| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER SIX RACISM 6.1 A central and vital issue which has permeated our Inquiry has been the issue of racism. The chilling condemnation, made by and on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence at and after the Inquest in February 1997 (see Chapter 42, paras 13 & 37), of the police and of the system of English justice, has sounded through all the months of our consideration of the evidence. Mr & Mrs Lawrence allege and fervently believe that their colour, culture and ethnic origin, and that of their murdered son, have throughout affected the way in which the case has been dealt with and pursued. Similarly strong allegations are made on behalf of Duwayne Brooks. These allegations are plainly supported by many people, both black and white, in our Public Gallery and in the community at large. 6.2 The Kent Report "found no evidence to support the allegation of racist conduct by any Metropolitan Police Officer involved in the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence", (Kent Report, para 14.28). The Kent investigation was however (as is set out at paragraph 14.25) "an investigation into complaints against specific officers and as such could not cover the broader issues of racism and whether or not it existed within the MPS". Each of 17 officers interviewed by Kent was baldly asked whether his or her "judgment and subsequent actions were based on the fact that Stephen was black". In some cases Mrs Lawrence's condemnatory words about the lack of first aid were quoted to the officers. Each officer roundly denied racism or racist conduct. Each officer plainly and genuinely believed that he or she had acted without overt racist bias or discrimination. The answers given were thus predictable. 6.3 In this Inquiry we have not heard evidence of overt racism or discrimination, unless it can be said that the use of inappropriate expressions such as "coloured" or "negro" fall into that category. The use of such words, which are now well known to be offensive, displays at least insensitivity and lack of training. A number of officers used such terms, and some did not even during their evidence seem to understand that the terms were offensive and should not be used. 6.4 Racism in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which disadvantage or advantage people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form. 6.5 We have been concerned with the more subtle and much discussed concept of racism referred to as institutional racism which (in the words of Dr Robin Oakley) can influence police service delivery "not solely through the deliberate actions of a small number of bigoted individuals, but through a more systematic tendency that could unconsciously influence police performance generally". 6.6 The phrase "institutional racism" has been the subject of much debate. We accept that there are dangers in allowing the phrase to be used in order to try to express some overall criticism of the police, or any other organisation, without addressing its meaning. Books and articles on the subject proliferate. We must do our best to express what we mean by those words, although we stress that we will not produce a definition cast in stone, or a final answer to the question. What we hope to do is to set out our standpoint, so that at least our application of the term to the present case can be understood by those who are criticised. 6.7 In 1981 Lord Scarman's Report into The Brixton Disorders was presented to
Parliament. In that seminal report Lord Scarman responded to the suggestion that "Britain
is an institutionally racist society," in this way:- "If, by 6.8 In policing terms Lord Scarman also rejected the allegation that the MPS was a
racist force. He said:- "The direction and policies of the Metropolitan Police are not racist. I totally
and unequivocally reject the attack made upon the integrity and impartiality of the senior
direction of the force. The criticisms lie elsewhere - in errors of judgment, in a lack of
imagination and flexibility, but not in deliberate bias or prejudice" 6.9 Lord Scarman accepted that some police officers, particularly those below the level of the senior direction of the force were guilty of "ill considered immature and racially prejudiced actions .... in their dealings on the streets with young black people". (Para 4.63, p 64). He stressed that "racist" prejudice and behaviour "does occur and every instance of it has an immense impact on community attitudes and beliefs. The damage done by even the occasional display of racial prejudice is incalculable. It is therefore essential that every possible step be taken to prevent and to root out racially prejudiced attitudes in the police service. The police cannot rest on the argument that since they are a cross-section of society some officers are bound to be racially prejudiced. In this respect, as in others, the standards we apply to the police must be higher than the norms of behaviour prevalent in society as a whole". (Para 4.64, p 64). 6.10 Lord Scarman (Para 4.63) moreover referred specifically to the dangers of
"racist" stereotyping when he said: "Racial prejudice does manifest itself occasionally in the behaviour of a few
officers on the street. It may be only too easy for some officers, faced with what they
must see as the inexorably rising tide of street crime, to lapse into an unthinking
