CHAPTER FORTY-THREE

IMRAN KHAN

43.1 The last two days of the evidence called before the Inquiry consisted of the testimony of Imran Khan. He is a solicitor of the Supreme Court, having been admitted in October 1991. Since then he has worked with the firm of J R Jones in which he is now a partner. He had had no previous contact with Mr & Mrs Lawrence before the murder of their son. Mr Khan's introduction to the case came as a result of a telephone call from Junior Counsel, Martin Soorjoo, who had apparently been instructed previously in other matters by Mr Khan.

43.2 That call was on Friday 23 April 1993, the day after Stephen's murder, and Mr Soorjoo indicated that Mr Khan could expect to receive a telephone call asking if he could assist the family of Stephen. Mr Khan apparently had some experience of helping victims or families in previous cases of racist attacks. His general experience was limited and he had only been a solicitor for about 18 months before his contact with Mr & Mrs Lawrence.

43.3 There followed a telephone call from a Miss Palma Black who was a member of the Anti Racist Alliance, known throughout this Inquiry as ARA. She asked Mr Khan to attend at the family's home and she gave Mr Khan Mr & Mrs Lawrence's telephone number. Miss Black told Mr Khan to announce himself as the ARA lawyer. Mr Khan was not at all happy to do that, since he has no direct connection with the ARA and he was not in any sense their lawyer.

43.4 He telephoned Mr & Mrs Lawrence's home on the Friday afternoon and he told the Inquiry that he arranged to go there on Sunday 25 April 1993. There is some documentary evidence which suggests that it was known that Mr Khan would be attending Mr & Mrs Lawrence on Saturday 24 April. But we accept that the first actual attendance at Mr & Mrs Lawrence's home by Mr Khan was on Sunday 25 April.

43.5 There Mr Khan first met Neville Lawrence, and a number of people who were also present at the house including members of the ARA. There was some discussion as to whether another lawyer, a Mr Reid, who had previously been in touch with the family might be the more appropriate solicitor to act since he worked in south-east London. Mr Lawrence however wished Mr Khan to act, and from then onwards Mr Khan was solicitor for Mr & Mrs Lawrence.

43.6 On the first occasion when Mr Khan attended at Mr & Mrs Lawrence's home DS Bevan and DC Holden were present. It is interesting to note that Mr Khan told the Inquiry that he observed that these two were "nothing but supportive on that particular day". Other than that Mr Khan made little reference in his evidence to the state of the family liaison and the relationship between Mr & Mrs Lawrence and DS Bevan and DC Holden. But he appreciated early on that the family liaison was in difficulties, and he was present on 6 May at the meeting between Mr Ilsley, Mr Philpott and Mr & Mrs Lawrence.

43.7 There are those who express surprise that a solicitor acted at all for Mr & Mrs Lawrence in the early days after the murder. It is apparent that where there is a publicised racist attack many people may come quickly to the victim's home. The ARA were very early on the scene, and so was a representative of GACARA; and apparently other organisations sent representatives to Mr & Mrs Lawrence in the early days. There was a suggestion that a candle lit vigil should be held organised by GACARA. This in fact did not take place. It is plain that Mr & Mrs Lawrence felt that others were taking over the management of their affairs without proper consultation or instructions.

43.8 It may well be that the presence of the various agencies and indeed of a solicitor in the early days was unfamiliar particularly to DS Bevan and DC Holden. We have dealt already with the problems which arose in connection with family liaison. The fact is that police officers who are involved in family liaison must accept a bereaved family as they find it. By that we mean that the way in which a black family reacts to a tragedy such as this may well be different from the reaction of a white family. It is the business of the police to ensure that they fit in with the customs and behaviour of those to whom they are attached for family liaison purposes. Otherwise the relationship is doomed from the start. The presence of a solicitor may well have been unfamiliar to DS Bevan and DC Holden in the circumstances. But the family is perfectly entitled to use a solicitor if they wish, and every step must be taken to fit in with the family's wishes and the family's arrangements.

43.9 It is apparent that DS Bevan was reluctant to give information to Mr & Mrs Lawrence which they sought. We have already commented upon this in other chapters of this Report. The fact that DS Bevan was both an active member of the investigating team and the liaison officer to Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and incidentally to Mr Brooks as well, led to problems and difficulty. DS Bevan felt reluctant to give information as to the steps being taken in the investigation, and this created a problem for Mr & Mrs Lawrence who were most eager to obtain up to date information as to what was happening.

43.10 Mr Khan quickly became involved in the search for information. We know that he wrote letters dated 26, 27 and 28 April seeking information on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. Effectively Mr Khan sought details of the present state of the investigation. He wished to know whether there were suspects who had been identified, arrested or interviewed, or whether there was any likelihood of these steps being taken. He wished to know whether witnesses were being interviewed and traced and he also asked for details in relation to the post mortem examination. He also asked for confirmation that, as had been stated publicly, the police remained committed to the view that this was a racist murder.

