Baroness Doreen Lawrence gives powerful testimony about undercover police surveillance of her family's justice campaign for her murdered son Stephen. She challenges police reports that mischaracterized her family's private life and campaign, and condemns the white savior narrative used to justify spying on a grieving Black family.
00:21:50 Good afternoon everybody. Uh the proceedings this afternoon are going to be transmitted, but after a 10-minute delay. Those with recording devices may use them to uh transmit what they have heard in the hearing room, but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the
00:22:02 after 10 minutes have elapsed since the events uh they're describing. Uh mobile telephones may not be used for recording or photography. Yes. Thank you, sir. Can we have up on screen please MPS 1154?
00:22:18 please MPS 1154? 301154
00:22:19 301154 behind tab B24.
00:22:27 This is a report of the 30th of June 98. Paragraph one, Monday the 29th of June 98 between 500 and 600 protesters gathered outside Hannibal House to confront the
00:22:40 outside Hannibal House to confront the five white youths who were due to give evidence to the inquiry that day. Foremost amongst the demonstrators were members of the movement for justice with Alex Alawad to the four and also an
00:22:55 Alex Alawad to the four and also an uninvited and unwelcome deputation from the Nation of Islam. Um
00:22:57 Um Nation of Islam there are described as
00:23:10 Nation of Islam there are described as uninvited and unwelcome. Can you help us with whether that's true or not? Not really. No. Paragraph two, please.
00:23:24 Towards the bottom, MFJ had successfully built up the crowd's anger and were in complete control of the noisy demonstration taking place at the entrance to Hannibal House. In paragraph 3 to four, please
00:23:50 it. Neville Lawrence came down to address the crowd and they informed them that negotiations were taking place to install a video linkup so that they would be able to watch the proceedings from outside. Ultimately, due to the respect in which he is held, Neville Lawrence was successful in calming the crowd and
00:24:01 successful in calming the crowd and restoring a semblance of order. The concession of allowing a video link to operate was seen as a major victory by the MFJ as this was something they had previously requested and been denied.
00:24:16 Um,
00:24:31 do you recall a a monitor being put up in a in a side room or a room within the the supermarket, sorry, the shopping center?
00:24:35 center? Um, not really. But I think if you think about it, the the interest from the public that should have been done I would have say right from the word go
00:24:51 would have say right from the word go because the room was never big enough to hold as many um members of the public who wanted to attend the hearing. Page two, please.
00:24:56 Paragraph one.
00:25:08 Um
00:25:19 the appearance of a strike force from the Nation of Islam who hitherto had played no part in the campaign was viewed with dismay many quarters especially amongst the Lawrence family
00:25:30 especially amongst the Lawrence family who strongly disapprove of them. Was was that right? because I think um earlier you had said there had been some uh contact with the Nation of Islam and in your uh witness statement you say at paragraph 184
00:25:45 paragraph 184 that you don't agree with that statement because you didn't know enough about them to form such a judgment. What is what's your evidence in relation to the accuracy of this part of the report?
00:26:02 accuracy of this part of the report? I didn't know hardly anything about them and so um for me to have such a strong opinion
00:26:04 opinion at that time I wouldn't have had that.
00:26:21 I was aware of them. Um I was aware of the Nation of Islam is something that um as part of my studies um and this came from war from America with um
00:26:23 with um um I'm trying to think of how how to pronounce his name Elijah Muhammad at the time who were at the time around um Malcolm X. That's where I understood
00:26:40 um Malcolm X. That's where I understood where the Nation of Islam had came from. But to say for me to have such strong views about them, I don't remember that. And nobody else within the family campaign.
00:26:49 campaign. No,
00:26:50 No, as far as you were aware. No.
00:26:51 No. Um,
00:26:52 Um, paragraph six, please.
00:27:02 The MFJ took a lead role in this final onslaught, though they did not need to orchestrate the crowd to act as they did. This final attack was much much against the wishes of Neville Lawrence, who had earlier asked that no further trouble take place. However, there was
00:27:17 trouble take place. However, there was an approximate 50/50 split in the crowd between those in favor of the family's consiliatory approach and those who supported the MFJ's policy of direct
00:27:28 supported the MFJ's policy of direct opposition. And it was the latter group who sought to attack the youths. Um,
00:27:34 Um, at page three, please. Paragraph one. At the request of the family, MFJ had agreed not to attend the this day's
00:27:47 agreed not to attend the this day's hearing, although a small number of them did put in a brief appearance. This has now gone on to the the day after, I think. Um,
00:27:56 and uh, paragraph four, please.
00:28:12 Uh despite the show of interest in the various contacts made at the inquiry, the MFJ will still have difficulties in gaining further momentum from the Lawrence case due to the opposition to them from the Lawrence family itself.
00:28:26 them from the Lawrence family itself. Do you recall having any opposition to MFJ as a group? Um, not really, but at the end of the day that it just seems that they were
00:28:42 day that it just seems that they were there for their own purpose more so than what we as a family would like. Um, the mere fact that they wanted to have a strong presence. Um, I don't understand for me cuz it wasn't something that I would sort of encourage, but as I say, I understand
00:28:53 encourage, but as I say, I understand about the public feeling. I understand why people felt that they needed to be um at the inquiry, but what I don't understand is why they would make
00:29:05 understand is why they would make themselves more in a way to cause any disruption cuz it's not something that we would have liked to have happened. And is that something that you were aware of at the time or is that
00:29:16 aware of at the time or is that something that you've only come to realize have it or or what is has been suggested in these reports that you have read since? the reports that I've read since, but I know on the day of those when the
00:29:31 know on the day of those when the individuals were were about to attend. Um, as I said before, I think that people wanted to be in the room to witness that, but the room was not big enough and they was not given that opportunity. And we talked about um
00:29:43 opportunity. And we talked about um having a monitor up. That would have been much much better had the inquiry and those had thought about that before. And I'm sure that would have um gone
00:29:54 And I'm sure that would have um gone some way to relieve the problems that took place after. There's mention about Neville Lawrence calming the crowd, speaking to the crowd. There's no mention in this report of you speaking to the crowd, but I
00:30:08 of you speaking to the crowd, but I think it's it's known that you did, and we'll see that in the footage that I'm about to play. Can we play please the BBC documentary footage of that day on
00:30:21 BBC documentary footage of that day on Monday the 29th of June 98 at Hannibal House.
00:30:28 Day after day after day but we work just as bloody hard for them we do for everybody else. Have you got the specific Oh god.
00:30:39 Sorry, the specific timings.
00:31:15 What now?
00:31:34 Can we Can someone tell me the timing? Sorry, sir. Bear with I've got the specific timings somewhere.
00:31:41 40. Yeah.
00:31:48 Thank you. Uh at 47 minutes 19 seconds through to 58 58
00:31:55 58 minutes and 33 seconds. Sorry. Thank you.
00:32:02 That's right. Yeah.
00:32:06 [clears throat]
00:32:14 It should start at the time when the five
00:32:19 five suspects are turning up at Hannibal House.
00:32:26 We work just as bloody hard for them.
00:32:33 Yes, I think so. This is actually should give evidence.
00:32:53 Yes, this is it. Thank you. We work just as bloody hard for them as we do for everybody else. So, it was doubly disappointing for the first inquiry and for my life. This is this is not the police and as I recall
00:33:08 A high court judge has ruled that five men who've all been charged in the past with murdering Steven Lawrence should give evidence to the inquiry into his death.
00:33:13 death. So there will be scenes of public the appearance of the five suspects was almost the climax of the inquiry. There was a huge sense of anticipation.
00:33:31 It's a public inquiry. anybody can go up into the public inquiry and the police were stopping them. Then you had the Nation of Islam downstairs in the foyer and I remember we were just about to start somebody just burst into the room
00:33:44 start somebody just burst into the room saying that there's commotion happening downstairs
00:33:53 and it got so bad that they had to stop the inquiry. [cheering] But what the police was doing was totally out of order because the police had used CS gas in their faces and stuff. So it was really, really bad.
00:34:06 stuff. So it was really, really bad. Why is it on the Steven Lawrence inquiry when it's black people who are coming to seek justice that the police want to use offensive capability weapons like the CS gas?
00:34:19 gas? This is the scenario that everyone feared. Emotions running out of control down here and the evidence of the five suspects temporarily derailed.
00:34:31 They were going to cause a riot and I had to calm them down and and tell them that my family don't deal with things like that. What's happening here this morning is not going to get to the truth. No,
00:34:39 No, it's going to stop us getting to the truth and we are going to be branded as only guns. That's right. Mr. is a public inquiry. You have every right to hear it. But I'm Steven's
00:34:54 right to hear it. But I'm Steven's mother and if I ask a request of people just to just to respect me, I think it should be done.
00:35:01 But we can't let them come through and then they just get in the van. Black people have the right to run their
00:35:12 Black people have the right to run their own struggle and you can't do it through a white judge sitting in some inquiry that doesn't have the opportunity to punish the police responsible or to actually put behind bars forever the murderers of Steven Lawrence coming out.
00:35:23 coming out. [cheering]
00:35:36 But if the public needed persuading that this was a case in which on the one hand you had Neville and Dorian and on the other hand you had these five then I think they began to think about the things that had seriously gone ary here. The system that had fallen apart.
00:35:48 The system that had fallen apart. One suspect David Norris hit out as the youth struted down the walkway out of the elevant Castle Shopping Center. that picture fixed in the public mind, the fact that there was something really, really badly wrong about this investigation.
00:36:03 investigation. A racist crime is one where it just doesn't attack you in the physical sense. There's psychological trauma. There is a sense that there are people out there that hate you, not because they want your phone, but because of
00:36:15 they want your phone, but because of your existence as a being. Steven was murdered simply because he existed and because of the color of his skin.
00:36:27 because of the color of his skin. At least one of the suspects was hit while they scrambled into their white getaway van.
00:36:49 Why? Why you protecting him? You have this young man, Steven Lawrence, [music] who's never been in trouble with the police, who's not affiliated with a gang in any [music]
00:37:00 affiliated with a gang in any [music] way, that is working towards becoming an architect, and you're like, you are protecting these five really.
00:37:02 really. Steven's come to [music] represent a wound that needs to be healed in our society. It's kind of a weird privilege um
00:37:16 um to to to come to represent change.
00:37:23 I really think it's best to add nothing to that.
00:37:24 to that. But is there really
00:37:32 But is there really as inquire was going on you could see McFersonen I think his whole perspective change while he was listen listening to Steven's case. In an unprompted statement, Sir Williams spoke for the first time about a crisis of confidence between the black community and the Metropolitan Police. His unexpected remarks today give the clearest
00:37:47 remarks today give the clearest indication so far that his final report will be damning about police racism. Condon had a very public image and I think it must have been difficult for him to accept that there was institutional racism on his watch.
00:38:00 institutional racism on his watch. I and we have challenged some of the definitions of institutional racism. I have written to the judge and invited him to give us clarity.
