| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER THREE THE INQUIRY 3.1 On 31 July 1997 the Home Secretary announced in Parliament that
the terms of reference of this Inquiry would be:- "To inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22
April 1993 to date, in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the
investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes." Soon afterwards HM Attorney General authorised the Inquiry: "to undertake in respect of any person who provides evidence to the Inquiry
that no evidence he or she may give before the Inquiry, whether orally or by written
statement, nor any written statement made preparatory to giving evidence nor any document
produced by that person to the Inquiry will be used in evidence against him or her in any
criminal proceedings, except in proceedings where he or she is charged with having given
false evidence in the course of this Inquiry or with having conspired with or procured
others to do so". 3.2 The first preliminary hearing of the Inquiry took place at Woolwich on 8 October 1997. Then and thereafter full legal representation was allowed to those involved who merited representation and who applied for it. The names of Counsel and Solicitors are set out in the Appendices to this Report. We are grateful to all the teams of lawyers who took part in the Inquiry. 3.3 It had become obvious that all those parties required and deserved representation because the Inquiry would need to address specific issues, and criticism of the actions of many police officers would be expected. This became even more plain when the PCA Report was published in December 1997. That Report, in its short statutory form, and in the full text of the Kent inquiry, roundly and severely criticised many aspects of the MPS investigation, and specifically blamed individual officers. 3.4 Accordingly a detailed and comprehensive list of Issues was prepared by the Inquiry's legal team, in close consultation with other represented parties. Those officers who might be called to address each Issue were named in the comprehensive document. There can have been no possible doubt in the minds of any witness that his or her own actions and part in the investigation would be closely and critically examined. Furthermore the possible impact of racism and collusion was foreshadowed in those Issues. 3.5 All parties and witnesses were given every opportunity to see all potentially relevant documents which were disclosed to the Inquiry. It should be stressed that the Inquiry itself had few documents. All the vast documentation came from others. In particular the MPS, the PCA, Mr & Mrs Lawrence, the CPS and others helpfully provided the Inquiry with documents in their possession. The Inquiry expresses its gratitude for their co-operation. During the Inquiry we were particularly grateful to Detective Chief Inspector Ragna Tulloch and Police Constable Reg Perriss, who assisted not only the Inquiry but all parties who sought further documents or information from the MPS. 3.6 The Inquiry was alert to the principles which govern the conduct of inquiries generally. In particular we heeded the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry 1966 (the Salmon Report), and the six principles laid down by Lord Salmon. As Lord Bingham said in Crampton and others v Secretary of State for Health (9 July 1993) "...the rationale of the six cardinal principles is undoubtedly sound and anyone conducting an inquiry of this kind is well advised to have regard to them, (although) the Royal Commission Report itself has not been embodied in legislation and numerous inquiries have been conducted, and satisfactorily conducted, since 1966 without observing the letter of those principles". 3.7 In this case the Inquiry did send "Salmon" letters to virtually all witnesses before they came to give evidence. So that the gist of possible criticism was again transmitted to those involved. To their credit all the witnesses came to give evidence. 3.8 During the hearings complaint was made that the attack upon witnesses aimed particularly by Mr & Mrs Lawrence's legal team was wider and harder than had been foreshadowed. This matter was raised fully and formally and in public. The Inquiry required further notices to be given in this regard, before witnesses were called. In one instance a witness' evidence was interrupted, so that notice of additional allegations could be given. The witness was then recalled and agreed to further questioning. 3.9 Every witness was represented by leading and/or junior Counsel, and by his own or his professional body's solicitors. So that any suggestion of unfair treatment or surprise could have been and should have been raised during the hearings which lasted for 59 days, including the final submissions. 3.10 The criticisms and allegations against the police and individual officers were certainly hard-hitting. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the abject apologies offered by Assistant Commissioner Johnston and later by the Commissioner himself, this can have been no surprise to anybody, let alone the witnesses themselves. 