| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER FORTY-TWO THE INQUEST 42.1 At the full hearing of the Inquest into the death of Stephen Lawrence (February 1997) the Coroner, Sir Montague Levine, explained to his jury the nature and purpose of the Inquest. He quoted a familiar 1982 dictum of the then Lord Chief Justice (Lord Lane) in this connection:- "....... an inquest is a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt. The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for one (namely a trial) are unsuitable for the other. ........ It is an inquisitorial process, a process of investigation, quite unlike a trial .... . ...... The proceedings and evidence at an Inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters, namely who the deceased was, how, when and where the deceased came by his death, and the particulars for the time being required by the legislative Acts to be registered concerning the death". 42.2 The Inquest had been formally opened on 5 August 1993, by Sir Montague, and it continued on 21 December 1993. Various parties were represented in December 1993. A jury was sworn to consider the evidence. The Coroner opened the case, clearly and shortly, and introduced the lawyers to the jury. The jury then retired, and the Coroner raised some preliminary matters as to the screening of certain witnesses and the method of calling young witnesses. 42.3 Mr Mansfield, on behalf of the Lawrence family, then indicated that he was seeking an adjournment. He said that there was fresh evidence which had led to the identification of "Three more individuals .... over and above the one that was originally identified". There was plainly some confusion about this, because (as the Coroner pointed out) two persons had been picked out in 1993 by Mr Brooks as being involved in the murder. But Mr Mansfield said in terms that "there are another three people who .... are now identified ....". Mr Mansfield added that there was further information which might lead or "point to named individuals .... who are the subject of the identification ....". He also said that there could be evidence available from ".... a potential witness who disappeared at the time but is known to be an associate of at least one or two of the alleged assailants." Finally he said that there was ".... information, possibly, and I put it no higher, because it relates to a professional position, possibly available in relation to one of the statements made by one of the suspects about this whole incident." There is much mystery about this allegedly potent evidence. Nothing later came of it. 42.4 Plainly, however, Mr Mansfield was acting upon instructions, and he indicated that since the "prosecuting authorities are not going to take the matter further then the family is, and the family would intend given the further information which they did not have until today, that this matter may form a private prosecution ....". 42.5 Counsel for the MPS, Mr Wiggs, said that "Most of what my friend has said to you just a moment ago is completely new to me ....", and he asked for time to consider the matter. He indicated, understandably, that the information given to the police as to fresh evidence was "vague", and seemed to consist of (sic) "... a name that has been given of two people who might be able to assist with the Inquiry". 42.6 The Coroner indicated his fear that a future hearing might be prejudiced if the Inquest went ahead with the use of restricted evidence. Mr Mansfield returned to his reasons for seeking an adjournment, and although he did not say who the possible fresh witnesses were he said that his four categories of further evidence were ".... not nebulous. The information we have is very specific and in one case dramatic," and he said that "This information comes from a reputable source". 42.7 The Local Authority (Greenwich Council) indicated through Counsel, Miss Gearey, that it was involved in the reception or the passing on of some unidentified relevant information to the police. 42.8 The Coroner was understandably unhappy about what had happened. After a short adjournment he indicated that he proposed to put the matter over for a few weeks. In a wisely short ruling to the jury Sir Montague said that " .... there is a suggestion that there is some new evidence which has just come to light - in the interests of fairness and justice, and being mindful of the possible prejudicing of a future hearing, possibly in another court, I am going to adjourn for a set period". Sir Montague made an appeal to " .... anyone with any information, no matter how tenuous, or possibly trivial, to come forward in the interests of justice and fairness to all concerned". The jury were discharged, and no future date was fixed. 42.9 There was one further date for the Inquest scheduled later (10 October 1994). But as we know the private prosecution did go ahead, and the full Inquest hearing did not take place until February 1997. 42.10 We have set these preliminary matters out in some detail because they illustrate yet again the strange and unsatisfactory nature of the progress of this case. The evidence referred to by Mr Mansfield certainly turned out to be unavailable. When the private prosecution went ahead it does not appear that there was new "dramatic" or "specific" evidence available to Mr & Mrs Lawrence's legal team other than that which had become available in the first months of the investigation. 