00:38:17 him to give us clarity. Initially, I think the inquiry had about 10 or 12 definitions of what institutional racism was and is. The message has got to be we are addressing it. We are acknowledging racism. We are addressing it. This is what we've done so far. This is what
00:38:32 what we've done so far. This is what we're doing even more of. I I'm not sure how we can maintain the current line. It isn't just about are you racist, are you not racist. It's it's much more multi-layered than that
00:38:44 it's much more multi-layered than that to try and deflect onto the rest of society will unravel and that it will sound either grudging or undeniable. What I was not prepared to accept was a definition that meant the police service
00:39:01 definition that meant the police service or individual officers were deliberately being racist as a choice as a preferred method of operation. The inquiry chairman, Sir William McFersonen, asked the commissioner how he could deal with the problem of racism
00:39:13 he could deal with the problem of racism if he didn't even acknowledge it exists. Paul Condan offered a personal apology for the failures of his force, but he asked the inquiry not to pronounce the Met guilty of institutional racism. The commissioner was pushed persistently and pointedly by the inquiry panel to
00:39:29 and pointedly by the inquiry panel to accept there is widespread racism in his police service. So Paul repeatedly refused to agree. I will take those [ __ ] notes, John. For condom to say there was a few bad apples.
00:39:43 apples. Wasn't just a few. Was hundreds of them. I don't see how the Metropolitan Police is going to move on from today without admitting to what has been going on. There is no way they can move forward.
00:39:58 I think it would have given Neville and Dorian some comfort if I'd resign. And that weighed heavily on me.
00:40:09 But I felt on balance it was my duty and responsibility to to lead the service through change. [music]
00:40:13 [music] Thank you.
00:40:19 [clears throat]
00:40:24 Baroness Lawrence, do you recall any of those events outside Hannibal House on that day of the 29th of June 98 when the five suspects attended?
00:40:44 attended? Um, we were inside um of the inquiry so we wouldn't have seen any of those and the only time I saw that was um is watching the news when we saw um B5 being things being thrown at them. we wouldn't have seen that on the day ourselves.
00:40:56 ourselves. And what do you think caused the disorder that day? I think it's just the um arrogant way of those those individuals as as they were
00:41:07 those those individuals as as they were coming in, you know, it just a thing of disrespect because they believe that they have more rights than we do as a
00:41:18 they have more rights than we do as a black community. [clears throat] And and I think that's portrayed all the way through trying to get justice for Steven by how the police,
00:41:32 by how the police, you know, the government at the day, how they viewed things. We um we were not Mr. for um the commissioner then to apologize and that's just during the inquiry. We heard nothing from him before that. We heard nothing from the government of the day which is a
00:41:44 government of the day which is a conservative government at the time. None of them spoke up to say what has happened to my son. As I said, I remember saying to Peter Botton when he
00:41:56 remember saying to Peter Botton when he came to visit our house. Does the prime minister know about my son? And he couldn't answer. Why doesn't he know about my son? There's enough information out there for him even to invite us in
00:42:08 out there for him even to invite us in to talk to us about it. We never had any of that. I think the dis the disrespectful way of us being treated right through um all the years and to only get a
00:42:19 um all the years and to only get a partial justice what is what nearly 20 years later it just shows that they had
00:42:30 years later it just shows that they had no intention of catching Steven Skillis. In terms of the actual disorder that took place, um I don't need to show it, but uh in David Hagen's witness
00:42:43 but uh in David Hagen's witness statement at paragraph 128, 129, and 167, which is MPS0748738,
00:42:51 just for the record, he gives an account of his involvement
00:43:03 he gives an account of his involvement in the disorder that day. and it he says I was careful to keep my distance from the worst of the disorder but he does accept that he did join in with the pushing and shoving but only once this had already begun. Um now the reports that we have seen
00:43:16 Um now the reports that we have seen suggest that members of the movement for justice were acting against your wishes and one of the individuals doing so was HN81 the undercover officer who was
00:43:30 HN81 the undercover officer who was there that day. What do you say about that if in fact that was true? I don't really [clears throat] know because at the end of the day, if you're a police officer, you should not be
00:43:42 a police officer, you should not be engaged in those activities. And yes, he said he was undercover, but why did he feel it was right for him to engage in those activities? You're supposed to
00:43:54 those activities? You're supposed to [clears throat] uphold the law and there clearly shows that he he wasn't on that day.
00:44:03 day. Can we move to a further report which is dated the 17th of July 98? It's MPS301181,
00:44:10 page one, please. It's behind B28 of the bundle.
00:44:18 Um, and it talks about divisions within the Lawrence family.
00:44:34 There appears to be divisions within the Lawrence family as to how to progress the campaign. Neville Lawrence maintains a tight control and is of the view that nothing should be done to antagonize the authorities prior to the inquiry publishing its findings as part one is
00:44:47 publishing its findings as part one is due to end and part two will not start until September. This approach appears to be too cautious for members of the support groups. the South Monitoring Group SMG and newer monitoring project
00:45:02 Group SMG and newer monitoring project NMP, let alone the fringe elements such as MFJ.
00:45:11 This report relates to a public meeting. So, this isn't a private stuff going on behind closed doors. Um, and when we look at the report in full,
00:45:23 it's not so much to do with public order. It's more to do with the organizing of the the campaign and next steps.
00:45:30 steps. Um that's
00:45:35 Um that's other reports show that as well. And just for reference, MPS 00001191 behind tab B29 sir and others are of a
00:45:54 behind tab B29 sir and others are of a similar ilk. I don't intend to show them all on the screen. Um, can I display though please MPS 301212? It's behind tab B32. And this is a report from the 24th of July 1993.
00:46:09 First paragraph. The organizing meeting arranged by the Lawrence family support campaign on Monday the 20th of July 1998 was attended by approximately 60 people. Dorene and Neville Lawrence were not in attendance and the meeting was jointly
00:46:20 attendance and the meeting was jointly chaired by Assad Raymond of the New and Monitoring Project and Sheresh Grover of the South Monitoring Group.
00:46:33 Page two, please. Paragraph two talks about the relationship between the Lawrenes and the NOI. It's interesting. At least one NOI member has been
00:46:48 At least one NOI member has been attending the inquiry from the beginning and the group were given some 30 passes for the inquiry room when the five accused attended. They were given a prominent role in this meeting and the reasons the reason appears to be that
00:47:02 reasons the reason appears to be that Neville Lawrence is concerned about the campaign being hijacked by political groups and is using the NOI as a counterbalance
00:47:11 over the page. Page three please.
00:47:25 Uh after the conclusion of the meeting, Shereesh spoke to MFJ. It's paragraph two, please.
00:47:38 Halfway down, Churesh went on to explain that Dorene and Neville have in reality separated and that they only continue together as a front for the campaign. Dorene, in fact, wishes to wind up the campaign at this point and simply await
00:47:49 campaign at this point and simply await the findings of the inquiry. Neville is more open to continuing, but only until the inquiry releases its findings. Um,
00:48:08 Um, this report from 98 talks about your separation. To what extent was that public knowledge at that time? um as far as I know um it's not something we discuss our personal um relationship in public.
00:48:20 relationship in public. So this is probably um at the moment we're going through this phone hacking stuff has happened um with the family. So I don't know if things during that time cuz there um for our phones and
00:48:37 time cuz there um for our phones and stuff that um that was happening through um through the mail the daily mail. So whether or not that came out through our personal and private discussion that
00:48:50 personal and private discussion that that would be um anybody were able to know about our separation because it wasn't something that we would have reported to the public. And no matter how this came to be in the report, what do you say about the nature of that information being in a police report?
00:49:08 report? I think our family life is private and it should not been in um being in a police report and for um for those undercover policing who thinks that was the right thing to do that's just disrespecting us.
00:49:22 disrespecting us. We heard from Shesh Grover uh this week that he denies being the source of this information. Can you help us with uh uh whether you think that is right or not? You've mentioned about the um phone
00:49:36 You've mentioned about the um phone hacking. Is that as far as you can help us with
00:49:46 us with how much I can help? I would have no idea if how Sesh would know or if he um repeated something like that. I would not have known about that. [clears throat] The suggestion that you want to wind up the campaign and await the findings of the inquiry. How true was that?
00:50:00 the inquiry. How true was that? The inquiry was sort of slowed down before the inquiry. Um because I think at times, you know, trying to look at justice for Steven, I have a family to bring up working. It
00:50:16 have a family to bring up working. It was a really difficult time. So the idea of looking to wind up the campaign because at the end of the day, where were we getting? I think we were hoping to have as much come out of the inquiry
00:50:30 to have as much come out of the inquiry to um help us to proceed around justice. So maybe at the time probably that's what I was thinking. I don't know. But it weighed heavily on me trying to manage
00:50:39 manage my life, my children as well as all this was going on. You know, there times it's it's really difficult, you know, and we shouldn't have to be put through all of this, you know. You know, as a family,
00:50:54 this, you know. You know, as a family, we should not have gone through this. I mean, so we've we've not had an opportunity to grieve over our son because we're constantly battling, you
00:51:08 because we're constantly battling, you know, fighting for something that should be there readily for us. Paragraph four, please.
00:51:23 There's reference in this last sentence that he also said there was someone very close to the Lawrence family who was an uncle Tom and as a police agent was actively advising the Lawren's against any real action. Can you help us with what that might be referring to? No.
00:51:39 Can we [clears throat] display please MPS 301235 behind tab B34 is a report of the 3rd of August
00:51:49 August uh 98
00:51:52 uh 98 typed up on the 4th of August. Paragraph five please. This is another report from HN81. It's relating to an MFJ meeting on Friday 31st of July
00:52:03 Friday 31st of July 98.
00:52:11 98. MFJ now consider that the Lawrenes have ended their campaign and are merely going to await the findings of the inquiry. The drawback drawback to progressing the campaign under the banner of the MFJ is that the mainstream leadership are currently in Detroit. Um
00:52:29 and and and the last sentence certainly is felt that the opportunity to seize the momentum of the Stalling Lawrence campaign has been lost. Uh was that again that your evidence is that the campaign hadn't stopped? It's
00:52:40 that the campaign hadn't stopped? It's just that it had slowed down waiting the findings of the inquiry, but that you've never really stopped campaigning and pushing uh for your objective of of getting justice [clears throat] Steven.
00:52:55 getting justice [clears throat] Steven. No. Um no, we haven't. And I think when some of these stuff is only since the inquired I've read some of these. So I would not I was not aware of what um the um MF was it MF MFJ and and what their
00:53:09 um MF was it MF MFJ and and what their position has been cuz it wasn't anything that I was part of. So um I can't answer anything to do with them. The last paragraph on page two please
00:53:31 the handler's comment. So this is the person that would receive the report. Um it is not beyond the real realms of possibility that the inactivity of the Lawrence family in not supporting the various groups is that they have been spoken to at a senior level and been promised some sort of carrot, perhaps a
00:53:47 promised some sort of carrot, perhaps a resignation. What do you say about that speculation? I wasn't aware of any of that. No. Had you been promised uh resignation?
00:54:01 Had you been promised uh resignation? No. Um it was suggested um to me about um we should ask for the commissioner to stand down and I felt at the time it wasn't for me to ask the commissioner is for the commissioner himself to know um
00:54:22 for the commissioner himself to know um his role and for him to step down on his own accord and not for me to suggest to him and that's how I felt at the time. Was there any information coming from the Lawrence campaign or from your family along these lines as far as you were aware to the wider support groups? No.
00:54:43 Um, that's those are the the actual reports that I want to look at. Moving now to the SDS management documents, please. Can we display MPS0748092
00:55:10 and this is to do with the visit of an ACSO to the SDS on the 7th of July 1998. In context, this is the week after the five attended at the uh inquiry at Hannibal House. Page nine of this, please.
00:55:26 This is a a pen picture relating to DC uh HN81.
00:55:32 And paragraph three states that he has been in a unique position to report on the recent attempts by MFJ to galvanize the black youth in Brixton and families
00:55:48 the black youth in Brixton and families of income as victims of deaths in police custody to demonstrate against police. More more recently, he has provided intelligence on the MFJ's efforts to influence the Lawrence family during the public hearing.
