Surjit Singh Chhokar
The next item of business is a statement by the Lord Advocate on the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. The Lord Advocate will take questions at the end of his statement, during which there should be no interventions. The statement is, inevitably, rather lengthy and I would be grateful if those members who wish to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons during the statement.
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
Presiding Officer, with your permission, I would like to make a statement on the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar.
I am grateful to the Parliament for an opportunity to speak today, following the conclusion yesterday at the High Court in Glasgow of the trial of David Montgomery and Andrew Coulter for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, of which neither was convicted.
As I made plain in my statement yesterday, which was in response to a written parliamentary question from Pauline McNeill, and also when I met Mr and Mrs Chhokar this morning, I have already established failings in the level of support and information provided to Surjit Singh Chhokar's family. In a letter provided to Mr and Mrs Chhokar yesterday and at my meeting with them this morning, I conveyed my personal apology for the Crown's failure to meet their needs at the relevant time. I repeat my apology now.
I want to pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Chhokar. It is clear from the events of yesterday and from my meetings with them before and after the trial that their lives have been torn apart by the murder of their son and by the lengthy investigation and court procedures that have followed. As I acknowledged yesterday, two years after his death and two trials later, no one has been convicted of his murder. I can only begin to understand the full extent of the pain that all this has caused his family.
There has also been criticism of the Crown's decision making in this case. It is because of that, and because of my own concerns about the way in which the case has progressed, that I have commissioned the two independent inquiries that I announced in my answer yesterday.
Members might find it helpful if I outline in brief the history of the case. Surjit Singh Chhokar was killed on 4 November 1998 in Wishaw. By 10 November, three men—Ronnie and Andrew Coulter and David Montgomery—had been charged with his murder. In early November 1998, Andrew Coulter and David Montgomery were released on Crown counsel's instructions, because there was insufficient evidence available against them on the murder charge at that stage.
After investigation by the Crown, a decision was made to indict Ronnie Coulter first and separately from the other two, but it was alleged in the charge that he murdered Mr Chhokar while acting along with others. His trial proceeded in March 1999. The murder charge was considered by the jury, but he was convicted of assault only. The advocate depute did not move for sentence against him on the assault charge and, accordingly, no penalty was imposed.
Following Ronnie Coulter's trial, there was much publicised criticism from the trial judge, Lord McCluskey, of the Crown's decision to indict Ronnie Coulter separately. The Chhokar family justice campaign was launched.
A precognition on oath was obtained from Ronnie Coulter in April 1999. He denied stabbing Mr Chhokar—a position that he maintained at the trial of David Montgomery and Andrew Coulter. In the light of that and of other new evidence gathered, Crown counsel reconsidered the case against David Montgomery and Andrew Coulter. In July 1999, they were indicted for the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar and other related charges. They were due to stand trial in August 1999, but an ultimately unsuccessful defence appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to pre-trial publicity prevented the trial from proceeding until the sitting of 6 November at Glasgow High Court. The trial started on 10 November and concluded yesterday.
The jury found Andrew Coulter guilty of assaulting Surjit Singh Chhokar, while acting along with Ronnie Coulter, by repeatedly striking him on the body with a piece of wood and metal. He was also convicted of a charge of house-breaking at Mr Chhokar's house, of the theft of a cooker and giro cheque and of a charge or uttering in connection with the giro cheque. He received a total sentence of 15 months' detention, consecutive to the sentence that he is currently serving. David Montgomery was acquitted.
The concerns that have been expressed about the handling of the case relate first to the Crown's decision making, particularly the decision to indict Ronald Coulter separately from the other two and, secondly, to the way in which the police and Crown dealt with the deceased's next of kin, especially his parents, during the investigation and the first trial. I have announced inquiries to consider each of those aspects.
First, I have taken the unprecedented step of commissioning an independent judicial inquiry into the Crown's decision making in this case, including the decision to indict Ronald Coulter separately from Andrew Coulter and David Montgomery. I reached the decision some time ago that an independent inquiry was warranted in this case in view of the concerns that have been expressed.
I approached Sir Anthony Campbell, justice of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, who agreed to take on the task. He is a Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland and has been a member of the Northern Irish judiciary since 1988. He is also a privy counsellor. It is entirely appropriate—particularly in view of the criticism that emanated from the Scottish bench following Ronnie Coulter's trial, and the subsequent debate—that inquiry be made by a judge from outwith this jurisdiction.