42.11 It was natural that Mr & Mrs Lawrence should wish to pursue any opportunity to obtain justice after their son's murder. However, as the events unfolded the adjournment of the first Inquest was achieved upon scant evidence and information. The root of their frustration and disappointment lay in the failure by the police to give any information about the first investigation; the failure to explain why the prosecution was as they saw it "abandoned"; and why there was a lack of viable evidence. They did not believe in the police's well publicised explanation namely that there was "a wall of silence". 42.12 The full Inquest was held in February 1997. Mr Mansfield again led for the Lawrence family. Mr Gompertz (wrongly named Gumplett throughout the transcript) represented the Commissioner of the MPS. Both the Acourts and David Norris and Luke Knight were represented by Mr Conway. Miss Hawley appeared for Mr Brooks. The jury were sworn, and the Coroner opened the case to them, after calling officers to prove maps and photographs of the area involved. 42.13 The Coroner then called Mrs Lawrence. He dealt with her with conspicuous care and sympathy. Mrs Lawrence gave her evidence about her son and about the awful circumstances of his death clearly and fully. It would be unfair and unhelpful to summarise all that she said. The full transcript is available as a matter of record. At the end she said that she had "written something down [about] Stephen, I'll just get myself together". The Coroner told her to take her time - and she then read the following prepared statement. It is necessary to set it out in full, since it vividly summarises Mrs Lawrence's own views at that time:- "My son was murdered nearly four years ago; his killers are still walking the streets, when my son was murdered the police saw my son as a criminal belonging to a gang. My son was stereotyped by the police, he was black then he must be a criminal and they set about investigating him and us. The investigation lasted two weeks, that allowed vital evidence to be lost, my son's crime is that he was walking down the road looking for a bus that would take him home. Our crime is living in a country where the justice system supports racists murders against innocent people. The value that this white racists country puts on black lives is evidence as seen since the killing of my son. In my opinion what had happened in the Crown Court last year was staged. It was decided long before we entered the court room what would happened but the judge would not allow the evidence to be presented to the jury. In my opinion what had happened was the way of the judicial system making a clear statement saying to the black community that their lives are worth nothing and the justice system will support any one, any white person who wishes to commit any crime or even murder against a black person, you will be protected, you will be supported by the British system. To the black community your lives are nothing you do not have feelings, you do not have any rights to the law in this country that is only here to protect the white man and his family and not you. Since my son's murder we as a family have not been able to grieve for the loss of Stephen, even though the system was against us we tried to re-address this injustice against us, we felt we have to and with the dedication of our legal team and supporters we mounted our own private prosecution to seek justice for our murdered son. I hope our family will be the last, even though there is no sign to the date, will be the last to put through this night mare which it has been for us. There needs to be changes for the future, the establishment needs to have in place a system that will allow all crimes to be treated in the same way and not to be investigated, and to be investigated in the same way regardless of who the victim, of who the perpetrators might be, not to have one rule for the white and another for the black people who just happened to be in the investigation into the murder of Stephen to that of a white boy who was killed in Kings Cross. We as a family felt because the early stages which would have given the evidence that would have ensure that those who killed my son would have paid for their crime, they wasted that time because as far as they were concerned for them to come across a young black man who had no criminal record who is studying that is something they seem to be unaware of. They were very patronising to me in the early stages and instead of them being a support to us they became to be an injury because they were not supporting us as a family every time we spoke to them it was like a banter that we had to go through we had to fight, on one occasion when I went, that was the first time that I ever went to a police station, my husband and a group of us, I felt that maybe they didn't get all the information, the names that were coming to us, I personally wrote the names down and I took it to the station, as I walked in I presented it to one of the officers and while we were there talking I sat and watched him and he folded the paper and rolled it into a ball in his hand and at the end of our meeting I said to him you are going to put that in the bin now and he said to me no, no, we treat all the information we have but at the time they would not taking my son's case as they should have done." 42.14 There followed considerable discussion about the evidence to be called. In particular, the question of how much Mr Brooks might be asked (as to the names and identification of those involved) loomed large. Mr Mansfield accepted that he could not ask him "about identification about the various people that were there". Everybody realised that the position was a tricky one, because Mr Brooks' identification evidence had effectively been eliminated at the Central Criminal Court. 