assumption that all young black people are potential criminals". 6.11 Such assumptions are still made today. In answer to a question posed to a member of the MPS Black Police Association, Inspector Leroy Logan, he referred to "what is said in the canteen", citing simply as an example his memory that " ... as a Sergeant I was in the back of a car and a female white officer on seeing a black person driving a very nice car just said "I wonder who he robbed to get that?", and she then realised she was actually voicing an unconscious assumption". (Part 2, Day 2, p 215). This is a mere example of similar experiences repeatedly given to us during our public meetings. 6.12 Lord Scarman further said:- "All the evidence I have received, both on the subject of racial disadvantage and more generally, suggests that racialism and discrimination against black people - often hidden, sometimes unconscious - remain a major source of social tension and conflict". (Para 6.35, p 110). 6.13 Thus Lord Scarman accepted the existence of what he termed "unwitting" or "unconscious" racism. To those adjectives can be added a third, namely "unintentional". All three words are familiar in the context of any discussion in this field. The Commissioner used all three in his letter written to the Inquiry on 2 October 1998, after his appearance at Hannibal House during our hearings. 6.14 Dr Oakley indicates (in his first submission to the Inquiry, Paragraph 2) that in spite of Lord Scarman's use of the words "hidden and unconscious" and "unwitting" the concept of "racist conduct" that became established following his Report "was one of overt acts of discrimination or hostility by individuals who were acting out their personal prejudices. Racism was therefore a problem specifically of individual officers, of 'rotten apples' within the service who 'let the side down'. On this diagnosis, the solution to the problem would lie (a) at the selection stage, at which prejudiced individuals should be identified and weeded out, and (b) through the application of disciplinary sanctions against those who display such behaviour on the job. This conception of racism appears still to be the normal understanding in police circles, and appears also to have informed the conclusion by the PCA". 6.15 When Lord Scarman asserted in his final conclusion that "institutional racism does not exist in Britain: but racial disadvantage and its nasty associate racial discrimination have not yet been eliminated", (Para 9.1, p 135), many took this statement as the classic defence against all allegations that "institutional racism" exists in British society. His earlier words "knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates" and "practices may be adopted .... which are unwittingly discriminatory," were not separated and given equal weight. Whilst we must never lose sight of the importance of explicit racism and direct discrimination, in policing terms if the phrase "institutional racism" had been used to describe not only explicit manifestations of racism at direction and policy level, but also unwitting discrimination at the organisational level, then the reality of indirect racism in its more subtle, hidden and potentially more pervasive nature would have been addressed. 6.16 The officers questioned by the Kent investigators expressed their indignation at any suggestion of overt racism. The Kent Report in our view however, never dealt satisfactorily with the other evil of unwitting racism, in both talk and action, played out in a variety of ways. The evidence we heard in this Inquiry revealed how unwitting racist discriminatory language and behaviour may arise. 6.17 Unwitting racism can arise because of lack of understanding, ignorance or mistaken beliefs. It can arise from well intentioned but patronising words or actions. It can arise from unfamiliarity with the behaviour or cultural traditions of people or families from minority ethnic communities. It can arise from racist stereotyping of black people as potential criminals or troublemakers. Often this arises out of uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible police ethos of the "traditional" way of doing things. Furthermore such attitudes can thrive in a tightly knit community, so that there can be a collective failure to detect and to outlaw this breed of racism. The police canteen can too easily be its breeding ground. 6.18 As Lord Scarman said (Para 4.97) there can be " .... failure to adjust policies and methods to meet the needs of policing a multi-racial society". Such failures can occur simply because police officers may mistakenly believe that it is legitimate to be "colour blind" in both individual and team response to the management and investigation of racist crimes, and in their relationship generally with people from minority ethnic communities. Such an approach is flawed. A colour blind approach fails to take account of the nature and needs of the person or the people involved, and of the special features which such crimes and their investigation possess. As Mr Dan Crompton, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC), helpfully said to us it is no longer enough to believe "all that is necessary is to treat everyone the same. .... it might be said it is about treatment according to need." (Part 2, Day 2, p 57). 6.19 Professor Simon Holdaway (in his helpful statement to the Inquiry, para 3.3, 12
June 1998) says this:- "By policing normally, in what officers regard as common sense ways, in failing to
reflect on the implications of their ideas and notions, negative relationships between the
police and ethnic minorities are created and sustained". 6.20 In the Rotterdam Charter, "Policing for a multi-ethnic society; Principles, Practices and Partnership (1996)" (para 2, p 10), the following words appear:- "A multi ethnic society places special demands on the police organisation. As a result the police must accept the need to adapt their professionalism, quality of service and their legal and wider responsibilities to the needs of a continually changing population. The goal is to provide services that are applicable and accessible to all citizens regardless of their ethnic background". 6.21 The failure of the first investigating team to recognise and accept racism and race relations as a central feature of their investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence played a part in the deficiencies in policing which we identify in this Report. For example, a substantial number of officers of junior rank would not accept that the murder of Stephen Lawrence was simply and solely "racially motivated". The relevance of the ethnicity and cultural status of the victims, including Duwayne Brooks, and Mr & Mrs Lawrence, was not properly recognised. Immediately after the murder Mr Brooks was side-lined, and his vital information was inadequately considered. None of these shortcomings was corrected or overcome. 