In conducting the inquiry, Sir Anthony will have unrestricted access to all the Crown's papers and to the individuals who were involved in the decision-making process. Although the inquiry will be conducted in private, I will publish Sir Anthony's report. I cannot tell members today what the time scale of the inquiry will be. That will depend largely on whether Andrew Coulter lodges an appeal against his conviction and/or his sentence. If he does, Sir Anthony will await the outcome of the appeals process before interviewing those involved in the case. He can, however, commence his examination of the papers straight away. If there is no appeal, I expect that the inquiry will be completed within a reasonably short period. Sir Anthony will have the assistance of Scottish senior counsel.
Secondly, Dr Raj Jandoo will review and report on the liaison arrangements between the police, the procurator fiscal service and the family of Surjit Singh Chhokar. Dr Jandoo is an advocate and the deputy chair of the Executive's Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group.
An internal inquiry into the Crown's liaison with Surjit Chhokar's family throughout the investigation and the trial of Ronald Coulter has already been conducted. I commissioned that inquiry some time ago from a very senior member of the procurator fiscal service who had no connection with the case. I have received her report, which, regrettably, has found a number of failings in the way in which the Chhokar family were treated. Earlier today I provided the report, with a Punjabi translation, to Mr and Mrs Chhokar. I will ensure that it is placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre today, so that parliamentary colleagues may have the opportunity to consider the work that has already been undertaken.
Until yesterday, I had not made known the existence of the report. It would have been inappropriate to do so while proceedings were continuing. For the same reason, hitherto it has not been possible to consult the family or others whose contribution to the report and its recommendations is necessary, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and Victim Support Scotland.
Although I am satisfied that the inquiry was carried out in an impartial manner, public and parliamentary confidence demands that it now be taken forward by an independent party external to the department. The existing report will be the starting point for Dr Jandoo's inquiry. He will seek to interview members of the Chhokar family and he will consult the Commission for Racial Equality, the police and others to produce recommendations. The interviewing of family members and others will be conducted in private, but Dr Jandoo will hold public sessions to consider the form and nature of the recommendations that he will make.
Some of the areas of concern that have already been identified—family liaison, victims and witnesses, and translation and interpretation—are the subject of recommendations in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. They have relevance for all parts of the criminal justice system. For that reason, Dr Jandoo has been asked to report jointly to the Minister for Justice and to me on the results of his inquiries. He has been asked to submit his report by April next year. We will publish his findings and the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group will oversee the implementation of his recommendations.
The Chhokar family and their representatives will have the opportunity to participate in both inquiries and to make their views known. It is my sincere hope that they will contribute.
As I indicated yesterday, I want the people of Scotland to have confidence in our prosecution system. I want the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service to provide the highest possible quality of service. I want the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service to offer a better and more consistent service to victims, witnesses and bereaved next of kin. I want to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the needs of people from ethnic minority communities and of people whose first language is not English. If mistakes have been made, I want to know about them and to work to put things right.
In the past two years, much has been done in the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service, and in the Executive as a whole, to improve practice and procedure in these areas. The concerns arising from this case originate in events that took place before the publication in February 1999 of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and our response to it.
Considerable progress has been made over the past 20 months in relation to anti-racist and victim and witness policy and practice in individual departments and in partnership.
Within six weeks of the publication of the Stephen Lawrence report, my predecessor had accepted two of its recommendations—33 and 34. He instructed prosecutors that there should be a rebuttable presumption in favour of the prosecution of racially motivated offences and that pleas of guilty should not be accepted that exclude available and admissible evidence of racial motivation.
On 20 July 1999, the Executive published its Stephen Lawrence action plan, which detailed steps already taken and future plans for the Crown Office and the police, among others.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group, which consists of representatives of the police, Crown Office, CRE, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and independent members, has a remit to oversee the implementation of the Executive's response. The Crown Office reports regularly to the group on its progress. The group has had full access to the work that is being done by the police and the Crown Office in response to the Lawrence inquiry. The group has discussed family liaison, translation and interpretation services. It has endorsed the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's racial diversity strategy. Next month it will publish its review of progress and the next steps.
The Crown Office has introduced a comprehensive programme of anti-racist training, which is provided in part by representatives of the CRE and other ethnic minority groups. We have mainstreamed anti-racist training for all staff—legal and non-legal. I established a race strategy group within the Crown Office, which is chaired by the Solicitor General.
