| The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry | |||
CHAPTER THIRTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IAN JOHNSTON 30.1 Mr Johnston is an Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In connection with the Stephen Lawrence investigation he became involved in March 1994, upon his appointment to be Assistant Commissioner for one of the five new Areas designated after the Area structure was reformed. 30.2 At the outset of Mr Johnston's evidence he indicated that he wished to make a statement before his evidence began. The Inquiry had been given some notice of this request and of course acceded to Mr Johnston's wish. Thereupon, in the presence of Mr Lawrence, Mr Johnston made an abject apology for the failures of the MPS in connection with the Stephen Lawrence murder. Unfortunately Mrs Lawrence was not present, since the represented parties had no notice of what was to take place until the morning of 17 June 1998. 30.3 The full terms of the apology appear in the Appendices to this Report. It is right to indicate that the apology was full and wholly unconditional. Mr Johnston, on his own behalf, and expressly on behalf of Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner, indicated deep regret that the police had failed Mr & Mrs Lawrence and indeed the community and said that they hoped that eventually they would be forgiven by Mr & Mrs Lawrence. 30.4 Thereafter Mr Johnston's evidence was in a sense something of an anticlimax. But it was plainly his intention to indicate acceptance of the gross shortcomings of the investigation and roundly to state that it was the intention of the MPS to learn all possible lessons from this tragic case. 30.5 As to racism in the police service Mr Johnston was aware that nobody in this case suggests that any officer was guilty of overt racism. That is simply not the nature of the complaint made by Mr & Mrs Lawrence. The heart of their complaint is that the investigation was skewed and slowed down by racism, and that there has been consistent insensitivity to Mr & Mrs Lawrence, and that they have been patronised. Mr Johnston accepts that in this context the question of racism is sophisticated and elusive. He referred to a perceptive paper submitted by Dr Robin Oakley. 30.6 Mr Johnston appreciates that a proper assessment of racism can be based upon "whether individuals constantly assess, reassess the impact that they are having on others and adjust their behaviour anticipating that perceptions of racism may arise from their behaviour". 30.7 Mr Johnston indicated that advances are being made in connection with training as to racism awareness and the conduct of racist incidents. Again it seems to us purposeless to set out in summary form what Mr Johnston said. All these matters require the closest attention by the MPS, as Mr Johnston plainly accepts. 30.8 It should be noted that during his evidence Mr Johnston indicated that he had played a considerable part in the initiation of the second investigation. Together with Mr Nove he saw Mr & Mrs Lawrence and Mr Khan on more than one occasion. He worked closely with Mr Nove particularly in connection with the family meetings and the attempts which Mr Nove described to regain the confidence of Mr & Mrs Lawrence. It should also be noted that Mr Johnston, in common with Mr Nove, became aware of the family's interest in a private prosecution and decided that the MPS policy would be to give the family every support in managing that prosecution. He indicated that he tried to explain to Mr & Mrs Lawrence that there would indeed be many legal difficulties and problems in the way of the prosecution. But his purpose, plainly expressed, was to let Mr & Mrs Lawrence know that "if there were any hurdles that could possibly be jumped we were willing to jump them". 30.9 Mr Johnston believed that there was at least a measure of
additional evidence available to the team by the end of 1994 which might allow the case to
be given a public hearing. Mr Johnston accepted that it was a weak case, but from his
perspective it seemed proper to pursue it. When the prosecution was over Mr Johnston wrote
to Mr & Mrs Lawrence assuring them of his and the Metropolitan Police's collective
continued support. After the Inquest Mr Johnston made a public pronouncement, a copy of
which was considered during his evidence. That statement included the following phrases:- "I am deeply sorry that Mrs Lawrence feels as she does about the police. I would
like to say again that I believe right from the start we did all we could. ...... We started the investigation immediately, that all we had that evening was one witness who was very emotionally affected by what he had seen. Two days later we received anonymous information which alone was insufficient to warrant an arrest, but we took immediate action on it. It was thoroughly researched and we mounted a full surveillance operation. ...... We want to get across to the black community that we take crimes against them as seriously as we do any others. When someone is murdered we do not think of the colour of their skin." Mr Johnston should not have allowed that statement to include palpably inaccurate statements about the first investigation. Also racist crimes do have their special features and do have to be specially addressed. 30.10 As to the Barker Review Mr Johnston was ready in this context also to accept strong criticism. When Mr Mansfield put to him that there was in effect an unexpurgated version of that Review, and that matters had been omitted for the reasons given by Mr Barker, Mr Johnston at once said that he was "absolutely appalled" by this revelation. He said that this was totally and utterly unacceptable. Indeed to his credit Mr Johnston was ready throughout his evidence to accept major criticisms of what had taken place. It was his decision that a round and complete apology should be given for all the mistakes made and that a statement should be made indicating that the MPS were determined to remedy errors by education and training, and not to shrink from criticism. 30.11 Many of the answers given by Mr Johnston were long and involved. The strain and effort of having to give evidence for a complete day was evident in some of Mr Johnston's answers. We can understand why this was so, considering that Mr Johnston had been, so to speak, deputed to deliver the apology both of himself and Sir Paul Condon, and that it was in the shadow or context of that apology that questions were asked of him. 30.12 The truth is however that the majority of the questioning really took the factual investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder little distance. A considerable part of the questioning consisted of Counsel asking Mr Johnston to comment on one or more aspects of the case and indeed upon other cases with little relevance to this case. Mr Johnston did accept that Mr Brooks had not been dealt with at all well by the police. He agreed that Mr Brooks had been let down, and he accepted that there were lessons to be learned in connection with the handling of victims. 30.13 Mr Johnston had the unfortunate experience of allowing himself to use the word "coloured" when describing people from various ethnic backgrounds. The word plainly slipped out wholly unexpectedly and mistakenly. We accept his explanation in this respect and believe that Mr Johnston would not otherwise use such an expression, which is now anathema, and that he would reprimand anybody who did use this word, which is notoriously offensive to black people. 30.14 All in all the experience of Mr Johnston in giving evidence before this Inquiry must have been a daunting one. Mr Mansfield thanked him for his support to Mr & Mrs Lawrence during the second part of the investigation. Certainly so far as his direct relationship with Mr & Mrs Lawrence and with the case are concerned there is no criticism which could be levelled at Mr Johnston. He did not make any of the relevant early decisions, and he brought in Mr Nove and Mr Mellish who did all that they possibly could to revive the stale and flagging investigation from the summer of 1994 onwards. 30.15 By then all the relevant mistakes had been made, and most of them were incapable of remedy. Mr Johnston had no responsibility of any kind for the 1993 investigation. We accept that there are strong signs from Mr Johnston's evidence that he will be committed to ensure that the MPS will do their best to remedy the failings of the past. Whether this will be achieved is a matter for the future.
|
