Son and partner of murdered Rachel Nickell seek compensation over Met Police ‘catalogue of errors’
THE son and partner of tragic Rachel Nickell have written to Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley seeking compensation for a “catalogue of errors” over her frenzied murder on Wimbledon Common.
Neither Alex Hanscombe, who witnessed the killing a month before his third birthday, nor his father André have received anything from the Met since its botched 1992 probe.
They are calling for talks with Met Police chiefs and have given the embattled force a 15-day deadline before launching legal action.
The father and son are furious they have been stonewalled while others have received compensation — including £700,000 for wrongly accused suspect Colin Stagg.
They decided to act now after hearing new Met Police chief Sir Mark’s pledges to clean up the scandal-hit force.
In his letter — revealed today by The Sun on Sunday — Alex questions whether they could have been victims of racism.
And he vows that they would use the bulk of any payout for a foundation in Rachel’s name to help other bereaved families.
The Met did apologise to Alex and André in 2010 after a Police Complaints Commission report found errors had left psychopath Robert Napper free to kill. But they refused to pay compensation.
Alex, 33, said: “We feel that the Met, as an organisation, is the body that makes sure others suffer the consequences of their mistakes.
“We can’t have double standards. They must also be held to account for mistakes they made to us and others when missing chances to stop Robert Napper.
“We’ve been living with this for 30 years and people have cleaned their hands of the issue.
“But we think now is the time to put a wrong right. My mother was a white woman, but the fact that me and my father would be the recipients of any reward or compensation seems to be an issue.”
Sir Mark was appointed Met Commissioner in July 2022. He has vowed to “clean up” Scotland Yard’s toxic culture after scandals around racism, misogyny and homophobia.
Sixty-year-old André, Rachel’s partner when she died, said: “Talk is cheap and what we need now is action. It’s time for him to put his money where his mouth is.
“There is no better time than now, at the start of his time in the role, to correct old wrongs. This is why we are acting now.
“It might sound like we are bitter when talking about racism in the Met. But why was there a willingness to accept that things weren’t right, apologise and compensate others in the case? And why did it stop when it got to us?”
Rachel, 23, and Alex were walking their dog when Napper emerged from the bushes he had been hiding in and stabbed her 49 times.
The fiend wiped clean his knife before walking off, leaving little Alex clinging to Rachel’s body and begging: “Wake up, Mummy.”
The case horrified Britain — but the police investigation rapidly descended into chaos.
It took cops three weeks to interview sole witness Alex with the help of a child psychologist.
They then quizzed 32 men before focusing on jobless local Colin Stagg, who often walked his dog on the common.
Although there was no forensic evidence, police charged him with murder in August 1993.
An Old Bailey trial the following year heard Stagg was the victim of police entrapment and he was acquitted after 13 months in prison.
It was not until 2006 — 14 years after the attack and following several cold case reviews — that police interviewed Napper.
By then he was in Broadmoor Hospital after murdering a mother and her four-year-old daughter 16 months after Rachel’s death.
At a 2008 trial he admitted killing Rachel and was told it was unlikely he would ever be released.
At the trial it transpired that in 1989 Napper’s own mother tipped off police that he had confessed to raping a woman on Plumstead Common, in South East London.
But no case apparently matched the evidence so the tip-off was ignored.
However, it later emerged that the rape of a 30-year-old woman, in front of her children, had been reported to have occurred in a house that backed on to Plumstead Common.
Stagg was eventually given £706,000 compensation.
Cop Lizzie James — ordered to act as a “honeytrap” to elicit information from him — got £150,000.
A Police Complaints Commission report in 2010 concluded there had been a “catalogue of bad decisions and errors” in the investigation.
But when the Met decided not to pay them compensation, André and Alex took their fight to the European Court in 2012.
They postponed their battle after André fell ill. In their letter to the Met, Alex writes: “My father and I believe that the Metropolitan Police has an acknowledged yet outstanding moral debt towards us.
“We believe any payment awarded to us can be put to good use. The greater part would be dedicated to good causes through our soon-to-be established charitable foundation in our family name.”
André, now living in Barcelona with Alex, added: “My message to Mark Rowley is, ‘You need to fix your historic mistakes before you move forward.’”
Many crime victims turn to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, but Alex and André have approached the Met because of police errors.
The Sun on Sunday understands Sir Mark is responding to their letter.
The Met said: “Since the murder of Rachel Nickell the service has significantly changed how it investigates murders.
“This includes the development and professionalisation of police training, new forensics techniques and closer liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service.”
Family needs closure
By Dr Neil Hugell, compensation lawyer
THE sensible and preferred approach here is a direct appeal to the Commissioner.
If the Met has truly changed, he needs to say sorry on behalf of the organisation for the terrible wrongs which this family have suffered and prove it with meaningful compensation proposals.
What they said so many years ago, particularly about racism within the force and its impact on the investigation, ring so true today.
My experience of families in these awful situations is that they need proper and meaningful redress to begin to even contemplate some sort of closure.
Legal proceedings are never in anyone’s best interests. They take time and energy and cost.
But without a sensible resolution they would have to be in contemplation.