Bernard Renwick & MSS - Michael Menson Murder Campaign

Full transcript

00:20:30 Good afternoon everybody. As I said earlier, this afternoon's proceedings are being broadcast by voice only. There will be no uh video broadcast. Uh the

00:20:42 will be no uh video broadcast. Uh the voice only broadcast will uh be uh uh after a 10-minute delay. Those with mobile dev devices in the room behind the uh hearing area uh may use them to report what they have heard in the

00:20:55 report what they have heard in the hearing room after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event they're describing. They may not be used for recording.

00:21:10 I want to go on now to ask you about the police's response to early efforts by your family to engage with the media. MSS, I'll be directing these questions to you. Why did you feel the need to engage with

00:21:24 Why did you feel the need to engage with the media about the police investigation into Michael's death?

00:21:30 put simply because what we saw is that the police weren't doing anything or enough. They weren't doing anything. They

00:21:36 They were also minimizing the the fact that they had done so little and we were

00:21:47 little and we were [clears throat] forced to thinking that we have to start acting ourselves thinking what can we do as time was passing to get a greater understanding of what happened on that night and to determine the truth of the matter.

00:21:59 determine the truth of the matter. around when did you decide that it was necessary for you to independently go to the media?

00:22:11 the media? I I was back in the UK for about a month after after you in the last few days of Mike's life and be and after he died and it was in in that time that we had conversations with us. People the police were coming to talk to us and they were

00:22:24 talk to us and they were it became clear to us that they were more intent in getting sort of information from us. what were we thinking? What were our concerns? What was our fears? Rather than actually giving us information, they should have

00:22:36 giving us information, they should have been supporting us and updating us. But they were just trying to mine us for

00:22:47 they were just trying to mine us for sort of our position. And we saw nothing happening. And more than that, when we asked them what about um doing an appeal, things we'd seen before as sort of normal citizens, they said, "Oh, no. We'll get so much we'll get such we'll be inundated with

00:23:02 get such we'll be inundated with information that it'll put us off. It'll squander resources. It'll take us off track and it'll be more of a hindrance than a help.

00:23:14 than a help. And after a while, we thought this this [laughter] is this is nonsense. They're not doing anything. We have to take matters into our own hands. And when you approached the media, what did you want to see happen? We we were in a position where

00:23:28 We we were in a position where Mike had said something very clearly to the family members and the police were saying that didn't happen. So we wanted to know the truth. We wanted to say somebody must have seen something. Was there any information that would

00:23:40 Was there any information that would help determine exactly what had gone on? And if, as Mike had said clearly so many times, that he'd been attacked to spur the police on to actually start investigating.

00:23:56 investigating. And how would you describe the police's response to your efforts to increase public awareness of the attack on Michael through the media?

00:24:06 Michael through the media? I mean, to be honest, they looked as if at us as if we were being ridiculous, as if we were kind of almost the sense of, "Oh, you've watched too many crime dramas." that sense of this is not appropriate. Also, they stated overtly that it wouldn't be helpful, that it would be a hindrance to them and that we we shouldn't do that.

00:24:24 we shouldn't do that. At paragraph 42 of your statement, I'm not going to take you there. You say that the message you received from the

00:24:36 that the message you received from the police was clear and in your own words, the message was be quiet and let us do our job. Is that about right? 100%.

00:24:38 100%. It was as if every time we asked a question, every time we we suggested anything, they looked at the surface, [clears throat] listen, listen, we're the police, you're not. Just let us do our job. And

00:24:51 our job. And it was it was a really difficult position to be in because we kept asking ourselves, is is there any possibility that this is true? And it seemed incredible that it could be,

00:25:03 it seemed incredible that it could be, but we we genuinely considered it. And then we looked at everything in front of us and thought this is this is a becoming a nonsense. This is not the case. I think by that time

00:25:16 case. I think by that time um Scott was had the mantra I have an open mind and he kind of used as if was a trump card you know how can you

00:25:28 a trump card you know how can you challenge somebody if they're saying they've got an open mind but we said to him yeah I get that as a police officer you need to have an open

00:25:40 police officer you need to have an open mind but the person who was attacked and subsequently died has said m multiple occasions

00:25:42 occasions he was attacked you know, look at the evidence, look at the distribution of the injury, look at what the person, the people who found them are saying. How how can that how

00:25:55 them are saying. How how can that how can it be appropriate to have an open mind in the face of that sort of information that you've been given even if you didn't bother to investigate it in a timely manner? But he kept saying, "I've got an open mind. That's my job. Let us do our job."

00:26:07 Let us do our job." Did they ever make you doubt yourself? Abs 100%. [laughter] 100% they made they made I I can't speak to the whole family. This only made me doubt myself and

00:26:19 and as I've said in the statement I

00:26:26 think it was intentional. I think they intentionally

00:26:31 to be frank I think they intentionally tried to you know divide and rule pick us off pick me off. you know I we're as I've said we're quite a large family different personalities different human beings and I think they I don't know

00:26:46 beings and I think they I don't know perhaps because I was you know newly you know new just had a child I was also a public servant maybe they thought that this person will get it maybe I was just gullible

00:27:03 just gullible I I remember throughout those initial weeks and months being just being completely incredulous that

00:27:06 that in the face of what was coming up that

00:27:17 in the face of what was coming up that they wouldn't investigate. Including the fact that when as I said when we came home and the Steven Lawrence inquest um outcome came through. I remember actually feeling guilty isn't quite the right word, but like as if like of course now they're going to they're going to investigate. They're going to redouble their efforts.

00:27:31 They're going to redouble their efforts. They're going to really prove, you know, the narrative wrong. Yeah, it was clear that they had there were racial motivation for them not investigating Steven Lawrence's murder. I I just thought there's no human way that they

00:27:46 thought there's no human way that they won't think, okay, let's show everyone wrong. Let's prove them wrong. And I felt guilty that we were sort of benefiting from the timing and only to find that actually it was absolute that absolutely not the case. And what did

00:27:59 absolutely not the case. And what did the police tell you would happen if you did criticize them? As I said before, they said it would impact their motivation. Absolutely. The word they used was they didn't say we won't do it, but they said, "How can you expect people to be motivated when

00:28:13 expect people to be motivated when you're criticizing them?" And also, they said that if we were publicly criticizing the police, then members of the public who had information wouldn't come forward. that if we were showing doubt in the police, it would make the public doubt the police and then

00:28:29 public doubt the police and then evidence wouldn't be shared. I remember thinking, what a contradiction. On the one hand, you're saying it'll be inundated, and on the other hand, you're saying if we speak up and say, "What a bad job you've done, then it's going to put people off."

00:28:44 put people off." In your statement, you mentioned that the police use the word quality a lot. What do you mean by that? They kept saying, you know, if you if you speak up, it's going to affect the quality of the investigation we do. It's going to impact. We said, well, well, there has been no quality of investigation. And

00:28:58 been no quality of investigation. And they when I I remember saying that to somebody and they said, we know the first 12 hours we didn't secure the scene. As if it was just the first 12 hours, but we know it was far longer than that. Did you feel then and do you feel now

00:29:15 Did you feel then and do you feel now that the initial police investigation into Michael's death might have been affected by race or any other form of prejudice? For example, his mental health at the time. I mean, this is such a such a pivotal question and I I cannot get into

00:29:27 question and I I cannot get into somebody's head, but what I can do is look at what I saw in front of me. I saw an immediate emphasis on on us as a black family, an immediate parallel

00:29:43 black family, an immediate parallel drawn by them first, not us first about the Steven Lawrence case. This is not another Steven Lawrence. Um, when we asked them, you know, why what why is it that you're not investigating this? You we heard from actually I think it was a member of the press who said that they

00:29:56 member of the press who said that they talked about Mike being, you know, you know, a black man, you know, black. Well, you you saw the phrase, you know, black schizophrenic was a was

00:30:09 black schizophrenic was a was something we later heard. They refer to him in such derogatory ways that it's hard to believe it wasn't racially motivated. We'll come to deal with the issue of race and

00:30:21 race and defensiveness a little bit later. Um, now turning to the family liaison officer specifically, is it correct at one point one of them pulled you aside and said something along the lines of you needing to manage MWS?

00:30:38 MWS? Absolutely. They didn't say the word manage, but they they absolutely pulled us aside. The the family home at the time, the living room was on the first floor and, you know, exit was on the ground floor. So I took them down and they said look you know you need you need to you need to I can't remember the

00:30:51 need to you need to I can't remember the word but the sense was managed. You need to get hold of this. It was along the lines of what they said to me why did you let him as if I as the older sibling

00:31:02 you let him as if I as the older sibling should take charge and stop people doing things that they were saying would be would be an impediment to them. And it was an incredibly difficult when you say

00:31:14 was an incredibly difficult when you say did I doubt myself? It was an incredibly difficult position to be in because I didn't want us and intentionally to do things which

00:31:25 and intentionally to do things which would hamper the investigation. But you know the way they pulled me aside you like you're reasonable you know um that's that sort of sense was was incredibly man manipulative. It was only when I spoke to some of my other siblings I thought this is absolute manipulation and I need we need to stand up against this.