00:56:03 So that was part of the pen picture that was presented to the ACSO who was uh attending at the SDS just a week or so after the that that that eventful day at the inquiry.
00:56:16 the inquiry. Can we display please MPS0748392
00:56:27 which is behind tab B44. Sir,
00:56:30 Sir, we can see this is a branch note
00:56:39 of page the next page please. Page two. This branch note the date on it is the
00:56:51 This branch note the date on it is the 10th of September 98 entitled the Steven Lawrence campaign associated organizations. And if we can uh expand that top section please.
00:57:05 It reads, "This note is produced for the information of the Commissioner of Police, DAC Grieve and Superintendent Thornton. It contains secret and
00:57:17 Thornton. It contains secret and delicate source material. There should be no downward dissemination of this document without reference to the detective superintendent of SO2C Squad.
00:57:32 Um, page two. Uh, uh, uh, paragraph two, please.
00:57:49 Um, the themes touched upon by the Lawrence Inquiry as a whole, those of perceived police corruption and racism, the criminal justice system,
00:58:02 racism, the criminal justice system, and even the state of race relations in general means that this is an obvious target for certain political groups. Their wider motives are also discussed. A number of groups and individuals see this issue as a natural platform from
00:58:15 this issue as a natural platform from which to further their own often extreme political agenda
00:58:27 and um I should have read out the last sentence of that that first paragraph there. Furthermore, the sense of anger and alienation that is that this issue has aroused within the black community means that the possibility of public disorder cannot be discounted.
00:58:42 disorder cannot be discounted. So in terms of the introduction to this branch note, there is an element of public disorder and the concern around that. But the
00:58:59 that. But the the the um document as a whole addresses that um in small part. Um, paragraph four.
00:59:26 Um, the genuine sense of grievance that exists should not be underestimated. And many people who would normally shy away from activism have felt moved to become involved. A large number of these people are moderate and instinctively lawabiding.
00:59:37 lawabiding. From the people that you were aware of in the wider support group, the people
00:59:50 in the wider support group, the people that were attending the conference, what was your impression of them? Were they looking to to further other political agendas or were they people who were relatively moderate and instinctively law abiding? Um I would say the latter. I think people were upset, angry
01:00:06 people were upset, angry and you know justice was something that they wanted to see happen. Um I think the stuff before what you were showing are you talking about um around
01:00:20 are you talking about um around corruption and that um within I'm not sure if you mentioned um within the inquiry
01:00:21 inquiry but we had um the legal team had come to understand around the the corruption and we tried to bring it to McFersonen's attention and from the um terms of
01:00:43 attention and from the um terms of reference And I just felt at the time it was a can of worms that he did not want to open [clears throat] because we we've been told about corruption within the police, why we hadn't got justice around Steven. And when that was brought to his attention,
01:00:54 when that was brought to his attention, I believe is a can of worms that he did not want to open at that time. Looking specifically here about the Lawrence family campaign group, it does say the LFCG has on the surface remained
01:01:08 say the LFCG has on the surface remained independent of the extremist groups. Um, however, leading figures within the campaign are well known within left-wing organizations. Sheresh Grover, who is the spokesman of the the campaign, has
01:01:20 the spokesman of the the campaign, has long been the de facto head of the South Monitoring Group, now simply known as the Monitoring Group. He has a checkered past involving a number of troskist groups and a high profile amongst the West London Asian community. Would you
01:01:35 West London Asian community. Would you agree with that description of who you knew as Sheresh Grover? I didn't really know him. I didn't know him. I said he he joined the campaign, but I would not have known anything
01:01:46 but I would not have known anything about his background or or any of those things. I would not have known. Okay. So you you you can't comment on whether that's a a a a true picture of of him at all? No.
01:01:56 No. Um page three, please. Paragraph three.
01:02:06 As for the Lawrence family, Dorene and Neville Lawrence split up during the first stage of the inquiry, although this is not public knowledge.
01:02:14 Um, and there's a reference to um,
01:02:31 Neville remains remains the more politicized of the two, although Dorene has recently been vocal in her calls for the commissioner to resign. Now, that's
01:02:43 the commissioner to resign. Now, that's not what your evidence was a moment ago. What what do you say about the accuracy of this report in that regard? Um I wasn't I was not vocal about the commissioner um resigning. I was not vocal about that. Um as I said when it
01:02:55 vocal about that. Um as I said when it was put to me I felt that it wasn't for me to say to him that he needed to step down. It was for him on his conscience
01:03:10 down. It was for him on his conscience to do that. Um as to say whether Neville was more politicized than than what I was at the time. Now um I think what needs to be remembered that I had responsibility to my children and so a lot of these meetings I was not there. [clears throat] So whatever discussion
01:03:21 [clears throat] So whatever discussion that was happening in those meetings I was not aware of them. Thank you. That's all I want to show in relation to this document. Can we display please MPS0720
01:03:32 946 at page three.
01:03:51 This is a minute sheet in relation to an SDS briefing note with attachments. And this is a note by operation commander Colin Black to uh Detective Superintendent S. and he says the SDS
01:04:04 and he says the SDS is as usual well positioned you see that there at the focal crisis points of policing in London. I am aware that DI Richard Walton of CO24
01:04:19 that DI Richard Walton of CO24 receives ad hoc off thereordcord briefings from the SDS.
01:04:26 I have reiterated to him that it is essential that the knowledge of the operation goes no further. I would not wish him to receive anything on paper.
01:04:39 Um I have established a correspondence route to DAC Grieve via DS McDow formerly of SO2 and opened an SP file for copy correspondence with CO24.
01:04:53 for copy correspondence with CO24. It will of course fall to C squad to provide the bulk of that material and they will undoubtedly
01:05:05 they will undoubtedly consult SDS as appropriate. [clears throat] And it appears that this shows there is
01:05:17 And it appears that this shows there is a a line of communication set up that at least goes as far as DAC um grieve. So that's deputy assistant constable grieve. So going
01:05:31 So going to almost the very top of the MPS at the time. Um
01:05:35 time. Um what do you say about that that that there's information that's going from the SDS up to the top of the MPS?
01:05:47 the SDS up to the top of the MPS? I think what you need to remember is that I had no knowledge um of any of this. So the fact that this is being done at June like in the background, I would have no knowledge
01:05:58 background, I would have no knowledge and and besides we would never been kept informed by any police officers [snorts] as to um how the investigation has been happening or what's been running. So I would have no knowledge of any of this.
01:06:11 would have no knowledge of any of this. Can we have page eight, please?
01:06:23 This is a briefing note by uh DI Robert Lambert of the SDS and it's an intelligence update dated September 1998.
01:06:34 1998. And paragraph three in relation to this states that in addition to providing valuable public order intelligence for sea squad, windmill tilt's unique insight into the behindthe-scenes
01:06:47 insight into the behindthe-scenes machinations of the Lawrence campaign has also proved invaluable to u a di acting detective inspector. I think
01:07:01 di acting detective inspector. I think that is Richard Walton who is currently attached to the Steven Lawrence review team.
01:07:03 team. So the Steven Lawrence review team was the team that was set up in order to uh represent the commissioner's submissions to the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Were you aware of that unit?
01:07:16 aware of that unit? No.
01:07:18 No. At a recent SDS meeting, Windmill Tilta was able to give ADI Walton a firsthand briefing on the case and offer some sound advice. For example, that the
01:07:30 sound advice. For example, that the commissioner would be ill advised to attend a public forum forum at Lambeath Town Hall as provisionally planned. In terms of the Metropolitan Police's
01:07:41 In terms of the Metropolitan Police's long-term strategy of seeking to rebuild damaged relations with the black community, Windmill Tilta was able to comment authoritatively on the enormity of the task generally and in his own local area, Brixton specifically.
01:07:58 If we can move to page nine, please
01:08:09 paragraph four. Source protection dictates that SDS assistance to the Lawrence uh Steven Lawrence review team should continue to be restricted to the current channels as outlined above, regular reporting to C
01:08:23 outlined above, regular reporting to C squad, and additional discreet briefings to ADI Walton when necessary. So it looks like it's a a channel that is feeding into the Steven Lawrence review
01:08:34 feeding into the Steven Lawrence review team during the existence of the Steven Lawrence inquiry uh to McFersonen um chaired by McFersonen. Um, do you what are your thoughts about that that
01:08:48 what are your thoughts about that that there is undercover intelligence being gathered from the groups in your campaign and the groups that are supporting you being fed into the commissioner's legal team?
01:09:07 I don't know what to say about that. It seems as if um all during Steven's case that senior um officers um had been informed or continue to be informed about Steven's case, but none
01:09:21 informed about Steven's case, but none of that was ever communicated to us. No information was shared to us for us to understand um how they're working and and to say whether or not there was anything to come out of the work that they're doing. So nothing was shared. So we had no idea
01:09:34 So nothing was shared. So we had no idea what it was happening behind the scenes. Uh completely unaware of it at the time. But what do you say now about it in
01:09:45 But what do you say now about it in hindsight learning about that during the course of uh Ellison and this inquiry? I think, as I said before, had they put as much resources and attention at the
01:09:59 as much resources and attention at the beginning of Steven's murder, they would have been able to um arrest and convict those individuals. The fact that at the latest stage that they're doing all of this now, I'm not certain what they
01:10:13 this now, I'm not certain what they expect to come out of it. Um were they looking to um to arrest any of these individuals? There's nothing with within that tells me that's what the intentions were. It it just seems as if they're just trying to cover themselves, protect themselves
01:10:26 to cover themselves, protect themselves from criticism. And I think because I've been very critical all along, I've heard the investigation as being conducted. So I just see this as something they're just trying to cover themselves.
01:10:41 just trying to cover themselves. So is it your evidence that it's a mis misplacing of resources or [clears throat] prioritization was wrong?
01:10:48 wrong? Well, that was definitely the paradise was was definitely wrong because 93 did the inquiries happen in 98 99 when when the report came out. What were they
01:11:00 the report came out. What were they doing before? And even when we were trying to have the private prosecution, we um I presume for me
01:11:12 we um I presume for me I relied on them because they trying to say this is what we're going to do to support you. But at the end of the day, they were still trying to cover themselves because nothing came out
01:11:24 themselves because nothing came out of where the the private prosecutor was concerned. You know, we didn't get anything out of that. You know, they spent hours and
01:11:36 that. You know, they spent hours and days work supposedly working with us to mount a case against those individuals and saw nothing. Um, can we look at please MPS0748489
01:11:51 page three? It's behind tab B45. This is um a note dated the 26th of September 1998. It's a note by operation commander Colin Black to Detective Superintendent C.
01:12:04 Superintendent C. said, "If at all possible, I would wish to see a flow of suitable material to DS privac uh uh privacy or blank uh both tactical intelligence around the
01:12:24 tactical intelligence around the Lawrence inquiry and broader work on race crime. Please carry forward." So, this material to do with the Lawrence inquiry, to do with work on race crime is is going up the the chain of command. there's a a flow of information.
01:12:36 information. Um
01:12:45 Um I think I would like to understand what he meant by that cuz I think by saying this I can't see whether or not he's saying um around where racist concern that he has some concerns and want to do
01:12:59 that he has some concerns and want to do something about it. I don't see how this tells me anything. So you want to know what the objectives were, what they were doing with that sort of information. Yes.