We have also introduced a comprehensive programme of victim awareness training. That will also be mainstreamed. Comprehensive best practice guidance has been issued to all staff and a programme of training events is assisted by Victim Support Scotland and other victim groups.
Following the feasibility study that was announced earlier this year, which was commissioned jointly by the then Lord Advocate and the Deputy First Minister, I have announced the establishment of a Crown Office victim and witness service, which will be operational in each region within 18 months. A pilot is under way in Aberdeen and a further pilot is planned for Hamilton, which will commence in April 2001.
That package of work addresses many of the criticisms of the handling of the Chhokar family. We plan to incorporate into the work any recommendations that Dr Jandoo makes. A public inquiry would effectively halt the momentum that has been built up, as work could not credibly be taken forward until the inquiry had reported.
In light of the work that has been outlined and the real efforts that we have made, I am especially disappointed to read claims that nothing has changed since Surjit Singh Chhokar's death. However, I acknowledge that much has still to be done. I want the prosecution service and the justice system to learn what lessons it can from the experience of this case.
There are calls for a public inquiry into this case. A public inquiry would be a very lengthy process. I do not think that it would serve any purpose that would not be achieved by the measures that I have announced. It could not begin until any appeals or proceedings in the case were concluded. There are outstanding inquiries in relation to the evidence of Ronnie Coulter and Mrs Sandra Tierney, who gave evidence at the most recent trial. They are to appear again before the trial judge on 19 December. Any further proceedings in relation to those witnesses would also require to be concluded before a public inquiry could get under way.
A public inquiry into the issues that are raised by this case would have an extremely damaging effect on the considerable work on anti-racist and victim and witness policy and practice that I have outlined. It would halt further progress on that work.
A public inquiry would essentially be a backward-looking exercise, which would focus on events that took place between 20 months and two years ago. A public inquiry that was commissioned by the Executive or Parliament might compromise the independence of prosecution decision making and would be contrary to the spirit of the Scotland Act 1998.
I believe that the measures that I have announced are a robust, comprehensive and proportionate response to this case and the concerns that surround it. The inquiries that I have commissioned can be carried out swiftly; Dr Jandoo's report will be available next April. The findings of each inquiry can be fed into, and contribute to, the continuing work that I have outlined. The independent judicial inquiry is, as I have said, an unprecedented move by a Lord Advocate. I have undertaken to make public the whole findings of each inquiry.
As I said yesterday, losing a son—as Mr and Mrs Chhokar have done—would be traumatic enough for any parent; however, the trial has been an almost unbearable ordeal for the family. I wish to reiterate my tribute to the great dignity shown by them under such terrible circumstances. Mr and Mrs Chhokar will always mourn the son whose life was cut so cruelly short. Although any steps that we have taken will not be enough, I am quite determined that we learn from the mistakes that have been made and that we take all necessary steps to strengthen confidence in our legal system. Scottish justice must be blind to race, colour and creed; it must also serve everyone in Scotland equally and take account of differences where necessary.
I know that members have questions and I will do my best to respond to them.
I am sorry to say that, in the circumstances, I regard the Lord Advocate's statement as wholly unsatisfactory, particularly after such a catastrophic sequence of events for the Crown Office. Does not the Lord Advocate recognise that the whole culture of the Crown Office has been under sustained criticism for a considerable time? All MSPs have experienced in their offices people's concerns about the workings of the fiscal offices and the Crown Office. People feel that there is a culture of secrecy and a tendency to refuse to explain or to justify, which has partly led to the situation that is before us.
The Lord Advocate must answer two major questions in considerably greater detail. First, why must there be two separate inquiries? He must surely accept that any allegations of institutionalised racism should be dealt with as part and parcel of a single inquiry into the whole decision-making process of the Crown. Extracting that issue for a separate inquiry is likely to lead to the same concerns that have been expressed about the handling of the case.
Secondly, the Lord Advocate claimed that there are several reasons why a public inquiry was inappropriate. Does not he understand that the Chhokar family are prepared to wait for as long as it takes to get justice? They are concerned to see that justice is done. In view of that fact, some of the Lord Advocate's reasons for not having a public inquiry are simply unjustified. Insistence on an inquiry that is anything other than public will do nothing to alleviate the concerns of either the Chhokar family or the wider public. I ask the Lord Advocate to explain in considerably more detail why he thinks that a public inquiry would halt any continuing anti-racist work in the justice system. As for his attempt to present such an inquiry as a
"backward-looking exercise which would focus on events that took place 20 months to two years ago",
what on earth will the inquiry be about if not those events?
