Crusaders (54 page)

Chapter V

28 November 1996

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you angry past words for what was printed in your paper tonight of STEVIE COULSON. I know what of I speak for Stevie was my friend and a dear one to me for all his life that was ended so cruelly. Do people have no decency in them when a tragedy happens. It is not true and an OUTRAGE all what things are getting said about Stevie, who cannot defend himself now since he is gone. But shame on you and any others who give false witness. One day THE TRUTH will be known, not the lies and ‘scandal’ people write to sell their newspapers DAMN them.

Yours,

Mrs E. A. Dodd

Date: 26 November 1996
Crime number: 257539w/02
Report of first attending officer: DC Chisholm

Since June 14 1996 I have worked undercover as doorman for the firm of Sharky’s Machine Ltd, part of the SCT investigation into Roy Caldwell + Steve Coulson and suspected traffic/supply of narcotics.

On night of Saturday November 24 [2109] I had information by phone from a trusted source and on basis of same proceeded to #32
Oakwell Estate, Hoxheath. My belief was I would gain entry to said address without difficulty and find on the premises physical evidence related to the killings of Messrs Paul Crowley and Robert Donner in North Shields on Thursday November 14 1996 (crime number 980230476, investigation ongoing).

On arrival at #32 [2136] I found that forced entry had been made to the premises by the front door. I entered with caution to a narrow
hallway
, and was immediately aware of sounds of distress from behind a locked door to my right. Behind it in a small bathroom I found a white adult female and a white male child. The female I identified by prior acquaintance as Lindy Clark, sometime employee at licensed
premises
managed by Steve Coulson. I established that Ms Clark was the homeowner and that the boy was her son Jake, aged 6. Both were very agitated and I tried to calm them and prevent them from
intruding
further upon what I now took to be a crime scene. These efforts were difficult, especially with Ms Clark, and my initial requests for details of the break-in were not properly answered.

Proceeding through to a living space, I found evidence of a struggle and then a man lying unconscious near the foot of a staircase to an upper floor. Here I was unable to prevent Ms Clark climbing those stairs with the boy. I inspected the unconscious man, saw he had
suffered
injuries to face and head, clearly a broken nose, plus swelling and bleeding I thought consistent with a fractured/dislocated jaw.

(I established in due course that this man was a neighbour from the Oakwell Estate, John Gore, aged 31, a minister of the Church of England.)

I tried to rouse Mr Gore. He recovered consciousness but he was breathing with difficulty on account of the broken nose, was not coherent, and in considerable pain and distress.

I had heard cries from the upper floor and as soon as I was able made my way up, turning right into a woman’s bedroom (A) which I took to be Ms Clark’s. The scene presented as the aftermath of a violent assault (blood on walls, arterial spray). Ms Clark was still with her
child though trying to attend to another wounded man, the child now in such a bad way that I saw no option but to insist that Ms Clark take him and herself down the hall to another bedroom (B) while I made my inspection. This was achieved with some difficulty, but it was then I took the basic details as above.

Returning to Bedroom A I used the telephone to make calls to the ambulance service and to my colleagues DI Fitzgerald and DS Henshaw, whom I instructed to alert Forensics and Scene of Crime Officer. I then went quickly to the second man, a white adult male. It was immediately apparent he had died as the result of multiple stab wounds, inflicted, I guessed, by a heavy knife or machete (victim
effectively
disembowelled, right arm partially severed, deep cuts to the neck, both thighs, and across the left cheekbone, disfiguring). His face looked also to have been scarred separately, a red blister-burn I took for CS gas or pepper-spray. I checked for pulse and found none. By prior acquaintance I could identify the aforementioned as Mr Steven Coulson.

Ms Clark had once more entered Bedroom A despite my warnings, her manner hysterical, and again I had to insist forcibly that she return to her child. I quickly located a bedsheet and covered the body. I then made a further call to Area Operating Room to report the fatality and arrange a second ambulance.

I then took steps to preserve the scene, conducted visual search for DNA and for dangerous items. Inspection of the view from an open window alerted me to a suspicious bag on the lawn of the
neighbouring
property.