00:31:39 up against this. And how did you feel then and how do you feel now about being asked to effectively go against your brother? I I feel I feel disgusted. I I do I absolutely admit I do feel ashamed

00:31:51 absolutely admit I do feel ashamed because I wasn't as if instantly I thought no this is nonsense. I did weigh it up. I contemplated could there be any truth to this? Could we um be

00:32:02 truth to this? Could we um be unintentionally impeding things? So, I was a real concern and I just feel like they must just must have looked at me and thought, you know, she's a soft touch. She's a soft touch. We'll pull

00:32:18 touch. She's a soft touch. We'll pull her over on our side and we'll get her to pummelate our narrative. And that does not feel good. Did you ever feel bullied or pressured into complying and accepting what the police told you?

00:32:29 police told you? I felt pressurized. I felt pressurized. We felt pressurized. Um there were times when when when we said we were doing things that they spoke to us in a tone of anger and irritation.

00:32:40 irritation. Um

00:32:45 I don't use the word bullied lightly because I it's just not part of my my habit. But I certainly felt we I felt very pressurized individually and I felt I think we as a result of some of the

00:32:59 I think we as a result of some of the conversations we had I'd say that we all felt many of us felt pressurized by them.

00:33:00 them. Now, you use the term smokeokesc screen um and paragraph 58 of your statement to describe your dealings with the police at this stage. Can you explain what you mean by that?

00:33:19 mean by that? So much of the time they told us things to suggest that they were investigating that they were that you know we shouldn't go to the press because the press weren't interested. They would do it. They would manage it. They would try and get the information. they would get um asked the public in a way that they

00:33:30 um asked the public in a way that they felt was most appropriate. But all the time they said that we we we found out that very little happened. I I actually

00:33:48 that very little happened. I I actually do believe that they overtly lied to us. If I go back to the you were asking MWS about whe the police visited the hospital and when we got home 16 days after Mike had been attacked, we said to them, why didn't you come to the hospital? They

00:34:01 didn't you come to the hospital? They didn't say to us we were there twice. If they had been there twice, would they not have said that at the time? Why did that only, you know, was that only suggested later? And where's the evidence that they did? So throughout

00:34:15 evidence that they did? So throughout the time there were, you know, there was it was a smoke screen. They were trying to suggest that they were investigating. But what we've since found out was so

00:34:26 But what we've since found out was so much energy was being put into firstly smearing us, trying to imply that we were hostile, that we had a ulterior motive, etc. that we were ashamed or

00:34:37 motive, etc. that we were ashamed or guilty of of that Mike had we felt bad that we hadn't looked after Michael enough that he might have done this to himself. All of these things they were blown blowing smoke in multiple

00:34:50 blown blowing smoke in multiple directions trying to minimize what was obvious that they had done absolutely nothing and they were more intent on continuing to hide that rather than to actually use their energy to investigate. And I to this day can't believe that it wouldn't have been

00:35:05 believe that it wouldn't have been easier for them to investigate it than the fact that they put so much more energy into pretending and hiding. Was there a point when the family liaison officers stopped meeting with you?

00:35:14 you? Yeah. Um I I remember as I said I've arrang I've described the arrangement of the house. So I remember a few times kind of looking looking out and they'd kind of walk out and be laughing to each other and joking or

00:35:27 laughing to each other and joking or sort of you know moving in a way which suggested they were they were being really light and I also remember they'd come into the house and they'd kind of look at us when we were kind of low. They'd sort of come in and say oh how are you and we not surprisingly weren't

00:35:39 are you and we not surprisingly weren't that buoyant and they'd look at us at us as if we were you know as if we're being melodramatic or something. And I

00:35:52 melodramatic or something. And I remember saying them to them once when I said you always come in and you say how you are in this light voice and how do you think we are? How do you think we are? And I remember they just looked at each other and after that I my memories that after that they didn't come very

00:36:05 that after that they didn't come very much and you I can't give you the exact sequence but I remember thinking so interesting that when I'm kind of calling them on the way they're behaving with us they they stopped coming and also they were often asking me and another of my siblings you know so so

00:36:18 another of my siblings you know so so what are you thinking you know what what are you planning to do those sorts of questions and when we initially because I'm that kind of person I just told them. I thought that would help. But over time when when I we stopped giving

00:36:31 over time when when I we stopped giving them the responses, then they it seemed to coincide with them coming far less often. I went back overseas at about a month and by the time I'd gone, I don't think they were coming very much at all, but I don't know the exact date sequence.

00:36:44 sequence. I want to move on now to another topic. This is the formation of the family campaign and MWS. I'm going to be asking questions about this to you

00:37:02 [snorts] in your statement. I don't we don't need to take you there. Um before the transcript it's UCPI 1038379 tab A1 paragraph 37. You see that from a very early stage we formed the view that the police were letting us down

00:37:17 letting us down and without us doing something about it the investigation into Michael's death would fail. Is that right? Yes.

00:37:26 Yes. When did the idea of forming a family campaign for justice for Michael first arise?

00:37:31 that arose from um

00:37:44 the investigation not proceeding in a manner which would suggest that it was an investigation. The reports in the media didn't reflect at all what we knew. The actions of the police didn't reflect an investigation.

00:37:55 an investigation. And uh so we came to the view that we would need to raise awareness to gain information and collect any remaining available information that was out

00:38:10 available information that was out there. That was the sole purpose of the campaign was to draw attention to the events of that night and to make sure

00:38:22 events of that night and to make sure that anybody who could assist us would assist us if they saw media report or [clears throat] uh had been given a leaflet or seen a radio interview. So we um engaged

00:38:33 radio interview. So we um engaged any of the media that we could uh contact who would would assist us and made all all attempts to ask for

00:38:44 made all all attempts to ask for information. The the initial part of the campaign described what we had what we had seen and the difference between what we are saying and what the police were saying and

00:38:58 and what the police were saying and and asking for information. that was the sole purpose and also to correct the mistakes that were being propagated by

00:39:12 mistakes that were being propagated by the police in their media activities and suggesting anything other than that um that Michael had been attacked that there were others that might need to be s sought about what has happened and all of that was counter to what the

00:39:28 of that was counter to what the narrative that the police were uh giving the media media and the media was subsequently uh broadcasting. Was there any political objective in your campaign?

00:39:40 your campaign? No. The the purpose of the campaign was to find out what happened to Michael. And did it did your campaign attract political support?

00:39:52 Not that I know of. We spoke to anybody who would listen. Um, but the sole purpose of the campaign was to to repeat what was known and to

00:40:09 to to repeat what was known and to trigger anybody's memory to come forward with any information that they might know.

00:40:14 know. Did you or anyone else in your family ever receive or set out to receive any payment or endorsements either for as a result of the campaign? Who was involved in this campaign? You

00:40:25 Who was involved in this campaign? You don't have to mention any names, but who were the main parties or involved in the campaign?

00:40:40 campaign? The campaign was largely limited to um our family and some close friends. We had support from um our solicitor and we met with Suresh Grover who also uh gave support and the

00:40:53 Grover who also uh gave support and the monitoring group gave support. uh beyond that um I can't see that there's uh people that I can readily identify and what sort of activities that the

00:41:04 what sort of activities that the campaign get involved in in pursuing attention. Okay, so I'll describe this campaign that is being talked about. It's really seeking evidence and information.

00:41:17 seeking evidence and information. There's not there's not vast amounts of planning or strategizing. is simply making available members of the family

00:41:29 making available members of the family to the media to the radio to television. being available when called to um ask for information and talk about

00:41:44 um ask for information and talk about the family and talk about Michael. Uh the primary purpose was to ask for information and uh make sure that the camp the the attack on Michael was remained in

00:41:56 attack on Michael was remained in people's minds so that uh it would give no opportunity for the police to brush it under the carpet or uh run the clock

00:42:07 it under the carpet or uh run the clock on an investigation and uh try and grind the family down. Did the campaign ever promote disorderly or violent protest? Absolutely never.

00:42:18 Absolutely never. And did it ever involve itself in any disorderly or violent protest in any other context? Never.

00:42:22 Never. Now, you've already mentioned that you were supported by the monitoring group TMG, which was headed by Sue Grover. Is that right? That's correct. How did that connection come about? Um,

00:42:32 Um, I met with him. Um, I I examined the work that he's been doing with other families and uh determined that um

00:42:48 families and uh determined that um that it wasn't political and so that I could uh guardedly take steps forward and see if we we we could uh use their assistance. But more than ever anything,

00:43:01 than ever anything, there was caution applied to everybody we met to make sure that we weren't derailed

00:43:14 weren't derailed either by design or by accident and uh make sure that that the request for information and Michael's name was always at the at the forefront because everything else

00:43:30 the forefront because everything else was secondary. Would you say that your family remained in control of the campaign for Michael? There's nobody else to rest control from us. We took measures to make sure that we uh

00:43:41 we uh that that we were the campaign. So, I can't imagine how how that what you're describing can come about if we made the decisions and uh determined

00:43:52 decisions and uh determined what we engaged in and what we didn't engage in. So could you tell me a little bit more about Mr. Grover's involvement in your campaign? What what precisely did he do? He supported you. How did he support you?