6.22 What may be termed collective organisational failure of this kind has come to be labelled by academics and others as institutional racism. This is by no means a new term or concept. In 1967 two black activists, Stokely Carmichael and Charles V Hamilton stated that institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society. It relies on the active and pervasive operation of anti-black attitudes and practices. A sense of superior group position prevails: whites are 'better' than blacks and therefore blacks should be subordinated to whites. This is a racist attitude and it permeates society on both the individual and institutional level, covertly or overtly". (Black Power: the Politics of Liberation in America, Penguin Books, 1967, pp 20-21). 6.23 Reference to a concept described in a different national and social context over 30 years ago has its dangers; but that concept has been continuously debated and revised since 1968. History shows that "covert" insidious racism is more difficult to detect. Institutions such as Police Services can operate in a racist way without at once recognising their racism. 6.24 It is vital to stress that neither academic debate nor the evidence presented to us leads us to say or to conclude that an accusation that institutional racism exists in the MPS implies that the policies of the MPS are racist. No such evidence is before us. Indeed the contrary is true. It is in the implementation of policies and in the words and actions of officers acting together that racism may become apparent. Furthermore we say with emphasis that such an accusation does not mean or imply that every police officer is guilty of racism. No such sweeping suggestion can be or should be made. The Commissioner's fears are in this respect wholly unfounded. 6.25 Sir Paul Condon himself said this in his letter to the Inquiry
dated 2 October 1998:- "I recognise that individual officers can be, and are, overtly racist. I
acknowledge that officers stereotype, and differential outcomes occur for Londoners.
Racism in the police is much more than 'bad apples' . Racism, as you have pointed out, can
occur through a lack of care and lack of understanding. The debate about defining this
evil, promoted by the Inquiry, is cathartic in leading us to recognise that it can occur
almost unknowingly, as a matter of neglect, in an institution. I acknowledge the danger of
institutionalisation of racism. However, labels can cause more problems than they
solve." Sir Paul will go thus far, but he did not accept that there is institutional racism within his force. 6.26 We understand Sir Paul's anxiety about labels. But the fact is that the concept of institutional racism exists and is generally accepted, even if a long trawl through the work of academics and activists produces varied words and phrases in pursuit of a definition. We repeat that we do not pretend to produce a definition which will carry all argument before it. We approach the question by setting out some helpful quotations from evidence put before us, and we then set out our current standpoint. We began our Inquiry without presuppositions in this field. All the evidence and submissions that we have heard have driven us to the conclusions set out in this Report. 6.27 The MPS Black Police Association's spokesmen, in their written submission to the Inquiry, para 3.2, said this:- ".... institutional racism .... permeates the Metropolitan Police Service. This issue above all others is central to the attitudes, values and beliefs, which lead officers to act, albeit unconsciously and for the most part unintentionally, and treat others differently solely because of their ethnicity or culture" 6.28 The oral evidence of the three representatives of the MPS Black Police Association was illuminating. It should be read in full, but we highlight two passages from Inspector Paul Wilson's evidence:- (Part 2, Day 2, p 209): "The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the way the
institution or the organisation may systematically or repeatedly treat, or tend to treat,
people differentially because of their race. So, in effect, we are not talking about the
individuals within the service who may be unconscious as to the nature of what they are
doing, but it is the net effect of what they do". (Part 2, Day 2, p 211): "A second source of institutional racism is our culture, our culture within the
police service. Much has been said about our culture, the canteen culture, the
occupational culture. How and why does that impact on individuals, black individuals on
the street? Well, we would say the occupational culture within the police service, given
the fact that the majority of police officers are white, tends to be the white experience,
the white beliefs, the white values. Given the fact that these predominantly white officers only meet members of the black community in confrontational situations, they tend to stereotype black people in general. This can lead to all sorts of negative views and assumptions about black people, so we should not underestimate the occupational culture within the police service as being a primary source of institutional racism in the way that we differentially treat black people. Interestingly I say we because there is no marked difference between black and white in the force essentially. We are all consumed by this occupational culture. Some of us may think we rise above it on some occasions, but, generally speaking, we tend to conform to the norms of this occupational culture, which we say is all powerful in shaping our views and perceptions of a particular community". We believe that it is essential that the views of these officers should be closely heeded and respected. 6.29 The 1990 Trust in their submission wrote:- ".... racism can be systemic and therefore institutional without being apparent in broad policy terms. Racism within the police can be both covert and overt, racism can be detected in how operational policing decisions are carried out and consequently implemented, and indeed how existing policy is ignored or individual officers' discretion results in racist outcomes". 6.30 The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in their submission stated:- "Institutional racism has been defined as those established laws, customs, and
