STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 9AM ON MONDAY, 30 JANUARY 2012

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 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: 1

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. 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 2

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

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. 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. 4

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 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. 5

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. 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. 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. 6