I believe that the Lord Advocate must answer those questions in considerably more detail to allay people's concerns—the inquiry should be and must be in the public domain.
I am very disappointed by Roseanna Cunningham's response to my statement. She fails to recognise that I have put in place something that is wholly unprecedented as far as the Crown Office is concerned. We will have two inquiries that will be robust and independent. They will also be open—I have undertaken to publish both inquiries' reports.
There are two separate inquiries because there are two separate and distinct issues to address. First, there is the issue of the handling of the family, which I acknowledge was not appropriate. We fell below the standards that we set ourselves and below the values that should be inherent not only in the justice system, but in the Crown Office. Secondly, the Crown counsel's professional decision to indict Ronnie Coulter alone has been the subject of criticism from the trial judge, Lord McCluskey. I recognise that there has also been wider public concern about that decision. I want to address that concern and ensure that we learn lessons from the case.
I acknowledge that Mr and Mr Chhokar and their family have waited two years, but we cannot hang around and wait for inquiry after inquiry. We know what the Stephen Lawrence inquiry recommended and its recommendations are being implemented by the steering group. It would be extremely unfortunate if we were to sweep that away by commissioning yet another inquiry.
I welcome the Crown Office's speedy response to yesterday's events. I hope that the Crown Office will take such an approach in future.
Is there any scope for the prosecution of Ronnie Coulter, given that—as many of us heard in court—he perjured himself in the Glasgow High Court? Will the Lord Advocate assure Parliament that the secrecy that has surrounded the Crown Office's actions in the case will not prevail over the judicial inquiry?
The court has ordered Ronnie Coulter to appear on 19 December. Pauline McNeill will appreciate that, in the light of that decision, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what steps might be taken in relation to Mr Coulter.
I hope that Pauline McNeill will also accept that I have addressed the issue of secrecy by setting up the independent inquiry—the judicial inquiry—and by giving a commitment to publish its findings. The internal report is, in part, highly self-critical and it has been made available to members through the Scottish Parliament information centre, which I hope is a measure of the openness with which I am determined to deal with the matter.
In keeping with the Crown Office's performance, the veil of secrecy extended to the Lord Advocate's statement, which members did not receive until 2.29 this afternoon.
Does the Lord Advocate share my belief that, from a racial perspective, a major cause of concern in the Chhokar case is communication? Will he assure me that Dr Jandoo's report will be implemented fully?
Does the Lord Advocate acknowledge the widespread concern over the performance of the Crown Office? Although he says that secrecy is being addressed, does not he agree that, by holding Sir Anthony Campbell's hearings behind closed doors, he extends that veil of secrecy? Does he agree that, in the new open Scotland, that is not the way in which we should act? Does he agree that the real issue in the case is why the first accomplice was tried on his own and why the trial of two others followed thereafter? Surely, that point must be addressed in public.
Does he agree that the police are easy targets in this case, in that they supply evidence to the Crown Office through the procurator fiscal service? They do not lay down the conditions for prosecution and, in this situation, the buck stops with the Crown Office. Given that Andrew Coulter was on bail when he killed Patrick Kelly on charges relating to the death of Surjit Singh Chhokar, does the Lord Advocate have any concerns about the way in which our bail laws are being used?
Finally, given that the case book on this murder is now more or less closed, does the Lord Advocate consider that, when new evidence or circumstances arise that are associated with such a case, a double jeopardy clause should be invoked in the interests of justice?
Mr Gallie raises a number of points. The professional decision to indict Ronnie Coulter alone was made by the Crown counsel on the basis of the evidence that was available to him.
I want Sir Anthony Campbell to have all the Crown papers available to him, including papers that would not usually be made public. I have made a commitment that Sir Anthony will see all the papers. I have also made a commitment that the report will be published.
On the implementation of Dr Jandoo's report, my colleague Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, and I will consider carefully all the recommendations that come out of the report.
On bail laws, bail provisions have recently been amended. Bail is essentially a matter for the court, but we will oppose bail where appropriate.