00:44:04 support you? We are not um we're not able to call demonstrations. We're not able to print um leafleting material. We were

00:44:25 print um leafleting material. We were not able to arrange leafleting in North London. So those kinds of um abilities were were were things that I could uh work with Suresh with. He introduced us to other families which also

00:44:37 which also uh enabled us to to put into context what's happening to us in the context of other families and

00:44:55 us in the context of other families and to see that we are not alone and to gain energy from that to continue the um the process of seeking exactly the information that we needed about what happened to Michael and to make sure that the authorities ities began to look at it seriously and give it the

00:45:10 at it seriously and give it the investigation that anybody ought to expect.

00:45:14 expect. You said you were introduced to other families and similar circumstance. Did you attend any campaigns or events with them?

00:45:23 them? I attended many uh meetings and I spoke at a number of meetings. Um spoke to other families, spoke with other families.

00:45:36 other families. and uh saw the similarities with the problems they had and um and drew energy from that to continue.

00:45:48 and drew energy from that to continue. And in your engagement with these other families, did you ever witness or come to learn of any disorder, confrontation, or illegality connected to these to their campaigns?

00:46:00 their campaigns? I've seen no no il illegality at all. And

00:46:05 And Can we have up on screen please document

00:46:07 document treble01643

00:46:14 the tab B3 of your bundle sir and it's page one this report suggests that the Manson family campaign may have been in some way under the movement for justice or MFJ banner.

00:46:26 justice or MFJ banner. MFJ was a separate justice campaign to TMG, but that a change when Sus Grover and TMG got involved. What was your involvement, if any, with MFJ?

00:46:41 involvement, if any, with MFJ? Um, I don't think I had any involvement with them. In the first paragraph, it speaks about Sir Grover and the TMG were keen not to alienate themselves from Lawren's and a

00:46:54 alienate themselves from Lawren's and a potential financial advantages that the association the Lawrenes might give to their organization.

00:47:01 Did Mr. Grover or anyone else from TMG ever ask you for money? Never.

00:47:06 At the end of the document, the last paragraph, Mr. Grover's reported described MFJ as disruptive. [snorts]

00:47:17 disruptive. [snorts] Did you witness this in any of your the campaigns you attended? No, never.

00:47:28 Can we take that document down, please? And if we could have up on screen MPS treble 01717,

00:47:32 that's a tab B5 of your bundle sir.

00:47:43 Again, page one. This is a report dated 25th January 1999 concerning a march for Roger Sylvester.

01:04:04 Did you notice any change in the way that the police dealt with you after the verdict?

01:04:14 They were always defensive, but um my aim was to ask questions that brought us towards the information we needed for them to find out and conduct an investigation.

01:04:26 investigation. Did they did they change direction? Maybe they were less obvious, but they harbored the same

01:04:37 harbored the same the same underlying intent, I would say.

01:04:48 Can we show on screen please? Um, this is a video UCPI 5038704. This is a tab A31. This is a channel 4

01:04:59 This is a tab A31. This is a channel 4 interview with Mike Bennett, the chair of the MPS Federation, um, regarding the inquest verdict. It starts at four at four minutes, please.

01:05:11 Well, with me now in the studio are Mike Bennett, who is chairman of the

01:05:20 Bennett, who is chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Michael Menson's sister, Essie, and the Menson family solicitor, Mark Schwarz. Mike Bennett, first of all, whatever the Metropolan Police Metropolitan Police did do, it clearly wasn't enough in this case.

01:05:29 case. It clearly wasn't enough uh with hindsight, but at the time uh the officers felt they acted correctly. What do you think of the coroner's verdict?

01:05:38 verdict? I personally think an open verdict would have been more appropriate. I think uh you have a problem today where you crowd out uh in coroner's courts, you

01:05:50 out uh in coroner's courts, you virtually intimidate coroner's juries and you end up with this type of decision.

01:05:55 decision. To this day, there is no evidence whatsoever of a murder having been committed. The expert pathologist that we've just seen there said it is very unlikely that he could have done this to himself. Mr. Menson,

01:06:04 Menson, that's his opinion which would not be evidence in the criminal court. It's uh the Lawrence inquiry. This inquiry both lack evidence and I'm afraid that uh you would criticize us severely if we took

01:06:17 would criticize us severely if we took people to court and got them convicted with lack of evidence. I also find it a little extraordinary that you suggest that the coroner's verdict is is is not the right verdict. Isn't that I mean the coroner's court listens to evidence and it comes up a jury comes up with its conclusion.

01:06:36 jury comes up with its conclusion. Two of the witnesses today mentioned in their evidence things that were not in their statement to police. It took police completely by surprise. You don't trust juries.

01:06:46 You don't trust juries. Oh, it's not a question of trusting juries. No, it's the jury uh found on the evidence given. That was not the same evidence that was given to the police.

01:06:48 police. So, there's certainly something to work with then. I think the whole thing stinks. I think there's an awful lot to work with, but we are finding as police officers that you can crowd out coroners.

01:07:00 you can crowd out coroners. Well, you made that point, but in the time we have presumably now the police will reopen this and continue the investigation. It will always remain open. If evidence comes to light, the people concerned will be charged and convicted. We need the evidence. As you mentioned, we're talking about your brother. Where do you go from here?

01:07:20 your brother. Where do you go from here? We go from finding the people who did this to to our brother. We've known from the outset that he was killed. Now, the police need to take this forward and actually find the people who did it and not be clouded by their assumptions, which they've now admitted were wrong. And we've heard Mr. Bennett say that they will continue with the

01:07:32 they will continue with the investigation if they can find the evidence. Is that reassuring? We need that the case not to be forever kept open but to be solved. Mr. Schwarz, you're the family's lawyer. Inevitably, because of the Steven Lawrence case, parallels are being

01:07:49 Lawrence case, parallels are being drawn. Does that make it harder for the family to get the justice they they're looking for and for the police to do their job? Perhaps I could just deal with what Mr. Bennett said. He's talking absolute nonsense. He wasn't at the inquest. He wasn't at the summing up. He knows nothing about the case. He's been fed lines by his cohorts. And uh anyone who

01:08:04 lines by his cohorts. And uh anyone who was in court during the week would know that what he said is absolutely ridiculous. Were you not in the coroner's court? I wasn't in the court. No. But are you telling me that uh first of all, one member of the family received a phone call which they refused to disclose to police to this day. One of the

01:08:19 police to this day. One of the attendants in the ambulance um repeated a conversation which isn't in his statement he gave to police. One of the friends of uh the deceased person actually gave evidence that the coroner destroyed by saying that the

01:08:32 destroyed by saying that the conversation could not have taken place at the date and time when he said it did.

01:08:39 did. Mr. Mr. Bennett would complain that Mr. Bennett would complain about hearsay. Mr. Bennett is talking hearsay. He's been prompted by third hand by officers who have got their own backs to protect. The point is that the police the police themselves have written to us and admitted that they made crucial

01:08:50 and admitted that they made crucial failures and poor crucial failures in the first 12 hours of the investigation. It's no doubt that the subsequent police investigation poultry that it was had

01:09:01 investigation poultry that it was had major difficulties because the original police officers who are under investigation and on the point of retiring made enormous mistakes and there's been no apology to the family. There's been a letter of regret and the

01:09:13 There's been a letter of regret and the police have not adequately explained why they failed in the three or four days that Michael was conscious in hospital, why they failed to take a statement from him.

01:09:24 him. That does seem extraordinary, Mr. Bennett, and surely is not regular procedure in a in a in a ghastly incident like this. It I must admit that part of it does seem very extraordinary. But uh if

01:09:35 seem very extraordinary. But uh if someone is open to suggestion, if I were to say to a person, did you do this yourself? and you say yes and then someone else say did white use do this and he would say yes it makes the whole situation very that's not the evidence though

01:09:46 that's not the evidence though this is a terrible case and these are very sensitized times so obviously it is important that everybody reacts as well as they can given what has happened now surely being defensive about the police operation rather than taking the initiative and saying well we will now

01:09:59 initiative and saying well we will now we we we do apologize for what we didn't do right and we'll do better would be a better thing to say I I couldn't I couldn't agree more the bottom line is that we have a lawyer here who would be on the opposing inside. Should we take someone to court, get them convicted on the lack of

01:10:11 get them convicted on the lack of evidence? We do not have any evidence whatsoever that this man was murdered. You know that? I know that. And you're trying to This was This was an inquest. This was an inquest. It was You're trying to deceive people.

01:10:22 You're trying to deceive people. I'm I'm explaining what an inquest. What a jury found. You weren't there. They heard all of the evidence. They listened very carefully for a week and they came to the verdict beyond reasonable doubt. This was an unlawful killing. And you're insulting the family by suggesting

01:10:35 insulting the family by suggesting otherwise. We're going to have to leave. You're

01:10:35 You're being dramatic. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you all for coming in. The investigation, as you said, does continue after the Thank you.

01:10:55 The interview follows a verdict reached by the Equest jury of unlawful killing. Mr. Bennett, speaking on behalf of the police,

01:10:58 police, refused to accept the verdict of the jury.

01:11:01 jury. If I may ask you MSS, how does that feel listening to that

01:11:22 when um the racial and violent crime task force took over the case, they looked at the evidence and they said as soon as they looked at the evidence, they knew that firstly it was a murder and Secondly, who they knew who did it. So

01:11:41 for somebody to to say that there was no evidence is is clearly a blatant lie. And to say things like we crowded out the the

01:11:55 things like we crowded out the the inquest and to say we intimidated. I mean that

01:12:00 mean that that that that attempt to to smear us and to imply very directly that we perverted the course of justice is

01:12:13 it's worse than outrageous, isn't it? Can I move on now to ask you about the renewed investigation and the subsequent prosecutions?