practices which systematically reflect and produce racial inequalities in society. If
racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, the institution is
racist whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have racial
intentions". ".... organisational structures, policies, processes and practices which result in ethnic minorities being treated unfairly and less equally, often without intention or knowledge". (Para 3). 6.31 Dr Robin Oakley has submitted two helpful Notes to our Inquiry. It is perhaps impudent to cite short extracts from his work, but these passages have particularly assisted us:- "For the police service, however, there is an additional dimension which arises from the nature of the policing role. Police work, unlike most other professional activities, has the capacity to bring officers into contact with a skewed cross-section of society, with the well-recognised potential for producing negative stereotypes of particular groups. Such stereotypes become the common currency of the police occupational culture. If the predominantly white staff of the police organisation have their experience of visible minorities largely restricted to interactions with such groups, then negative racial stereotypes will tend to develop accordingly." In Dr Oakley's view, if the challenges of 'institutional racism' which potentially affect all police officers, are not addressed, this will:- "result in a generalised tendency, particularly where any element of discretion is involved, whereby minorities may receive different and less favourable treatment than the majority. Such differential treatment need be neither conscious nor intentional, and it may be practised routinely by officers whose professionalism is exemplary in all other respects. There is great danger that focusing on overt acts of personal racism by individual officers may deflect attention from the much greater institutional challenge ... of addressing the more subtle and concealed form that organisational-level racism may take. Its most important challenging feature is its predominantly hidden character and its inbuilt pervasiveness within the occupational culture." He goes on:- "It could be said that institutional racism in this sense is in fact pervasive
throughout the culture and institutions of the whole of British society, and is in no way
specific to the police service. However, because of the nature of the police role, its
impact on society if not addressed in the police organisation may be particularly severe.
In the police service, despite the extensive activity designed to address racial and
ethnic issues in recent years, the concept of 'institutional racism' has not received the
attention it deserves." 6.32 Dr Oakley in his second Note (17 December 1988) echoes the view of Professor
Holdaway who has argued rightly that emotively powerful words such as "racism"
must not be used simply as rhetorical weapons:- "Such terms need to be given a clear analytic meaning which can demonstrably help
illuminate the problem at hand". (Para 1.4). "The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the way institutions may systematically treat or tend to treat people differently in respect of race. The addition of the word 'institutional' therefore identifies the source of the differential treatment; this lies in some sense within the organisation rather than simply with the individuals who represent it. The production of differential treatment is 'institutionalised' in the way the organisation operates". (Para 2.2). Towards the end of his Note Dr Oakley says this:- "What is required in the police service therefore is an occupational culture that
is sensitive not just to the experience of the majority but to minority experience also.
In short, an enhanced standard of police professionalism to meet the requirements of a
multi-ethnic society" 6.33 We are also grateful for the contribution to our Inquiry made by Dr Benjamin Bowling. Again it must be said that summaries of such work can be unhelpful. But we hope that he will forgive us for quoting here simply one important passage:- "Institutional racism is the process by which people from ethnic minorities are systematically discriminated against by a range of public and private bodies. If the result or outcome of established laws, customs or practices is racially discriminatory, then institutional racism can be said to have occurred. Although racism is rooted in widely shared attitudes, values and beliefs, discrimination can occur irrespective of the intent of the individuals who carry out the activities of the institution. Thus policing can be discriminatory without this being acknowledged or recognised, and in the face of official policies geared to removal of discrimination. However, some discrimination practices are the product of uncritical rather than unconscious racism. That is, practices with a racist outcome are not engaged in without the actor's knowledge; rather, the actor has failed to consider the consequences of his or her actions for people from ethnic minorities. Institutional racism affects the routine ways in which ethnic minorities are treated in their capacity as employees, witnesses, victims, suspects and members of the general public." Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context, July 1998. (Paras 21-22, pp 3-4). 6.34 Taking all that we have heard and read into account we grapple with the problem. For the purposes of our Inquiry the concept of institutional racism which we apply consists of: The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease. 6.35 As Dr Oakely points out, the disease cannot be attacked by the organisation involved in isolation. If such racism infests the police its elimination can only be achieved "by means of a fully developed partnership approach in which the police service works jointly with the minority ethnic communities. How else can mutual confidence and trust be reached?" (Para 14, p 6). 