01:13:09 Yes. Can we put on display MPS 0728625?
01:13:18 This is HN81's file. It's page 3 to 4 please. That uh relates to the recommendation for commendation for HN81.
01:13:44 And we can see that third bullet point
01:13:53 refers to the provision of a perspective to those
01:13:55 to those charged with formulating the MPS position on key strategic issues. He was thus debriefed thoroughly by the Steven Lawrence review team as it considered
01:14:06 Lawrence review team as it considered how the MPS might regain the confidence of the black community, how it might assess the potential for disorder by sections of that community, and what might be the consequences of sustained political pressure on the MPS from hard
01:14:20 political pressure on the MPS from hard left and other groups not well disposed to the police.
01:14:27 and page eight, please.
01:14:42 Paragraph 4. This is to do with HN81's withdrawal strategy.
01:14:55 about halfway through it says um WT that's Windmill Tilter HN81 is quite candid in admitting that he was largely responsible for their adoption and he's talking about MFJ here for
01:15:10 and he's talking about MFJ here for their adoption of the Steven Lawrence case and the rest as they say is history.
01:15:13 history. Um
01:15:15 Um it would appear from this document the withdrawal strategy that windmill tilt or HN81
01:15:24 or HN81 has
01:15:33 directed in some way MFJ's attention to the Steven Lawrence campaign or the Steven Lawrence case. Um, if that is true that it's an undercover officer
01:15:46 true that it's an undercover officer that's directing MFJ to your campaign, um, what do you say about that? I presume I don't know. I'd want to understand the reason behind. So rather than if the um
01:16:06 if the mo is it moj if they I mean if they were in saying that they want to support the campaign but at the same time you have an undercover police is like directing them and what's the purpose of that you know what are they trying to achieve at the end of the day
01:16:25 it we're going to hear evidence that MFJ dispute ute that that would have happened anyway. They say that's not right. Um and in fact um HN81 himself
01:16:41 right. Um and in fact um HN81 himself rose back on well he rose back on that. He didn't write this document. I don't need to display this next document, but it's MPS0721026
01:16:54 at page 8 where HN81 admits to bigging bigging himself up in relation to this document when it came to his role in getting MFJ to focus on the Lawrence inquiry. and another docu in another document MPS0748738
01:17:10 at par which is his witness statement at paragraph 127 HN81
01:17:23 HN81 says he was not chosen or asked by MFJ to be to befriend the Lawrence family and in a further document sorry in a further paragraph at paragraph 122
01:17:35 further paragraph at paragraph 122 81 says that MFJ J were barely tolerated by the Lawrence campaign. So it seems that in subsequent accounts what was written here about him directing the the MFJ towards Steven
01:17:48 directing the the MFJ towards Steven Lawrence inquiry, they've said actually that's that's not quite accurate. And so, um, really it's about the accuracy of the, uh, Metropolitan Police
01:17:59 of the, uh, Metropolitan Police documents and what was being fed up to the management. Um, do you have anything to say about what it was, what picture was being painted both of the MPS uh,
01:18:12 was being painted both of the MPS uh, undercover officer, but also about your campaign, the campaign groups, and what was going on around the Steven Lawrence case?
01:18:20 case? I was not aware of any of this.
01:18:32 Can we display please MPS 0721 973
01:18:40 page two.
01:18:49 Um, MFJ got involved with the Steven Lawrence case when it came to the Elephant and Castle.
01:19:26 Oh yeah, sorry. It was sorry. Internal page two, page three on the digital. So yes, um
01:19:32 yes, um it's the the first paragraph. Thank you.
01:19:41 So the to the best of my knowledge, we weren't involved in the Steven Lawrence until the inquiry came to the Elephant and Castle. The Lawrenes were never on the radar with the MFJ before that. When it came to the MFJ's doorstep, they got involved. I was never tasked by
01:19:55 involved. I was never tasked by management. I didn't suggest it, but I didn't dissuade them from getting involved. It was really good news that they were going to it. it was going to be valuable intelligence with regards to public order issues. Our involvement
01:20:07 public order issues. Our involvement pretty much took up all of our time. So that is uh a later account of HN81 when he was interviewed on the 9th of
01:20:22 when he was interviewed on the 9th of October 2013 as to how he was reporting both on MFJ's uh involvement with the Lawrence uh campaign and the inquiry. Um
01:20:41 and again on that page he he refers to bigging bigging himself up but that at the very bottom all intelligence is good intelligence.
01:20:55 Now knowing that information about where it says here Dorine and Neville were splitting up, I can't really remember where it came from. He now says I think Dwayne told the MFJ and I think I reported on it
01:21:07 reported on it not to put that into the system. Seems ridiculous to me. It was before um RIPER which was the um regulation regulator.
01:21:20 regulator. Don't know why we pause on that one. Um, and I believe it should be intelligence. It is relevant. The MFJ were going to try and exploit it. The MFJ believed they might be able to target Neville
01:21:32 they might be able to target Neville after they'd split up. These were my thoughts. It was relevant. Under Ripper, it may not happen now as it would be sanitized.
01:21:46 Do you accept that? that that is information that could help with policing or help with managing public order issues from an undercover perspective. I don't think so.
01:22:01 I don't think so. um at the end of the day to say that um we're
01:22:02 we're um they think the information about us splitting up coming from Dwayne is um so how would he know and um
01:22:14 and and for them to see it as good intelligence and be able to um to capitalize on um our personal relationship. I have no idea how that would be of interest to anybody. And
01:22:31 would be of interest to anybody. And yes, I felt that there are sometimes that the police were trying to manipulate um our relationship because I think they find me quite challenging and I think we're never concerned. So
01:22:46 and I think we're never concerned. So there there were times that they would try to pitch us against each other. So um
01:22:51 So um and that you know if you think about a family grieving what whatever our personal happening in the background that should have be of no concern to the police. They should have no concern to them. Their intention or what they
01:23:02 them. Their intention or what they should be doing is looking for the killers who murdered my son. And that is where that's where their interest should have lied.
01:23:15 have lied. Moving now then back to the the timeline and and by September 1998, you say in your statement that that was a monumental turning point. People were shocked by what they heard through the McFersonen inquiry.
01:23:30 McFersonen inquiry. Uh at paragraph 175 of your statement, you refer to founding the Steven Lawrence Charitable Trust in 1998. Um again that was to honor Steven's
01:23:43 Um again that was to honor Steven's aspiration to become an architect was it?
01:23:43 it? Yeah.
01:23:46 Yeah. And in 1999 that's when the inquiry report published its findings including institutional racism as we referred to earlier. Um,
01:24:00 racism as we referred to earlier. Um, but you also recognized that the Race Relations Act 1976 was was amended as well to incorporate police forces and government bodies and that was as a direct result was it of the the inquiry.
01:24:12 the the inquiry. Yes. Yes.
01:24:18 Yes. Yes. At paragraph 221 of your statement, you refer to the the Home Office establishing the Lawrence Steering Group. Do you want to just explain what that was?
01:24:30 that was? Yeah. Um after the inquiry um the SE group was set up and and for me that was a pivotal point in um how the government
01:24:49 a pivotal point in um how the government viewed um um the black community and for the first time um we had members of the public attending meetings and actually questioning authorities um whether be the home office authority, the police authority in trying to have some understanding of how policing other government works.
01:25:02 government works. And that that was a really interesting time because never before has anybody been able to get a foot in the door of the home office and and asking question of senior officers and of senior
01:25:16 of senior officers and of senior ministers. And that's the first time that's ever happened. And for me that
01:25:27 that's ever happened. And for me that was just a from the inquiry that's it's a way forward. Had we had we been able to carry on with that, I think then people would understand and and for the government to hear the relationship that they've had and the police have had with members of the public.
01:25:38 members of the public. It's never been done before.
01:25:44 Uh that operated until 2005. Is that right? Yes. And during the course of that uh lots of recommendations in terms of how the police were addressing racism within
01:25:57 the police were addressing racism within the the Met Police Force. Is that right? Yes.
01:25:58 Yes. Um
01:26:03 Um can I just ask you one last thing about your meetings with home secretaries? Just to clarify a point earlier, you mentioned that you met the Minister of State for the Home Office in 1993
01:26:19 State for the Home Office in 1993 and you called for a public inquiry into the investigation of Steven's death at that point. Um, and then we know that you met with
01:26:32 Um, and then we know that you met with Jack Straw early in 97 when he was still shadow home sec home secretary and then after the election when he was home secretary in the July of 1997. Yes. Um sorry I think you met him in the June and by the July then uh he he he
01:26:44 June and by the July then uh he he he announced a public inquiry. Can you tell us what happened in between those times from 93 to 97 uh in terms of your steps to call for a public inquiry? Did you have any meetings with any other home
01:26:57 have any meetings with any other home secretaries or people within the home office?
01:27:01 office? No. No. Um there was an attempt I don't remember what year it was. Um, I understand that Michael Howard, who was the home secretary at the time, was supposed to visit in Greenwich because we lived in the B of Greenidge at the
01:27:13 we lived in the B of Greenidge at the time and it was suggested that he was coming to the bar and it would be an opportunity for me to meet up with him, but that meeting was canceled. So, I
01:27:28 but that meeting was canceled. So, I never met him and at no time did he ever made any contact or wrote to us around Steven's um Steven's murder. there's been no contact with any um with home secretary um from 93 up until 97.
01:27:46 And thank you. And just before we move to a break, can I just ask you to clarify at one point about the what you said earlier about the police trying to pit you against
01:27:57 police trying to pit you against Neville? What what happened there? Who was it that was trying to do that? Um, I couldn't really give you a name a name of an officer, but it was something that was seen quite a lot of how
01:28:10 that was seen quite a lot of how um they saw Neville as being more reasonable than than I was cuz I think cuz I was asking intrusive question cuz I wanted to know more than what they
01:28:22 I wanted to know more than what they were telling us. And they seem to feel that I was I don't probably too inquisitive, whatever. I don't know. But I know it they were trying to pitch us against each other. They see never as quite being reasonable and me not so.
01:28:36 quite being reasonable and me not so. But all I was trying to do or trying to find out is what's happened. And when when was that at what stage was that during the inquiry time or was that very early on? That was earlier on and that continued during the inquiry and even after.
01:28:51 during the inquiry and even after. So that you noticed that sort of behavior. Did you as you met different officers or one officer in particular? Um different officers.
01:29:03 Um different officers. It was it was a sense you had in terms of their approach to you and Neville. Yes.
01:29:05 Yes. And and and did you have the sense that they were trying to exclude you or uh
01:29:22 they were trying to exclude you or uh like diminish your uh uh role in the the the talks or how did that play out? Um it it was quite subtle. So it wasn't something that's something that you could see directly. It was very subtle, but I noticed I noticed it. And oh yes, I didn't say or question what was
01:29:38 I didn't say or question what was happening cuz I felt at the time that I was told
01:29:43 was told even with the leers on officers even if even they if they were to say good morning and I was to answer they would make a note of that and so there times I just didn't say very much because I
01:29:55 just didn't say very much because I didn't know where it's going to go and I was I was very conscious of how I spoke and relate to some officers. it. So, I was very conscious of that.
01:30:07 So, I was very conscious of that. Thank you, sir. I'm about to move on to another topic. So, is it a good time to have a a short break? Certainly. Um, how long would you like? Um, whatever time you think is 15 minutes.
01:30:19 minutes. 15 minutes. Very well. 15 minutes. Bye-bye.