I returned downstairs and stayed by Mr Gore until DI Fitzgerald arrived on the scene [2151]. Having handed over I returned upstairs to Ms Clark. It was clear that much effort was needed to calm her, and that she would need to be removed from the scene for a
statement
to be taken. I brought her and the child back downstairs, where the paramedics had arrived. Steven Coulson was pronounced dead at 2202. Mr Gore was revived and here I established his details as above. DS Henshaw was now in attendance and I requested he
make door-to-door enquiries, and also locate the item I had identified from the bedroom window. At this point Investigating Officer Fitzgerald relieved me of the care of Ms Clark and her child, asking that I accompany Rev. Gore in the ambulance to the General Hospital. I left the scene at 2212. Space was found for the Rev. Gore in A&E at the General and I took his statement at this time (cf. 723-1)

DC R. Chisholm

7 December 1996

Dear Lindy,

I am very much afraid you won’t read this. I would not blame you. I am old enough to know there are times when forgiveness can’t be asked for, when things can’t be undone. This, I know, is how I stand before you.

If I may beg just one thing of you it’s that, please, however you are feeling now, don’t discard this page but take a moment to read and consider its contents. Please set your proper antipathy to one side if only for one moment and allow me to be of use.

It is your right to understand fully why things took the awful course they did, for which I am essentially culpable, though some matters were beyond my control. For my part it was truly only that I wanted – and so badly – to drive off a shadow from your life and Jake’s. Probably the action I chose was not my choice to make, but its undoing was the result of evil misfortune – and other more actively malign motives. It wasn’t meant to happen as it did. I was myself let down, by a man from whom I had received certain assurances, ones he later neglected, albeit in ‘the heat of the moment’. There are other matters I will never be able to properly explain. But I understand that Brian Shackleton remains part of the police investigation, and please believe me, you must on no account have anything to do with him from now.

With these care proceedings now underway you will need all the support you can get. I learned through a friend at the
Citizens Advice Bureau that you had the services of Mr Redbill, that he is rated a good solicitor, and that legal aid is available. I contacted Redbill and we have agreed that I will provide a
substantive
written statement in your support. I take it you would feel as I do that for me to appear in person would not be
productive
. But I dearly hope that I might be helpful when it comes to the final hearing.

The local authority will be a hard opponent. It’s possible they will make some effort to discredit you, seek ‘expert assessment’, use whatever facts suit their petition. You will have to fight, to draw on all your reserves. But for Jake to be placed permanently in care would be a grave assumption of responsibility on the part of the council, and I understand that many judges fear, rightly, that such an outcome can be a disaster for a child. Hence a great deal of evidence and persuasion has to be put. I am certain you can challenge anything that emerges.

Forgive me if I state your predicament as if I were not, in part, a cause of it.

You have been a victim of my failure of nerve. I have been made to pay for it myself, though I don’t compare our losses in the slightest. If I could take your place, take on to myself what you have been through, I would do so.

I only want you to know that I never lied to you. My failings are many, but this was not among them. I say so not to claim some useless credit, only so you know that from the first to the last of our acquaintance, whenever I spoke of my feelings for you, it was truly felt, and more so than anything in my life.

With my love,

John

B4/1997/1419
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NEWCASTLE COUNTY COURT
BEFORE: LORD JUSTICE MONCRIEFF, LORD JUSTICE WRAITH
IN THE MATTER OF J (A CHILD)
JUDGEMENT (as approved by the Court)

1. LORD JUSTICE MONCRIEFF: The parties to this appeal are the local authority; the mother Miss C; and the sole relevant child, J, as represented by his appointed guardian.

2. Miss C is the mother of J who was born on 3 June 1990. She seeks permission to appeal against orders made in care proceedings relating to the child instituted by the Local Authority.

3. The involvement of the Local Authority was pursuant to the killing of Miss C’s estranged partner and J’s father, Mr C, by persons unknown at the family address on 24 November 1996. The killing led to the issue of care proceedings on 27 November 1996, so as to remove J from the home. Social Services were not satisfied that J was safe from harm in his mother’s care, owing to the violent circumstances of Mr C’s death and the degree to which this episode furnished evidence of the
appellant’s
neglect of J.

4. J was first placed under police protection for 72 hours and housed by Social Services. An Emergency Protection Order was obtained subsequently. A guardian
ad litem
was appointed to represent J in the proceedings by CAFCASS.

