After spending two days trying to write an overview of developments occurring since August in relation to the riots, lootings and killings under investigation by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, and others, including by the police themselves, together with on going investigation by the House of Commons Culture Committee, and others, into what has become known as the phone hacking scandal, I have decided to report developments separately in something of a chronological sequence.
Following the riots the Home Affairs Committee held a meeting which was attended by the Acting Commissioner and the head of the Association of Chief Constables Sir Hugh Orde. The Deputy Commissioner stated he had applied for the position of Commissioner while Sir Hugh stated he was yet to come to a decision. My understanding is that a transcript of this meeting has not been published. Information requested at the meeting was subsequently provided by Sir Hugh and by the Acting Commissioner and then published.
In September the Committee held three meetings and the drafts, and therefore uncorrected transcripts, have been published.
On October 11th the Committee questioned the new Commissioner, followed by Bill Bratton of the USA and then a journalist and the head of a research project who are conducting interviews with a sample of those who rioted, including those not arrested todate, and who have access to 2 million communications on Twitter. Noteworthy is that the transcript of the meeting has been issued but without that transcript of the questions to the new Commissioner although the video of the whole meeting can be viewed online.
On October 13th an E petition debate was held in Westminster Hall at which Members from across Greater London added to what had been said in the emergency debate in the House of Commons which followed the rioting, looting and the killing of five persons. Mr Lammy of Tottenham scope about the events and the need for major regeneration funding for his constituency and Mr Davies of Monmouthshire whose contribution appeared to that of putting the viewpoint of the Metropolitan Police.
I have also decided to begin my reporting with a reminder of my own notes written in August in relation to the response of the police authorities as this has dominated the interest of the Home Affairs Committee and Members of the House of Commons and Lords. I do this because my major conclusions have stood the test of subsequent information and considered judgement and which was highlighted by Bill Bratton who declared that it was imperative for the authorities not to cede ground. Twenty five years ago I was told this fundamental fact of policing life by a local police commander when seconded to the Department of Health as an Inspector investigating and advising on the problems of drug misuse and its prevention in the rural area of a County. The Local Police Officer explained that if they did not stand in the position at the top of the hill in a market town on weekends before the revellers descended they were unable to maintain effective control as the young people became drunk and some crazed on drugs.
My key conclusion was that the Metropolitan Police failed, as did other police forces, as corporate bodies, to prevent the spreading and continuation of criminal behaviour and more significantly they had also failed in their primary duty to protect life as well as well as property during a level of criminality never before seen in the UK. I highlight decisions to allow the looting to continue without intervention and the presence of 24/7 TV news which appeared to show young people and others getting away with it. Everything that has been said since has confirmed rather than undermined that opinion.
Thirty years ago I encountered a similar failure as a member of a judicial led and conducted inquiry panel into the actions of authorities with a family where the youngest child had died from horrible injuries sustained while the mother was absent and where as I revealed in the majority report which I drafted there had been over one hundred opportunities to have removed the children to safety following complaints and concerns from neighbours and from short term foster parents with whom the children had been placed. One of the key moments in the hearings occurred when I interrupted a Barrister who was arguing that her client had a duty under an Act of Parliament to do everything possible to prevent children entering public care and then to work to discharge the child from public care as soon as possible. The point she was making had also been made by others representing the social workers and their managers. I asked if she was seriously suggesting to the panel that this duty took precedence over the statutory duty to protect the lives of children and to protect them from all forms of serious harm She admitted in effect that it was a try on.
My other concluding observation was that official inquiries needed to consider what happened on a day by day basis, commencing with events in Tottenham and then Enfield, and then in Ealing, Croydon and around Clapham Junction and other parts of London. I can report that this has been the approach.
I therefore concentrated on what happened in Tottenham where the police had five hours to prepare for trouble, Enfield (100 plus involved) on the Sunday because the police had advance warning and were prepared and then in Ealing (120) where I once worked and there was a death and Croydon (over 500) where I was born, lived nearby and also worked and where there was also a death and also another area which I know well, that around Clapham Junction station. The numbers mentioned were those immediately identified by independent witnesses and the media present at the time but these figures have proved underestimates as information has continued to filter in advance of official reporting. In one London police authority area there are twenty five officers engaged in studying CCTV footage while in another the quantity of information suggests it could take up to a year to process.