01:52:08 Priness Lawrence, I'd like to ask you um a little bit about the justification for the reporting, whether that's public order reasons or protection reasons. So
01:52:22 order reasons or protection reasons. So very briefly first in relation to public order could we have up please MPS 0728 620
01:52:33 it's behind tab C3 in bundle three sir this is an annual report of the SDS from 1997 to 1998
01:52:42 MPS PS 0278620.
01:53:17 Um so we can see here that second paragraph on on page two is that during the course of 97 the security service reduced coverage on subversive groups to a
01:53:28 coverage on subversive groups to a watching brief. Following this decision and the reduction in street activity on the left wing in general, SDS reduced
01:53:42 the left wing in general, SDS reduced its coverage on socialist workers party and the socialist party militant. This presented an opportunity to target campaign groups in Brixton movement for justice and movement against the monarchy.
01:53:52 monarchy. Page three, please.
01:53:59 In terms of the statement of purpose, we can see that the purpose of intelligence gathering was to provide a quality service in the gathering and
01:54:10 quality service in the gathering and dissemination of high-grade intelligence concerning terrorism, public order events, the activities of groups involved in politically motivated crime and crime related to animal rights and environmentalist activity. And of the five objectives set out below, most of them uh well
01:54:26 below, most of them uh well in terms of public order, the first one is to supply intelligence or information concerning the intent in intentions of
01:54:43 concerning the intent in intentions of militant political extremists in respect of public order events. And number two, identify those engaged in preliminary planning or who take part in such demonstrations. Three, to identify suspects who break the law before, during, and after demonstrations and ga four, gather and record
01:54:55 and ga four, gather and record intelligence about the formation and development of target organizations. Uh, and five, provide intelligence on criminal activities of individuals or groups involved in animal rights.
01:55:10 groups involved in animal rights. Extremism doesn't really apply here, but for the most part, it's about demonstrations, public order events. Page six, please, paragraph three.
01:55:30 Following the security service decision to withdraw from active investigation of subversive groups, SDS reviewed its coverage of the main extreme left-wing group, the Socialist Workers Party. And following this review, coverage was withdrawn and the operative
01:55:46 withdrawn and the operative uh who we now know is HN81, was targeted against community- based groups in Brixton. The experience and credibility gained in the SWP enabled a relatively smooth transition into the movement for justice which has been active in a
01:56:01 justice which has been active in a number of campaigns in the Brixton area and have been at the forefront of the Steven Lawrence campaign attempting to forement unrest at the inquiry. So seemingly here then from 1997
01:56:17 So seemingly here then from 1997 a shift of focus uh for the SDS from left-wing street activity um which was more in decline to justice campaigns in Brixton at David Hagen HN81 having infiltrated
01:56:33 at David Hagen HN81 having infiltrated the MFJ in an effort to report on public order issues. What steps, if any, had the police taken to uh guide you away from any public
01:56:54 to uh guide you away from any public disorder issues, if at all. I think your evidence earlier was that you hadn't heard about that from any anybody? No.
01:57:04 On the face of the paperwork, it seems that the SDS justified the deployments that reported on justice campaigns
01:57:16 that reported on justice campaigns primarily by reference to public order and to a an ever decreasing extent political subversion. Um,
01:57:20 Um, is it right that your evidence is well Steven Lawrence campaign, Steven Lawrence's family was not a threat to public order? No, we weren't.
01:57:31 No, we weren't. And nor were you subversive in any way because you were using lawful and democratic processes to achieve your objective. That's right. And and if it were to be said to you,
01:57:43 And and if it were to be said to you, well, regardless of the Steven Lawrence campaign or your family of itself, you're not a threat in any way, but it's the groups that are associating
01:57:57 the groups that are associating themselves with you. They're a threat to public order, and that's why we need to report on the campaign and the inquiry and all of that. What do you say about that? Um, I couldn't say that cuz I I
01:58:10 that? Um, I couldn't say that cuz I I don't really know the groups. So, for me to say that they're a threat to public order, I couldn't say that. Do you think that in any way justifies them reporting on you, your family, and the campaign, your campaign? Well,
01:58:28 the campaign, your campaign? Well, there's nothing that would justify them reporting on me or my family because I think if they were to see how we've conducted ourself, there's nothing within us that would give cause for concern about public order. Can we display please Peter Francis's
01:58:45 Can we display please Peter Francis's witness statement which is UCPI 36012 page 84
01:58:53 paragraph 511. This is where he says, "Had I come across any information of significance,
01:59:04 across any information of significance, for example, that Neville and/or Dorene Lawrence were hardcore communists or that the family campaign was being steered by militant trots, then that is information that would have been written up in a report. Dorene and Neville Lawrence were not sub subversives,
01:59:16 subversives, so they did not have special branch files, and I saw no reason for files to be opened on them on the basis of the intelligence I was gathering. Paragraph 512, please.
01:59:32 However, that is not to say I did not report on the campaign or the family, and I'm surprised there is nothing at all about this. Intelligence is not just about what is happening, but also about
01:59:45 about what is happening, but also about what is not happening. I recall writing in at least one of my reports that the campaign was not infiltrated by the Troskists, but that information is not
01:59:59 Troskists, but that information is not in the intelligence reporting within my witness pack. That said, I've already pointed out above that there are numerous missing reports. I declared to HN86 that the campaign uh were not politically political. I
02:00:10 uh were not politically political. I believe my assessment as reported was that the most
02:00:15 at most that the campaign would have been aligned with the ARRA but certainly were not Tros Troskas. I reported that this was partly because the gatekeepers
02:00:37 the gatekeepers Imran Khan and Sharesh Grover had done a good job of protecting the family. Thank you that you've taken down. Um
02:00:42 would you agree with the fact that you weren't subversives? I think you've said that already. and uh the fact that Imran Khan, Sheresh Grover did a good job of protecting your family from uh the
02:00:54 protecting your family from uh the political intentions of other groups. Um yes, I I think as we um between Mr. Khan and I, I think our all our intention was around making sure we um
02:01:07 intention was around making sure we um get justice and um questioning um what the police were doing. So that's it. We weren't doing anything else. Did you have the sense at the time that
02:01:24 Did you have the sense at the time that uh Mr. Khn and Mr. Grover were having to protect you at all in the political sense?
02:01:28 sense? I presume in some cases, yes. And how was that? I think I can't say much about Mr. Gr because I I didn't really know him that well. I can only speak um about Mr.
02:01:42 well. I can only speak um about Mr. Khan. um he I mean his his advice to us is is um whenever there's any information and any information that we want to pass on to the police and he was the right person to do that. So that is
02:01:56 the right person to do that. So that is how come our um how things were done in especially in the early stages cuz we would had no way of knowing what we need to do um in order to report or anything to do with the police cuz we know
02:02:09 to do with the police cuz we know nothing about how the police operate. So that's that's how it was at the time. So So Mr. Khan was more of a conduit between you as a family and the police
02:02:22 between you as a family and the police as opposed to you as a family and the support group uh or or political groups. Yes.
02:02:28 Yes. In terms of protection and whether that could justify reporting on the campaign that there's some evidence that the SDS officers suggested that their interest was to protect the family. Um,
02:02:43 now
02:02:47 if I can refer you to um
02:03:08 in your opening, your own opening. It's paragraph 28 to 29. this sense of a the white savior complex. Um what's set out there is it's a critical concept used to describe a phenomenon where a white person or
02:03:22 phenomenon where a white person or institution attempts to save or help non-white people, often in a self-serving manner that ultimately
02:03:33 self-serving manner that ultimately reinforces existing power imbalances and disempowers the very communities they claim to assist. So the suggestion that surveillance was necessary and justified to protect you and your family implies that you as a
02:03:49 and your family implies that you as a black parent grieving her murdered son and campaigning for justice was vulnerable to manipulation by left-wing groups andor anarchists. and it suggests that you were not capable of discerning
02:04:00 that you were not capable of discerning genuine allies from those with ulterior motives or of leading your own campaign effectively.
02:04:12 effectively. So that's how it's set out in part uh in in the opening to this inquiry. Is it fair to say Baroness Lawrence that on that basis you would reject any
02:04:26 on that basis you would reject any suggestion that any undercover reporting on you on your family or the campaign could be in any way justified on grounds of protecting you?
02:04:39 of protecting you? Um, no. Because, um, to say that the other white saviors and and sort of leading on from that, if they were in any way looking to protect us, why
02:04:54 any way looking to protect us, why weren't they, um, be upfront, speak to us and identify themselves so that we would know that they that they were there um to make sure that we as a family are protected. There was none of those things happening. and the mere fact that this um around the undercover that was happening, we didn't know this until in I'm not sure if it's 2004,
02:05:09 until in I'm not sure if it's 2004, whenever it was that we were told then, we'd have no idea. So to say that they were there protecting the family, I see
02:05:20 were there protecting the family, I see as a complete rubbish. That's not true. Can we have up on screen please MPS0722549?
02:05:36 It's behind tab B123. It's page four. Uh uh to start with please.
02:05:51 This is a 2013 interview with uh Robert Lambert, DI Robert Lambert,
02:06:06 and he's talking about HN81 and the meeting with uh Richard Walton from the Steven Lawrence review team. And he says that uh reporting was going up to the commissioner. The extreme leftwing was wanting to
02:06:21 The extreme leftwing was wanting to exploit campaigns for their own agenda and the home office.
02:06:29 Sorry, page four.
02:06:44 Um, it's about halfway down the page,
02:06:56 you know, across the
02:07:24 Sorry. Maybe maybe have gone over onto page five.
02:08:08 It's the It's the bottom part of where um Officer Lambert on page four, the last paragraph. It's very easy to suggest somehow the SDS was working
02:08:22 suggest somehow the SDS was working against the interests of the family, but that just wasn't the case. I mean and clearly you know the commissioner's interest here is not that either it's you know Richard Walton thanked for the officer his invaluable reporting on the
02:08:35 officer his invaluable reporting on the subject in recent months and you know to have an understanding of what these campaigning groups were up to. This was either to either protect the Lawrence family or I mean it was
02:08:46 Lawrence family or I mean it was certainly not to do anything against the Lawrence family. That's that's the bit I was trying to uh
02:08:59 That's that's the bit I was trying to uh pull out of this document. So, they were looking to protect the Lawrence family from uh uh campaign groups
02:09:14 from uh uh campaign groups and that was is what was being fed up to uh Richard Walton and the commissioner. I'm sorry, but
02:09:26 I'm sorry, but sorry, it's not very clear. I haven't put that very clearly at all. I said if we didn't know that um we were being spied on which we didn't know um so to say that about them looking to protect the family
02:09:38 about them looking to protect the family or or whatever they were trying to do it doesn't make any sense because if you were there to protect a family the family would be aware of what it is that you're doing and you would have communications between you and there was never any communication So the fact that they're they're um
02:09:53 So the fact that they're they're um spying and then information being um passed up to senior officers, we wouldn't be aware of any of that.
02:10:05 wouldn't be aware of any of that. And do you accept there's any truth in having a an undercover officer in the midst of the groups that were surrounding your campaign uh that was helping to protect you as a family and to protect your campaign? No.
02:10:22 Um, I want to ask you just a little more about the Richard Walton meeting. Now, Richard Walton was, as we've already looked at, part of the Steven Lawrence review team that was looking at the commissioner's submissions to the uh, McFersonen inquiry.
02:10:39 He met at HN81 in the garden of Robert Lambert
02:10:43 Lambert prior to those submissions being made. Um, can we display please MPS 0728625
02:10:50 page 10.