42.15 Miss Hawley stressed the state of Mr Brooks' health. The Coroner saw a consultant psychiatrist's report about Mr Brooks, but pointed out that Mr Brooks had said to the doctor that he did want to come to give evidence. Again the Coroner was most thoughtful and sympathetic in his approach to Mr Brooks as he started his testimony. The Coroner took him carefully through his evidence. Mr Brooks described the quick and terrible attack upon Stephen Lawrence, led (as he said then) by one man in front who had dark hair. "He was tall, slim and dark", said Mr Brooks. "He starts to draw something out of his trousers .... it was just long". This evidence again confirms the understandably confused state of Mr Brooks' memory of the event. 42.16 Then Mr Brooks described all that followed, when both he and then Stephen ran up the road to the point where Stephen collapsed. He told the jury about his telephone call for an ambulance, and about the arrival of the police, and about all that happened at the hospital. At the end of the Coroner's examination Mr Brooks described two more of the people involved - "There was another one that was shorter, he had blonde hair. .... Another one that had short black hair .... he wasn't tall or short". 42.17 Mr Mansfield asked Mr Brooks questions - primarily perhaps in order to elicit further descriptions of some of those involved. Other Counsel did not cross-examine. 42.18 There then followed a considerable body of familiar evidence. Royston Westbrook and Joseph Shepherd (both at the bus stop with Stephen Lawrence) gave their accounts of all that they had seen. Largely their evidence was "led" by the Coroner, using their early statements made to the Police. Neither witness had identified any person on any parade. Both gave descriptions, so far as they could, of some aspects of the men involved in the murder. Mr Shepherd told the Court of the unfortunate way in which he was "named" at the identification parade. He would not attend further parades although "They did make several attempts to drag me along to 'em!" Mademoiselle Marie's statement was read out. 42.19 Then the police officers who came to the scene were called (PC Geddis, PC Gleason, PC Bethel and Acting Inspector Little). Mr Mansfield, understandably, asked questions (particularly of Mr Little) about what had or had not been done at the scene. He was pursuing the lines which both we and the PCA have subsequently followed in this regard. Mr Conway interjected after a time, saying that " .... we are getting miles away from the purpose of these proceedings". 42.20 In this respect we have some sympathy both for Mr Mansfield and the Coroner. Mr Mansfield was acting for the family who believed that much had gone wrong in connection with the policing of this crime, both as to "action" and as to family liaison. Here were witnesses who could deal with all of that. The Coroner rightly allowed latitude in the questioning of witnesses, but at the same time he was fully conscious (as his opening indicated) that the remit of the Inquest was limited to when, where, and by what means Stephen Lawrence met his death. 42.21 Negligence in policing after the death was not strictly within the province of the Inquest. Yet some flavour of the family's complaints or unhappiness was inevitably being voiced. Furthermore, as their own questions showed, members of the jury were themselves interested in the investigation that followed the death. 42.22 The pathologist and the Ambulance Service Controller gave evidence. And then the Coroner indicated that he was about to call "the first of some boys I've called to this Court ....". These were, of course, the five suspects. Three had been acquitted at the Central Criminal Court. Two had not been committed for trial. Counsel (Mr Conway) acting for the two Acourts, Mr Knight and Mr Norris argued that they should not be called. The discussion was somewhat diffuse, but Counsel was questioning both the basis and the fairness of calling these witnesses. He indicated that they would refuse to answer questions and would in traditional terms make "no comment". Mr Mansfield argued that the witnesses should be called, so that he could at least ask them (for example) whether "they were there" on the night of the murder. 42.23 Eventually the Coroner gave his reasons why he intended to call the five young men. His aim was, he said, to try to establish the full facts. He said that he believed that " .... particular persons may have knowledge of the facts of the death, and it would be expedient to call such persons; the factors which lead me to such a conclusion are, that it is widely suspected that the five men knew more about the death than hitherto appeared. Just knew more, I don't say commit, but the anxiety in the community amongst black and white members that all the facts should become known because of the evidence that the death was racially motivated". 