Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume II, Pages 26-38, Friday 9th June, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
MR. TEMPLE: I am now moving on to evidence dealing with the
surveillance and arrest.
Detective Sergeant KENNETH MACRAE: Sworn
Examined by Mr. Temple
THE WITNESS: Detective Sergeant Kenneth MacRae, attached to
Ealing Police Station, formerly attached to the Criminal
Intelligence Department, New Scotland Yard, my Lord.
MR. TEMPLE: Just tell the Court a little bit more about your
background. Whilst you were attached to the criminal
investigation unit, what were your principal tasks and
expertise? A. I was - until a month ago I was team leader
of a surveillance team.
Q. For how many years had you been experienced in such work?
A. Six and a half years.
Q. Without going into any detail, when you say "a team leader",
how many other officers would be under your direct control,
just as an example? A. About eleven.
Q. Against that very general introduction, would you confirm,
please, that during the course of Sunday, 10th May, you had
occasion, with other officers, to keep surveillance on
premises No. 12, Strickland Court? A. Indeed, yes.
Q. Do you have in front of you a log referrable [sic] to that
operation? A. I haven't at the moment. (Handed to the
witness) Yes, I have indeed.
Q. Members of the jury, may I ask you to turn to page 509? (To
the witness): Mr. MacRae, the jury have not had the
introduction to the surveillance logs and I think in the
circumstances of this case it is not going to be necessary to
go into a lot of detail, but just so that everybody can
follow the thrust of these entries, I want you to help us a
little bit about how they are compiled. Can I perhaps
summarise them in this way: on the majority of surveillance
operations there will be not just one officer but a number of
officers? A. That is correct.
Q. In this particular instance, looking at your log which you
have in front of you, have you set out there, in the middle
of the page at the top, the officers who were present on this
particular surveillance on 10th May? A. Yes.
Q. Who were they? A. There was myself, Detective Sergeant
MacRae, Detective Constable Kellerman, Detective Constable
Kirkman, Detective Constable Padman, Detective Constable
Bailey, Detective Constable Dunn and Detective Constable
Phillipson.
Q. Going right to the top of this page, do the majority of
operations have a code name or not? A. Yes.
Q. In this case? A. In this case Operation Drifter.
Q. We can see underneath "Target" and a "D" in a circle.
A. That just denotes the name of the target.
Q. In other words, if an officer was to see the target would
they put it down in the course of the log as a "D" in a
circle? A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Which I think we can see very clearly on the first entry.
A. Yes.
Q. Perhaps I can summarise them - please correct me if I have
not done it accurately - is the usual position in such
operations that one officer is responsible for compiling the
majority of the log and he will receive information given to
him by various other officers who are on duty? A. Indeed,
yes.
Q. In other words, what may happen is an officer may see a
certain event, he will relay it over the radio and it will be
written down by the officer keeping the log? A. Yes.
Q. Just to see that through, just take one example: 8.50, what
would have happened? A. The target would have come out of
the premises. It was observed by Detective Constable Kirkman
who is along the side of the road. We refer to their first
names, that would be Tony Kirkman. He would have been
observing the premises at that time and saw the accused come
out of the address.
Q. In other words, what has actually been written in the log?
A. "08.50 'D' circled", which means Target "D", "wearing dark
glasses, white training shoes, dark hair, trilby, on foot."
That is Tony.
Q. On this particular day were you aware of the actual name of
the target? A. Yes, I was.
Q. Which was? A. Koupparis, I think. I can't pronounce it.
Q. I do not think it will be necessary to go through the detail
of the log at all. Can I ask you, from your information on
this log, to take us through any surveillance which you
personally saw during the course of that day, and finally I
will (inaudible) legal requirements into place if I may,
unless Mr. Beckman tells me it is not necessary - I am told
it is not essentially challenged. I need not ask you about
whether or not it was compiled when it was fresh in your
memory. Just from your log take us through what you saw and
discussed during the course of that Sunday. A. I first saw
the accused walking along the East Dulwich Road, SE22,
shortly after he left his premises at 0917.
Q. We can see that entry three from the bottom. A. Yes, that
is correct.
Q. What did he do? A. He stopped a man in East Dulwich Road
and had a conversation with him, which would indicate from
the fact that it had all happened at the same time, 9.17, it
would have been a very short conversation.
Q. And then? A. At 0918, in the same road again, he stopped a
female and obviously had a conversation, then moved off
again. At 0919, again in the same road, he stopped a
further female and then moved off. At 0921 the entry says,
"Stopped IC3 male and then off". That indicates it was a
man of West Indian origin.
Q. We can see at the top of the page "IC3". That then was
the police identity code for races? A. Yes, they are.
Q. "IC3" is? A. West Indian.
Q. Carry on. A. He was carrying a poster and the log is
marked up "supplementary". That indicates that if something
has occurred in a previous part of the log and it needs to be
added at a later time it is marked up on the log as
"supplementary". It can however - although it has occurred
in the middle part of the log, it can however appear in the
middle part or at the end of the log when the officers stop
the observation and at this stage it is in the middle of the
log, and he had a poster which said "Sex after AIDS too", and
that was from the daily news.