43.11 Mr & Mrs Lawrence were perfectly entitled to be given this information or at least to be told why the information could not be made available to them. On the other hand the arrangements made for sending the letters to Mr Weeden and the AMIP team were not the best. Two of the letters, namely those dated 26 and 27 April were faxed to Mr Weeden on the morning of 27 April within a few hours of each other. And in the last letter Mr Khan threatened to make a report to the Commissioner of MPS if the answers were not made available.

43.12 It is not right to describe the correspondence as a "bombardment" of requests. At the same time we can understand why Mr Weeden was surprised by the correspondence. It should however have been the catalyst for him to seek personally to visit Mr Khan and the family in order to ensure that relations were satisfactory. Instead, and quite wrongly in our view, he decided that he must detach any relationship between Mr Khan and the police from the AMIP team. This was done on 30 April by the somewhat strange arrangement made through and by Mr Adams to which reference is made elsewhere (Chapter 31). Mr Adams' letter referred to the investigators being "inundated with inquiries".

43.13 Mr Khan described the correspondence as "sniper fire". The fact is that the three letters did not lead to a happy relationship between the senior police officers and Mr Khan. Again however it does seem to us that it is the duty of the police to be tolerant and understanding in cases of this kind, and to conduct of this kind by a solicitor. It is unusual that requests should be made in somewhat peremptory fashion and in legal language so early in the investigation of a murder. But it is not for the police to tell a family and their lawyer how to behave.

43.14 There was also a lack of satisfactory communication between Mr Khan and the liaison officers during the first week after the murder. Names of suspects were reaching the family which Mr Khan passed on to DC Holden. DC Holden had a mobile telephone, and Mr Khan recalls that she was irritated by his late night call during the night of 29/30 April. Mr Khan said in evidence that it was his impression that DC Holden did not treat the names of the suspects as crucial information. The fact is that any information which came from Mr Khan was processed into the system. It is plain that the connection between Mr Khan and the liaison officers was not happy.

43.15 Later, on 11 May 1993, Mr Khan was instructed by the family to write to various organisations including GACARA indicating that their presence was not wanted at the family home. The family's instructions were that communications should be addressed to the Anti Racist Alliance who were still represented at Mr & Mrs Lawrence's home at that time.

43.16 A suggestion was made in the first week that Mr & Mrs Lawrence might attend the Incident Room. Mrs Lawrence was unenthusiastic about that proposal in any event, and the family was unhappy that the police decided that they would not invite their solicitor to attend with them. This was another irritation between Mr Khan and the family and the police, and another symptom of the failure of the liaison.

43.17 On 6 May 1993 there was the meeting between Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Nelson Mandela, of which Mr Khan was ignorant until after it had taken place. He was however present at the meeting on 6 May with Mr Ilsley and Mr Philpott. Mr Khan told us that although he had little specific recollection of the details of the meeting Mr & Mrs Lawrence did appear to have been reassured to some extent. On the other hand the incident involving the note with the names of suspects given by Mrs Lawrence to Mr Ilsley took place at that meeting, and Mr Khan remembers that as the meeting dispersed Mrs Lawrence said that she believed that the police would pay no attention to the information that she had given them.

43.18 Mr Khan indicates that his general impression of the meetings between the family and Mr Ilsley after 6 May was that by and large they were cordial. He gave no details of what took place at those meetings, and indeed his evidence is in general terms somewhat vague as to what was said on specific occasions when he was present. Exactly what his role was after the very early requests for information had been made is uncertain. But he was there or thereabouts during the whole of the time up to and after the discontinuance of the proceedings which took place at the end of July 1993. Mr Khan was in fact telephoned by Mr Bullock who told him that the CPS had advised that there was insufficient evidence and that there would be a discontinuance, but that the police investigations would continue.

43.19 That was the first intimation given to Mr Khan that the CPS were even considering discontinuance. Mr Khan had contact with Mr Medwynter and Mr Grant-Whyte, since he hoped to try to arrange some system whereby there could be liaison meetings between the CPS and the family. But he had not been told that discontinuance was contemplated. At that time Mr & Mrs Lawrence were in Jamaica, and it is most regrettable that the discontinuance took place in their absence and that no proper arrangements were made to warn them that this was to occur.

43.20 On 2 August Mr Khan met Mr Ilsley and Mr Philpott, and it was his impression that there was a measure of disagreement between the police and the CPS as to the sufficiency of the evidence available to take the matter further.