42.24 The Coroner was in a difficult position. He was rightly most sympathetic to Mr & Mrs Lawrence. He was also fully conscious of the boundaries of the Inquest. We fully understand why the Coroner decided as he did, if only in the hope that at least some of Mr & Mrs Lawrence's worries might be allayed. 42.25 As it turned out nobody gained anything by calling these witnesses because they all simply refused to answer virtually all questions, in spite of Mr Mansfield's protestation that certainly the three who had been acquitted had no basis for arguing that their answers might incriminate them. Neil Acourt (and Mr Conway) simply put up the shutters. "I'm claiming privilege, yes, full stop", was Neil Acourt's attitude and his assertion. Mr Mansfield pressed and pressed Neil Acourt to answer, but he would not do so. 42.26 Luke Knight adopted the same course. He did in fact answer one or two questions, including one which indicated a denial that he had been at or near the scene of the incident. But in effect he kept his silence, and claimed privilege. 42.27 David Norris refused to answer any questions. "Are you called Mr Norris", asked Mr Mansfield, in some exasperation. "I'm claiming privilege", said Mr Norris, to general ironic laughter. 42.28 It was indicated that Jamie Acourt and Gary Dobson would also refuse to answer questions. Mr Mansfield argued that the conduct of the witnesses amounted to "an abuse and it amounts to a contempt". A long and sometimes acrimonious discussion followed, and eventually Jamie Acourt was called. He claimed privilege, in parrot fashion, repeating the well rehearsed mantra, "I claim privilege" almost throughout. Gary Dobson behaved virtually in the same way. He did agree that murdering "anyone for no other reason than the colour of their skin is particularly serious", but he would not deal with any of the other questions put to him about his jacket and other matters. 42.29 This part of the Inquest must have been both frustrating and indeed almost farcical to the jury. We fully understand the Coroner's reasons for summoning the five suspects to Court and calling them. Although the fact is that calling them did, in fact, achieve nothing. Some may argue that the manner in which the "five" claimed privilege against self-incrimination, by putting the shutters up right from the start, earned themselves the description of "the five suspects" which is how they will always be regarded by the public. The Coroner is not to be criticised for the situation which developed. He must have been as much frustrated as the jury. It is doubtful whether these men were acting within their legal rights by their blanket refusal to answer. But no steps were taken to challenge their lawyers' advice which plainly led to their decision to remain arrogantly silent. 42.30 A great deal more evidence was then called. How much of it was strictly necessary is again not truly for us to say. The Coroner hoped that he could, by calling such evidence, defuse Mr & Mrs Lawrence's unhappiness and produce some answers to the many questions in their minds about the case. In the end we doubt whether the volume of evidence achieved this or served much purpose. But again this is simply the fact, and we do not criticise the Coroner in any way for calling many witnesses and for allowing many questions to be asked which were in reality upon the fringe of the Inquest's remit, if not altogether outside it. 42.31 PC Gleason gave evidence. Witness B was called. His evidence has already been the subject of considerable comment. He was allowed to say that he had seen Jamie Acourt (or Neil Acourt) and David Norris at the scene, as he watched from the top of the bus. The same challenges were made to him as had been made at the Magistrates' Court, when his evidence as to identity of those two had largely been discredited. 42.32 Mr Groves' evidence was read to the jury. Mr Jeynes gave evidence. Mr Mansfield was understandably sceptical about the efficiency and methods of the police and, without much objection, he asked many questions which were critical of what had been done or left undone. The Coroner wondered whether "we should go down too many channels and widen the scope because I think to no purpose". But sensibly he did allow Mr Mansfield considerable scope, on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. 42.33 Detective Chief Inspector John Carnt was the last witness. He had only joined the
Plumstead ranks in 1996, but the Coroner asked him about the initial inquiries, and about
the sequence of events of the police activity, gleaned from records and statements. Many
of his, and later of Mr Mansfield's, questions were in truth asked because of the
criticisms by 42.34 Finally, the Coroner summed up to the jury. He dealt fairly and fully with the case. He was admirably sympathetic to Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and also to Mr Brooks. He summed up the factual evidence well and thoroughly. He also dealt with much of the evidence called as to the police and what they had done or not done. And he directed the jury very positively as to the questions to be answered by them. Furthermore, he rightly told the jury that there was really only one available verdict, namely that Stephen Lawrence was unlawfully killed. When the jury returned from retirement that was the verdict given. They added the details required and indicated that they wished to say (as the Coroner recorded) that Stephen Lawrence was killed "in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths". 