01:12:24 and the subsequent prosecutions? Follow the inquest. The Metropolitan Police issued a statement admitting serious mistakes have been made during the first 12 hours of the investigation. [cough]

01:12:34 What would you make of this statement? Again, MSS, if I may ask you, I think it's just a it's one of a pattern of just minimizing minimizing what they hadn't done. The fact that

01:12:52 what they hadn't done. The fact that yeah that this phrase the first 12 hours somebody is found with their back al light

01:12:57 light they make statements they are conscious for that's part of a week you do nothing at all and for the first 16 days and you keep harking back to

01:13:10 16 days and you keep harking back to that fact that there were some failings in the first 12 hours. It's all minimizing just how inadequate the investigation was and and then thereafter everything we experience points to

01:13:22 points to that being the focus. Let's let's protect ourselves. Let's deny what we haven't done. Let's deny how willfully we have chosen

01:13:35 willfully we have chosen to protect ourselves rather than to investigate this crime. And

01:13:46 it it it's obviously it's incredibly hurtful, but it it it's it's just shocking. It's shocking that public servants choose choose that because this isn't accidental. These weren't sort of, you know, words like

01:14:02 weren't sort of, you know, words like failings and ineptitude, etc. used. But those all suggest kind of human error, um accidental [laughter] um inadequacy. But these were all intentional. And I I say that I don't say that lightly. But if you look at what was

01:14:16 lightly. But if you look at what was done, it it all those choices were kind of uphill choices. They weren't easy.

01:14:27 of uphill choices. They weren't easy. They actively chose to take a certain line and then stick to it despite repeated

01:14:32 repeated evidence and um outcomes such as the inquest, outcomes to the contrary. On the 25th of September 1998, your solicitor submitted a complaint to the police complaints authority.

01:14:44 police complaints authority. Is that right? That's right. That resulted in the appointment of the chief constipal of Cambridge, DG gun, to investigate the complaints made by a

01:14:59 investigate the complaints made by a family into the police's handling of the investigation into Michael's death. Is that right? That's right. And the eventual outcome of that investigation was the PCA report to which we have been referring. Is that correct?

01:15:06 correct? Correct.

01:15:14 Correct. On the 3rd of November 1998, your family was invited for a meeting with the then Home Secretary Jack Straw. Is that correct?

01:15:15 correct? Yes.

01:15:16 Yes. Did you attend that meeting? Yes.

01:15:29 Do you recall the Home Secretary's reaction to what you told him about your efforts to obtain justice for Michael? Yeah, I remember we told him actually gave a summary of what we'd experienced, what had happened, what we'd known, what we didn't know, what our intentions were. Um, how we'd been treated, how

01:15:45 were. Um, how we'd been treated, how they tried to vilify us and implied that we were either mad or just or sad or guilty that it was, you know, that we were trying to hide our own guilt or whatever. And it and the words have been used in the

01:15:58 it and the words have been used in the report, but he did look visibly shocked. He did look like of a sense of, "Oh my god, I can't

01:16:08 of a sense of, "Oh my god, I can't believe this is happening." And the way and I remember what I remember was the kind of the visceral sense that came from his voice, which was of shock.

01:16:20 And the following day, there was another meeting where it was decided that your case was to be transferred to Deputy City Commissioner John Griev at the newly formed racial and violent crime task force. Is that right? That's right. Did you attend that meeting as well? I believe so. Yes.

01:16:37 During that meeting, did you notice a shift in the attitude of this team compared to initial Edmonton investigation team? Yeah, whether it was at this meeting or another. When I we first met with them, there was a sense of look, we've been assigned this case.

01:16:53 look, we've been assigned this case. This is we're a new a new team. This is sort of the landmark case and we're going to take it on sort of don't worry, we're here now. And I I remember that feeling because we had heard that before, you know, when Amitip took over from the local team in Edmonton, they

01:17:07 from the local team in Edmonton, they they sort of said, "It's okay. This is what we do. We're the professionals. Step back because we'll do it all." So there was a bit of a a sense of gosh not again but also hope real hope

01:17:18 gosh not again but also hope real hope that this this team whose entire res on detra was to investigate these cases was going to be substantial substantive. I also had a sense that

01:17:31 also had a sense that you know may there was a possibility that this may be a bit a bit of a trophy case you know but to be honest whilst I had that concern actually I was willing to live with that. I was

01:17:44 I was willing to live with that. I was willing to live with that if it if they kind of said, "Oh, look, here we are sort of nights in shining armor. We've solved it." I I would I was willing to live with that if it got to the truth because don't forget by this time, this

01:17:57 because don't forget by this time, this is two years on. Okay? So, these people who had,

01:18:03 who had, you know, found some a random person who was in distress and attacked them in such a barbaric way, they were still around. And I I I remember I remember talking to some of my siblings that we you know we really couldn't live with ourselves if if this they did it again

01:18:18 ourselves if if this they did it again to somebody and the fact that the police actually didn't give a damn that they were out and still able to harm other people that that wasn't okay with us and that we couldn't we couldn't live with ourselves for Mike but also for anyone

01:18:30 ourselves for Mike but also for anyone else because if people can do that what what else can they do and actually that was borne out wasn't it because when one

01:18:42 was borne out wasn't it because when one of them fled to Cyprus he was wanted for um grievous bodily harm. That's how he was first arrested. So

01:18:51 we I personally was willing to live with it if they they put took it as a feather for their cap. It wasn't what I'd want, but I'd rather that than the perpetrator not be found.

01:19:03 not be found. Did DAC Grieve when he reviewed the evidence initially come to a different conclusion than the initial investigation team? And as I said, he said he he said very it was as I remember of the meeting. He came

01:19:19 as I remember of the meeting. He came in, he made a statement and then he kind of almost it was almost like that's it. We're going to go and we we wanted to ask some questions but he said look we've looked through the evidence. I remember he mentioned the homes computer which I didn't know what it was at the

01:19:31 which I didn't know what it was at the time. So I remember that word you looked through homes we two things we can tell you. It was definitely a murder with a bit of a dramatic pause and we know who did it now and there was a sense I can't remember whether he said those words but

01:19:43 remember whether he said those words but there was a sense that kind of now leave us to prove it and I don't know whether it was at that meeting or later but there was talk about sort of covert surveillance of the

01:19:56 about sort of covert surveillance of the suspect which is ironic where we are now but I remember feeling uncomfortable about that cuz I I it's not okay to just covertly recall people and I kind of thought well

01:20:14 and I kind of thought well risk cost you it's again a risk benefit analysis if that's what's needed and maybe that is what's needed after 2 years then that's okay. Arrests were finally made in March 1999 and you already mentioned one person

01:20:28 and you already mentioned one person tried to escape to North Cyprus. He was found there and eventually put on trial as well

01:20:34 as well and they were given sentences each of them convicted and given sentences of between 10 to 14 years.

01:20:45 between 10 to 14 years. How do these verdicts and sentences make your family feel? But

01:20:55 But would it be okay if I just say something that that leads up to that? Sure.

01:21:00 Sure. When they were investigating it, I I imagine others in my family felt

01:21:11 hopeful, but also actually quite afraid. I talked about, you know, was this a trophy case? I was I was concerned. Would they would there be enough evidence? Would you would this be real or were the

01:21:26 you would this be real or were the police so concerned as they had been up until now in their own reputation that you know what what if what if this wasn't robust? So, you know, we sat through two trials every day and

01:21:44 it was it was frightening the very thought of being part of something that you know maybe it wasn't solid but and but actually at least having gone experienced those two trials we we heard the evidence that was presented. You know, we we didn't crowd out

01:22:01 You know, we we didn't crowd out anybody. We didn't influence anybody and the two juries came to to the verdicts that they did. And

01:22:08 what what did it feel like? It felt it felt quite surreal. It felt like, oh my god, we could have given up at any time. We could have it was so hard.

01:22:20 So hard. We could have given [laughter] up and we couldn't. And

01:22:28 a lot of that, the reason we persevered was because

01:22:36 because NWS, even though he was he was being personally attacked more than any of us, by the police, he stood steadfast, he'd heard Mike say what he'd said.

01:22:54 And I kept thinking, God, what if we'd given up? What if we hadn't given up? And then down the line, we'd hear heard of some other person being killed or attacked.

01:23:17 Would you like me to take a break? I think that's a really good idea. I'll write in 10 minutes.

01:35:21 We're ready to continue.

01:35:28 I'd like to move on now to the issue of surveillance. [clears throat] If I may ask you, MWS, when did you first become aware that your family and your campaign for

01:35:42 your family and your campaign for justice for Michael had been subject to covert monitoring by the police? It was mentioned in the um trial at the old Bailey. Do you remember when that was approximately?

01:36:05 In December of 199. Yeah. How did you react when you found out that you and your family were being spied on by an undercover officer?

01:36:12 I felt less than human. I felt um violated. I felt

01:36:29 disbelief that um these kinds of actions are being taken against us when we were only um seeking to find out what happened to Michael. Did they give you an explanation as to why they were spying on you?

