Buying heroin – with cash provided by police

Operational rules had specifically outlawed the use of drugs but Karl Chapman was able to use hundreds of pounds given to him by the police to buy heroin.

Detectives had wired-up Chapman who had agreed to arrange a meeting at the Huddersfield Hotel on Kirkgate with murder suspect Paul Maxwell with the aim of securing a taped confession.

But the North Yorkshire Police inquiry into police misconduct found the operation had breached regulations and had continued on an unauthorised basis for three days when surveillance provided by the Regional Crime Squad was withdrawn.

Prior to the operation Chapman had signed a series of stipulations drawn up by Det Supt John Holt who was running the murder inquiry.

These included not using drugs, not drinking alcohol unless it was necessary to avoid compromising his role, being in the presence of a nominated police officer at all times bar those with the murder suspect and not leaving the Huddersfield area under any circumstances unless accompanied by a police officer.

In the event, Chapman twice bought heroin, drank with police officers in pubs, was able to travel alone to Batley to buy drugs and was allowed his freedom on one night when he visited Pc Shirley Faulkner at her home.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) report detailing the police misconduct uncovered by North Yorkshire Police found that Chapman was given a minimum of £740 during the operation but only £350 was subsequently disclosed when Chapman gave evidence at trial. The money included £90 provided by Dc Derek Dunham, Chapman’s handler, who had lent the supergrass his credit card.

The CCRC report said: “On January 16, 1997 Mr Chapman committed the criminal offences of possession and supply of heroin to Mr Maxwell, both of which were outside the scope of his participating authority and in direct contravention of the agreed terms of reference for the operation.”

It referred to North Yorkshire Police concluding: “In all the circumstances, during the Huddersfield operation, the police facilitated the provision of drugs to Chapman by others.”

The report said Det Supt Holt told North Yorkshire Police he was aware Chapman had bought drugs.

He also “acknowledged that it was apparent that Mr Chapman had funded this purchase using the cash which had been given to him by the police.”

Chapman bought more heroin three days into the operation to use with Maxwell by which time surveillance had been withdrawn. The report said: “This heroin was acquired whilst Mr Chapman should have been under police supervision and from funds which had been replenished by the police during the operation.”

Det Supt Holt said he let the operation go on with the hope of obtaining information on the murder – even if it was inadmissible if the full circumstances were revealed to prosecutors.

Some of the information about Chapman’s drug-taking was disclosed by the police and challenged when Chapman gave evidence at the murder trial.

But the CCRC report found the operation’s terms of reference were not disclosed – though this was not attributed to Det Supt Holt.

It said: “The Commission considers that the non-disclosure of these documents denied the defence (at the murder trial) the opportunity to examine the circumstances in which Mr Chapman obtained drugs and the integrity of his treatment during the police operation.”