6.36 Thus in this Inquiry we have looked to see whether racism of this type lay behind the steps taken, or not taken, or pursued inadequately. Was there an adequate and thoughtful understanding of action to be taken when a racist crime was palpably identified? Did the officers involved behave at each stage as "colour blind", denying the relevance and particular reactions and needs of the victims and their families? Did the officers involved fail fully to accept "racism and race relations" as a central feature of the investigation? Did the officers involved act sluggishly, and in a way which they would not have acted had the victim been white and the attackers black? 6.37 Professor Holdaway ends his statement to the Inquiry with the following perceptive assessment:- "The sustaining of negative relationships with the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks; a failure to undertake an adequate investigation; a lack of competent management; and a lack of a particular approach to the investigation of a racial attack were compounded precisely because the officers in charge of the inquiry did not place race at the centre of their understanding of the Lawrence murder and its investigation. Race relations were consistently under-played or ignored". (Paragraph 11.3). 6.38 Can this indictment be spelt out of the facts or legitimate inferences to be drawn from the facts of this murder investigation? Does the condemnation by Mr & Mrs lawrence of the police and the criminal justice system have validity? Do the submissions of Counsel on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Brooks lead to the conclusions which they advocate in connection with the issue of racism? Was the case so clearly foreshadowed on the opening statement of Counsel to the Inquiry made out? These are the questions which must be addressed. We address them upon a fair assessment and judgement of all the facts and circumstances which have been rehearsed before us in both parts of our inquiry. 6.39 Given the central nature of the issue we feel that it is important at once to state our conclusion that institutional racism, within the terms of its description set out in Paragraph 6.34 above, exists both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions countrywide. In this context we stress what Sir Herman Ouseley, Chairman of the CRE, has written to us:- "This Inquiry offers a unique opportunity to make a difference; not only with the MPS and its failings, but for all our institutions .... there should be coherence across all institutions and organisations as part of a national framework for change. Without this any change would be merely piecemeal, limited, and unlikely to be long-lasting". 6.40 In reaching this conclusion we have considered the primary evidence which has been put before us and the legitimate inferences which can fairly and as a matter of "common-sense and not law" be drawn from that evidence, as May LJ indicated in North West Thames RHA v Noone (1988) IRLR 195 CA. Furthermore we apply the civil standard of proof, namely that we are satisfied upon a balance of probability that any conclusion we reach is justified. 6.41 Mummery J said in Quereshi v Victoria University of Manchester and Brazier (1996) EAT 484, at page 495, an employment case, "The process of inference is itself a matter of applying common-sense and judgment of facts, and assessing the probabilities on this issue of whether racial grounds were an effective cause of the acts complained of or were not. The assessment of the parties and their witnesses when they give evidence also form an important part of the process of inference. The Tribunal may find that the force of the primary facts is insufficient to justify an inference on racial grounds. It may find that any inference that it might have made is negated by a satisfactory explanation by the Respondent of non racial grounds for the action or decision." 6.42 The only explanation or excuse offered to us for the failures and mistakes in this case are that they were the result of incompetence or misjudgement. Such explanation or excuse cannot in our view negate the reasonable inferences and conclusions which we make from the evidence that we have heard. 6.43 We note the words of Leggatt LJ, in Quereshi v London Borough of Newham (1991) 10 RLR (p 267), in which the Court of Appeal held that failure on the part of an employer to take steps to counter racial discrimination could be evidence from which unlawful prejudice could be inferred. Leggatt LJ said, "Incompetence does not, without more, become discrimination merely because the person affected by it is from an ethnic minority". 6.44 We heed this warning, but upon all the facts we assert that the conclusion that racism played its part in this case is fully justified. Mere incompetence cannot of itself account for the whole catalogue of failures, mistakes, misjudgements, and lack of direction and control which bedevilled the Stephen Lawrence investigation. 6.45 Institutional racism is in our view primarily apparent in what we have seen and heard in the following areas:- (a) in the actual investigation including the family's treatment at the hospital,
the initial reaction to the victim and witness Duwayne Brooks, the family liaison, the
failure of many officers to recognise Stephen's murder as a purely "racially