01:36:43 why they were spying on you? There's words of I don't know was it um collateral intrusion whatever that may mean. We

01:36:45 mean. We asked only questions about Michael. That was our intent from the beginning to the end of our campaign. Can we have up on screen please document MPS 0748390?

01:37:00 That's a tab B4 of your bundle sir.

01:37:10 This is a special branch note concerning leftwing activities in relation to the Steven Lawrence inquiry. Now, it focuses on MFJ reference to Lawrence campaign. It also refers to Michael's case and

01:37:25 It also refers to Michael's case and that of others such as the Reals family. I want to direct your attention to the handwritten comments on page one. They're difficult to make out, but what it reads is, "Commander SB, special

01:37:42 what it reads is, "Commander SB, special branch. For information, you may wish to show this to ACJo. Upon return, I shall arrange for Mr. Grieve to be briefed." And the comment appears to be attributed to Colin Black, another senior officer. It appears from the date of this

01:37:55 It appears from the date of this document which you can see up in the top left hand corner that in late 1998 early 1999

01:38:07 that in late 1998 early 1999 DAC Grieve was briefed on intelligence reports from special branch about Michael's case and it follows that he was likely briefed on undercover police reports although the reports don't confirm this explicitly. This was happening at a time when DA

01:38:22 This was happening at a time when DA Grieve and his team were reinvestigating Michael's death in the leadup to the prosecutions and convictions later that year in 1999.

01:38:34 year in 1999. May I ask you, MSS, how does it make you feel at the point where you thought you were finally being taken seriously by the police? It was seemingly the case that they were at the same time spying or at the very least had knowledge of

01:38:47 or at the very least had knowledge of spying by undercover officers on your family.

01:38:50 [panting]

01:38:59 That sense of disbelief of ju of just how intentional it was. Yeah. Yes. To swan in to sweep in and say, you know, we know it was murder. We know it was who it was. But to conceal this, this wasn't accidental emission. This was

01:39:13 was I've used the word manipulation so many times, but I can't understand how this is anything but other than an intentional let me let's tell you the things that will keep you on sigh that will make you think that we're,

01:39:26 that we're, you know, we're the superheroes, but we will we'll conceal

01:39:32 important information. And you know it what if the trial hadn't led to convictions? You know what if this stuff had got in the way of finding justice? You know they they risked

01:39:46 You know they they risked you they risked so much and this sense of you you ask me did I doubt myself this constantly being given reason to doubt what what we were thinking what we were being told what we were believing

01:40:04 were being told what we were believing to find that even this team 24 were sort of in cahoots with with with this you know SDS [clears throat] and rather than distancing themselves from it is it's just really shocking and

01:40:19 just really shocking and I cannot understand how people of this seniority think that's okay. Did you ever learn from anyone which officers or units were involved in that

01:40:32 officers or units were involved in that surveillance? For example, did you ever come across an officer known by his cover name David Hagen or HN81? No, I didn't. What about HN43, Peter Francis?

01:40:41 Francis? They're not names that are familiar to me.

01:40:50 me. Could we take that document down, please, and put up MPS, sorry, UCPI 508571?

01:40:53 508571? That's a tab 4, sir.

01:41:04 This is an extract from pages 369 to 370 of the PCA report. If we go to page one, paragraph 4, I'm not going to read the full extract, but want to mention one particular

01:41:15 but want to mention one particular question which your lawyer, Mr. Schwarz, asked the police, which was whether there were any suspects in the investigation. The reply from the senior officer attending the meeting, and this was a meeting which was held on the 19th of March 1997,

01:41:29 was that there are no suspects because this presupposes a criminal act. If we go down to page two, please, paragraph one.

01:41:43 The officer goes on to state that there had been a number of reviews into the investigation into Mike's death and that he was satisfied with the manner of the investigation.

01:41:55 manner of the investigation. We go on to the next paragraph, please. Parag refu. Following that, a meeting, sorry. Following that meeting, a letter dated the 27th of

01:42:06 meeting, a letter dated the 27th of March, 1997 was sent from your lawyer to senior officers at Edmonton Police Station raising further questions and concerns about the investigation. The next paragraph, on 14th of April, 1997, the police had a

01:42:18 on 14th of April, 1997, the police had a response, and notably, further reference was again made in that letter to it being unclear whether Michael's death was caused by a criminal act, by accident, or by himself.

01:42:30 If we could go to the page two, paragraph 6, please. On 27th of March, 1997,

01:42:42 a briefing note about Michael's death was prepared for assistant commissioner Dunn, which contained a reference to the family as follows. It said, "Their current attitude is now one of open hostility."

01:42:57 one of open hostility." Could we go to page three, paragraph 2, please?

01:43:06 On the same day, this remark of open hostility was submitted to the assistant commissioner which with or as part of a briefing note, a message was entered on Holmes, which is the police internal database, which noted that detective

01:43:18 database, which noted that detective superintendent Duffy has suggested that special branch checks should be completed on all the Manson family prior to further interviews with them. MWS

01:43:34 Did you attend the meeting on 19 19th of March 1997? I believe so. Yes. And

01:43:41 And can you recall what the attitude of the police toward the family was during that meeting?

01:43:44 meeting? They were always um well not they were

01:44:00 always uh at odds with what we said and disbelieving and dismissing our attempts to find out what was what was happened. Why do you think they put your family under surveillance?

01:44:18 This was a a scheme to collect anything that can um diminish us as a campaign and a family

01:44:33 diminish us as a campaign and a family and find any information that they can um use to discredit us and uh use to shut down the family campaign by whatever means that they could find. That's the conclusion I I draw from that.

01:44:45 that. Could we take that document down please and put up UCPI 5039419

01:44:51 is a tab A20 of your bundle sir.

01:45:04 And if we go to page three, paragraph 3, this is another extract from the final PCA report. It followed the remark about the family of open hostility that was submitted to the assistant commissioner with or as part of a briefing note. We

01:45:16 with or as part of a briefing note. We just discussed this above and that led to the uh special branch checks of the family.

01:45:26 Page 3, paragraph 3 sets out the PCA report's comments on this. It says, "An inference which could be drawn from that proposed line of inquiry is that the family of a murder victim

01:45:37 is that the family of a murder victim were having security checks carried out on them with special branch to see if they had any involvement in extremist politics. It is unclear precisely why such checks were made, but the

01:45:51 such checks were made, but the description of the family as hostile may have inferred that such behavior had some political motivation.

01:45:58 We know from the PCA report as well that DCS Duffy was interviewed by the Cambridge inquiry and while he could not recall any criticism or suggestion that the Menson family were involved in extreme political activity, he

01:46:10 extreme political activity, he nonetheless did agree and authorize the special branch inquiry. I'm not going to pull that up, but for reference, that document for the transcript is UCPI 5038692,

01:46:27 and that's tab 19 of your bundle, sir. MSS, would you describe yourself or your family as politically extremist?

01:46:39 Well, absolutely not. And this has nothing to do with the with the case at hand. It was a diversion. We we aren't we now have never have been.

01:46:47 been. You know what? If we had been a family with a history and destruction, it still would have been completely irrelevant. And what their duty was was to investigate the crime or whatever they

01:46:58 investigate the crime or whatever they thought had happened to find that out. And instead, they were focusing energy and time and resources on on this

01:47:22 I'd like to say that um yes,

01:47:26 yes, I'm looking at this word hostile in inverted commas and this is the precursor of how you dismiss somebody who is in a position. You demonize them

01:47:37 who is in a position. You demonize them and then you begin to lay the foundation and the suggestions that they are um hostile and unworthy and difficult to work with

01:47:52 work with and uh should be seen as that by anybody reading this material. And this is part of a campaign that I say is a racist attempt to

01:48:06 say is a racist attempt to contain us, minimize us, damage us by whatever means in order to preserve their position and make the police look

01:48:17 their position and make the police look uh to cover the tracks on their failings from the outset of this investigation. So, it doesn't surprise me that the word hostile is here. I asked questions at every meeting. It was my only function.

01:48:32 It was my only function. So to put me as hostile, it describes that

01:48:41 that they simply aren't able to to understand the problem that was in

01:48:56 to understand the problem that was in front of them and begin to work and find the Michael's killers. And instead they divi diverted their energy into preserving their reputation, covering their tracks and uh diverting anybody who was seeking the truth away from what happened and the family.

01:49:11 the family. Can we take that down that document down please?

01:49:14 please? And can we put up UCPI 5038700?

01:49:21 That's A27 in your bundle, sir.

01:49:33 If we please go to page three and the final paragraph on page three, which is goes on to page four,

01:49:40 the PCR report makes the following conclusion. [laughter] It says the evidence indicates that the culture which served as a sensemaking and control mechanism for the police

01:49:51 and control mechanism for the police officers dealing with the Menson case was one which sadly displayed the characteristics of institutional racism. We go on to page four, please. Second paragraph.

01:50:08 The shared belief system was evident in documents such as the draft report of the home office after the inquest and the failure of senior officers to challenge the views expressed. There was an absence of the control mechanism that should have acted to

01:50:22 mechanism that should have acted to check and challenge the mindset andor behavior of individual officers. The organizational culture meant that essential critical questions were never asked. misrepresentations were perpetuated

01:50:36 perpetuated and initial failures were compounded rather than corrected. In this case, it is judged that the initial racist stereotyping led inexorably to institutional discrimination.

