Two undercover police officers have raised “serious concerns” about a decision not to prosecute a potential murder suspect they secretly recorded making an alleged confession, according to confidential documents seen by the Guardian.
The target of the surveillance operation was at the time considered a suspect in the death of Darren Poole, a 38-year-old painter and decorator who was found dead in his flat in Birkenhead, Wirral, in August 2015. A coroner ruled Poole had been unlawfully killed.
In an operation codenamed Carnaby, undercover police later spent months befriending a suspect who, they believed, may have been responsible for Poole’s death. They eventually covertly recorded the man saying he had allegedly struck Poole while in his flat.
However, prosecutors later became concerned about the police operation and the potentially oppressive way in which the alleged confession was secured from the surveillance target – and ultimately decided not to put the man on trial.
In a highly unusual move, the two undercover officers involved in the case have complained about the decision not to prosecute the suspect, and alleged “major failings” within Merseyside police.
The dispute puts a rare spotlight on vexed questions in covert policing: how far should undercover officers and their superiors go when trying to secure evidence from a suspect? And when can such evidence be admitted to court?
In a statement, Poole’s family said they “simply could not accept” the decision not to prosecute anyone. “We are desperately sad and shocked that there has been no conviction … No words can express the sadness and ongoing trauma we have felt every day since” his death.
Operation Carnaby
The undercover operation began after an inquest in July 2016, at which the Liverpool and Wirral coroner, Anita Bhardwaj, ruled Poole had been unlawfully killed. He had been discovered lying on his back on the living room floor of his flat, without a shirt.
“A large volume of blood was present around Darren’s mouth and his body, including his head and some of the blood was congealed. There was smeared blood on the floor where Darren lay,” the coroner recorded.
She found he had been struck three times on his head. “It is clear the injuries sustained by Darren to the head were as a result of three separate and distinct impacts,” she ruled.
Merseyside police originally arrested two men, but neither were charged. The coroner criticised police for their “flawed” investigation and described how officers had initially written off his death as not suspicious. Crucial evidence was missed or lost, she added. Merseyside police later apologised for its “serious errors”.
By then, more than a year after Poole’s death, the force appeared to have little prospect of bringing anyone to court.
However, six months later, in January 2017, senior police managers authorised Operation Carnaby, deploying the two undercover officers to befriend the man who was at the time suspected of possibly killing Poole.
The two officers became friends with the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and gave him work. Over eight months, extensive conversations took place between them that were covertly recorded.
But the tactics the police used to secure the alleged confession turned out to be controversial. Under UK law, a confession is disregarded in court if it is deemed that police obtained it through oppressive pressure or overbearing behaviour. The protection is intended to prevent police from pressing innocent people into confessing to crimes.
In Operation Carnaby, one of the officers played the role of someone who had themselves been accused of assault in a separate case. Confiding in the surveillance target, he told him how he had disposed of incriminating evidence to protect himself.
The tactic of appearing to unburden himself to the then suspect, and confiding in him, was a deliberate attempt by the undercover officer to encourage the man to reciprocate by admitting to his own suspected involvement in criminality.
It was during a long conversation in September 2017 that the undercover officers secured what they believed they needed to mount a prosecution. In the key section of that conversation, the suspect said that, during a row, he had lost his temper and hit Poole, although he told the undercover officers he did not mean to hit him hard.
The undercover officers believed this to be a major breakthrough. However, some of their superiors were unconvinced. For months, prosecutors and senior police officers considered whether the apparent confession warranted charging the man with either murder or manslaughter.
One concern considered in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was that the alleged confession could not be relied upon as part of a prosecution because of the manner in which it was solicited.
The persistence of one of the undercover officers, it was argued, was potentially oppressive. The CPS and police also considered the argument that the suspect had been subjected to emotional and psychological pressure over several months leading up to the alleged confession. Ultimately, they decided not to prosecute.
After initially telling Poole’s family that a prosecution was possible, Merseyside police informed them it would not go ahead. “It was a cruel blow. We have not lived since – we have merely existed,” the family told the Guardian.
‘Wall of silence’
The two undercover officers said the decision not to prosecute the man was flawed, and rejected the suggestion they had acted unprofessionally. In memos and written complaints, the pair instead alleged “major failings” by their superiors at Merseyside police and the CPS.
Right up until the apparent confession, they said, “we were always advised that CPS were more than happy with how the operation was progressing and were informed that there were no issues with any of our deployments and were to continue as instructed”.
The undercover officers criticised senior police and the CPS for not putting the taped apparent admission in front of a court, so a judge could decide whether the covert recording constituted admissible evidence. “How can it be morally correct that [the suspect] … has not been arrested and the evidence put to him and tested?” they asked.
The undercover officers condemned Merseyside police for putting up a “wall of silence” and failing to discuss their concerns properly. “In our opinion, Merseyside police have adopted the attitude of self-interest and protecting their positions rather than be honest” with the Poole family, they said.
One of the officers said he had told a superior at a meeting: “There was a miscarriage of justice and a failing of management and that we were being ignored.”
Contacted by the Guardian, the man who was targeted in the surveillance operation, Merseyside police and the CPS all declined to comment on the allegations. The police said their investigation “remains live and is subject to regular review”, but added there were “no active lines of enquiry”.
