Imran Khan: Stephen Lawrence, Racism and The East End

Image

Imran Khan has represented the Lawrence family for twenty years. He spoke to Oliver Lewis, who was his trainee when the initial Lawrence investigation was going on, and reflected on the case, his career and what has inspired him.

Part One:  The East End, Racism and the Lawrence Case.

Imran Khan’s career has developed in a way he could scarcely have predicted when he qualified as a solicitor in 1991. Less than two years later he was approached and asked if he would represent the devastated Lawrence family whose son Stephen had been the victim of a brutal racist murder in Eltham. The men arrested had the charges dropped. After an unsuccessful private prosecution and years of campaigning, the McPherson inquiry concluded that there was institutional racism in the police force. In 2012 two men were finally convicted of the murder and jailed for life.

A busy man, Imran Khan is for once in his office, nestled between high Holborn and Bloomsbury. The lawyerly, almost genteel setting is a far cry from his early days growing up in east London where he suffered himself at the hands of racists. He traces his determination to make a difference in society to that experience.

“It was every day, going to school facing the trials and tribulations of avoiding a kicking because of the colour of your skin, and you thought, ‘Why isn’t any one doing anything about this?’ You realised there is a reality that most of society doesn’t believe or doesn’t want to believe exists. Living in the east end of London with racists and football hooligans,  it was a very different place to what it is now, and there wasn’t any one around who said ‘I know that reality, I want to do something about it and change it’.”

A campaigning voice

Later, working with the anti-racist community group, Newham Monitoring Project, he was influenced by a group of lawyers who started doing things differently in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One of his most vivid memories was sitting in the public gallery in the Old Bailey during the Newham Seven trial. A group of Asian men faced trial for affray after the East End Asian community had been subject to violent racist attacks.

“Their defence was self-defence, and back then it was so hard to bring the issue of racism into court, so it was absolutely pivotal seeing that inflexibility of the court being challenged by the likes of Mike Mansfield and Rudy Nurayan. They were saying ‘You can’t look at the law in isolation, you’ve got to look at it in the context of wider society.’ I had suffered that racism and I suddenly realised that these wigged, intelligent people were articulating my living reality, and in this grand building! It suddenly dawned on me here was a way of changing society for the better. That’s what got me involved, I suddenly realised that there was a campaigning voice.”

Question everything

Instead of a planned career in medicine he enrolled to do a law degree at North East London Polytechnic (now the University of East London) and at the same time began working at Birnbergs solicitors alongside Gareth Peirce. Those experiences in tandem were also formative.

“Almost on a daily basis I would be clerking cases where a young black man would be saying ‘I was fitted up by the police,’ or ‘This was planted on me.’ It was such a regular occurrence, it was frightening. All lawyers know how difficult it is to be in a court with a judge who is completely against your client, and we were fighting an uphill struggle in a way that few people would believe now. Judges wouldn’t allow any idea of racism into the courtroom, so it was brave for that much more vocal, radical group of lawyers to do it. It seemed underground and rebellious at the time and it was incredibly exciting.”

At the same time Imran Khan was absorbing the academic side of the law. He was influenced by lecturers whose message was question everything, don’t just accept things for what they are.  Studying The Politics of Judiciary by JAG Griffiths was significant too.

“What I got from my lecturers was that it wasn’t just about law, it was about reading between the lines. They would not just talk about the decision but why the court came to that decision. You mustn’t just see the decisions at face value but put them in context.”

And he was seeing the reality of that in court.  “These were lawyers who were prepared to argue and fight for their clients in a way that hadn’t happened before, so there was already a sense that this layer of lawyers was prepared to say ‘We will take that fight on!’ Maybe the timing was right for me, if people like Mike (Mansfield) and Helena (Kennedy) hadn’t been there I would have seen law as a clinical abstract thing that everyone said it was, so I have been fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. Seeing lawyers in everyday circumstances trying to do good by the community was completely inspirational.”

He says the justice system has come far since those days.

“It’s another world from when I started in law in lots of different ways. If I went into a courtroom when I became a lawyer in 1991 and one now, they would be two completely different environments. The judiciary is changing in terms of its approach, the bar has changed incredibly in terms of its diversity, and so has the way people view rights. We’re not there yet though. I was in a long trial in Birmingham recently and nearly all of the representatives were from ethnic minorities, although there was not a single one on the bench and you think, how does that happen?”