01:50:55 Do you believe MWS that racism may have had a contributo impact on the failure by police to conduct a proper investigation into Michael's death from the start?

01:51:06 the start? It's a it yes it is a an everpresent feature.

01:51:13 Can we go to page eight please? Paragraph two.

01:51:24 This is also part of the PCR report. The defensiveness is explicit in the statement recorded in DAC Townsen's file that the decision by the senior management team not to investigate was because any inquiries into the team's

01:51:36 because any inquiries into the team's actions could uncover areas of concern. At a later point, Town's end is recorded as saying that it would be potentially difficult to unpick this inquiry because

01:51:48 difficult to unpick this inquiry because we know there would be similarities with Lawrence. [snorts] What would it have looked like to a jury at the inquest? And the final paragraph of page eight, please.

01:52:03 In his interview with the Cambridge team for the PCA report, Towns and acknowledges awareness of emerging issues in the Steven Lawrence inquiry.

01:52:17 issues in the Steven Lawrence inquiry. But the response was not to attempt to improve the service to another black family, more to protect the police. They quote Townsen as stating the inquest would be viewed as another Lawrence. A black man died. Nobody done anything about it for 16 days. It would have been a major blow for the

01:52:30 have been a major blow for the Metropolitan Police. And if we could go to page nine, please. First paragraph.

01:52:36 The lack of respect for the Manson family is evident in Officer Townsen's view that he had responsibility to put the Metropolitan Police in the best possible light for the inquest. Townsen said, "I had a responsibility to the press

01:52:52 the press and trying [clears throat] to find out find out where else where we were vulnerable and to a certain extent where the Mensson family had not been helpful in trying to get some balance."

01:53:03 trying to get some balance." The PCA report remarks that this comes very close to saying that there was a wish to discredit the family in order to protect the police from criticism.

01:53:14 protect the police from criticism. Do you agree with this assessment? I do.

01:53:19 I do. Can we go to page 12, please? Second paragraph at the bottom.

01:53:26 The PCA report reaches another conclusion. In coming to a conclusion on these difficult issues, the analysis of race as a factor in the police investigation of the death of

01:53:39 police investigation of the death of Michael Menson supports the allegations of the Menson family in a number of respects.

01:53:40 respects. Contrary to the declarations of many of the officers, race can be shown to have been a significant influence on the behavior of the police.

01:53:51 behavior of the police. Could we take down that document please and put up

01:54:00 UCPI 538745? It's a tab 38.

01:54:06 And if we go to the bottom half of page 18, please.

01:54:13 The document sets out a quote attributed to a police officer about Michael that was recorded on page 446 of the PCI PCA report.

01:54:22 report. This comment was recorded as secondhand information, but there was found to be no reason to not believe it was made. And the statement attributed to the officer was this.

01:54:35 this. Why are you all making all the fuss? He's only a black schizophrenic.

01:54:44 That statement, evacuate, seemingly came from a serving police officer at the time.

01:54:46 time. How does that make you feel?

01:54:51 Disgusted

01:54:57 and dehumanized

01:55:05 and and yeah, this is this is somebody who was killed, attacked in a in a horrendous way. for anyone to, you know, any any human being to feel that that's appropriate language to use about somebody is it's just beyond belief.

01:55:20 somebody is it's just beyond belief. I want to go on now to speak a little bit about a term that the police used. It's called collateral intrusion. You've already mentioned it. Um, but I want to ask a few more questions about it.

01:55:36 ask a few more questions about it. In MWS's statement at paragraph 70, I'm I'm not going to take you there. Um, I'll just read it out. He says, "One of the most concerning aspects of SDS operations, as revealed by both the Ellison and Hearn reports, was the scale

01:55:48 Ellison and Hearn reports, was the scale and nature of collateral intrusion, that is the routine gathering of private, often deeply personal information about individuals who were not suspected of any wrongdoing. This indiscriminate approach meant that campaigners, their families, and even

01:56:00 campaigners, their families, and even bystanders could find themselves under unwarranted scrutiny with little regard for their right to privacy.

01:56:09 [cough]

01:56:14 On top of the obvious grief and trauma that you were dealing with at the time,

01:56:25 how the discovery that your family were being spied on feel to you then and how's it feel to you now?

01:56:35 Unlike um MWS, I don't remember it from the trial, but I remember when I learned about it just being just utterly utterly shocked. It felt like a a gut punch after everything

01:56:46 everything that we had experienced to to find that that sort of absolutely flimsy kind of rationale or no rationale

01:57:01 flimsy kind of rationale or no rationale was given to spying on us at a time when we were clearly at our most vulnerable. Um,

01:57:03 Um, it was

01:57:07 it was Do you think your family falls under the category of collateral intrusion? Well, firstly, it wasn't collateral because it was targeted and intentional. There was nothing collateral about what I've seen. But secondly,

01:57:23 I've seen. But secondly, that that isn't okay. they that the the the links between us and any political groups were so tenuous that

01:57:31 I there isn't a rationale that holds water to me. So I cannot accept any sense of collateral intrusion at all and even if there was appropriate links that that isn't okay. If people are going to

01:57:43 that isn't okay. If people are going to undertake undercover surveillance, there has to be a robust system to justify that it's warranted and that that it's it's relevant, that it's necessary, and that there aren't any other roots and that none of those existed for us. So to

01:58:02 that none of those existed for us. So to exploit our vulnerability and to try and find, you know, fish for anything they can use against us. It's it's inhumane.

01:58:17 Would you accept generally that it is necessary for undercover police work to infiltrate groups that they perceive might provoke or in instigate violence or public order?

01:58:28 or public order? For the public good. They are public servants. It's their duty to keep the public safe. And if I were to ask you today, would you trust the NPS to undertake such undercover work within reasonable and boundaries? Well, there's nothing in

01:58:40 boundaries? Well, there's nothing in what we've seen that would would suggest that

01:58:41 that there's no checks and balances. They run wild and do as they choose when they choose,

01:58:53 they choose, where they choose. So, who would have any confidence in the system such as that?

01:58:58 I'm now going to go on to my last section, which is the impact this has had on you both personally and and as a family.

01:59:05 family. Looking back, do you feel that the later convictions for Michael's murder and the PCA reports findings

01:59:15 findings vindicated the family's campaign?

01:59:25 We only sought answers. That's all. The beginning, the middle, and the end was all to find out what happened to Michael. He said to us that he'd been attacked in a street and we had to

01:59:38 had to draw all the resources we had amongst ourselves

01:59:40 ourselves to

01:59:43 to honor his name and find out what happened.

01:59:47 happened. How's has the discovery of surveillance changed your view of policing um or the state's treatment of bereieve families seeking justice? I think that the Bere families are

01:59:58 I think that the Bere families are extremely vulnerable and they're ripe targets and remain so for things that they could not even imagine in their

02:00:12 they could not even imagine in their worst nightmares. And this is a a facet of that that I I I

02:00:17 I I I surmise was present then and is present now. I've seen no indication to see that that

02:00:29 that this behavior which was reported up the chain. How far up the chain we don't know but it's been sanctioned and approved and reported back. So what what saves me today? what acts

02:00:48 So what what saves me today? what acts in my behalf today if it's decided that I might still be calateral intrusion

02:00:50 intrusion subject that what considerations are made to go ahead today and undertake these actions I guess the answer is none

02:01:04 these actions I guess the answer is none can you tell me what has been the longer term

02:01:06 term emotional and psychological impact on yourselves and your family again without mentioning any names

02:01:19 without mentioning any names of learning that you were spied on. It sickens us.

02:01:23 Makes you ask

02:01:31 why weren't we protected? What what reviews um what authorizations were given?

02:01:42 um what authorizations were given? Where are the reports and where are the where are the um authorizations? This didn't happen by accident, by chance. I say that the spying was uh

02:01:55 the spying was uh a systematic scheme simply to protect their interest and had

02:02:06 simply to protect their interest and had no no account for us. And we are treated not even as human beings.

02:02:15 What do you now hope that this inquiry will achieve in relation to the monitoring infiltration of the campaign for justice for Michael?

02:02:31 We need to know why. We need to know where. We need to know when. Who authorized it? The chain of command that reviewed it. what level of um

02:02:44 what level within the police and who knew who agreed it who was happy to read those reports

02:02:55 read those reports and and who didn't question

02:03:07 you received I believe both of you but I'll address MSS on this you received a letter

02:03:13 from the um deputy assistant commissioner um on a surface. An apology letter. Is that correct? That's correct. On the surface.

02:03:27 That's correct. On the surface. And could I sorry, could I um have that letter up please? It's UCPI 5039438.

02:03:34 And if I could have alongside it UCPI 5039435.

02:03:45 These are two letters. You will see that they are both dated 31st of October 2025. They are both from John Savo the deputy city commissioner and they are both identical in content.

02:03:56 both identical in content. One is direct one is addressed to MSS the other is addressed to Mrs. Sukt real who also lost her son tragic circumstances.

02:04:12 Seeing these two letters side by side and knowing that you both received exactly the same letter. How does that make you feel?

02:04:27 It's it's what a copy and paste job to send to us. And 31st of October, why send an apology now in the middle of the inquiry?