motivated" crime, (b) countrywide in the disparity in "stop and search figures". Whilst we acknowledge and recognise the complexity of this issue and in particular the other factors which can be prayed in aid to explain the disparities, such as demographic mix, school exclusions, unemployment, and recording procedures, there remains, in our judgment, a clear core conclusion of racist stereotyping; (c) countrywide in the significant under-reporting of "racial incidents" occasioned largely by a lack of confidence in the police and their perceived unwillingness to take such incidents seriously. Again we are conscious of other factors at play, but we find irresistible the conclusion that a core cause of under-reporting is the inadequate response of the Police Service which generates a lack of confidence in victims to report incidents; and (d) in the identified failure of police training; as evidenced by the HMIC Report, "Winning the Race" and the Police Training Council Report, and the clear evidence in Part 1 of this Inquiry which demonstrated that not a single officer questioned before us in 1998 had received any training of significance in racism awareness and race relations throughout the course of his or her career. 6.46 In reaching our conclusions we do not accept the contention of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service that, "....... if this Inquiry labels my Service as institutionally racist the average police officer, the average member of the public will assume the normal meaning of those words. They will assume a finding of conscious, wilful or deliberate action or inaction to the detriment of ethnic minority Londoners. They will assume the majority of good men and women who come into policing ..... go about their daily lives with racism in their minds and in their endeavour. I actually think that use of those two words in a way that would take on a new meaning to most people in society would actually undermine many of the endeavours to identify and respond to the issues of racism which challenge all institutions and particularly the police because of their privileged and powerful position" (Part 2, Day 3, pp 290-291). We hope and believe that the average police officer and average member of the public will accept that we do not suggest that all police officers are racist and will both understand and accept the distinction we draw between overt individual racism and the pernicious and persistent institutional racism which we have described. 6.47 Nor do we say that in its policies the MPS is racist. Nor do we share the fear of those who say that in our finding of institutional racism, in the manner in which we have used that concept, there may be a risk that the moral authority of the MPS may be undermined. Already by the establishment under Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve of the MPS Racial and Violent Crime Task Force the signs are that the problem is being recognised and tackled. Thus the catharsis of this Inquiry will lead to constructive action and not to further divisive views and outcomes. Sir Henry Brooke's perceptive 1993 Kapila lecture should be required reading in the field of race relations. He reminded us that in the 1st Century AD Philo wrote "When a judge tries a case he must remember that he is himself on trial". We ask of the Police Services that in their investigation of racist incidents and crimes and in their work in this field they should remember that they too are being investigated for racism. 6.48 There must be an unequivocal acceptance of the problem of institutional racism and its nature before it can be addressed, as it needs to be, in full partnership with members of minority ethnic communities. There is no doubt that recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance of the problem by Police Services and their officers is an important first step for minority ethnic communities in moving forward positively to solve the problem which exists. There is an onus upon Police Services to respond to this. Any Chief Officer who feels unable so to respond will find it difficult to work in harmony and co-operation with the community in the way that policing by consent demands. 6.49 We were heartened by the evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Chief Constable David Blakey, Chief Constable Tony Burden and Assistant Chief Constable Lloyd Clarke, Part 2, Day 1, Page 95) that "We acknowledge that as in all organisations, there are individuals who have racist attitudes in the police service. And our collective viewpoint can lead to our not understanding, or to our misinterpreting racial incidents and ethnic minority opinions and expectations". And by the evidence of Chief Constable David Wilmot (Part 2, Day 2) who plainly accepted that within the Greater Manchester Police "there was still institutional racism, both in an 'internalised' way (just as in society) and an overt way" which had to be radically confronted. His views were misinterpreted by many who said that his statements implied that all his officers were racist. This was an unjustified and faulty perception. Mr Wilmot accepted that institutional racism existed within his force, within the terms of the concept described above. Mr Wilmot concluded his opening statement by saying that, "The future is not going to be easy but I would hope, certainly I felt from what I have heard today, that if we took our Manchester Commonwealth Games Symbol and use it as a logo that we are working together in this area. We accept constructive criticism, and try to change as a Service. We accept that we have problems and are working towards them. I also believe that I do have a good work force that tries, in the main, its very best to reduce crime and criminality and racism within the Greater Manchester Police Area and I feel, despite the problems, reasonably confident that working together we can set off on that long road to a future whereby everybody can walk about our community without fear of anything, irrespective of their colour, religion, background, age, sex, whatever, that there is no discrimination in any shape or form" (p.191). 