Q. Carry on. A. The observation was continued by other
officers at 11.05.
Q. Just pause there; page 511, the second time entry down. What
happened then? A. He went into a newsagent's which is at
No. 69.
Q. And then? A. He then moved at 11.07, came out towards the
roundabout, which is the roundabout at Lordship Lane and East
Dulwich Road. Subsequently I saw him turn towards
Strickland Court and, as is mentioned on the log, other
officers have further observations.
Q. In other words, looking at our page 511, 11.14, the note is
"Back to HA home address and into premises"? A. Yes, that
is correct.
Q. Did you see him again at all that day? A. Subsequently, at
14.01.
Q. Still on page 511, one up from the bottom, 14.01. A. The
accused came out with a female. It was marked, "Target out
with female, 35 years, collar length hair, black skirt, red
and white (inaudible) IC1" - which means white female -
"child aged three years. All out on foot." Just to clear
up the matter, part of that is in fact in my handwriting.
Q. Was that the last occasion you personally saw the target on
that day? A. No, I saw them on a number of occasions
during that day, although it may not be marked on the log as
they went for a walk in the park.
Q. I am not going to ask you any further details about it, save
this: let us go back to the morning passage when he is
obviously stopping people in the street and has his AIDS
poster. What you have been able to do is read the exact
detail noted in your log. In a few sentences can you bring
it to life; what was he doing that morning? A. He was
basically stopping people and asking them questions.
Q. Were you in any position to know the exact nature of the
question? A. Yes, I instructed an officer to approach him
and speak to him.
Q. What was the reply? A. Basically he ws [sic] trying to obtain
money from people by, I believe, "If you ask me a question
and give me some money I will give you an answer".
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BECKMAN
Q. My Lord, that last bit was technically hearsay - I assume
simply for background - and there is nothing further to be
introduced by it. In those circumstances I do not object;
there is nothing sinister about it at all. (To the witness):
Tell me, Mr. MacRae, obviously you do not suddenly wake up in
the morning and say, "I am going to follow Mr. Panos
Koupparis"? A. No.
Q. You get instructions from somewhere? A. Indeed I do.
Q. Where do you get your instructions from? A. Are you talking
of this particular occasion or normally?
Q. This particular occasion. A. On this particular occasion I
was briefed by what we call SO13 officers, which is the
Terrorist Squad.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: SS ---? A. No, the Terrorist Squad.
Q. You gave a number. A. SO13.
MR. BECKMAN: So we do not fall out in any way, I entirely accept
in the normal case of serious terrorism there are certain
matters to be kept confidential and in so far as if I ask
you anything - because I am only concerned about this case -
which impinges on anything which is not disclosed for the
protection of the State against IRA terrorists or that type
of thing, just tell me. A. Yes, of course.
Q. In this case you got your instructions from there. What
were those instructions to start off this operation?
A. Basically, I was given the very briefest of background
into the matter as basically I do not need to know too much
anyway, and basically, from memory, I believe we, my
particular surveillance team, were only used as a stopgap to
assist other officers, and that is why we only took part in
the operation for one Sunday.
Q. Can you be kind enough to tell me what instructions you were
actually given? A. Basically, from memory, it was to watch
12 Strickland Court and to follow the accused.
Q. Were you not told what it was about? A. I was told the
briefest ---
Q. Would you be kind enough to tell us what you were told.
A. From memory, I believe it was there was a demand on the
Cypriot Government, upon the Embassy in London.
Q. Did you carry firearms with you on this operation? A. I
don't think so, no.
Q. It was not a question of, "This is a serious terrorist risk",
in the sense that he was carrying firearms, "because we might
be in danger", nothing like that? One is always in danger,
but apart from that there was nothing? A. I personally
know that as a surveillance officer guns or firearms would
not have come into it because we are surveillance officers
and the art of surveillance is the person should not see you
there, so firearms would not have arisen at all in my view.
Q. You are quite right. You were not concerned about arrest?
A. No.
Q. I accept that entirely. That is what you were told. Do you
keep any form of document which relates to the purpose of the
operation? A. No, only the log.
Q. Can I take it there is no other document at all in existence
which can help us as to the purpose of the operation?
A. That I can't answer; I don't know. I personally haven't
got anything myself, no.
Q. Nothing that is in your possession or has ever been in your
possession? A. No.
Q. Can you tell me this: were you working together with the
Cypriot authorities? A. No.
Q. You were not? A. No, well, I personally was not.
Q. Whether or not others were working with the Cypriot
authorities --- A. Are you talking about surveillance?
Q. The persons from whom you received instructions, SO13.
A. I don't know what they were doing.
Q. You have no idea whether they were doing anything at the
behest of the Cypriot authorities and if so, what? You have
no idea yourself personally; if it happened you were not
involved in it? A. I was not involved in it, no.