This is a distressing case, in which it is clear that justice has neither been done, nor has it been seen to be done. I express sorrow at the suffering of Mr and Mrs Chhokar and their family. I welcome the inquiries, but does the Lord Advocate agree that the independence of the Crown Office in making decisions about prosecutions must be maintained? Does he accept that, in certain instances, explanations should be given for why decisions—which might give rise to public anxiety—have been taken?
I acknowledge that many victims, bereaved next of kin and others who are closely associated with victims want explanations of decisions that have been taken. I referred to the victim and witness service. We are considering the kind of explanations that could be given to victims and next-of-kin through that service. I am keen that we should be able to provide some explanations. As for public explanations, in my view the balance is currently in favour of refraining from giving public explanations, although there are occasions when there is particular concern about an individual case—this may well be one of those cases—when explanations must be given at the appropriate time of why certain decisions have been made. If we move away from current practice, which is not to give explanations, my view is that we should give explanations to victims and bereaved next-of-kin—the people who are most intimately involved. We will consider doing that through the victim and witness service.
I want to press the Lord Advocate on his arguments against a public inquiry. The Lord Advocate cites time as an argument against a public inquiry, yet the family have waited for more than two years to receive no justice for their son's murder. At lunch time, Mr Chhokar told me:
"I just want justice. It is irrelevant how long it takes."
The Chhokar family have made it clear that they want a full independent public inquiry, not an inquiry that is conducted in private. After all that has happened and everything that they have been through, should not the family's wishes be met?
The Lord Advocate has also failed to explain why he said that
"A public inquiry into the issues that are raised by this case would have an extremely damaging effect on the considerable work on anti-racist . . . policy and practice".
Will he explain what he means by that? Does the Lord Advocate agree that not holding the inquiry in public will have an extremely damaging effect on the way in which the justice system is viewed by every ethnic minority community in Scotland?
People in ethnic minorities want positive action—not words—which is what we intend to provide. We intend to ensure that we have recommendations that can be implemented quickly and that can be fed into the continuing work of the Stephen Lawrence steering group.
A public inquiry would be a lengthy process that would involve more lawyers. Frankly, the people who would benefit most from that would be lawyers. I believe that an inquisitorial inquiry by an independent judge will be more flexible. It will get to the truth more quickly and be able to be more robust than a public inquiry because the witnesses will feel in no way inhibited in speaking to it. It will also have complete access to all the Crown papers.
I welcome the Lord Advocate's public apology to the Chhokar family, his public acknowledgement of failures in the Crown Office and his announcement of the anti-racist measures. However, does the Lord Advocate concede that to publish the report of a judicial inquiry that will be conducted in private by a leading member of the UK legal establishment is not the same thing and cannot be the same thing as a full, open and independent public inquiry? Although he discounts such an inquiry as a "backward-looking exercise", will he concede that there is a series of Crown Office decisions on prosecutions, stretching all the way back to Piper Alpha, that not only deserve to be revisited but ought to be revisited if the Crown Office is to be brought blinking into the light of democratic accountability in Scotland?
I hear and respect what Mr McAllion says, but there is a fine line to be drawn between independence with democratic accountability and political interference. Although I acknowledge fully the need to be accountable, in no way do I acknowledge that there should be political interference in legal decisions. My position in the Scottish Parliament is unique—for the head of the prosecution service to be accountable to a parliamentary body is quite unique. It would be with trepidation that we would go down the road of political interference in legal decisions.
I believe that the measures that I have put in place are unprecedented, robust and independent. They are from somebody who is not, as Mr McAllion would say, a member of the Scottish legal establishment.
Does the Lord Advocate agree that, whenever our countrymen and countrywomen are more confident speaking in other languages, they should be offered access to good interpreting facilities? Is he aware that there might well be room for substantial improvement in that area? Will he ensure that the matter will be dealt with fully by one of the inquiries?
Lord James raises an important point. It will be apparent from the internal report that has been made available that part of the Crown Office's failure was a failure to appreciate the needs of the Chhokar family in terms of the provision of interpreting facilities. That is important not only to the prosecution, but to other elements of the criminal justice system. That is a major piece of work that is being done principally under the auspices of Jim Wallace, but which is also being addressed within the Crown Office.
I have allowed the period that was allocated for the statement to overrun. My apologies to members whom I have not called, but I must protect the main debate this afternoon.