Getting numbers has been difficult with reference to a thousand in Croydon and a relative reporting that local people were saying the number to be higher. I have noted reports of Basildon 350, Liverpool and Salford 200, Bristol 150 and Wood Green 100 with 130 arrests in Birmingham on one night and 90 arrests in Nottingham in one incident. There are other reports of groups from 30 to 50 which given what happens at football matches and in town centres every weekend one would expect normal policing to be able to cope, despite the number of incidents occurring at the same time.
Establishing the number of those actively engaged is important before final judgement is possible about the effectiveness of the police response. Eyewitness reports including media are unreliable unless the reports cover the whole of a local area of rioting over the period of activity.
The spread of incidents was obviously a major factor in the immediate response of the police on the Monday night with 32 Boroughs put on Riot alert. There is also evidence of false reporting of activity on social media so that in Kingston there was a false report that the large Bentalls Centre which I know well had been set on fire and was burning down. However CCTV cameras should have quickly revealed the actual position. The decision to close shops early can be questioned if they were then not to be protected by a police presence.
In August my list of other incidents ranged from rampaging groups of up to 100 to the isolated burning of a car, includes on the Sunday: Brixton, Wood Green, Dalston, Denmark Hill, Islington, Leyton, Oxford Circus, Shepherd’s Bush, Streatham, and Woolwich together with Waltham Cross Hertfordshire and followed by Upminister, Harlesden, Balham, Barking, Chislehurst, Lewisham, Barnet, Battersea, Bayswater, Bethnal Green, Camden, Catford, Charlton, Chelsea (Antiques Shop Kings Road)Chingford, Colliers Wood, Crystal Palace, Dulwich, Fulham, Hackney, Ilford, Islington, Lewisham, Notting Hill, Peckham Streatham, Romford, Surrey Quays, Sutton, Walthamstow and Woolwich. Outside of London there were problems in Birmingham and West Bromwich, Epsom, Derby, Bristol, Leeds Chapeltown where an unrelated shooting and death occurred according to the police, Liverpool, Medway, Nottingham, Oxford, Norwich, and minor activity in Luton and Bedford.
On Tuesday there were developments during the daytime as well as in the evening and at night. As at Enfield, young men first assembled in small groups in the London Borough of Havering but were dispersed in Romford, Harold Hill, Upminister, Hornchurch and Colliers Row. There were other successful dispersals but many situations where the looters were not engaged. Areas mentioned included Merton Wembley (when a policeman was run over by looters), Beckton, Camden, Kilburn, Wimbledon and Enfield, Sloane Square, Finchley, Harrow, Ealing, Barnet, Surbiton, Balham, Merton, Newham, Sutton and outside London on the Tuesday and Wednesday in particular in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Salford, and also in Derby and Wolverhampton, Basildon Birkenhead, Cambridge, Portsmouth and Luton.
So those who now refer the riots as uprising by organised criminals and youth gangs, and the spontaneous actions of a wide ranging category of individuals from school children and young people generally, to mature adults in work, have a point
My concern which I noted at the time was that while representatives of the police at all levels together with Government Ministers and Opposition leaders justifiably described the behaviour as criminal, the extraordinarily large public relations unit of the Metropolitan Police together with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation immediately commenced to argue that any criticism of police action was unfair, and that in any event the police should not be criticised in public by the media and in particular by politicians. I noted that the police and some of their supporters within the Conservative Party demanded unconditional support.
I have separately reported on the unhealthy relationship between Ministers, the Police and Media over what is now known as the Phone Hacking Scandal and where there is now over a score of ongoing inquiries. Yesterday evening I experienced the most moving Parliamentary debate in my lifetime on the Hillsborough Killings which rest primarily on the shoulders of the senior police officers at the ground and the Sheffield Wednesday football club and where the available evidence to date is that the police maliciously and successfully planted the most outrageous of stories in the media and possibly with the Prime Minister through her senior press officer and also doctored the evidence of the police officers who were directly involved with the public at the time. What perhaps is less appreciated is the extent of police cover up and lobbying that has existed by the Metropolitan police every time they have been involved in the killing of a suspect followed by the demand for unconditional support.
It is fair comment that until the New Commissioner of Police for London was appointed, the mood between the police and government had been building up to one of confrontation. There had been the open challenge of Sir Hugh Orde and others against the public position taken by the Home Secretary who I regard as the bright star of the Coalition front bench. The new Commissioner was greeted with some hostile questioning at the commencement of his first appearance before the Home Affairs Committee because of the attempt to force the Guardian to release the name of the police officer who had briefed them about the ongoing work of its inquiries, overruled by the High Court.