Q. Can I then take you to this: you are the officer in charge
of the matter and in so far as this might help, there was a
journey to Gillingham, was there not? A. I was not part of
that.
Q. That is in Kent, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. Did that occur during part of the operation when you were in
charge? A. No.
Q. That is somebody else? A. No, in fact from the log you
will be able to see that at five o'clock that day I handed
over to other surveillance units.
Q. Can I ask about this: so far as this log is concerned - I am
right to say this - it was a fairly long time after this
case - this case has had a long history, but a fairly long
time afterwards that the log thing we have there was actually
produced and shown to the defence. It was not produced
straight away, or do you not know about that? A. That is
correct, yes.
Q. Before that all the defence would have had would not have
been your log but merely your statement. A. That is
correct.
Q. And if I may summarise your statement - my Lord this is page
85, first paragraph - you were engaged in surveillance and
with whom --- A. I am sorry?
Q. I am summarising your statement. A. I haven't got a
statement in front of me. (Handed to the witness)
Q. I am just going to summarise it and if in any way I stray
from the truth you will correct me. A very short statement,
two pages, and in the first paragraph you refer to being
engaged on surveillance and with whom. A. With Detective
Constable Kirkman.
Q. That was not a question. You were telling us in the
statement. Then you go on to say who you saw, being Panos
Koupparis, and where you saw him. A. Indeed.
Q. Then you refer to seeing him at the door of Strickland Court
with Mrs. Koupparis. A. Indeed.
Q. Is that right? A. Yes.
Q. You saw a young man of 20 years of age also there in the
doorway? A. Yes, indeed.,
Q. They go back into the premises? A. Yes.
Q. Some time later you see a little girl come out as well,
together with Panos and (inaudible). A. Yes.
Q. And you watch them together with the little girl. A. Yes.
Q. That is all there is basically in your statement. A. Yes.
Q. There is no reference at all in your statement - and that was
the only thing at this stage that was available to the
defence - there is no reference in your statement at that
time to the poster about sex after AIDS, to his stopping
various people in the street, to his stopping motorists and
that sort of thing. None of that appeared, as it were, in
your statement. A. Indeed.
Q. I take it, and I am not criticising you in any way, that the
periods of the observation as far as you were concerned is
encompassed in your statement, where they had gone and what
time? A. Basically yes, that is correct.
Q. The purpose of the statement, pefectly [sic] properly for
prosecution purposes - and I do not mean that in a nasty
sense - was not to refer to any part of his behaviour which
was innocently bizarre, eccentric or weird or unusual. That
was not the purpose. It is in the log but it was not the
purpose of the statement so it did not appear there? A. It
didn't appear because I was asked to make a statement, as is
normal in a surveillance operation, but it is my decision
what should - perhaps in hindsight, perhaps it was a wrong
decision. I didn't view it was important at that time to
make reference to the people that he had stopped because of
the information I received about the purpose of the
observation. That is why the statement has been made in
these terms.
Q. Mr. MacRae, I am not criticising you for one moment, I am
merely saying as far as you were concerned, there was no need
to refer to any unusual behaviour, just the fact of where
they went, and nobody suggested to you that you should
introduce it into the statement, that you should put any
weird behaviour in? A. No.
Q. That is why, pausing there - and we know it is seen by virtue
of the log which has come to the defence at their request a
long time later. Now let us go on to one extract from the
log and I take it shortly. We get him stopping people in the
street. A. Yes.
Q. We get him stopping motorists? A. Yes.
Q. We get him carrying a poster which says "Sex after AIDS too"?
A. Yes.
Q. I think also somewhere in your note you have him wearing one
glove on one hand. A. Yes.
Q. Whatever he may have said to other persons, of course you do
not know, but out of curiosity and properly interested, you
asked Mr. Phillipson to approach him and in fact that is one
of the things he said. There may even have been others.
A. Yes, indeed. May I just add ---
Q. Would you allow me - Mr. Temple wishes to speak to me?
(Pause) I am sorry, Mr. MacRae, as long as it is relevant.
A. It is, sir. It is only the fact I should inform the
Court that it is the policy of the department I was employed
with not go giving a copy of the logs - bearing in mind we
are the Criminal Intelligence Department - not to give copies
of the logs until ordered by the Court.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is quite right. A. It is why
when - and it is not only with this case, but any case I am
involved with surveilling, I refuse to hand over copies as I
personally know - refuse to hand over copies of logs because
on certain occasions - not in this case - there are certain
things on the log which should not be made available outside
the department I work for.
MR. BECKMAN: May I make it clear I am not attacking you. A. I
wished to make it clear.
Q. If I am attacking a witness I make it clear. The point is it
was not considered relevant, whoever was dealing with the
prosecution said, to introduce the unusual and weird aspects
into the statement and it was obtained later for whatever
reason? A. Yes.
(The witness withdrew)
Index | Previous | Next