02:11:12 Sorry. Can we go to page 12, please?
02:11:25 The first three paragraphs on this page, this is a file note. Um,
02:11:35 and what we can see on Friday the 14th of August, I had a meeting. This is a note
02:11:38 note from Robert Lambert. I had a meeting with Windmill Tilter, that's H&81, and Richard Walton. Richard is currently working with the Steven Lawrence review team. Windmill Tilta uh
02:11:58 Lawrence review team. Windmill Tilta uh talked about the Lawrence inquiry from a movement for justice perspective and RW from his. It was a fascinating and valuable exchange of information concerning an issue which according to RW continues to dominate the
02:12:09 RW continues to dominate the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis. RW thanked WT for his invaluable reporting on the the subject in recent months. An indepth discussion enabled him to increase his understanding of the
02:12:20 him to increase his understanding of the Lawrence's relationship with the various campaign groups like MFJ. This he said would be of great value as he continued to prepare a draft submission to the inquiry on behalf of the commissioner.
02:12:33 inquiry on behalf of the commissioner. MFJ's future plans were also discussed at some length. NRW explained a lot of the behind-the-scenes politics involving the home office. It emerged that there is
02:12:49 home office. It emerged that there is great sensitivity around the Lawrence issue both with both the home home secretary and the prime minister extremely concerned that the Metropolitan Police could end up with its credibility in the eyes of London's black community completely undermined.
02:13:06 Um, given that the Steven Lawrence review team were in the process of drafting those Metropolitan Police submissions to the Steven Lawrence inquiry at the time, do you have thoughts about the fact there appears to have been over months
02:13:18 there appears to have been over months this uh feeding in of information from the undercover officer amongst the the the people that and groups that were associating with your campaign?
02:13:30 associating with your campaign? Sorry, are you asking me if if I was aware of all of this happening because then I wouldn't have been aware.
02:13:42 then I wouldn't have been aware. No. And you have addressed it already to to a large extent, but knowing that this is something that's on the commissioner's agenda on a daily basis, at least according to this file note by Bob Lan Lambert and this is something that the prime minister and the the uh
02:13:54 that the prime minister and the the uh home secretary are both seized of. What do you say about this information going up and being discussed at such a high level
02:14:05 level now in in hindsight even though you didn't know about [clears throat] it? Okay. So, they had concerns but I do I don't understand what concerns they would have around the family. Um,
02:14:17 would have around the family. Um, movement for justice, you know, we knew nothing about them beforehand. And so if if they be um like under the radar and all of a sudden that they become um in
02:14:30 all of a sudden that they become um in the sight of the police then that's up to them. So I don't see how we could be um associated with that. And I do understand what the prime minister and the home secretary was saying because at the end of the day within the black
02:14:44 the end of the day within the black community the police had no credibility in how they police and how you know what's happened over the years. So yes, in fact, rather than doing things to make it better or to make sure within
02:15:00 make it better or to make sure within the black community they feel supported, what they were doing is the complete opposite.
02:15:07 opposite. And and on the face of this document at least, it seems that the concern of the prime minister and the home secretary was the credibility of the police force. I don't know. It just seems to in many ways um all the things that's been
02:15:22 ways um all the things that's been happening I've always said that you know those who are doing things against us they're well protected and who was there to protect us you know there's no one
02:15:33 to protect us you know there's no one out there um there to protect the family um and so it goes um at the beginning when Steven was killed and the fact that we were sort of thrush into the into the limelight of things happening
02:15:50 limelight of things happening There was nobody supporting the family. We were we were just left exposed constantly and you know sometimes listening and reading some of these things I was trying to
02:16:01 some of these things I was trying to understand what the reason behind it you know we weren't known to the police beforehand and there's nothing about us
02:16:12 beforehand and there's nothing about us our background would cause the police um have reason um for concern as to our campaign. The campaign was just [clears throat] seeking for justice to get those individuals who murdered my son to be to be locked away. And that's the only purpose of what the campaign
02:16:25 the only purpose of what the campaign was there for. What these other groups was um were there doing, I cannot say
02:16:35 in terms of um the approach of the police to the inquiry. uh paragraph 171 of your witness statement, you say that when Sir Paul Condon made his statement to the inquiry, he was effectively attacking
02:16:53 inquiry, he was effectively attacking our legal team and complaining about the confrontational nature of cross-examination. He claimed that the nature of the questioning was damaging relations between the police and the black community, which you say was laughable, as it was what they had made sure of
02:17:08 as it was what they had made sure of since Steven's death. and even before it and he even took to suggest that Imran Khan Casey was holding back their search for the killers. Um is that your recollection of how that
02:17:23 Um is that your recollection of how that came across as poor Condon's evidence to the inquiry? Yes, cuz he was protecting his officers. Um and that was quite clear he was protecting his officers. Can we have up please MPS uh sorry UCPI 3255
02:17:52 at page 17 please. So this is the Ellison interview of Baron Condan on the 8th of October 2013.
02:18:04 And it talks about family liaison. And he suggests that the family liaison is just not getting close to the family.
02:18:17 There was a crowded airspace in terms of campaigners.
02:18:29 It might be over the next page. [clears throat]
02:18:56 Sorry sir, it seems my um pageionation is is off.
02:19:11 at the top of page 17. Sorry. Yes. Line two. Yeah. There was a feeling that they were not just getting close to the family. So this is in relation to the family liaison
02:19:21 liaison and a sense that this was very crowded airspace in terms of campaigners. A few
02:19:32 At the time you had, in no particular order, the Anti-Nazi League, the Anti-Racist Alliance, the SWP, you had Militant Tendency, you had I think someone something called the Y, which
02:19:45 someone something called the Y, which was youth against racism in Europe, and others.
02:20:04 And he goes on to say that most of that was incredibly good people trying to do good things. A tiny tiny tiny minority really of bad people hellbent on revolution and anarchy.
02:20:09 Um
02:20:20 given our understanding that it was apparent early on that Steven's death was not as a result of a street fight, gang violence or anything like that.
02:20:45 Sorry, I think we have to go further down here.
02:21:00 Uh the final paragraph please from uh line 30.
02:21:06 It became apparent very early on that this was not a sort of street fight or or rival gangs or whatever. This was a nasty, vicious murder of an innocent young man who was brutally killed. And as commissioner, I had a sense that
02:21:20 as commissioner, I had a sense that there was a frustration that they could not get close to the family to support them. That seemed to be inhibiting the inquiry.
02:21:27 inquiry. And the inquiry in that sense was the investigation into Steven's death. Uh what what do you say about that suggestion that the inquiry or the murder investigation was inhibited
02:21:40 murder investigation was inhibited because the FLOS's couldn't get close to you uh to support you? I I would strongly disagree with that because they had opportunity. Um yes um various
02:21:55 had opportunity. Um yes um various people were u attending our house. It it that did not mean that they couldn't speak to us. And and what about um the cause of frustration uh in the investigation
02:22:10 frustration uh in the investigation being that the crowded airspace full of campaigners around your family at the time?
02:22:20 I don't believe that to be true because we have especially myself has tried at every every attempt is to support the police in their investigation by passing on information
02:22:31 investigation by passing on information that came to us. We we did not withheld anything from them and when the lesson officer come to our house we would give them those information and what they didn't do was to inform us as what happened to those information that we
02:22:42 happened to those information that we had passed on. So there's nothing that came back to us. We we are the one kept giving giving giving. Nothing was reported back to us. And to say that
02:22:56 reported back to us. And to say that others was impeding the investigation I would say that's not true.
02:23:07 What do you say about the fact that there were bad people involved that were hellbent on revolution? Did you did you have any sense of that? I think your your evidence is quite clear that you weren't aware of that. No. No.
02:23:13 No. No. Around you at the time. Um and does that reflect um the police's perception or understanding of the justice campaigns
02:23:25 understanding of the justice campaigns and and how they're made and and and the purpose of them? I think they read into um whatever that they wanted to read into it because if they were really looking to solve
02:23:36 they were really looking to solve Steven's murder, they would concentrate on the investigation and the information that they were given. And obviously, they weren't doing that. and to spend as much time as they have looking at those
02:23:50 much time as they have looking at those people who attended my house or whoever. You know, for me, I just find that just so disrespectful because when somebody's been murdered in a way that Steven's been murdered, you would think that they
02:24:03 been murdered, you would think that they want to do whatever they can to find the killers and they had no intention of doing that. Um, I'd like to ask you just a little bit more about the impact of what you've learned about undercover reporting
02:24:20 learned about undercover reporting around the campaign. You've addressed it to some extent already. Um, but you do set out in your witness statement, paragraphs 230 to 238, some of the steps that you've taken in regard to this inquiry being established.
02:24:31 inquiry being established. You've uh attended meetings with the home secretary between 2012 2014 and
02:24:44 home secretary between 2012 2014 and you've been in correspondence with the MET commissioner at that time, Sir Bernard Hogan how in response to revelations in the media about undercover reporting and how that touched upon the Steven Lawrence campaign.
02:24:51 campaign. Um, what would you like to say about your current understanding of the nature
02:25:02 your current understanding of the nature of the undercover policing as it touched on your family and the campaign uh that you had established?
02:25:07 That's really difficult to answer because if you're not aware of undercover police that was taking place at the time and now to be talking about it now where um because if we knew what
02:25:22 it now where um because if we knew what was happening and we said we we could um question and address and ask question why that was happening but to be told how many years later after Steven's been
02:25:34 how many years later after Steven's been killed that this was going on is just to show the disregard um for us as a family and it's more important for them to look into other
02:25:45 important for them to look into other groups. We weren't concerned about other groups. What we were concerned about is how the investigation was was being carried out. And obviously if as keep saying if they had spent as much time doing undercover work on us instead of instead of doing the investigation to
02:25:59 instead of doing the investigation to catch Steven's killers, we would not be sitting here today. What about your sense of suspicion looking back now? Um do you look back uh on those days those those days when
02:26:13 on those days those those days when during the time of the campaign and the inquiry with a different view of it knowing what you now know about the undercover police operation? I think earlier on Mr. We did have some concerns about whether or not we were if
02:26:27 concerns about whether or not we were if when you pick up your phone or something you could hear like a click or something. So we were we were talking about it then but just broadly [snorts] and not really thinking that something
02:26:38 and not really thinking that something like that was happening. We were given uh like a panic um box um to have it um in our house and even
02:26:49 um to have it um in our house and even that we questioned if that was used as a listening device but at the same time you just brushed that aside because you don't believe that that would be happening. So even though it at the back of your mind you think that something like that will be going on but at the
02:27:02 like that will be going on but at the same time you you know you just brush it aside. You think no that couldn't be happening but now that we know it was happening then. Has it impacted at all on your capacity to trust people around you?
02:27:19 to trust people around you? Definitely. though I find it very difficult and and I think each investigation has happened. You start off thinking okay this time something's going to come out of it and then somewhere down the line nothing happened. So my level of trust
02:27:34 happened. So my level of trust especially with the police is so far down the scale and there's only one person at within the police force which is now retired which is Clive Driscoll.
