed up. An e mail dated 16 March 2008 from Mr Bennett contains reference to the alleged crimes, two of which were also mentioned in his statement to Essex Police dated 23 June 2007. 667. In his written response ex Officer G stated that following Mr Balkwells statement in June 2007 he carried out appropriate research on the information he had provided but was unable to corroborate it any further. 668. Ex Officer G stated that he responded to Mr Bennetts e mail of 16 March 2008 and advised that the information was discussed at a previous meeting and for the purposes of his investigation no relevant matters capable of investigation were raised. There is evidence of his response in a letter dated 19 May 2008 669. The IPCC investigation has found evidence that ex Officer G responded to the information provided and explained that it was not capable of further investigation. This complaint is therefore unsubstantiated.
Page 146 of 147
Amanda Rowe Senior Investigator, IPCC 25 November 2011
Mandy Bartholomew Deputy Senior Investigator IPCC
Page 147 of 147

Les Balkwell Final Report Published With Foreword Feb 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Les Balkwell Final Report Published With Foreword Feb 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 9AM MONDAY 30 JANUARY 2012 Mr Lee Balkwell (Deceased)

Independent Investigation Final Report IPCC Reference: 2008/000068

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Chronology of Essex Police response 18 July 2002

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Initial response to the incident

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

made at management level as to the appropriate course of action.

Policies and Procedures

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

IPCC Findings and Conclusions

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

supplementary evidence to assist the investigation.

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints

Policies and Procedures

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

IPCC Findings and Conclusions

Version 1.0 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED IPCC Final Report Leslie Balkwell Complaints