5. On 10 February 1997, at the conclusion of a contested first
hearing
, HHJ Flint placed J in the interim care of the Local Authority for an eight-week term until the final hearing, deciding with the Authority that there were indeed good reasons the child might come to harm. In his judgement he noted the dire events of 24 November 1996, Social Services’ report of Miss C’s lack of co-operation with them, and the assertion that Miss C had told untruths to police officers that had hindered the investigation. It was further the judge’s view that Miss C required a psychiatric assessment.

6. On 24 February 1997 Miss C appeared at an oral hearing
contesting
the interim care order, her case argued by Mr Redbill, but was not successful.

7. On 7 April 1997 HHJ Middleton presided over the final hearing of the care proceedings, now paying special attention to the issue of the well-known ‘threshold criteria’. The document produced by the Local Authority referred to section 31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989, so asking had Child J suffered or was he likely to suffer significant harm? (Here we understand that harm may include impairment
suffered
from seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another.) And per section 31(2)(b), would any such harm be attributable to J not receiving the parental care it would be reasonable to expect Ms C to give? The local authority concluded, sub-paragraph (E): ‘The past history of Miss C’s behaviour, indeed her behaviour in the course of this
investigation
, do nothing to allay our concerns.’

8. In the final hearing this question of Miss C’s personality and
temperament
, her lifestyle and associations, came under close scrutiny. Moreover a great deal of the judgement was to be concerned with the historic past as well as the relevant present. Miss C was
cross-examined
by Ms Quine for the Authority, and I can well understand that HHJ Middleton was shocked by aspects of how Miss C
managed
her life and household, and the role of J’s late father in same. An account emerged of a chaotic and unsettled environment, one where the violence of 24 November could be seen in somewhat of a
context
, and the potential for reprisal also weighed. All these were
plainly
relevant to the threshold criteria and the welfare of J. The evidence of the child psychologist Dr Motter was also key here.

9. There was no dispute that the threshold had been established. The only issue was the appropriate form of order in respect of the child’s welfare: whether a Supervision Order would be sufficient, or whether J’s interests could only be protected by the Local Authority assuming parental responsibility through a Care Order.

10. HHJ Middleton’s definition of the essential issue comes in
paragraph
52 of her judgement, when she says: ‘All agree that a risk to J remains, even if quantified as a low risk at the moment. It is my
finding
that for the foreseeable future the local authority need to assume parental responsibility to minimise that risk.’

11. Thus Miss C sought permission to appeal. The application was settled by Mr Ian Redbill QC and in the interim Mr Philip Leigh, for the 
guardian, filed a skeleton supporting the appeal and Ms Quine a skeleton resisting.

12. To the crux: we have seen that HHJ Middleton’s judgement is necessarily preoccupied with evaluations of Miss C’s behaviour – none of which Miss C can challenge, as they were plainly open to the judge to make. I am drawn to the following remarks in particular: ‘I am satisfied that if I were to return this boy to his mother’s care, his life will nevertheless be overshadowed profoundly by the effect of her deeply troubled personality. I consider the risk of same to outweigh the benefits of a reunion, this despite their evident bonds of affection.’

13. Mr Redbill’s assertion of Miss C’s willingness to change her way of life is noted. He also drew proper attention to the extended remarks in the written statement supplied by a friend of Miss C’s who is an Anglican priest and clearly holds her personal qualities in the highest regard.

14. I find, however, the first judgement clear and properly made out as to the risk of ‘significant harm’. HHJ Middleton has not overlooked an appreciation of Miss C’s love for her child and its reciprocation. She dealt with the facts, but also directed herself appropriately as to the law. I find no fault in the care order and see no prospect of
success
for Miss C’s application.

15. The local authority has managed the protection very
professionally
, for it is indeed a highly difficult case, but one in which the best interests of J have been the first priority. I am satisfied by their
considered
long-term care plan as presented, and encouraged by their early identification of suitable adopters for J.

16. In these circumstances, therefore, I would respectfully refuse to grant permission to the application.

17. LORD JUSTICE WRAITH: I entirely agree with the Lord Justice Moncrieff, and there is nothing that I can usefully add. Order: Application refused.