3.11 In considering the Inquiry's procedures we stress the concluding words of Sir Richard Scott, in his lecture to the Chancery Bar Association on 2 May 1995:- "The golden rule is that there should be procedural flexibility, with procedures to achieve fairness tailored to suit the circumstances of each inquiry". We believe that our procedures did ensure fairness. It should be noted that the procedures were expressly or tacitly accepted by all the legal teams involved, throughout the preparatory months and the 59 days of our hearings. 3.12 Inquiries have many purposes. Some are concerned with establishing simply what happened and why. For example, the King's Cross Fire Inquiry and other railway accident inquiries have focused upon this purpose, the process of learning, and of establishing the facts. Some, such as the PCA inquiry in this case, focus upon discipline. Many inquiries, including this Inquiry, involve catharsis and close analysis of what may have gone wrong. 3.13 Our terms of reference required us to consider "the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence". The Inquiry came into existence because of explicit complaints and serious unease about the conduct by individual officers and the MPS itself of the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder. 3.14 It was obvious and publicly known that we would therefore have to decide whether criticisms of the investigation were made out, and whether individual officers and the team involved, or the MPS itself, should be blamed for the alleged failures of the investigation. It has also always been known that Mr & Mrs Lawrence's allegations included suggestions that the investigation had been flawed by racism and collusion. Hence full representation, and a procedure which was in the result adversarial rather than inquisitorial. 3.15 This has led to complaints, publicly made, that the Inquiry has allowed unfair cross-examination, and that the Inquiry has been "stage managed". The latter complaint was never particularised and can be dismissed as unworthy. The former complaint came from the Commissioner, in a statement read publicly on 20 April 1998 which included the following passages. The full text is in the transcript for Day 13. "The Commissioner appreciates the need for thorough and fearless investigation, which may well include criticism of police officers, but he is concerned that the confrontational nature of cross-examination of some of the police officers has not assisted the search for truth.... such cross-examination may be appropriate in adversarial procedures but not to an inquisitorial hearing, where it may lead to witnesses failing to do themselves justice by adopting an unduly defensive attitude..... . More seriously the Commissioner is concerned about the damage which is being done to the relationship between the police and the black community. If police witnesses are constantly pilloried by a barrage of confrontational cross-examination the attempts by the MPS to rebuild that relationship, which was seriously harmed in the aftermath of Stephen's murder, could be set back significantly". 3.16 Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching. But the harm to the relationship between the police and the black community was the result of police failures, and the answers to the questions rather than the nature of the questioning. It is of central importance that the Commissioner and his officers should recognise and accept this fact. Failure to do so can only reflect a lack of understanding of the essential problem and its depth, which would make progress difficult if not impossible. 3.17 We hope and believe that the first part of the Inquiry has achieved catharsis. Our Report does focus upon errors and criticisms. This was inevitable, given the origins of the Inquiry. Neither catharsis nor identification of those errors might have been achieved without searching cross-examination. We do not believe that the Commissioner's complaint was justified. 3.18 The Chairman, his Advisers and his legal team were throughout ready and willing to entertain any application for further information, or for time to consider any allegation made. Nobody listening to the whole of the case could with justification allege any unfairness in the procedures and conduct of the Inquiry. Ultimately in final submissions the only complaint made was voiced on behalf of Detective Chief Superintendent John Barker, the author of the flawed Review. We do not accept that the strong submission made on his behalf was justified. 3.19 At the end of the evidence the Inquiry adjourned for some six weeks. This gave all parties the chance to prepare written submissions. When the Inquiry reconvened every legal team was given a full opportunity to make oral submissions. These extended over three days. The written submissions were detailed and indeed voluminous. The MPS written submission alone ran to 230 pages, plus appendices. 