I will report separately on the interesting meetings of the House of Lords Communication Committee which is holding meetings on the nature and future of investigative journalism and the difference between work which is the public interest covered by papers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph and previously by the Times and that if work which interests the public such as the private lives of film, TV and sporting personalities.
It has emerged that Bill Bratton was under consideration for the post of Metropolitan Commissioner until that the holder had to be a British Citizen was said to be an obstacle because of the anti Terrorism functions conducted by the force. He was also asked about the new posts of elected Commissioners about which I have an open mind as I remain on the issue of directly elected Mayors with policy and operational management accountability.
Understandably the police have opposed the abolition or curtailment of privileges which has set the police above those they employed to serve at a time when everyone else is facing substantial losses in income, adverse service conditions including pension rights. One of the ironies of the rioting in this respect is that the police have gained back in overtime a proportion of what was to be saved during the present financial year. I am not sure of the Labour Party’s insistence that the police should be exempted from their share of the cuts has been wise. Because the police retain control over the way they are organised and conduct their operations the only way for any government to exercise influence is through the control of funding. Too many officers have been allowed to escape from front line activity by undertaking back room jobs which can be undertaken by civilians at less cost. Too many officers have been allowed to retire prematurely and then earn more than before by taking jobs in private security and surveillance. The size of the Public relations department at the Met filled with News International Journalists is another example of an unhealthy situation.
There has been open dissent and horror within the force at Metropolitan Assistant Police Commissioners being asked by Parliamentarians in a public forum if they took bribes and deliberately covered up a web of police involvement and collusion with the media in invading the privacy of victims of murders most foul and which included releasing to private detectives confidential information, including information for payment.
There was open challenge by the Association of Police Officers and the Police Federation as to who took credit for the rioting brought to a swift halt in London and then elsewhere. As mentioned there is some truth in terms of the strict responsibility given to the police by Act of Parliament after World War 2 for control of the organisation and conduct of policing but this has to be balanced by the need for policing in the UK by consent which means the right of governments, national and local to ensure that the views of the public are not just given consideration but acted upon.
There was also the opportunism of some to clamour, for the use of robust tactics irrespective of circumstance, the use of water cannon and rubber bullets and for a Justice system without due process. Once the Metropolitan police had ceded ground to the rioters and looters there was no alternatives but to use robust methods but there are continuing concerns about the implications of this for Freedom From as well as Freedom To in the future.
Because Liberal Socialism and humanitarianism is under threat from the pressure to give unconditional support to the police and to undo British Human and Civil Rights legislation and Health and Safety measures, lock stock and barrel, I thought it was important to look in some depth about this orchestrated campaign.
In August I suggested that the catalyst for the fresh demand for unconditional support was the decision to prosecute an officer for the manslaughter of Mr Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009, an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died after allegedly being struck by the officer in the City of London while on his way home from work, during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. Although a first post mortem examination indicated he had died of natural causes, an inquest jury in May 2011 ruled that he had been unlawfully killed, stating that a police officer had used excessive and unreasonable force against him. An officer is due to stand trial for manslaughter in October 2011 and it will be interesting to see if the trial will still place this month.
There are those within the Police service nationally and within Parliament as well as on the extreme right and left who believe the police deserve unconditional support if mistakes are made. This was brought out clearly in the House of Commons during exchanges between Conservative backbenchers, and Prime Minister and then with the Home Secretary, at the recall of the Commons on August 11th, 2010. The extracts are from the uncorrected transcript of proceedings.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth Col 1067): Front-line officers were telling me last night that they have been afraid to use a measure of physical force because of concerns about criticisms by Members of Parliament, which they have seen before. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that we will be robust and do whatever it takes, but can he assure us that Members of this House will support the police if they have to strike people with batons or kettle them in? Force has to be met with greater force. The Prime Minister responded: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise, because he serves as a special policeman. The point is this: people want robust policing, and of course the police have to be sensitive to things that have happened in the past—sometimes the pendulum can swing too far one way, and then too far the other way—but I am sure that the message has been received loud and clear that when there is such violent criminal behaviour, people want a very robust response.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) Col 1075 raised the issue with the Prime Minister and then the Home Secretary: Does my right hon. Friend accept that following the G20 demonstrations in London, and the unfortunate death that occurred, many police officers have been reluctant to use force? If they do use force, what reassurances can he give them? The Prime Minister: The reassurance that I can give is that we will put the resources into the police force to make sure we have the trained officers whom we need.