43.21 There is considerable dispute between Mr Barker and Mr Khan as to Mr Khan's availability during the period of Mr Barker's Review. Mr Barker says that he made numerous telephone calls and attempts to contact Mr Khan but that there was never any satisfactory response. Mr Khan says that the investigating team had all his telephone numbers, and that there should have been no difficulty in contacting him should Mr Barker have seriously wished to see him. As a result Mr Khan had no input into the Review and indeed he only heard that it had been completed from a member of the family. He knew from Mr & Mrs Lawrence that they had seen Mr Barker, but he really played no part in the connection between them and Mr Barker during the review period. Mr Khan said that he was not told what was the content of the Review, but he knew that the impression to be gained from reading the Review was that the investigation had been satisfactory and that there had been nothing amiss with the first investigation.

43.22 On 2 May 1993 Mr Khan saw Mr Brooks. He told us that he then and there became Mr Brooks' solicitor. There is no evidence showing that he was retained to act formally as Mr Brooks' solicitor. However, Mr Khan accepts that that was the case, and in his evidence he accepted that he should have provided greater support for Mr Brooks in the early days.

43.23 It seems to us strange that Mr Khan should have become involved with Mr Brooks who was a vital and most important potential prosecution witness. There is some criticism to be levelled against Mr Khan, who interviewed Mr Brooks without the police being told that this was to take place. He furthermore took a statement from Mr Brooks, and a detailed note was made by a solicitor called Ratip of the conversation which took place on 2 May. Mr Ratip's evidence was highly unsatisfactory, and little reliance can be placed upon anything said or recorded by him. The note of the conversation and of the meeting between Mr Brooks and Mr Ratip and Mr Khan did not surface until shortly before evidence was given by Mr Brooks and Mr Khan at the Central Criminal Court in 1996.

43.24 Mr Khan says that he believed that the documents concerning his meeting with Mr Brooks were protected by solicitor/client privilege. That note and the evidence of Mr Ratip and Mr Khan played its part in the destruction of the validity of the evidence of Mr Brooks at the Old Bailey. The note suggested that Mr Brooks might have been shown statements of other witnesses, so that his identification of Mr Acourt and Mr Knight was thereby flawed. We have not relied upon that note, having seen Mr Ratip in the witness box.

43.25 The last contact that Mr Khan had directly with Mr Brooks as a client was, according to Mr Khan in June 1993. Later, probably in November or December 1993, Miss Jane Deighton came to act for Mr Brooks, and she has continued to be his solicitor until the present day. Letters were written by Mr Brooks to Mr Khan indicating dissatisfaction, for example, in respect of the security of his home which Mr Khan had promised to undertake. It is apparent that for some reason which is unexplained Mr Brooks was plainly cool towards Mr Khan and felt he had let him down in various respects.

43.26 Criticism has been made of the police for their failure to ensure that Mr Brooks was looked after as a victim and was properly counselled and assisted. Some of that criticism must be deflected to Mr Khan, since he was Mr Brooks' solicitor and it was his duty to his client, as he accepts, to see that proper steps were taken to ensure that this vital witness who was also a victim of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence was properly looked after and properly protected and cared for.

43.27 When Mr Khan was cross examined it did appear that attendance notes and copies of letters written by him were missing. Simply for example the letter written to Mr Barrah of GACARA on 11 May 1993 to which reference has been made was not contained within Mr Khan's own files. Furthermore various attendance notes and other documents were missing from his files. What he said was that there had been a "reshuffling of the files" in 1993 or 1994. The Inquiry has been given unfettered access to Mr Khan's files. A number of documents are not there to assist the Inquiry.

43.28 Mr Khan was cross examined by Mr Gompertz on behalf of the Commissioner of the MPS. It is purposeless to try to rehearse the whole of that cross examination now. It is available for anyone who wishes to read it. The main suggestion was that Mr Khan should bear a measure of responsibility for the failure of the connection between the police and the family. It is a feature of the case that Mr & Mrs Lawrence were very upset by the questions which were asked of them in connection with a pair of gloves and a hat found at the scene of the murder. Mr & Mrs Lawrence's reaction to the questions asked of them and indeed to investigations which were being made about the background of Stephen Lawrence and of the family was understandable. They were suspicious of the police and they believed that the police were acting with insensitivity, and indeed were harassing young people who were known to Stephen Lawrence by suggesting that he might have been involved in some sort of gang. Furthermore they believed that the questions about the hat and the gloves implied that Stephen had been involved in some nefarious activity on the night of his murder.

43.29 The police say correctly that these investigations and questions were routine. But it is obvious that Mr & Mrs Lawrence were very much upset by them, and there is no doubt but that the way in which these matters were approached was insensitive. The police should have realised that great sensitivity was required in these respects, and should have meticulously prepared the ground before such questions were raised either with the family themselves or with Mr Khan.

43.30 We do not accept that it is established that Mr Khan could or should have intervened, or that he had any duty to explain police methods, or to salvage the situation on behalf of the police. No doubt the police did find it awkward to deal with Mr Khan, and the course of correspondence and telephone calls in the first two or three days did not help the relationship between himself and the police to get off on the right foot.