02:04:42 now in the middle of the inquiry? Where in the apology does it say what they are apologizing for? Where where in the apology does it actually give any any sense of the scale of this? the who, when, why. We know that that documents were destroyed.

02:04:58 that that documents were destroyed. There's a vast amount that they that we we know or we know we don't know that isn't referred to this. So, this is a real sort of I'm sorry you feel that way apology, which is worse than apology. Makes absolutely no sense to send it.

02:05:12 Makes absolutely no sense to send it. Sorry. I think the final second last paragraph, the final sentence, it says it was considered premature to issue a full and personal apology at this stage. Well, it's not a personal apology

02:05:27 Well, it's not a personal apology because it's copied and pasted from Mrs. Reals. It's Yes, it's premature, so why send it? It's It's actually quite insulting to think in the middle of the inquiry, oh, let's send something that's a generic cut and paste to some of the victims to see if we what was the

02:05:43 victims to see if we what was the purpose. It makes absolutely no sense. The last sentence reads, "We remain fully committed to engaging with you once the full body of evidence has been heard to ensure that any apology offered

02:05:54 heard to ensure that any apology offered by the MPS is comprehensive, meaningful, and reflective of the truth." What do you make of that sentence? Again, why send it on the 31st of October? And what evidence is there? Why are you letting um people not give

02:06:08 are you letting um people not give evidence? People who should be called to account not give evidence. You know that the and as I understand it, the reasoning is that is is um

02:06:21 reasoning is that is is um post-traumatic stress disorder. Do they not imagine we have post-traumatic stress from this whole experience that's gone on for nearly 29 years? So we are fully committed. How many empty words

02:06:37 fully committed. How many empty words have we heard over those 25 29 years? You're fully committed once the full body of evidence has been heard. And we know so much has been destroyed. So what what does any of that mean? I mean that that's worse than insulting

02:06:54 mean that that's worse than insulting it. It felt like adding insult to injury thinking that that kind of shoddy copy and paste

02:06:56 and paste supposed apology could have any beneficial effect. it's actually had a detrimental effect and it's harmful and I think they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

02:07:15 Finally, I would ask I would like to ask both of you if there's anything you wish to add

02:07:19 to add on the impact all of this has had on you personally. Um MSS, may I start with you? Is there anything you wish to add? you you asked um MWS some questions

02:07:32 you you asked um MWS some questions about impact and I've just jotted down as we've been speaking some of the things that are [clears throat] are relevant. Um I think the first thing to say which you may have a sense of is

02:07:46 which you may have a sense of is that we are grateful for the invitation to appear at this inquiry but it was not an easy decision to make at all having

02:08:02 and we almost didn't but the reason we we are here is because we felt we had a really strong moral imperative to do so to

02:08:14 to be willing to go through all of this again. So many of those things that we've seen, we've heard before, but to have to read it again, to hear those words, to hear the willfulness of what was done.

02:08:31 This we're not here for catharsis. We're not here for retribution. And we're here because

02:08:36 how many how many times do we have to hear oh okay we did wrong we're going to change they're going to be learnings and to see that not happen 29 years is a long time to have that happen again and again and again and we have

02:08:54 again and again and we have and I say this very respectfully we have put our faith in you to make sure that our

02:08:56 our our time our efforts our energy are the challenges we faced in being here aren't wasted. That they're not it's not another

02:09:11 thing for which the cost is going to be greater than the benefit.

02:09:16 We had to endure the

02:09:27 reality and the the the the awfulness of the attack on Mike and lose him in that way. And that that that was unthinkable, but it's

02:09:42 that was unthinkable, but it's so many steps so so so many steps along the way have been salt in that wound. And

02:09:52 it's hard to it's hard to actually believe it let alone know whether that the the enormity of that is come across.

02:09:58 We have to live with the fact that there was there were multiple intentional willful misinvestigations and as I've said I'm not in the heads of people but what we see in front of us is strong

02:10:10 what we see in front of us is strong evidence that the misinvestigations were willful.

02:10:12 willful. On top of that, we were willfully discredited and smeared. Hostile, not just hostile, but obstructive words in

02:10:26 just hostile, but obstructive words in important reports to key people at key times which will have influenced how they thought of us. How can you not think of a family in one way if they're described as hostile and obstructive

02:10:43 described as hostile and obstructive compared to a family who are perhaps described as um you grieving or or distressed or confused or wanting answers wanting to understand completely different and that that was intentionally done. We were also I believe very firmly that we were

02:10:56 I believe very firmly that we were manipulated. I particularly was sort of picked out that there was a sense of let's divide and rule and let's try and split them up. Let's try and influence the narrative they have inside within them and they looked for cracks within us as a family and try to exploit that

02:11:07 us as a family and try to exploit that and that's really hard to live with. As I said earlier, it took huge strength to persevere and

02:11:18 persevere and I don't I actually don't give myself any of that credit because I I doubted a lot of the time whether we were doing the right thing. And that's really hard to live with.

02:11:29 live with. And at the end, you use the word vindication. You know, vindication brings a sense of oh great, but there was no oh great at all. It was

02:11:40 was no oh great at all. It was the exact opposite. I also want to highlight the manipulation by language. Language really matters. I've talked about hostile. I've talked about obstructive. There's all sorts of

02:11:54 obstructive. There's all sorts of language like you know flaws, failings, inep inadequate. Those imply sort of accidental, incompetent, sort of normal human failings of a public servants. That's not what was seen here. There's more

02:12:05 not what was seen here. There's more than enough evidence to show that these were intentional, willful lies that were told that which people have not been held and brought to account. And there

02:12:17 held and brought to account. And there was active measures to conceal that to put far more important than either Michael's murder or what the family were

02:12:34 Michael's murder or what the family were going through. It was far more important to focus on the police's reputation to try and rescue that from the gutter where it was because of their own actions and they actually had an opportunity to say look we've done really badly to now we will do better with Mike's case with other cases they

02:12:48 with Mike's case with other cases they had opportunities to redeem themselves. So to intentionally choose not to do that,

02:12:53 that, it that's what's dehumanizing. We matter so little that we're not going to take

02:13:05 so little that we're not going to take the opportunities to redeem ourselves. We are so against you for who you are based on the color of your skin that we're going to intentionally use these opportunities to fail you rather than even if you are

02:13:17 rather than even if you are self-interested in as a police force to to protect ourselves or to redeem our reputation.

02:13:24 the co surveillance then become it's it's hard to describe how how painful that has been and is. And

02:13:35 how painful that has been and is. And if we talk about trauma, we talk about retraumatization, but actually when you find that you've been through all of that and then being subject to surveillance, it it affects who you are

02:13:48 surveillance, it it affects who you are to the core and how you engage with the world.

02:13:50 world. how you

02:13:55 how you how you engage with things around you. The [snorts] fears which are often irrational or definitely not what you want to experience. I experience real fears around my work around what what if I made an honest mistake? You would that

02:14:06 I made an honest mistake? You would that suddenly be dragged up and I would be be you know pillaried and and criticized as as has happened in other cases. Were the

02:14:19 as has happened in other cases. Were the police so intent on on painting us as as kind of evil um mal malevolent pe be beings that they could do that. I I found it hard to do the job that I was trained to do beyond

02:14:34 the job that I was trained to do beyond finding out about the intrusion thinking yeah what about some of my patients I look after patient I looked after patients who were very sensitive in their diagnosis would that be brought up would would other people suffer because the police that Metropolitan Police

02:14:47 the police that Metropolitan Police Service was so intent in trying to find things to to to use against us and my decision was to not to do

02:14:59 and my decision was to not to do everything in my human power to not let [laughter] what I'd experienced to to to destroy me. having, you know, personal therapy for an extended [clears throat] period of time. Really trying to come to terms

02:15:17 of time. Really trying to come to terms with what was done, but still retain my my belief in humanity and that people are

02:15:19 are good, that there is common humanity and that I that's what one should expect and that's what I I'm intent in in preserving in myself. I'm not I worked

02:15:30 preserving in myself. I'm not I worked in a field where I know conflicts happen where people have different perspectives and that what struck me in that was just how damaging it is when

02:15:41 how damaging it is when disagreements or different perspectives clash and become conflict. How destructive that is to everybody. It's colored what I do now, what the work I do, what helping people come together when they have different perspectives to try and minimize the absolute

02:15:53 try and minimize the absolute destructive damage of negative, destructive conflict and help people come together, uncover what is beneath the surface. Ask those why questions. Why is somebody doing this? Why is that

02:16:08 Why is somebody doing this? Why is that behavior happening? Because quite often you can uncover that there isn't a malevolent intention [clears throat and cough] des by having done that. That's been my focus probably for the last 10 years of

02:16:21 focus probably for the last 10 years of my life. I still cannot I still have not been given any opportunity to find any peace in what was done to us. And whilst day by day I work with famil family's teams to try and help them find a find some peace, find

02:16:39 comfort, find actually shared common humanity when there's disagreement. none. I can't see any way where we're getting this. And I hope that the inquiry somehow is able to get to the

02:16:52 inquiry somehow is able to get to the truth beneath some of the things that we know have happened to us to help us get to a place of understanding. Because one of the biggest pains that people can have is is not understanding. Not understanding why we as

02:17:08 understanding why we as normal, quiet, publicly minded, lawful people were treated in this way.