6.50 We are also encouraged by the letters from the new President of ACPO, Chief Constable John Newing. In his first letter (16 October 1998) he said:- " .... I define institutional racism as the racism which is inherent in wider society which shapes our attitudes and behaviour. Those attitudes and behaviour are then reinforced or reshaped by the culture of the organisation a person works for. In the police service there is a distinct tendency for officers to stereotype people. That creates problems in a number of areas, but particularly in the way officers deal with black people. Discrimination and unfairness are the result. I know because as a young police officer I was guilty of such behaviour. My definition is very similar to the way David Wilmot defined institutional racism in response to you and the press. ..... ..... We take the view that the important issue now is to stop arguing about definitions and do something about the racism within the service. Having said that it would be entirely unrealistic to think that the phrase 'institutional racism' will not continue to be used to describe a certain type of racist behaviour. Our hope therefore is that your report will bring greater clarity to its meaning and use." In his second letter dated 13 November 1998 Mr Newing indicated that he had established a Presidential Task Force to tackle "the issues concerning racism and those relating to the investigation and prevention of racial and violent crime". The aim of that Task Force is "to increase the confidence in policing among ethnic minority communities by providing better protection from racial and violent crime and demonstrating fairness in every aspect of policing". The terms of reference are:- "To review and consider all aspects of the work currently being done within the Police Service in respect of relations between the Police Service and ethnic minorities. The aim will be to finalise a comprehensive policy and identify action to ensure that real achievement follows". Perhaps in this indication, and in the establishment within the MPS of Mr John Grieve's Task Force, the impact of this Inquiry can already be detected. 6.51 The evidence of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his opening statement placed too much emphasis upon individual racists and individual malpractice (Part 2, Day 3, page 282), and cautioned against the use of the term institutional racism "in new and different ways" (page 292). The Commissioner did not accept that unconscious or covert racism was evident in any area of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. He said, "I honestly sincerely believe that by any ordinary use of those words those issues did not influence this tragic case" (pages 307/308). When given examples of the impact of racism; the patronising of Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and the refusal to accept racist motivation by a number of officers, and asked whether such features might amount to institutional racism his response was "..... I am not challenging the areas of the behaviour you have described. ....... but by describing those challenges and those issues as institutional racism I think you then extrapolate to all police officers at all times this notion that they are walking around just waiting to do something that is going to be labelled institutional racism because of some collective failure." (Part 2, page 311). 6.52 Later (page 321) the Commissioner summarised his position in these words:- "I have said today, I thought I had said today, there is racism in the Police
Service. There can be unconscious racism, there can be deliberate racism, that racism can
be played out in discrimination in disproportionality, the unfair use of arbitrary powers,
all of those issues I acknowledge, I condemn, I seek to reform, I have never ever
challenged .......". However there is a small but significant difference between acknowledging that such features "can" exist and acknowledging that they "do" exist. There is thus a discernible difference between the approach of ACPO and other Chief Officers and the somewhat less positive approach of the Commissioner. We assert again that there must be an unequivocal acceptance that the problem actually exists as a prerequisite to addressing it successfully. 6.53 To his credit the Commissioner was aware of the problem in 1993. In a conference
lecture given on 28 February 1993, shortly after his appointment, in a more general but
wholly relevant context, he said:- ".... This is an area where we must be totally intolerant; intolerant of
racially motivated attacks; intolerant of those who indulge in racial abuse, and
intolerant of those who use hatred and violence as the tools of their political
expression. But if we are to be intolerant of those outside the police service who fail to treat their fellow human beings with dignity and respect, we must be equally intolerant of our own colleagues who fail to reach the required standards. The argument that there is some excuse for poor behaviour because the culture of the Service can only be expected to mirror that of wider society and its behaviours, since that is from where we draw our personnel, is simply specious. We demand exemplary conduct from those we employ." ..... 6.54 Racism, institutional or otherwise, is not the prerogative of the Police Service. It is clear that other agencies including for example those dealing with housing and education also suffer from the disease. If racism is to be eradicated there must be specific and co-ordinated action both within the agencies themselves and by society at large, particularly through the educational system, from pre-primary school upwards and onwards. 6.55 We have already referred in Chapter 2 to the racism observed amongst children of primary and even pre-school age, and to the high proportion of racist incidents attributable to young people. It must be a major concern of Government that our educational system should address these issues. 6.56 There is evidence that there are difficulties in getting some schools individually or locally to acknowledge and tackle racism even where local education authorities have sought to persuade them to do so. The lack of powers available to local education authorities and the fear of negative publicity by schools clearly combine to make anti-racist policies, even where they exist, ineffective. Consequently in order to seek to eradicate racism in the longer term, within society as a whole, the Government should consider how best to empower local education authorities to create, monitor and enforce anti-racist policies through codes of practice and by amendment of the National Curriculum, to provide education which deals with racism awareness and valuing cultural diversity in the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society in which we live. 6.57 In order to provide the context and climate in which institutional racism can be addressed there is a need, as a matter of basic principle, for Police Services as a whole to be made as open and accountable as possible. To move Police Services forward in this way and to ensure the maximum degree of openness and accountability we will make strong recommendations, which will appear later in this Report. 