An erosion of rights

It’s now almost precisely twenty years since Stephen Lawrence was murdered, and the impact of the case across society has been great, but not always, he acknowledges, in ways that were always foreseeable or desirable. He regrets the way the case has occasionally been used to advance arguments with which he hasn’t agreed. He says the Lawrence case has on occasion been hijacked to promote the removal of rights.

“The thing I do regret about the Lawrence case is that it was supposed to be about extending rights to victims, but that banner was used not to promote victims’ rights but actually to erode rights.  Governments and certain sections of the media have used the Lawrence case saying, ‘Because the Lawrence family didn’t get justice and suspects have hidden behind various things, we must change things. We need to stop people hiding behind the Human Rights Act etc.’ The right took it on because they saw it as a law and order issue.”

He says the case should have been about expanding rights for all, not denying them to people. “The case was about trying to get justice for a family, but you don’t get justice by removing rights. Because I am primarily and at heart a defence lawyer, that for me is not the way we should have gone, we shouldn’t have taken rights away from suspects. That is the only negative thing that has come out of the Lawrence case. Things are better in terms of the people around the system, but it’s worse in terms of the law in some ways. Now many rights have been taken away, the right to silence in the police station, for instance, and double jeopardy has come in.”

Imran Khan says the investigation of racist crimes has improved and, importantly, so has the ability to challenge racism. But, he says, racism still continues.

“It is as rife as it was, if not worse. You still have huge amounts of racism, but the way it comes out has changed. You used to have the National Front with their skinheads and bovver boots, you could see them and recognise them clear as the nose on your face, but now it’s the BNP wearing a suit and tie, still a racist but clothed in respectability. People find different ways of expressing racism, it hasn’t gone away, it’s just another way of expressing it. On the terraces it’s still there despite the Respect campaign. But what we have now that we didn’t have in 1991 is the mechanism to take action. That is the good thing to have come out of it. So in my cases now when I’m suing an authority or suing the police or taking action there is a legislative matrix that I can use to say, ‘This is what has gone wrong, I can give it a name,’ and people have to accept it.”

He says that makes a big difference. “In the old days it was nebulous, you could say someone was being treated in a racist fashion, and it would be ‘There’s no law stopping that, Mr. Khan.’ There was nothing you could do, and you had to fight politically, more in terms of community action, demonstrations in order to achieve some redress. Courts just wouldn’t allow it, so if you were arguing self-defence, racism wasn’t permitted to come into it, the contextualisation of it wasn’t permitted. So the good thing is it is now accepted, and it is acknowledged.  Does it change the reality in which people live? Probably not. But for lawyers like me, what we didn’t have in 1991 was the ability to take that on.”

The biggest achievement

The McPherson report recommended changes to policing as well as measures to extend rights for victims of crime and redefine offences classified as racist. That, says Imran Khan, is the major impact the Lawrence case had on society.

“The case hasn’t just changed things for the black community, it has changed things for everybody. It’s not been about improving the lot of black people who come into contact with the police service, it’s about when everybody comes into contact with the police, and it’s been about creating a better police service, transparency, accountability. That has changed for everybody. I remember the Brixton riots and Scarman, there was lip service but broadly the view was that there were a few bad apples. So it is that racism is now acknowledged and accepted, and that there has been an institutional, structural change. And for me, who’s been fighting on that front for many years from a community and political perspective, that is the biggest achievement.”

“If I go back and relate it to me growing up in east London, little kids could come up to you and spit on you and you couldn’t do anything about it, where someone could call you a name and you couldn’t do anything because you knew the whole of the system was against you. Now the system recognises that it is racist. That is huge, that is turning the tables completely, and for me it’s about society fundamentally accepting racism exists, and that there is a reality that is accepted by everybody, and I think that is a profound change.”

The case has had an impact on Imran Khan personally as well as on society more widely. He says it has been his proudest achievement to be associated with the case.

“As a professional you want to be proud of what you do and you want to think you have done something good, although I never thought in those moments in east London that I would be involved with something which has had such an impact across the board. I am astonished the sort of people who come and shake my hand and say I’ve done a good job, when I just think I have just done my job. That’s not out of false modesty, but it’s all I’ve ever wanted to do. I had six rugby type players on a packed tube train turn to me and I thought I was going to get my head kicked in, and they recognised me and said what a great job I was doing. That’s the impact it has had, and that is a huge source of pride.”

Is he surprised the case resonates still?

“Yes I am surprised! I’ve been doing it for twenty years, the fact that it still resonates is fantastic. It’s become iconic, it manages to symbolise everything in one word, and when do you get the chance to be part of that, almost by accident? It’s just been phenomenal.”