02:17:16 The costs to us individually and as a family has been huge. I'm not going to go into the detail of that because other family members haven't been able to withstand this. But it's important to know that you have partners, families, children, the time that we've spent in

02:17:28 children, the time that we've spent in all of this, the impact of having to go back on this again and that that impacts us. It changes it affects who you are as a person. how you engage with people that you care for or love or or or are

02:17:42 that you care for or love or or or are with and that that isn't okay. That is absolutely not okay. So yeah, to find ourselves in another inquiry, it's hard. It's really very

02:17:55 inquiry, it's hard. It's really very very difficult. And I, as I said, I hope that I say this because it's really important that this inquiry isn't another empty exercise that even though records have

02:18:06 exercise that even though records have been destroyed, even though people are allowed to say, "I'm I've got

02:18:19 allowed to say, "I'm I've got post-traumatic stress. I'm not going to give evidence." That's not allowed to end there. There has to be a way of ensuring that public serving organizations learn. Nobody's perfect, but there's a difference between being imperfect and

02:18:30 difference between being imperfect and willfully being um harmful. And we have been harmed. Many many other families have been harmed and that has to stop. And the only reason I am here, MWS here, and I suspect other families are here because we are determined that other

02:18:46 because we are determined that other people do not go through what we've been through for the last nearly 30 years. We worked really hard and we were really cautious about being on any sort of bandwagon, you know, go being in any sort of political sort of um hue,

02:19:04 sort of political sort of um hue, joining any bandwagons. I felt a lot of guilt that I didn't go to the Lawrence inquiries because I felt well maybe I should have you know what maybe what why was I being so active when it affected me when I hadn't supported them. So we were we work really hard not to be

02:19:15 were we work really hard not to be affiliated with anything that could be political yet we still found ourselves subject to to this sort of behavior. So I really ask you really from the

02:19:28 So I really ask you really from the bottom of my heart, please make this make this count.

02:19:37 Let's leave all of us leave this knowing that we've made the difference. And actually no one is perfect. No, no one is perfect. But if people do wrong, rather than thinking how can I cover my backside, it's a okay,

02:19:50 backside, it's a okay, what do we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again? And I really ask you to do that.

02:20:05 There is now a process under which if there are any questions that people wish council to the inquiry to put you there put to him he considers

02:20:19 put you there put to him he considers whether he should do so and if he thinks it right he will ask them of you. Uh your own council may also wish to re-examine you. Um but for both of those things to occur I must break again for another 15 minutes.

02:31:27 Um before there are any further questions, um MWS, is there anything you would like to say in conclusion? Uh now would be your opportunity to do so if you do wish to do it. Thank you very much.

02:31:40 I'd just like to say that the undercover police spying on my family

02:31:42 family has a lasting effect to this day. I question people I meet, what are their intentions? Are they reporting back?

02:31:57 Are they reporting back? And [clears throat] that colors every facet of your life.

02:32:07 We were subject to these spying simply because we asked questions.

02:32:14 We were failed from the minute Michael was attacked. We were failed again when they failed to come and speak to himself.

02:32:29 were failed through their initial investigations or lack.

02:32:36 They took measures to

02:32:44 smear us, divert the media and press away,

02:32:51 trying to convince us that talking to the media wasn't the right thing to do. Too much information, too many leads. They have we have enough leads to go on.

02:33:09 All of this was designed to simply repair their reputation to contain the damage and repair the reputation. They had no care for Michael,

02:33:11 Michael, no care to find out what happened to him and certainly no care for our family. We were simply an obstacle that they needed to deal with.

02:33:33 The questions are always who sanctioned this, who agreed this, who read the reports, where did the reports go,

02:33:42 and who had Michael's interest, who had my interest, who had my family's interest in all of this.

02:33:59 We're talking about spying on people who have done no wrong, asking questions. And yet it's become a routine,

02:34:07 not even a surprise within that organization.

02:34:15 It wasn't accidental. It was a calculated scheme without paper trail as far as they could manage.

02:34:24 verbal meetings in corridors and where have you

02:34:27 have you destroyed documents. This is an organization that asserts me, a black man.

02:34:44 And yet every day we'll interact with everybody including police. So, where do you stand in all of this?

02:34:53 You got to live a life, but there's no guides. And at every turn, and every turn, you're vulnerable.

02:35:01 It makes no sense that

02:35:16 that this spying was allowed to happen. And it makes me fearful that without change, it'll become a day-to-day occurrence. And families like mine

02:35:23 like mine seeking justice, seeking answers

02:35:31 are trotten over and ground into the dirt.

02:35:33 dirt. Thank you. Um just um one or two questions on on a very brief topic from me.

02:35:45 very brief topic from me. Um MSSMWS, you've already been asked a number of questions about the findings of the PCA report. Um you've already been asked about the robust findings that that report made on the issue of

02:36:00 that that report made on the issue of racism. um we don't need to go to it but just for the record and its conclusion on that issue the report found um that direct racial discrimination could be

02:36:11 direct racial discrimination could be inferred from the facts and one of the reasons for that um was the racial stereotyping of members of Michael's family as hostile anti- police and even unreliable liars in inverted commas

02:36:34 if we can then just turn to another part of that report. This is exhibit 24 UCPI um 50 38699.

02:36:43 Just pull up the second and third paragraph of that report. Um this is another reference that the report makes to the requests for special branch checks on the family. We've already heard a bit about that. Um but the

02:36:59 heard a bit about that. Um but the report specifically says sadly the institutionalization of the negative stereotype of the family also resulted in the instruction from detective chief superintendent Duffy relayed to the office manager by

02:37:11 relayed to the office manager by redacted DI that SO2 or special branch checks be completed on all the Mensson family prior to further interviews with them. Please ensure checks completed at

02:37:24 them. Please ensure checks completed at SO2 are a possible activist involvement of the Menson family. given the reference there to the

02:37:36 given the reference there to the negative stereotyping of the family um as an explanation for the request for special branch checks and the other findings of the report. Do you have any concern um that there was racism at play in that specific request

02:37:50 racism at play in that specific request made for special branch checks into your family?

02:37:55 I mean I I can go first. Absolutely. I otherwise what there was no reason there was [clears throat] no reason absolutely no reason to carry out any checks on us absol absolutely none you know we

02:38:06 absol absolutely none you know we weren't there when there was no reason so the only reason that we can infer is our race and the way they they viewed us

02:38:22 the way they they viewed us you have to you had to work really hard to view us in that way because that's not how we were behaving So it was intentional and I think as I said about the manipulation of the fact the words that were chosen to paint us

02:38:34 the words that were chosen to paint us in a certain light so that this seemed like a reasonable next step wasn't accidental. It was very intentional and very different from the picture that if you'd come into our home that's not what you'd have seen.

02:38:49 Do you want to add to that? Yeah. The the racism there was designed and used to limit

02:39:00 and used to limit the examination within the organization. It gave an excuse to short circuit any any of the protections that should be in place to protect me and my family. It demonized us

02:39:13 It demonized us so that we could be dismissed and that they could confidently protect their reputation and organization.

02:39:25 And leading on from that, when we turn to the interests of the SDS in your family and the surveillance of you by that unit, um do you have any concerns

02:39:37 that unit, um do you have any concerns um in relation to any racist motivations for that?

02:39:40 for that? I say it's deeply racist. They simply viewed us as unworthy and as unhuman

02:39:52 unhuman and that enabled them to to

02:39:58 to conduct their spying with impunity and with confidence.

02:40:09 I would just that that it's it's um like like sediment like layer upon layer upon layer. The way they described us, the way they said we were hostile, that we were obstructive, that we were crowding out um legal processes, all of those things were building up a picture. So by

02:40:22 things were building up a picture. So by the time you know Griev was involved and and liazing with them they they they had created a narrative a narrative that we firstly were partly ignorant to but

02:40:38 firstly were partly ignorant to but informed what they did and allow them to think that this was okay. And at no point as as MWS has said at no point did they question did they say why why are we doing this? What is this based on? And senior people must have seen that and

02:40:55 senior people must have seen that and bought into the spin that had been built over the preceding years on us. People who just wanted to asked respectfully reasonable questions, but they decided to to

02:41:09 to to um distort the the narrative. So it made us look like we were dangerous and that we were a risk. And you didn't have to scratch very far the surface very far to see that that was not the case.

02:41:19 Thank you. No further questions from me.

02:41:26 Any re re-examination? [clears throat] No other questions.

02:41:34 [sighs] Thank you for undertaking the difficult task both of you of giving oral evidence to me. Um it has made [clears throat]

02:41:46 to me. Um it has made [clears throat] clear to me in a way that seeing even the rather dramatic things that are said on paper

02:42:05 can't bring fully to life. And that is what uh Sir William McFersonen and his panel spoke of when they identified institutional racism.

02:42:16 institutional racism. As I say, you have brought that to life in a manner that can only be done by speaking, you speaking, and me listening. I'm deeply grateful to you for doing so. Um,

02:42:32 I leave with the hope which you've expressed that common humanity will eventually prevail. I think it generally does. Nobody can get rid of all the bad things in the world. But on the whole,

02:42:43 things in the world. But on the whole, we survive. And we survive because, as you've rightly observed, common humanity makes us. Thank you.