02:27:46 is now retired which is Clive Driscoll. is the only one who was truthful to us. Every time he during his investigation something had come up, he would say to us or say to me, "This is what he's
02:27:58 us or say to me, "This is what he's found out because he trusted me not to be running to the press." Right? So everything he told me, but then there's within his those he was working with there was
02:28:13 those he was working with there was people leaking stuff to the press cuz we were told something like today and by the evening it was reported. So the leaks and stuff was happening, it's very hard to say what it was like for us. You know, you'll have a
02:28:24 for us. You know, you'll have a confidential meeting and you think, "Okay, fine. I understand." and then
02:28:37 "Okay, fine. I understand." and then later on you're reading in the paper or you're hearing it on the news. So my trust is so far down. So far down. Thank you. Those are all the questions I I have for you. I think there is some re-examination, but I don't think there are any rule 10.
02:28:50 are any rule 10. Do I need to write to see if there are or not?
02:28:56 I would anticipate not. Oh,
02:29:00 Oh, yes. something has come through on email.
02:29:12 Um, sir, yes, please, if we could rise. Um, may the witness be allowed to stay in the room though because I understand that it is difficult. Do you I know that if you do have to leave the room, it takes a certain
02:29:23 leave the room, it takes a certain amount of time and effort for you. I'm happy to stay if that's okay with you.
02:29:28 you. Thank you. more than happy to try and do that.
02:32:03 I understand there are no rule 10 questions. I I have some. So, of course. No, I I was just seeking to establish there weren't any. No rule.
02:32:11 No rule. Thank you. Yes,
02:32:17 Yes, Baron Lawrence. Um I'm not seeking to embarrass you, but what's your sort of character? I'm not talking about you went to a lot of meetings with police officers. Um, what would you what would you say your attitude to those police officers were? How did they um
02:32:33 How did they um how were how did they view your attitude at those meetings?
02:32:46 at those meetings? Uh, I'm not certain. I think um there sometimes they see me as I don't know rather than this timid person that I tend to ask too many questions and um when I'm told you know that I'm not like other it's just like I don't know I really
02:33:02 it's just like I don't know I really don't know I think as I said before all I all I was interested in is just to find out what happened about even and for them to be upfront with me and they weren't.
02:33:18 weren't. Uh let me be a bit more direct. Uh you will speak your mind. Yes,
02:33:19 Yes, you would
02:33:20 you would in a respectful way. Um I'm sure it was every time.
02:33:34 Would you have been persuaded or otherwise moved from your views or position at these meetings? No.
02:33:36 No. Did the police know that? I should think so. I don't know. Okay, let's put it another way. Was it obvious from the way that you conducted
02:33:51 obvious from the way that you conducted yourself that the police would know that you were somebody that spoke your mind and would not be moved from your position?
02:33:54 position? Yes, I believe so. Thank you. And we are talking about events from 1993 onwards. Yes. So for the last 30 years of all the police officers that you've met and you've met many I assume is that um a
02:34:11 you've met many I assume is that um a characterization of you that would be fair.
02:34:13 fair. Yes.
02:34:20 Yes. So in 1993 the police would have known that you were somebody that spoke your mind would not have been moved or persuaded to do things that you didn't want to do. I presume 1993 when Steven was first murdered they wouldn't have known anything about me but after
02:34:32 known anything about me but after Steven's murder and my consequence engagement with them they would know that
02:34:38 that the reason I'm asking those questions the suggestion is that um you needed protection from organizations and others around you no I I wouldn't say I needed protection from them
02:34:56 from them thank you and in 1993 onwards Um, would you accept that you were quite critical of the police investigation into Steven's murder?
02:35:04 murder? I was.
02:35:05 I was. You were vocal. Yes, very much so. And that was very much in the media. Yes.
02:35:17 Yes. And not only did the local police know about this, but senior police officers would have known about it. Yes.
02:35:22 Yes. And at that time, um, Sir Paul Condon was the commissioner. Yes.
02:35:35 was the commissioner. Yes. And you know, and it's at your uh paragraph 80 of your statement that Mr. Osland uh wrote a note to support Paul Condon to say that there the police patient was wearing thin with the family and your representatives. Do you recall that from your statement?
02:35:46 Do you recall that from your statement? I don't ask for it to be brought up, but do you recall that? Yes.
02:35:51 Yes. And so it would seem that Sir Paul Condon certainly knew of the police attitude towards you and your representatives. Yes.
02:36:01 Yes. From 1993. Yes.
02:36:17 And you say this. Can I ask for the um statement to be brought up at paragraph 213
02:36:31 paragraph 213 on page 50 and Baron Sorus do you have that? Yes. And you see that you say what has become clearer over time is that the
02:36:42 become clearer over time is that the police and Paul Condon appeared to view our family through a lens of suspicion as though we were somehow tied to criminality rather than as grieving families seeking justice for our son. It felt as though they were looking for
02:36:56 felt as though they were looking for something to discredit us, something in our background that they could use to justify their inaction. So I is your position this that from
02:37:08 So I is your position this that from 1993 onwards when you're being critical of the police that it would have been fair to say that they knew what your view was. They
02:37:22 they knew what your view was. They viewed you with suspicion and that it would have been helpful them to have material to discredit you. Yes.
02:37:34 And you say this at paragraph 211 please on the same page. Now you mentioned in your evidence earlier
02:37:43 earlier that to see the extent of the resources, time and effort that were directed towards monitoring our family in the campaign rather than towards finding and prosecuting those responsible for
02:37:54 prosecuting those responsible for Steven's murder. It's deeply painful and their priorities were completely misplaced. Um, and this goes back to what you said in relation to the murders that had taken place in Southeast London at the time.
02:38:05 time. Yes.
02:38:06 Yes. Beginning of your evidence. There were how many racist murders in the area up before Stevens? I think there was um two that I know of and others after.
02:38:20 and others after. So that was um Roland Adams and Rowit Dooall that I um that I um found out after Steven's murder. And with Roit Dooall, his one his murder was near where Steven was killed.
02:38:32 where Steven was killed. And when you talk about priorities, of course, is the priorities in relation to undercover officers and intrusive surveillance on you and your family and
02:38:46 surveillance on you and your family and representatives in the campaign. But do you have anything to say about the resources put to looking at what was happening in Southeast London with those other murders? I don't think much resource was put in place for them. I don't believe that
02:39:01 place for them. I don't believe that they were because I think um one of the things um around Roland Adams murder I think there I understand must have
02:39:15 I think there I understand must have been about 12 um that was part of a gang who attacked him and in the end I think eventually one um probably was prosecuted where road was concerned I don't know how many um was um involved in his murder but when for Steven Um
02:39:30 in his murder but when for Steven Um when we told there's five possibly six person
02:39:35 person and especially if those individuals were known to the police before Steven's murder, I expected them to be on top of everything in either to bring Steven's just um murders to justice because they would have known of the individual and
02:39:50 would have known of the individual and the local people within the area knew of them and were given as much information as they could to the police and the mere fact that They did nothing with those information.
02:40:02 information. Would it be fair to say that had they put resources into looking at the previous murders and the races in the in the area, do you think that m might have made any difference to Steven and what happened to him?
02:40:14 happened to him? Well, definitely because I think [clears throat] if they had done that, those individuals and we said they were they were not just around Steven. They were around people in in the local here who knew of them and had the
02:40:27 who knew of them and had the [clears throat] police been monitoring them. If that had been a black family who the police knew about, they would leave no stone unturned in other to arrest them and to make sure that those
02:40:40 arrest them and to make sure that those individual were brought to justice. But when it comes to a black individual who's been murdered by whites is as if they don't care. Um his death is meaningless. And that's why I was just so adamant in
02:40:52 And that's why I was just so adamant in making sure that Steven's name is never forgotten because he did nothing wrong.
02:41:05 Um, parents, would it be fair to say that had they the police done their job properly in relation to those other murders, Steven might be alive today? Well, I would hope that, but then, you
02:41:17 Well, I would hope that, but then, you know, um, hindsight is a great thing, so we don't know what would have happened, but I'm sure Steve would stand a much better chance of being here today had the police done their job around those individuals.
02:41:28 individuals. You heard from uh council of the inquiry in relation to the information that s Paul condom was getting uh around the McFersonen inquiry from HN81
02:41:41 McFersonen inquiry from HN81 through uh Richard Walton meeting in the garden and the information being provided to him in relation to that credibility as to whether that's true or not. Um
02:41:54 the the questions I've asked you does it suggest to you or would it be fair to to to put to you that there would have been um some advantage to support Condon and
02:42:08 um some advantage to support Condon and the Metropolitan Police to know what you were saying in relation to the inquiry at that time. Um, you could say so because if as we
02:42:21 Um, you could say so because if as we find out later about the um surveillance around us, they would know much more to be passing on to the commissioner. And how does that make you feel knowing that information from the inquiry conversations that you were having with
02:42:32 conversations that you were having with your lawyers and campaigners and others was effective being used by Paul Condom, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? more. So, if that's true, how do you feel now about that? Of
02:42:44 how do you feel now about that? Of course, you didn't know that at the time.
02:42:48 time. I feel really angry about all of that. my first meeting with the commissioner um the first thing he said he said to me was that not that he's sorry about
02:43:01 was that not that he's sorry about Steven's death the first thing he said that um PC Dunn was murdered and they haven't found his killers as yet at that time and I had to point out to him when
02:43:19 time and I had to point out to him when PC Dunn was attacked and killed they had helicopters out on that night searching They arrested somebody, beat the wrong person. They did not do that for my son. And I had to make that quite clear to him. So for him to say that to me was just so disrespectful.
02:43:31 just so disrespectful. You know, you're meeting me about my son, but yet you want to tell me about an officer and yes, I'm really sorry
02:43:43 an officer and yes, I'm really sorry that what happened to him, but my son did not get the same treatment. So Paul Condon became a peer and was in the House of Lords prior to you. Yes.
02:44:05 Yes. And you get given evidence earlier that um you would often meet in the house and speak to other peers. Has Paul Condon ever approached you or have you ever approached him after the inquiry or indeed the Edison review and um discussed or talked about your son? No.
02:44:18 discussed or talked about your son? No. Um, he's never approached me and even if he walked past in a corridor, he would just hold his head straight. He would never communicate with me. What, if anything, would you want to say to him in relation to this inquiry and what you've learned about uh the
02:44:35 what you've learned about uh the undercover officers and his if if it's true, his role within the undercover surveillance. I would say that he spent so much time and so much energy or his officers had in looking into us as a family rather than um looking to the individual had
02:44:49 than um looking to the individual had murdered my son. As I said before, they had no intention and like a many of the murders happened within black families. they they have not received justice and because I've been so vocal and been so
02:45:04 because I've been so vocal and been so critical of how they treated me and my family and it's taken years for us to get to this point where we we've had two conviction
02:45:17 conviction and Baron you've um said in questioning that you've met number of home secretaries in your statement at paragraph 79 uh home office minister Peter Lloyd Um
02:45:31 Um after the inquiry was announced, did you meet um a home secretary? Um at the time would be Jack Straw at the time of the inquiry, but after the inquiry, Theresa May announced the
02:45:47 the inquiry, Theresa May announced the inquiry. Did you have communication with a home a previous home secretary? I didn't have I I had no um communication with the home secretary who was at the time when Steven was murdered. No, I've never had conversation which was with Michael
02:46:01 conversation which was with Michael Howard. Never had conversation with him. But since then, um I have been in communic in communication with Theresa
02:46:12 communic in communication with Theresa May and I'm trying to think they're the person after her. Amber Amber Raj I think and each of them I've had [clears throat] opportunity of speaking to them.
02:46:20 to them. You had a meeting with u Michael how did you not
02:46:24 you not I only had a meeting with him after it was announced about the inquiry into Steven's um and I don't have reason tell us how that meeting came to be and what if anything was discussed at that meeting.