 

Coming soon: Part Two Beyond Lawrence and The Importance of Human Rights

A shorter version of this article first appeared at The Justice Gap.

Spring 1938 – Bertolt Brecht

Image
Today, Easter Sunday morning,
A sudden snow storm swept over the island.
Between the greening hedges, lay snow.
My young son drew me to a little apricot tree by the
house wall,
Away from a verse in which I pointed the finger at
those
Who were preparing a war which
Could well wipe out the continent, this island, my
people, my family
And myself. In silence,
We put a sack
Over the freezing tree.

State must provide genuine access to justice

Image

‘In order for a state to remain inclusive it must not just express a commitment to the rule of law: it must provide effective mechanisms through which its citizens have genuine access to the courts. Only then can they begin to have equality before the law; only then can they hold the powerful to account; only then can they render their legal rights a true reality rather than words on paper. If all members of society cannot gain genuine access to the courts, then the possibility exists for society to become exploitative, as some elements take advantage of the fact that they can ignore the law with relative impunity.’

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, rebukes the government. Read more.

Michael Turner QC Profile: Access to Justice and The Spirit Of ’45

Image

Michael Turner is fired up. He has just delivered a speech to a jury at Guildford Crown Court, and the sleet is lashing down outside as he sits in a bar in Waterloo, a glass of sauvignon blanc finally in hand. The unending winter isn’t the only reason Michael Turner is hopping mad. He is leading a vigorous defence of the legal profession in the face of government proposals that could have a devastating effect on legal aid, access to justice and the criminal justice system as a whole.

  • Michael Turner QC is chair of the Criminal Bar association. He is leading the criminal bar’s response to the government’s changes to legal aid for criminal lawyers.
  • He spoke to Oliver Lewis. Oliver is a higher court advocate with 20 years’ experience as a criminal defence lawyer. He was previously a partner in two legal aid firms and is now working as a freelance advocate and writer. He lives in North London and is chair of governors at a local primary school.
  • You can read Oliver’s interview with James Saunders on The Justice Gap HERE and on his own blog HERE.

A veteran of the Old Bailey, Michael Turner has been involved in some of the most high profile criminal trials of recent years. He sees legal aid and access to justice as one of the pillars of the welfare state set up by the post war Attlee government, sitting squarely alongside health and housing and education.

‘The country decided after the war that we must never go back to the poverty of the 1930s. The Attlee government reflected the aspirations of our fathers and mothers after the Second World War – they built a society which was the envy of the world in terms of what it should provide. Proper housing for the nation, proper health, proper education, proper legal services, and the rest.’

Michael Turner’s own father was a Navy commander and was at Toulon after Churchill ordered the destruction of the free French fleet to stop Hitler getting his hands on the ready-made fleet.

‘I was very proud of my dad. He rarely spoke about the war but just once he described what happened at Toulon with tears rolling down his cheeks, this moment when he moved in to try to save the men on his French sister ship and got as near as he could, but looked through his binoculars to see them running on the burning decks jumping into the water to their deaths. They were their friends, they had been on naval exercises with them, and now they were being asked to kill them. He never forgave Churchill for that.’

He is full of scorn for the government’s assault on the values that emerged after the war. ‘It was an extraordinary generation. They were determined this country was going to be something great after the war, that’s what (Ken Loach’s film) The Spirit Of ’45 is all about. Now they are proposing to privatise the fire service for god’s sake. They are privatising the helicopter rescue. But there are certain jewels in the crown that you simply cannot privatise. You can’t have these services privatised. This process was started by Thatcher originally, as soon as she brought the privatised cleaners into the NHS. What happens is that you take the pride out of the professions, because what these private companies do to make profits is they screw down the price.’

It is these principles he is now bringing to the fight against the Government’s assault on legal aid and access to justice, yet his route to a career in law was not assured.

‘At school I was considered an idiot, and when I was seven my parents were sent a letter which suggested I should go to a school for the educationally subnormal, although I am in fact dyslexic. Dyslexia is actually quite a good thing to have as a lawyer, we dyslexics are quite bright!’

He eventually went to Mill Hill School where he excelled at sport – he was captain of rugby and played several other sports to county standard. Asked by teachers what he wanted to do when he left school, he didn’t know.

‘I literally stuck a pin in the paper and came up with law. My teachers laughed so long and so hard at me: “What? You, Turner, a lawyer?” So I thought, right I am going to prove you wrong and I got onto the law degree.’

The first generation in his family to go to university, he was accepted at Sussex. He says at first he had no idea what law was about and that he found the course a little dry.