43.31 It would be wrong to criticise Mr Khan, since he was doing what the family wished him to do and they had confidence in the methods which he was employing. Furthermore he believed once Mr Ilsley took over the family liaison that things were reasonably satisfactory.

43.32 It can be said that Mr Khan may have allowed a somewhat cavalier attitude in connection with appointments to damage the relationship between himself and the police. Mr Ilsley prepared and set out a catalogue of cancellations and postponements of meetings which cannot have assisted the relationship. Mr Khan was ready to criticise, and to contact the media, more than might be expected. This also may not have assisted the relationship between him and the police. It is the duty of the police to ensure good relations both with a bereaved family and its representatives.

43.34 Mr Gompertz also questioned Mr Khan about a young man named Dean Simpson, who was known to both Stephen Lawrence and Mr Brooks. The police wished to see Mr Simpson, because a message on 28 April from another friend named Oduro suggested that Mr Simpson had pertinent information indicating that a man named Mutts might have been involved in the murder.

43.35 DC Holden spoke to Mrs Lawrence about this, and she said that she would try to get Mr Simpson's mother to contact the police.

43.36 Soon thereafter Mr Khan seems to have become involved. He says that he persuaded Mr Simpson to agree eventually to co-operate with the police.

43.37 The evidence on this topic may indicate that on occasions Mr Khan was difficult to contact. We see no solid basis for other criticism of him.

43.38 As to his connection with Mr Brooks it is of significance that there was contact between Mr Brooks and Mr Khan during at least one of the identification parades attended by Mr Brooks. Exactly why there was telephone communication between the two of them is uncertain. Apparently Mr Brooks indicated that he wished to speak to Mr Khan, and he was allowed to make his telephone call. Mr Westbrook reports that Mr Brooks seemed to be giving a running account of the identity parade to the person at the other end of the telephone, and when the call was finished Mr Brooks came back into the room and asked questions and wanted to know whether anyone else had identified persons on the parade, and he sought addresses from the witnesses. Mr Khan says that he does not recollect having any telephone conversation with Mr Brooks. We have no doubt that there was such a conversation. The connection between Mr Brooks and Mr Khan is a curious one.

43.39 After the discontinuance in July 1993 Mr Khan continued to act for Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and indeed he has been their solicitor ever since. Probably late in 1993 Mr Mansfield was briefed, and a team of junior counsel has also played its part since the end of 1993.

43.40 In particular the legal team took on the private prosecution, and worked closely with Mr Nove, Mr Mellish and Mr Carnt.

43.41 The CPS, particularly through Mr Youngerwood, had indicated that it would be unwise to go ahead with the private prosecution, because there simply was not satisfactory or sufficient evidence available to support it. Chapter 39 deals with this advice.

43.42 The attitude of the police was that the decision to go ahead was not for them to make. Assistant Commissioner Johnston realised that the case was weak, and so did Mr Nove and Mr Mellish. But their decision was that they would do all that they could to support the prosecution, should Mr & Mrs Lawrence's legal team decide to go ahead. This was a proper attitude for the police to adopt, and it is certain that they did provide every assistance in connection with the production of witnesses and documents.

43.43 We fully appreciate the feelings of Mr & Mrs Lawrence, who wanted to take every step which might lead to the conviction of Stephen's murderers. We are not privy to the terms of the advice which was given.

43.44 As Mr Youngerwood forecast the evidence of Mr Brooks was effectively destroyed by fair and logical cross-examination. There was nothing left to put before the Court. Rightly the prosecution was abandoned. The trial is fully discussed in Chapter 41 of our Report.

43.45 Different rules and standards cannot be applied to crimes which are particularly horrific or spurred on by particularly evil motive unless statute so provides. Unless there is evidence available which establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt there can be no conviction.

43.46 Furthermore the Judge has the absolute duty to stop any case in which he concludes that there is no evidence to go to the jury, or that the evidence is of such a quality that it should not be put before the jury. There is no place for alternative rules in hard or terrible cases.

43.47 The result of the unsuccessful prosecution was that the three men who were acquitted can never be tried again, even if final appeals for fresh witnesses were to bear fruit, or if the three men were to admit their guilt. Any change in the law in this respect would be solely a matter for Parliament. A suggestion made to us is that the Court of Appeal might be given jurisdiction to consider whether a second prosecution could be brought, particularly if fresh evidence supported such a course. The suggestion deserves examination.

43.48 Overall there is no doubt but that Mr Khan has supported Mr & Mrs Lawrence with determination and with vigour. Both he and they have been proved right as to many of the criticisms of the failure of the police investigation. It is a bitter disappointment to all that nobody has been successfully prosecuted for this terrible murder.

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 24 February 1999