42.35 The Coroner again sympathetically referred to that verdict and then he said this:- "Now I say this with all the sincerity at my command. Society must increase its efforts to rid itself of the paranoia of racism and its intolerance. We must teach our young, both in the family and in our schools that each individual, regardless of their race, regardless of their colour, regardless of their religion has the right to live peacefully without any fear or intimidation. These levels must extend to all levels of our society. Stephen LAWRENCE's death should always be a focus of our determination to eradicate racial intolerance. Now I am sure I am echoing the sentiments of everyone in this court when I extend my deepest sympathy to Mr and Mrs LAWRENCE and their family in their tragic bereavement and I know that all the police I have been in contact with feel exactly the same way. I wish them well." He made suggestions about the need for "a review of local intelligence computerised data banks in police stations". And he ended with a wish for racial harmony. 42.36 As we understand it this was the last Inquest held by this distinguished Coroner. He was appropriately thanked by Counsel. 42.37 After the Inquest a statement was read out publicly on behalf of Mrs Lawrence:- "First of all I wish to express my gratitude to the Coroner, Sir Montague LEVINE, for giving me the opportunity to tell some of the experience of my family and I have been suffering in the last three and a half years since the murder of our son. There were times this week when I was not sure whether I was in a court room listening to evidence of how my son was killed, or at a circus watching a performance. The performance of someone who is a member of the Bar trying his best to keep the truth from coming out of who was involved in the murder of my son. The performance did not end there. It became a mockery of trying to get to the truth. What was coming across for me was that none of the officers saw it fit to go round to known suspects homes even just to eliminate them from the enquiry. The wall of silence was not only in the surrounding area where my son was killed but with the police officers who were supposed to be investigating the crime. What I have seen and heard in the last three days only confirms what I have been saying all along. Right from the start, the night our son was murdered, it seems that in minds of the police he was only a black boy, why bother. No-one can convince me otherwise the evidence is clear to see by the action they took or didn't take. What had shocked me, then again I should not be shocked because black people in the past have talked about the treatment they have received at the hands of the police. Nevertheless what I was hearing was, none of the police officers attending the scene made any attempts to see if there was anything they could do. They just stood there while my son bleeds to death. None of them check to see where the blood was coming from. No-one checked to see how serious his injuries were, they just stood there waiting for the ambulance. Maybe there was nothing they could have done to save him. But the fact was they never even tried, that says it all. There are two questions I would like the police to answer, are all officers trained in basic first aid, or was it because they just did not want to get their hands dirty with a black mans blood. Before yesterday I was beginning to think there might be the odd few police officers who believed in justice for all. Whatever trust that I was beginning to build up again towards the police shattered yesterday. I suppose once a policeman always a policeman who protects their own and not the black community." 42.38 The measure and depth of the Lawrence family's feeling are only too evident from the two statements made by Mrs Lawrence. 42.39 On 13 February 1997, (the day when the Inquest was completed), Mrs Lawrence made her formal complaint to the Commissioner of the MPS, through her solicitors, "against those officers responsible for the investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder on the night of 22 April 1993 and the period thereafter [the first investigation]." 42.40 Before leaving the Inquest we should stress that Sir Montague handled a difficult and somewhat fraught hearing with sensitivity and common sense. He knew full well the boundaries which must be imposed upon an Inquest. He rightly saw that some elasticity must be allowed to those boundaries. No criticism has ever been made of his conduct of the case. He is to be applauded for his handling of a delicate situation. 42.41 As to the lawyers' decision to advise the five men to remain silent we have little to add. It must be remembered that two of them were still able to be prosecuted. Persons who are discharged by a Magistrate, as they were, can legally be brought to trial as a result of a voluntary bill of indictment obtained from a High Court Judge, or by a fresh committal. Anything said on oath by them, or by the three who had been acquitted at trial, might be damaging to the fair trial of the two who were still liable to prosecution. Also an inquest is not a trial. So that once the method of Stephen Lawrence's killing (how the death came about) was proved, it was not necessary to establish the identity of the group of violent men who committed the murder, and the Coroner would not have allowed this to be done.
|
