DAVE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
DCI Allen, Greenwich Police from Dave's solicitor
regarding the interviewing of Drew after she was found
Our Ref: ACG/JH/COURTNEY
15th May 2002
Greenwich Police Station,
31 Royal Hill,
Re: Our Clients: Mr. and Mrs. D. Courtney
We write to inform you that we have been instructed on behalf of the above named following the disappearance of their daughter, Drew.
The writer became involved with this matter late on Friday 3rd May 2002 and communicated with Roger North, who we understand is attached to the murder squad. We understand his team was brought in to search Mr. and Mrs. Courtney's home.
Roger North kindly left a message for DI Innis to telephone the writer which he duly did on Saturday 4th May 2002. The writer spoke with DI Innis who indicated that Drew Courtney was to be interviewed, possibly by way of memorandum interview, in the next couple of days. The writer indicated that he wished to be advised as to when that interview was to take place as he and/or a representative of the family would wish to be present at that interview as an observer. The writer did not speak again with DI Innis and he was not advised as to when the interview was to take place. We understand the interview in deed was held. No social worker was present. The writer has subsequently ascertained from DI Innis that a foster parent acted as an appropriate adult. Whilst it is accepted that our clients were advised the Drew was with foster parents they were not appraised of the situation at all.
During Saturday and Sunday the writer attempted to contact DI Innis. The writer was advised by DC Swindles that DI Innis would telephone. This did not happen. The writer then spoke with another Officer at Greenwich to be advised that the only Officers who were prepared to give any information on this matter was yourself and DI Innis, both of whom were off duty and would not be returning until Tuesday 7th May 2002.
We find the conduct of the Police in this situation bizarre and wholly inappropriate. The parents were extremely concerned about their daughter and in particular the possibility that she was having a relationship with an older man, details of which the Police are fully aware of. Our clients were shown no consideration whatsoever.
Our clients had arranged for a child psychologist to attend any interview as an observer and our clients were prevented from following through this option.
On Tuesday 7th May 2002 the writer spoke with DI Innis who indicated that the matter, as far as the Police were concerned, was at an end and it was now passed to Social Services. The writer had contacted Social Services on Saturday 4th May 2002 to be informed that they were unaware of this situation in its entirety.
We require an explanation by return as to the conduct of the Police and precise details as to what steps the Police are now taking to investigate this matter, in particular the relationship with this older man.
We await hearing from you by return.