Margot James (Stourbridge) Col 1140: During the Prime Minister’s statement, we heard a lot about the stand-and-observe order that was apparently given to the police in particular circumstances. We all agree that that was terrible, but was not the policy determined mostly by police concern about over-reaction, given that they have been so criticised for how they dealt with the G20 riots, on which there is a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever police powers we end up agreeing with, in such circumstances we must provide consistent support when things go wrong? Mrs May: My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in my remarks. The police are concerned to ensure that when we talk about robust policing, we definitely give them backing for what they want to do. Policing by consent is the British way, but the police retain the confidence of the wider community only if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that there simply were not enough officers on duty. The largest policing event in London is the Notting Hill carnival. There were about 6,000 officers on duty on Monday night, which is the number that the police usually deploy for the Notting Hill carnival. It was clear that in the circumstances that developed that was not enough officers on duty. It is clear to me that the original police tactics were insufficient—exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) raised. After the criticism of previous public order operations for excessive force, some officers appeared reluctant to be sufficiently robust in breaking up groups. Many arrests were made, but in some situations officers contained suspects in a specified area where they were free to commit criminal damage and steal, instead of intervening and making arrests. I want to make it clear to the House that in making these points, I am not criticising the police. Too often, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nowhere is that truer than in public order policing. I want to be clear that as long as officers act within reason and the law, this Home Secretary will never damn the police if they do.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) Col 1141 immediately pursued the issue again: Earlier, I raised with the Prime Minister the nervousness of the police in acting since the G20 disturbances and the sad death. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that officers who take robust action will not find themselves on the wrong end of the law? Mrs May: As I have just said and as I have made clear to the police from when I first took on this role, I will always back officers who do the right thing and operate within the law. Appropriate action must be taken against officers who do the wrong thing, but we will back officers who do the right thing and I will back them as Home Secretary.
When Angie Bray Ealing col 1160 raised the issue of Damned if they do, damned if they don’t Bob Stewart intervened. The Member for Ealing said:” I also think that this country needs to have a debate about what policing it wants. As the Home Secretary said earlier, the police are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Too often we hear criticism that on occasion they are too heavy-handed, and next they are accused of being too soft. It is up to the public, their elected representatives and the police to have a debate and decide exactly what policing we want. Policing in this country is performed by consent. The police need our consent if they are to go in and provide a slightly more robust response, which is the sort of response that I am happy to see and for which they would certainly have my consent. Bob Stewart said “One of the real problems is that the police are extremely concerned that if they act out of a defensive position and go forward while holding the crowd or watching for evidence, they might find themselves in the dock. We must support them utterly and completely and say that from now on when they act in good faith they will have our total support, unlike what happened after the G20 riots Angie Bray: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. They need our consent and the confidence to be able to go into any situation knowing that they have the authority to act of our behalf to do whatever is necessary to enforce the law, which is what they are there to do. In Ealing, we welcome the extra police officers we have had on the streets on the past few nights and the extra measures announced today by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) Col 1062 “Metropolitan police officers have shown great courage and a high degree of determination over the past few days, but does the Prime Minister share my concern about reports that police officers on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe the rioting and looting? Does he agree that that cannot be acceptable behaviour, and that, if perhaps for understandable reasons because of the controversies after the G20 summit the police are concerned that they might be criticised for over-reacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity and that it is the police, and not looters and rioters, who will control our streets?
Keith Vaz Leicester East, Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and the Labour Member to mention the issue in Col 1186: We will of course look at police tactics, the operation of gangs and mobile communications, and we will revisit issues that we have looked at in the past, such as in our inquiry into the G20 protests.
So while the Prime Minister appeared to waiver under pressure from his own Party Members in the Commons, the Home Secretary did not.