‘At first I had no idea why I was there, but what kept me going was that you could choose other options and I chose poetry, politics and philosophy, and I proved to be rather good at them. Having been told I was an idiot at school I got to the tutorials and they told me I was actually quite bright.’

Bang to rights
Whilst at Sussex he set up the first student Free Representation Unit. ‘It was very successful. It was effectively a student law centre and we represented members of the public in tribunals and so on. It was that experience that made me realise that I really wanted to be a lawyer.’

Soon he was involved in the Law Centre movement and was called to the bar in 1981. Part of a generation of campaigning lawyers, he became involved in many high profile cases. He represented many clients fitted up by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, and he says the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which introduced the tape recording of interviews with suspects, proved what was already widely known.

‘Before PACE there was case after case where the police would report suspects saying “I’m bang to rights, guv!”, and there was lots of injustice as a result. After tape recording came in those ‘verbals’ disappeared completely off the agenda.’

Turner was later one of the lawyers in the successful appeal in the notorious Carl Bridgwater murder, representing the late Jimmy Robinson. ‘In the third appeal he had 79 grounds of appeal, and one of the key points we took was that the main witness against Jimmy was a planted informant. The prosecution conceded the point: Jimmy had been verballed in prison.’

Lost the plot
Now Turner has turned his campaigning aim at the government.

‘Our politicians have completely lost the plot. This government allows voracious capitalists to feed off the poorest in society. In a double dip recession a government should be restraining the money lenders, but they are allowed to proliferate, and they charge an interest rate which makes the rate charged by the Krays look positively charitable. I read that 90% of loans from Wonga is spent on food and other essentials. That is disgraceful in our society! The people who should be regulated are the money lenders, the politicians and the bankers. But no, the sledgehammer of regulation falls on doctors, lawyers and now the press. And then you see what they pay civil servants leaving the NHS and other departments to keep quiet about what’s going on. So at one end you’ve got muzzling free speech with bribes, and then at the other the government is introducing secrecy into the court room to hide torture and extraordinary rendition. You would have thought we would quite like to know if prisoners are being tortured in a democracy!’

Legal aid
The government’s measures to cut legal aid and restructure the profession are a disaster for both justice and the justice system, Turner says.

‘The legal aid budget is peanuts in terms of the whole government, and they want to shave £145m off, and it is just killing the service for no purpose whatsoever.’

The government also wants to save money by putting services into private hands but it doesn’t work, he says. He has plenty of evidence.

‘Since the private company Capita took over interpreting services for courts it’s been a complete and utter disaster. 80% of interpreters don’t work for them and interpreting services in our courts is about to be found inadequate by European standards, and it ends up costing the taxpayer more. For instance I was in court recently in a case with 14 Romanian defendants and there was one interpreter for the lot. In another case we couldn’t sit for four days because the private company with the contract for delivery of prisoners couldn’t get three of the prisoners to court because they only had one van. It costs £110 per minute to run a courtroom with a jury, and you just have to ramp that figure up every time there is a screw up.’

He lays into the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) too. ‘Our disclosure of evidence system is broken. There was a recent case in Southwark Crown Court which went belly-up after six weeks because of disclosure problems and the CPS were ordered to pay half a million pounds costs and it was estimated that there was at least a £3m cost to the taxpayer overall.’

The next level
Turner thinks that the government should raise funds by taking a levy from the banks. ‘The banks are defrauded because their systems are crap and so frauds proliferate. We should say we will take a levy from you until you tighten up your systems. That could raise a billion pounds, and there’s your legal aid budget right there.’

Turner is worried that the government’s changes will affect access to justice and produce miscarriages of justice, but he says his campaign is part of a political battle on many fronts. ‘What is happening to the justice system is a reflection of what is happening to other sectors of our society, health, education and so on, and it’s all because of the obsession this government has with putting services into the private sector under the pretence that it is saving the taxpayers money. I want to take this fight to another level, and perhaps the Bar and solicitors have been guilty of sitting in their bunkers and they have not reached out to other professions who are facing exactly the same thing.’ He recently met a TUC leader to discuss the issue. ‘She said “What’s a posh bastard like you having a chat with the TUC?” In fact we got on like a house on fire, and at the end she said the TUC will back any fight you have. They understand we are all fighting the same fight. I’ve got the support of doctors, nurses, health-workers, teachers.’

With that he is back out into the Waterloo night, wrapped up against the sleet, fired up still.

 

This article originally appeared in The Justice Gap.