The Wrong Man: The Shooting of Steven Waldorf and The Hunt for David Martin (18 page)

That ‘later date' came three days afterwards when Jardine was again interviewed, this time by Commander Michael Bradley Taylor of CIB2, the officer in charge of the complaints unit. At the time of this investigation, Taylor was 42 years of age, having joined the police in 1960. His rise through the service had been meteoric; initially a detective, his results in the sergeant's examination were so spectacularly high that he returned to uniform and shot up through the ranks. He would not return to the CID until reaching the rank of detective superintendent; since then he had served two terms with the Flying Squad. He was much admired as being a hard-working, practical copper.

For a matter as serious as this, Taylor would normally have immediately taken charge of all the interviews, but when he heard the names of the officers involved in the shooting, he immediately realised that he knew Peter Finch personally from the mid-1960s and therefore he made this fact known and dealt instead with Jardine, hence Dickens's involvement with Finch. Dickens was also present for the Jardine interview, as was a solicitor, Mr Roscoe.

Taylor took him through his service and then the detailed briefing given by Ness which Jardine once more described, ending with the words, ‘To my mind, the overall effect of the briefing was to paint a picture of an extremely dangerous and unstable person.'

Again Jardine was taken through following the Mini and he said:

… I asked DC Deane who the driver was and he told me it was Purdy. I think I asked who the other person was in the front passenger seat and I think DC Deane said something to the effect, ‘I don't know, I haven't seen him before' … I seem to recall saying to DC Deane, ‘from the hairstyle, that could almost be our main man', meaning Martin. DC Deane and I discussed that and I think DC Deane put it up over the radio as to whether anyone else thought it might be Martin … In the Bayswater Road, on the approach to the Shepherd's Bush roundabout where I was able to get alongside the Mini, from that position we could see the man in profile, although most of the time our view was blocked by the driver of the Mini. However, from the hair, eyes and nose of the man in the Mini, DC Deane and I formed the opinion that this man was a good likeness for the man Martin. At about that point, DC Deane put it over the radio that it was a possibility that the man in the front passenger seat was Martin.

After a coffee break, Jardine said, ‘Another point we were told about Martin during the briefing was that on a previous occasion he had been shot by police, on that occasion I understood he was hit in the head by a bullet which deviated to the collar bone and broke it. I was told that on that occasion, Martin seemed to suffer little reaction to the wound, in that he did not go into shock or complain of any pain. I drew the conclusion from that, that when confronted Martin would be a difficult man to stop.'

The questioning continued up to the point when the traffic was stationary in Pembroke Road and that Finch had been detailed to attempt an identification of Martin. ‘Were you aware of any instructions from Mr Ness at this point?' asked Taylor and Jardine replied, ‘Not personally. No, but it's quite difficult trying to listen to two radios and drive and keep the vehicle in sight, all at the same time.' He could also have added the difficulty of concentrating while the other units on both radios, plus the CB gibberish, was being transmitted, in addition to the responsibility of the loaded revolver in the shoulder holster under his left armpit.

‘DC Deane wound down his window and shouted something like, ‘‘it's a few cars in front of us, in front of the white van'',' continued Jardine. ‘By then, DC Finch was level with us and I could see that he had a revolver in his right hand, holding it alongside his right thigh. I was astonished to see that he had drawn his gun and DC Deane and I commented to each other about that.'

After he heard the sound of shots being fired, Jardine said, ‘I thought, ‘‘God, that's Martin, he's got a gun and he's firing''.'

He went on to describe once more getting out of the van and seeing Waldorf hanging out of the driver's door. ‘I was convinced that the man had a gun very close to him, probably under his body,' said Jardine, adding, ‘he
must
have had a gun, otherwise no shots would have been fired in the first place. Because of his movements, I was convinced that he was going to get hold of a gun and start shooting again. I was desperately afraid that he was going to shoot either me or DC Finch who at that time would have been within Martin's line of fire,' and once more described shooting Waldorf.

‘Did you see a gun or any other weapons at any stage, other than police weapons?' asked Taylor and Jardine answered, ‘No.'

And then Taylor said: ‘When you fired on Waldorf, what did you intend?'

‘I intended to totally incapacitate him,' replied Jardine, ‘and the only way to do that with a gun is to kill him.'

‘So – bluntly,' said Taylor, ‘your intention was to kill him, if necessary?'

‘If necessary, yes,' he replied.

‘Listen to this,' said Taylor, picking up a copy of the police firearms regulations. ‘“Every officer to whom a weapon is issued must be strictly warned that it is to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, e.g. if he, or the person he is protecting, is attacked by a person with a firearm or other deadly weapon and he cannot otherwise reasonably protect himself or give protection, he may resort to a firearm as a means of defence.'' Are you aware of that instruction?'

‘Yes, sir,' replied Jardine.

‘At the time you fired at Waldorf, were you or anybody else being attacked?'

‘No, but I had considered that an attack had just taken place,' replied Jardine, ‘and I was certain that that attack was about to begin again.'

Asked to account for his following actions, Jardine described covering Stephens in case she had any weapons and was also asked if he thought it necessary for Finch to have pistol-whipped Waldorf. ‘I'm not sure whether I considered it necessary for DC Finch to hit Waldorf, but I do remember thinking, ‘‘Christ, he's still moving!'”

‘At the briefing, was it ever suggested in these or in any other similar terms that if Martin was located, any armed officer should shoot first?' asked Taylor and Jardine emphatically replied, ‘Absolutely not.'

‘There was no suggestion of that nature at all?' probed Taylor and once more Jardine replied, ‘Absolutely not.'

There were more questions and then when Taylor asked, ‘Did you ever tell Waldorf that you were a police officer or call on him to surrender before you opened fire?' Jardine replied, ‘No, I considered things had gone far beyond that.'