6.58 As Mr Paul Pugh, the Head of the Operational Policing Policy Unit at the Home Office, said in evidence during Part 2 of this Inquiry:- ".... the Department [the Home Office] has a wider role in promoting race equality and combating racial disadvantage, and that is an agenda to which I know Ministers attach great importance ....... My personal view is that we are now in a time of tremendous opportunity to make a change .... to make progress and to address some of the central problems. One of those problems is the gap between minority ethnic people's experience of racially motivated crime and the response of the police service to it". Fundamental to the closing of the gap is the acceptance and then the elimination of racism within the Police Service. 6.59 We echo Mr Pugh's words, and hope that this opportunity for co-operation between Police Services and minority ethnic communities will not be lost. Both sides have a duty to bridge the gap, since bridges have to be built from both sides. But the first priority is for Police Services to accept the existence of the problem and to address it, since any form of racism associated with power has to be the first target. 6.60 In the context of the need for change we note the helpful evidence of the Reverend David Wise, given to us at Southall. He has been Pastor of Greenford Baptist Church for 11 years and has lived in the area of Southall for 18 years. He said this:- "The police here in West London seem to respond differently to Black and Asian people than the Whites. I used to believe that it was simply that alongside the excellent police officers that there undoubtedly are (we have two who are part of our own church community) there were some police officers who were either inept or were, to put it bluntly, racially prejudiced. I have now been forced to the conclusion, by this and other cases, that the problem is much, much deeper than that. I believe that the procedures and management systems of the police are at fault ... Simply tinkering with the police system and putting in a bit of extra racial awareness training will not address this: a radical transformation is needed" (Part 2, Day 6, pp.832-834). 6.61 This call for radical cultural transformation has an illuminating echo backwards
to words spoken in 1992 by Sir John Woodcock, then HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary in
his opening address to the International Conference on Policing (IPEC 1992). The context
was very different, but the words used are apt. He said this: "The work place values of the modern police service have not yet fully cut free of
the past and the police service faces a massive task, if it is to hold, as the community
now demands, integrity and respect for human rights, above all other considerations." The main reason Sir John gave for police malpractice in the gathering and presentation
of evidence was his belief:- "that most of those who go wrong in this way are misguided rather than evil, and
their actions are a result of our collective failures as supervisors ... I don't believe
in bad apples. I think that the problem is not one of individual predisposition to
wrongdoing but of structure, or what I have earlier called cultural failure. The
culture of the police and some procedures in the criminal justice system actually make it
totally improbable that all police officers will behave as the system lays down that they
should. However, I believe that the Royal Commission will fail in any attempt fully to
guarantee the integrity of police evidence unless the police service itself changes its
culture dramatically." He concluded with these words, the sense of which are apt in the context of this
Inquiry:- "What is happening to the police is that a 19th Century institution is being
dragged into the 21st Century. Despite all the later mythology of Dixon, the police never
really were the police of the whole people but a mechanism set up to protect the affluent
from what the Victorians described as the dangerous classes. I believe that the events
of the last few years have not only presented British policing with a challenge so
formidable that it has come close to disaster: they have also now given the opportunity to
the British Police to reinvent themselves. It is now possible to foresee that, through a
fundamental shift of culture, the British police service will remain at the worldwide
forefront of policing, with a style which draws its legitimacy from an understanding of
current public needs and of the nature of the contract between police and a new generation
of the public." 6.62 Our conclusions and recommendations are designed to guide all
police officers towards a transformation of their culture in partnership with others, in
the context of policing this present multi-cultural and multi-ethnic Britain. As the Home
Secretary, The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, has emphasised: "It is not enough for a force to pay lip service to the ethos of equal
opportunities. It must be shown to be happening, not only in clearly articulated policies,
but in clearly defined procedures - including measures to deal with staff whose conduct
and behaviour runs contrary to this ethos" 6.63 We are confident that the Home Secretary and the Government will perceive the pressures for change which this Inquiry has uncovered, so that the necessary transformation will start to take place. The Inquiry itself cannot mould the future, but Government and society can together go forward.
|