The closing of ranks, collusion, cover up and deception has unfortunately been a feature of all deaths of civilians at the hands of the Metropolitan Police over recent decades. Back on 23 April 1979, Clement Blair Peach a New Zealand-born teacher who was fatally assaulted by a police officer during an anti-racism demonstration in London, England. The reason for including the case is that reports into the death of Blair Peach were made available to the public on 27 April 2010 for the first time. Mr Peach was a campaigner and activist against the far right. He was knocked unconscious in April 1979 during an Anti-Nazi League demonstration in Southall against a National Front election meeting in the town hall. He died the next day in hospital from head injuries that he sustained. Fourteen witnesses said they had seen members of the Metropolitan Police Special Patrol Group (SPG) strike Peach.. No one was ever charged, but it was suspected that he been hit by a rubberised police radio. An inquest jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure in May 1980. Peach's girlfriend, Celia Stubbs, continued to campaign for many years for a public inquiry into his death. The Metropolitan Police Service reached an out-of-court settlement in 1989 with Peach's brother.
39 year old James Ashley was a known criminal who was shot dead by armed police while unarmed and naked during a raid on his flat in St Leonards, East Sussex on 15 January 1998. Ashley and several of the apartment's other residents were suspected of involvement in large-scale drug deals. Having previously served two years on a charge of manslaughter, Ashley had been involved in a pub room stabbing several months earlier, although only in so much as a friend of his attacked someone else before Ashley pulled him away. A search of the premises later turned up a small amount of cannabis. Five officers were all charged and found not guilty in James Ashley's death; they continued to serve as policemen. Five police officers who were suspended following the shooting later unsuccessfully attempted to sue the Sussex police for the "psychiatric injury" they suffered due to alleged improper training they received. In March 2009 Sussex Police agreed to compensate and apologise to the Ashley's family. The police admitted negligence - that there had been a series of police failures - but not unlawful killing. Ashley's son however maintained the killing was illegal.
Mr Harry Stanley was a painter and decorator who were fatally shot by police in controversial circumstances on 22 September 1999, when returning home from the Alexandra Pub in South Hackney carrying, in a plastic bag, a table leg that had been repaired by his brother earlier that day. Someone had phoned the police to report "an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag". Close to his home, a Police Inspector and a PC, members of a Metropolitan police Armed Response Vehicle challenged Mr. Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them, they shot him dead at a distance of 15 feet. The two officers were initially suspended but after a protest of 100 colleagues who returned their weapons, the suspensions were lifted. In May 2005 the High Court under Mr Justice Leveson ruled that there was insufficient evidence for unlawful killing and reinstated the open verdict of the first inquest. (I assume this is the same Judge appointed by Mr Cameron to clear Andy Coulson and Mrs Brooks for complicity in wrong doing?)
The shooting seven times in the head of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005) a Brazilian man at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by the London Metropolitan police, after he was misidentified as one of the fugitives involved in the previous day's failed bombing attempts. While no officer was prosecuted an officer was found guilty in relation to a private prosecution and fined. It is said that the death led to the resignation of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
This brings me to the death of Mark Duggan in the context of the Broadwater Estate Riot in 1985 and the death of PC Blakestock.
In 1985 a young black person was arrested by the police having stopped his vehicle because of an allegedly suspicious tax disc and when four police officers searched his home, his mother fell over and died instantly. Because a week earlier a young black woman had been shot by a police officer in Brixton there was outrage in the community and a demonstration took place outside Tottenham Police Station with a day of violence between the police and the community leading to riot police deployed and the use of baton charges followed by petrol bombs and bricks hurled by some demonstrators. Gun shots were fired and two police men were injured. Cars were set on fire and barricades made.
PC Blakelock became surrounded by a mob with weapons that not only killed the officer but nearly decapitated him. A second officer who attempted to help the fallen officer suffered severe facial injuries. Six people were tried and three were convicted of murder with juveniles released because of the form and nature of their interrogation. There was also concern at the strength of the prosecution case and in 1991 the three men were cleared of the murder in the Court of Appeal. The officer in charge of the interrogation was cleared of the charge of perjury. Police notes, the only evidence were shown to have been tampered with. One of the men remained in prison for 18 years in relation to the murder of another person.
I am yet to find a case where the police said from the outset, we got it wrong, we are sorry and we will make reparation. I suspect as in child care and abuse cases and as in other instances, local authorities and other public run bodies, are told by the lawyers, especially those employed by insurers, never to admit responsibility and liability. I hope that at some point Parliament will examine if it has not already done so, the role of insurers in effectively perverting the cause of justice. As reported in the House of Lords investigation the extent to which organisations are now employing public relations officers is alarming, offering journalists three times their previous income to help bodies massage information placing them in the best light. Similarly there has been an alarming increase by the use of confidentiality agreements preventing disclosure and this will get significantly worse as the government pressures public bodies to switch services from direct to private enterprise and the cloak of commercial confidentiality.