3.20 It was probably not necessary to give further notice of possible conclusions which the Inquiry might reach. Suggestions that critical passages of the Report should be shown to those involved before publication were certainly inappropriate in this case, bearing in mind the procedure set out above. Even less appropriate was a suggestion made, and quickly dropped, that the Commissioner should see the full Report before it was handed to the Home Secretary. Since the conduct of the Inquiry was largely adversarial the Report is in this case in the nature of a judgement. It is thus markedly different from other inquiries which are wholly inquisitorial in nature and in conduct. 3.21 In order to ensure that no complaint of unfairness could possibly be made or sustained, letters were written before the Report was concluded to those persons against whom adverse findings might be made, so that any fresh comment might be made by them or on their behalf. 3.22 Only then and after further consideration of all the submissions made did the Inquiry reach its final conclusions, which are set out in this Report. 3.23 Three Advisers were appointed by the Home Secretary to advise and support the Chairman. These Advisers were Mr Tom Cook, retired Deputy Chief Constable for West Yorkshire; The Right Reverend Dr John Sentamu, the Bishop for Stepney; and Dr Richard Stone, Chair of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality. 3.24 The Inquiry's Advisers have been fully involved in every step and action taken since July 1997. They have all attended virtually every day of the hearings in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Inquiry. Their advice has been invaluable to the Chairman. Their contributions to the Report and to the conclusions and recommendations made have been imaginative, radical and of incalculable worth. Without their advice and support the Inquiry would have been infinitely less effective. This Report sets out the unanimous views of the Chairman and his three Advisers. 3.25 Counsel to the Inquiry were Mr Edmund Lawson QC, Miss Anesta Weekes and Mr John Gibson. Mr David Penry-Davey QC was appointed as leading Counsel initially, but upon his appointment to the High Court Bench Mr Edmund Lawson QC took over that onerous task. 3.26 The Solicitors to the Inquiry were Mr Peter Whitehurst and Miss Linda Dann. 3.27 The legal team prepared and conducted the case with skill and dedication. The Inquiry's debt to all those concerned is great. Mastery of the voluminous documents, preparation of the issues involved, organisation of the witnesses, and ultimately the calling and questioning of 88 witnesses involved much hard work and preparation, and the exercise of tact and discretion. Anybody listening to the evidence must have realised that the Inquiry's legal team presented the case fairly and fearlessly. Where criticism was necessary it came both from the Inquiry's legal team and from the represented parties. 3.28 Mr Stephen Wells has throughout been Secretary to the Inquiry and his Deputy is Miss Alison Foulds. Both of them have organised and conducted the administration of the Inquiry with matchless ability and energy. Setting up the Inquiry's headquarters at Hannibal House by 1 December 1997 was in itself a mammoth task. Dealing with every aspect of the Inquiry's work and activity here and elsewhere during exacting visits to other places during Part 2 of the Inquiry, was no lesser burden. Mr Wells and Miss Foulds have contributed immensely to the Inquiry's smooth running, sometimes in difficult and indeed challenging situations. Their dealings and relationship with the public have throughout been friendly and ever helpful. 3.29 Mr Michael Booker, the Inquiry's Press Officer, complemented the part played by our Secretary and his Deputy. He returned to New Zealand before our business was completed. His helpful and cheerful relationship with press and media representatives has been of great value during the highly publicised year during which he worked for the Inquiry. 3.30 Mrs Janet Crowl, Mr Gerry Ranson, and Miss Jayne Wiltshire completed the Inquiry's team. Mrs Crowl and Miss Wiltshire's secretarial and management skills have been invaluable. Mr Ranson's work with documentation, and in other fields, has been much appreciated. All three have helped to maintain the cohesion and the spirits of everybody involved throughout the Inquiry's life. We are grateful also for the secretarial skills of Miss Maureen Puttnam who joined our team for the final weeks of preparation of our Report. 3.31 We thank also the security officers and staff at Hannibal House. Their task has been much increased by our presence here. We also thank Superintendent John Godsave and his officers from Walworth Police Station, who have in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances helped to keep order when emotions ran high during some of our hearings. 3.32 We express our thanks to the staff of Legal Technologies Limited for the scanning of the documentation and to Sellers Imago who produced our running transcripts with great efficiency and cheerfulness. We also thank Miss Grace Vaughan for her skill in exhibiting documents on our screens on the instant throughout our hearings. 3.33 A detailed history of the Inquiry is included in the Appendices.
|