Jardine finished by reiterating that he had acted totally in good faith and Taylor commented on his frankness.

It was inescapable that both Jardine and Finch would be charged because someone had to be seen to be publicly accountable and when it happened, it did so very quickly. Eight minutes after the conclusion of Jardine's interview, Taylor told him that a decision had been made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge him with attempted murder and thirty-three minutes after that, he was at Rochester Row police station. Thirteen minutes later, at nine o'clock, Finch was charged with attempting to wound Steven Waldorf and the men both appeared at Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court the following day.

John Deane (who had qualified as a marksman in 1973) had been similarly interviewed by Detective Superintendent Douglas Pike of CIB2, and following that interview a further one took place on Saturday 15 January by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickens in which Deane was immediately cautioned. The questioning led right up to when the shooting began.

‘[T]he next thing that happened was that a shot rang out,' said Deane. ‘I then got out of the van as quickly as possible and on the pavement I then drew my gun, more shots were ringing out and I saw DC Finch firing into the nearside window. I was then quite convinced that the male passenger was Martin and that owing to our briefing about the danger and equipment that this man carried and also to the amount of shooting that seemed to be going on, I went to the rescue of DC Finch. I got to the rear of the Mini and could clearly see the rear of the man I believed to be Martin. There was a lot of movement and I shot two pairs and one single as quickly as possible.'

‘Did you see anything in that suspect's possession that resembled a firearm?' asked Dickens and Deane replied, ‘No, sir.'

‘Therefore,' said Dickens, ‘you were discharging your weapon at the back of a person, purely because a fellow officer was shooting at him.'

‘No, sir,' firmly repeated Deane. ‘I believed that what was going on was that a positive identification had been made and believed that from what I had been told at the original briefing that he was carrying firearms and was using them against DC Finch.'

‘Are you trained to use firearms in this way?' asked Dickens and Deane replied, just as decisively as before, ‘When I believe that someone is in danger of being killed by another with a weapon or other item, then I acted as I believe I had been trained.'

‘Did you give consideration to the safety to other persons in the car?' asked Dickens.

‘Susie was lying down on the floor, there was no sign of any other person than the man I believed to be Martin in the vehicle,' replied Deane. ‘I had a clear view, unobstructed of this man.'

Deane was suspended from duty, together with the other officers. When the facts were reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, he decided to take no further action in Deane's case.

However, many police officers – and to be fair, most of them were not in possession of the full facts – thought that the matter had been disposed of with an almost indecent haste. But in speaking to Michael Taylor three decades later, he put the matter in its right context:

The speed with which the inquiry moved was due to the interview statements being typed up and the initial report put together quickly; I wrote it at home once the interviews were complete and submitted it, as you say, within a few days. The interviews were conducted briefly on the night of the shooting and then in more depth once the officers had had an opportunity for some sleep and the chance to decide on any representation. The facts were not really in dispute. I was not under any political pressure but reported regularly to the deputy commissioner.
1

Jardine would later tell me that he thought his interviews were dealt with ‘very fairly' whereas Finch told me, ‘What I find unbelievable now was how I was treated at the nick. I was interviewed into the early hours with no help whatsoever. Naïvely, I thought I was giving a statement to help before any inquiry.'

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the circumstances surrounding those initial interviews, what I do know is that if an ordinary criminal had been dealt with in exactly the same situation without being cautioned or legally represented, their legal representatives would have had a field day in court. Be that as it may, the interviews had also been thorough and no stone had been left unturned to establish the truth.

  
1
.  The deputy commissioner was the officer in charge of all aspects of discipline within the Metropolitan Police.

I
f the charging of the two officers was quick, Scotland Yard's immediate and unequivocal apology for the shooting, issued the same night as the incident, saying it was ‘a tragic case of mistaken identity' was positively mercurial, and rightly so.

On Sunday 16 January, a far fuller statement was made by the Yard:

The Metropolitan Police deeply regret that anyone should have been injured as a result of police activities. Police were seeking to arrest David Ralph Martin who had escaped from police custody after being charged with attempted murder by shooting a policeman, armed robbery and burglary involving the theft of handguns and ammunition.

It was known that there was an association between Martin and a passenger in the car which police followed. Having regard to the background, the officers were armed and when the car stopped in heavy traffic, an officer sought to identify Martin and shots were fired. As the precise circumstances of the incident will be the basis of any judgement of criminal or disciplinary liability, they cannot be commented on at this stage. It is already clear, however, that there has been a tragic case of mistaken identity.

Within an hour of the occurrence, Commander Michael Taylor, head of the Complaints Investigation Branch, commenced an investigation of the case which has since been pursued expeditiously and thoroughly.

Thirty private witnesses have been traced and the majority interviewed. In all some seventy interviews have been completed and on Saturday night the inquiry reached the point where three detectives were suspended.

The results of the investigation will be reported to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions and the lay commissioners of the Independent Police Complaints Board. In addition, a preliminary report has been forwarded to the Home Secretary.

On the general rules of governing the issue and use of firearms it should be said that the procedure is strict. The instructions provide that an inquiry is conducted by a senior officer every time police fire a round of ammunition, and the circumstances are strictly reviewed. Any officer in breach of the rigorous requirements, however technical, is disqualified from the further use of firearms.

There is no cover-up of any incident involving firearms and police share public concern that their use should be wholly exceptional. Police are as anxious as the public that the whole circumstances of this tragic accident should be clarified and as the commissioner has already made plain, the results will be made public when the constraints of the law are lifted.

In answer to some particular allegations, it must be stressed that the current policy on police use of firearms has been in force for some years and there have been no recent changes.