The death of Mark Duggan can be said to have been the immediate catalyst for the rioting in the sense that had he not been killed there would have been no rioting. Bill Bratton in his appearance made the point that it was always a killing by the police which lead to rioting in the USA. In August the Prime Minister said in col 1051 “ A week ago today, a 29-year-old man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police in Tottenham. Clearly, there are questions that must be answered, and I can assure the House that this is being investigated thoroughly and independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We must get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we will.”
Mr David Lammy Labour the Member for Tottenham the constituency prefaced his question Col 1061 by saying “I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the death of Mark Duggan.” Mr Lammy returned to the the death of Mr Duggan when he contributed to the subsequent debate: “The events of last week started with the death of Mark Duggan, one of my constituents, during a police operation. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, there were reports of an exchange of fire between Mr Duggan and the police. We now know that two shots were fired and that they both came from police weapons. A grieving family and my constituents deserve to know the truth about what happened that night. The IPCC investigation must be thorough; it must be open; and it must be seen to be independent. Other serious questions need answering. Why did the Duggan family first hear about the death of their son not from a police officer, but when the news was broadcast on national television? Why, when they arrived at Tottenham police station to ask questions and to stage a peaceful protest, were they made to wait for five hours before a senior police officer was made available to them? Why, when that peaceful protest was hijacked by violent elements, were a few skirmishes allowed to become a full-scale riot, with far-reaching consequences? Mistakes have been made by the Metropolitan police, and this must be subject to a full public inquiry.
Bob Stewart the Conservative Member for Beckenham Col 1103): When Mark Duggan was shot last week, the IPCC immediately went in and sealed the crime scene, but then no statement was made, and that gave an excuse to the rioters. It would be good if the IPCC, or someone, could make a definitive statement on what happened. Otherwise, conspiracy theories build up. The Prime Minister: The difficulty with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the IPCC has got to get across the detail before it makes a statement. There is a huge danger on such occasions of making statements that turn out not to be true and that inflame passions either at the time or afterwards when their veracity is questioned. This is an extremely difficult situation, but we must have confidence and faith in the IPCC system, which is independent of the police and can, therefore, give victims confidence. (Just like the Press Complaints Commission I presume!)
In the House of Lords, former Director of Social Services Lord Laming said Col 1515; “Secondly, while no criticism of the police is implied, does the Minister agree that a detailed review must include a review of how the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission initially responded to the death of Mr Duggan? Did the police appoint a family liaison officer? Did a senior officer of the IPCC immediately explain in detail to the family exactly how the inquiry would be conducted and the rights of the family secured? I raise these questions simply because, like many others, I wonder why the family felt it necessary to march to secure such basic information.”
Lord Morris of Handsworth said “The Statement made reference to the victims, which, of course, is right. There are many victims, apart from those seen jumping from windows. The family members of Mr Duggan, who was shot by a police bullet, are victims as well. We must remember, in these sorry days, that the family was in the police station for more than five hours and still left without any answers from the Metropolitan Police or indeed from the IPCC. It seems to me that when the report from the IPCC is available, the family should receive it at the same time as the Metropolitan Police Service. They are victims too and their interests should be considered in the wider restoration and rebuilding of our society.”
Mr Mark Duggan was aged 29 years when killed by one bullet to the chest which according to Wikipedia occurred as Mr Duggan was pinned down after the mini cab in which he was travelling was stopped by undercover officers of Operation Trident which deals with gun crime in African and Caribbean communities in a planned arrest said to be based on information that he was on his way to use a weapon.
An inquest has been set for 12 December 2011 because the investigation by the Independent Police Commission is said to take six months. The Independent Police Commission has issued several statements. On August 9th “The Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan is continuing today, with investigators examining statements, as well as analysing results of forensic tests and awaiting further results. The IPCC is carrying out a full CCTV trawl of the area, as well as CCTV from buses in the area at the time. Our investigators will be examining recordings of radio transmissions from both police and London Ambulance Service, including 999 calls with a view to tracing further witnesses. We will also be examining any intelligence and surveillance material leading up to the planning of the operation.