02:46:35 meeting. um he's the one who invited me to a meeting and he was quite keen to express that he knew nothing about the
02:46:53 that he knew nothing about the undercover policing that was happening around my family. Um and he wanted to sort of that that was his agenda. He said he knew nothing about it. And this was uh within days or weeks or months of the inquiry being announced. I would say within weeks apparently when
02:47:10 would say within weeks apparently when he invited to speak to me he said he was away at the time and so when he arrived back in this country at his earliest opportunity was when he wanted to speak with me.
02:47:19 with me. Did you accept at face value what he was saying to you that he knew nothing about it?
02:47:20 it? No.
02:47:23 No. What did you consider was a motive behind him meeting you? Um I presume to set the record straight
02:47:34 Um I presume to set the record straight where he was concerned cuz he um he was emphasizing that he knew nothing about the undercover policing that was taking place around us and that was his what he wanted to make sure that he tells um
02:47:46 wanted to make sure that he tells um tell me and for me to understand that but I don't believe anything that he was saying because I think as an home secretary um between the commission and himself they report to each other they have conversation so he would have known
02:48:03 conversation so he would have known knowing about what was happening. I don't believe that he didn't know. And and is this conclusion come to as a result of your
02:48:12 experiences meeting various home secretaries over the years? Yes. Cuz I said like um Michael Howard, well, Lord Howard is in the House of Lords and we pass each other in the corridor. He's never spoken to me. And
02:48:24 corridor. He's never spoken to me. And so that was the very first time when he invited him to a meeting and since then he he hasn't spoken to me again. The home office representatives are here. Baron Lawrence. What if anything
02:48:38 here. Baron Lawrence. What if anything do you want to say to them and indeed uh Lord Howard about their involvement or explanation in relation to the events um that we're looking into in this inquiry?
02:48:51 looking into in this inquiry? I would say that the home secretary um whoever they are they have a duty of care you know they're um they're there um to especially um around the police they're to protect
02:49:06 they're to protect society and I am part of that society and none of that took place for us. Would you want them to come and give evidence and explanations to this inquiry?
02:49:13 inquiry? I think they should. Thank you. Another topic please. um institutional racism. Can I ask for your
02:49:24 institutional racism. Can I ask for your um statement to be brought up at page 37 paragraph 1 76 onwards
02:49:37 and Baris Lawrence, you have since murder spoken at many meetings, been at many committee meetings,
02:49:49 many committee meetings, uh spoken to young people about racism. Forgive me for stating the office. Um, you have an understanding of institutional racism. Yes.
02:49:57 Yes. And you say this in paragraph 177, the report McFersonen reports published in February 99. McFersonen's findings of institution racism within the Met was monumental and it goes on and I wonder whether I I could ask you
02:50:09 could ask you uh and perhaps to do it this way. You gave a number of answers in relation to questions put about the way the police viewed you. The reference to monkeys, I
02:50:26 viewed you. The reference to monkeys, I won't go in into that. The references to being led by monkeys, nose through the nose, uh through the nose.
02:50:33 That's obviously racist. Is that right? Yes.
02:50:39 Yes. And in terms of institutional racism, that was a view that was taken by police officers, was it not? Yes.
02:50:44 Yes. What do you think the consequences were of that view of you and your family?
02:50:55 and your family? What consequences was there? What did it lead to in your view about them having that opinion of you?
02:51:06 that opinion of you? Well, I think it it shows that um we as from the black community that doesn't matter what happens to us. It's like we're fair game. anything can happen whether um like when my son was killed is of no consequences to them. They
02:51:25 is of no consequences to them. They don't feel that they need to do anything in either to support to bring Steven's killers to justice. There's none of those things that's in the in the forefront of their mind. Steven was a was a black young man and in their eyes he must be a criminal. He must be up to something. He cannot be innocent.
02:51:40 something. He cannot be innocent. And so they set about in whatever they're doing is to undermine we as a as individuals that we do have feelings and in fact the fact that I
02:51:52 feelings and in fact the fact that I wanted to support them in order to um around Steven's murder. It didn't occur to me in the beginning that we would have to fight as much as we have over
02:52:06 have to fight as much as we have over the years. I thought they would be so disgusted in how Steven was murdered that they would want to do all that they could to bring his his killers to justice. And the reality is no, they weren't interested.
02:52:21 weren't interested. So can I put it to you in this way that the view they took of you as an individual as a family meant that they did not investigate the case as they should have done?
02:52:33 should have done? That's yes. in relation to the idea that you're being led by others because you're monkeys or you're not particularly intelligent.
02:52:45 particularly intelligent. Um the consequence was that that that they were seeking to protect you. So they were putting more resources into the undercover operations. Does that make sense to you? Is that a fair assumption to you? I find it quite
02:53:00 assumption to you? I find it quite insulting really for them to think that I couldn't string two senses together and also the fact that they needed to protect me. Yes, they needed to protect me because I'm part of society. They needed to protect my son which they
02:53:18 needed to protect my son which they didn't do. Okay. So, they they had no happened to Steven on the night. But it's what followed that that they their intent was a completely different and I do feel quite insulted when they talk about my intelligence.
02:53:31 when they talk about my intelligence. So would you um agree with me that that is an example of institutional racism to
02:53:42 is an example of institutional racism to to take a view about you and to act upon that view um going forward? Definitely. So thank you. Um, one last topic if I may.
02:54:04 P U paragraph 239 of your witness statement, Baroness, page 58 of 62, and it relates to the issue of apologies.
02:54:18 Do you see that? I received an apology by letter on the 27th of March 2014 from Sir Bernard Hogen How.
02:54:26 Um, and you say he apologized for the conduct of the Met and committed to be transparent in their involvement within the inquiry. What is already clear is the number of times I have been given empty promises by the police since April 1993.
02:54:42 by the police since April 1993. And the statement was last year 31 years. I think it's now third 32
02:54:43 32 32.
02:54:46 Um,
02:54:57 you have today received a personal apology from the commissioner through deputy assistant commissioner John Savile. Is that right? Yes.
02:55:01 Do you welcome that apology?
02:55:17 I would welcome the apologies because I think I've had so many over the years. you know when is apology going to be where I feel satisfied that they understand what has happened and it has taken 32 years for us to get to this point. I think each time there's an apology is it's like when things become
02:55:30 it's like when things become in in the public domain that they feel that they need to apologize that thing. Um the first time when the commissioner
02:55:45 Um the first time when the commissioner back in 90 um 97 98 apologized I wasn't in the room at the time.
02:55:56 in the room at the time. Is this Assistant Commissioner Johnston? No. Um Mr. Commissioner Johnson he did um and this he his one would be in 97 after the um the the inquest that's when and I think from there he saw how angry I was because the
02:56:07 saw how angry I was because the information that came out during the inquest and one particular officer who stood up and lied under oath he lied and
02:56:20 stood up and lied under oath he lied and I'm supposed to sit back and accept that I was just so angry and every time I speak to any police officer I always say to them if it wasn't for John K we would never have that we would never have that public inquiry is the may he lied
02:56:37 and do you have any message for the commissioner deputy assistant commissioner John se is here in person do you have any message to him in relation to this inquiry and going forward
02:56:50 going forward I would like that any time or whatever happens after this inquiry this now is for the truth to be heard and to be um to be published cuz I think the fact that
02:57:05 that from 93 go up to 90 whenever it was that they were spying on us I don't understand the reason behind it there's nothing in our background our behavior
02:57:23 nothing in our background our behavior to justify what was happening so I would like at the end for this is the report should be shown that what what has happened to us was so wrong and not just apology just for just just for the sake of apology it must it must be meant that way
02:57:37 be meant that way I said final topic I'm always bad at this I have one further topic
02:57:51 further topic there are two police officers HN 81 and 86 who are not going to appear at this inquiry or that's their intention certainly. What if anything do you want to say in relation to them? HN81 on the basis of ill health and HN86 on the basis that he's out of the jurisdiction. What if
02:58:04 he's out of the jurisdiction. What if anything do you want to say to those two officers?
02:58:06 officers? if they were I understand when they gave their um their statement they were well enough to give how many page statements and the mere fact that they can hide behind I'm
02:58:17 mere fact that they can hide behind I'm not saying that if you're ill you're ill but the mere fact that if you could gone through so much during your time as as
02:58:32 through so much during your time as as undercover and um spying on us the least you can do and have that respect is to come and give your evidence in public and stop hiding behind whatever whatever it is that you feel that you need to hide behind cuz during their time of um I don't know spying investigating what
02:58:47 I don't know spying investigating what whatever they were doing they were happy to do that and now the mere fact that they've been sort of um called to give um as a witness oh um I'm not well enough
02:59:00 enough it shows that there are times that part
02:59:11 it shows that there are times that part of the authority takes take what happens to them as something that they must be protected. But here I am sitting in a room, right? I don't have that where I can just say I don't want to give evidence is something that I'm obliged to do. And
02:59:25 is something that I'm obliged to do. And I think if I was to turn around and said I'm not I don't want to be here. I'm sure there'll be eyebrows raised saying
02:59:37 sure there'll be eyebrows raised saying I've been very critical, but yet I'm not um here in person to give evidence. I don't like being in a spotlight. I really don't like it. and the mere fact I had to sit here for the whole day.
02:59:49 It's um
02:59:51 um finally
02:59:55 finally Iration Steven and all that's happened over the years um
03:00:03 um how would you like us the public the chair to remember him? Ste was a decent young man.
03:00:15 Ste was a decent young man. He like most young people growing up, you know, cheeky has these thoughts about him, but at the end of the day, he was respectful. He was respectful. He would never gone out of his way to hurt anyone.
03:00:29 out of his way to hurt anyone. There's so many things that's been said about Steven that others have said to me who I presume they never thought they needed to do that
03:00:41 needed to do that from
03:00:45 from people um young people from his school adults.
03:00:51 adults. Nobody had a bad word to say about him. Nobody.
03:00:53 Nobody. and the mere fact that
03:01:02 his life was taken. And you had these people who are
03:01:13 And you had these people who are supposed to be there to protect him and look after and to make sure that whatever happened to him, they did nothing.
03:01:24 I had to spend the last how many years talking about him
03:01:32 and for people to understand what he's been like.
03:01:39 For the past 32 years, I haven't had the opportunity to grieve my son properly because I have to challenge every step
03:01:56 because I have to challenge every step of the way what has happened to him and why the police feel in felt that they could not investigate his murder properly.
03:02:00 properly. Your skin color should have nothing to do with it. When somebody's done something wrong, they need to be punished. Steven did nothing wrong.
03:02:13 Steven did nothing wrong. But we have been punished for the past 32 years
03:02:19 sitting here now. I'm talking about him.
03:02:32 Okay, I can't bring him back. But his memory is something and his memory is for good.
03:02:36 for good. Everything I've [clears throat] done over the years and supporting others and young people is for the goodness of Steven. Not because
03:02:55 I feel that is something that you know just pretend it's because of the person he was.
03:03:02 he was. And I want other young people to grow up. It doesn't matter what race they are.
03:03:05 to believe in somebody like him.
03:03:16 I'm sorry. Thank you very questions. [snorts]
03:03:24 Baris Lawrence, I'm not going to add to what you have just said with
03:03:32 to say it like this sounds trit but obvious feeling. Uh I I am the father of three sons. I would understand if something had happened to them
03:03:45 them of a kind which had happened to yours. Thank you for putting yourself through what I know has been a difficult experience and giving evidence to me. Thank you.