Informer’s ‘role in killing’ hushed up

If the information had been recorded, it may have ruled Chapman out as the key prosecution witness

At the time, West Yorkshire Police were acutely aware that Chapman’s evidence that he had provided details of ‘soft targets’ for robberies, including the address of the Wakefield pensioner, to Paul Maxwell could be construed as evidence the supergrass was himself involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Detectives were also aware that without Chapman’s evidence against Maxwell and his brother, Danny Mansell, there was little chance of a successful prosecution.

In April 1997, Chapman gave a series of statements to police but refused to sign them unless he was granted immunity from prosecution.

The Operation Douglas investigation into Chapman’s treatment found evidence that in the same month a prisoner had given Dc John Daniels information about the supergrass’s involvement in a conspiracy to rob the elderly brothers Joe and Bert Smales.

The un-named prisoner said he gave details of a conversation with Chapman in his cell to Dc Daniels.

The prisoner also said he told Dc Daniels that Chapman had kept evidence of his improper treatment by the police, including proof of his trips to massage parlours, pubs and clubs. He told Operation Douglas Chapman said he was “keeping all these things as insurance”.

Five phone calls to the prisoner from Dc Daniels were logged on prison records but none were recorded in the detective’s notebook.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission report found “... there is a real possibility that (the prisoner’s) fresh evidence of Mr Chapman’s confession and its transmission to Dc Daniels would be found to be capable of belief.

“The Commission notes that, if this occurred, there is no record of this information in the murder investigation’s Holmes database.”

The report said that if the CPS had been told the prosecution would have had to reconsider Chapman’s status as a witness and as a possible defendant.

It concluded: “The Commission considers that had the prosecution been aware of further evidence suggesting Mr Chapman’s possible involvement as a conspirator, his position as a prosecution witness might well have been untenable.”