At this stage, it has been established that at approximately 6.15pm on Thursday 4 August 2011, officers from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Operation Trident and SCD 11 accompanied by officers from the Met’s Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a silver Toyota Estima people carrier minicab in Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale tube station in Tottenham to carry out an arrest.
Mark Duggan was a passenger in the minicab. What happened next is subject to the independent investigation. Two shots were fired by one CO19 firearms officer. Paramedics from London Ambulance Service (LAS) attended along with medics from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) but Mr Duggan was pronounced dead at scene at 6.41pm.A non-police issue handgun was recovered from the scene. A post mortem examination concluded that Mr Duggan was killed by a single gun shot wound to the chest. He also received a second gunshot wound to his right bicep. The IPCC commissioned tests by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) who have so far confirmed that:
The bullet lodged in the MPS radio is a “jacketed round”. This is a police issue bullet and, whilst it is still subject to DNA analysis, it is consistent with having been fired from an MPS Heckler and Koch MP5.
The firearm found at the scene was a converted BBM ‘Bruni’ self loading pistol. This is not a replica; the scientist considers it to be a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act and a prohibited weapon and is therefore illegal. The handgun was found to have a “bulleted cartridge” in the magazine, which is being subject to further tests.
At this stage there is no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired during the incident. The FSS has told the IPCC that it may not be possible to say for certain whether the handgun was fired, however further tests are being carried out in an attempt to establish this. The officer whose radio was hit was taken to Homerton Hospital where he was examined and discharged later that night.
The minicab driver was not physically injured, but was badly shaken by what he saw. His account along with that of the officers is being examined along with the emerging forensic evidence. “
IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: “I know this is an incredibly difficult time for Mark Duggan’s family, who have made it abundantly clear that they in no way condone the violence that we have all seen on the streets of London and elsewhere over the past three nights. I am committed to ensuring they are provided with answers from the IPCC about the investigation into Mark’s death as soon as we have them, and I acknowledge their frustration that this can be a lengthy process.
“I know that much of this information has been reported in the media already, alongside much inaccurate speculation. Any concerns expressed by the wider public about a perceived lack of information from the IPCC should be considered in the context that I am only willing to share information once I have had it independently verified and once the people who are directly involved in this case – including Mr Duggan’s family and community leaders – have been fully informed.
“I also have a responsibility to balance the need to provide information, with the need to avoid adversely affecting other judicial and coronial processes. This means that it would not be appropriate for me to put all the information we receive into the public domain as soon as we receive it. I assure you that our findings will be made public as soon as we can legally and legitimately do so I will continue to oversee the IPCC investigation and IPCC family liaison managers continue to be on hand to support Mr Duggan’s family while our investigators get on with establishing the facts of this case.”
The IPCC inquiry, the Inquest and the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons may reveal how a peaceful march which lasted for 5 hours led to violence which led to a riot and led to widespread rioting. More significantly for this section the inquiries may reveal how a police officer came to be shot in his police radio and why it was put out by the police and then communicated by the IPC orally to the media that Mr Dugan had been killed in an exchange of fire. Those who know something of the history of such events can be forgiven for saying out loud “here we go again.”
The Daily Mail was quick to follow up reporting misleading information about the death of Mr Duggan with a vivid account of the link between him, his mother and a notorious crime family in Manchester and which I suggest would have initially come from the police. Mr Duggan’s mother, they reported, is the sister of the second wife of the former head of the Noonan family and that Duggan had regular contact with his Dublin born Uncle who was part of a family for 11 brothers and sisters who terrorised and ruled the Manchester underworld since the 1980’s. The head of the family was Desmond Dessie Noonan. He and a brother were interviewed in the Channel 5 Television documentary “Gangsters” in which they boasted about their numerical power and weaponry, including an involvement in 27 murders. He had convictions for violent disorder and perverting the course of justice and wounding after threatening prosecution witnesses. He was discharged because a jury failed to reach a verdict after a retrial in 1993 for gangland murder. He was killed by an enforcer for an established Yardie Drug dealer in 2005. The Mail also disclosed that a brother of Dessie Noonan has been arrested in Manchester having been identified through CCTV and that a large number of associates are known to have participated were part of the Noonan gang culture.
Mr Lammy again referred to the death of his constituent and the police response in the E Petition debate which I make report in a following Blog. In my next piece I want to remind of the rest of the notes made in August.
No comments:
Post a Comment